[DRAFT] Bann Gun Ownership by Civilians

[England-Ireland]

Mcnernia will leave the WA if that happens.

I was just thinking of that.. I'm with you

I'm with you both

[Kingdoms of Cal]

You might want to put in a clause about people that live in remote areas where things like polar bears live. For cities and places where there are no large predators that tend to eat people, this is fine.

Note Some parts of Canada have incredibly high gun ownership rates than almost anywhere in the us, as do parts of Norway, but far lower gun crime. This is not just culture it's a lot to do with who owns the guns, where they are and what they are for (largely defence against polar bears, tranquilisers take time to work, you need fire power to drop them...smaller caliber guns just annoy them).

Basically self defence against something no law can disarm.

[Acharastan]

My 'Merican Senses Are Tingling

I do not support this. If you criminalize guns, only criminals will have them. Then what are you gonna do to defend yourselves? Plus, look at crime in Texas. No one would think of robbing a bank because everyone in the bank has an AR-14. Mutually Assured Destruction.

[Louisistan]

By the way, what about hunting? Shooting for sport?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

My 'Merican Senses Are Tingling

I do not support this. If you criminalize guns, only criminals will have them. Then what are you gonna do to defend yourselves? Plus, look at crime in Texas. No one would think of robbing a bank because everyone in the bank has an AR-14. Mutually Assured Destruction.

OOC: If you're being satirical, nice work - ya had me for a sec! If not, well, let's have a look, shall we?

IC:

Regardless of most any other consideration, Mr./Ms. Ambassador of Vs. Mil., you've been politely and not-so-politely informed from nations on several sides of this question that a resolution this heavy-handed is very unlikely to pass. Either you should greatly reduce the ambitiousness of this one and study some past passed resolutions before posting the next draft, or you should sit back and participate in debates on other delegates' prospective resolutions before trying to draft your own. This process has elements of both art and science, and it's not exactly common to pass a resolution on the first (or even the fifth) try.

Good luck.

[Versus Militia]

Guys, Max Barry clearly stated that proposals aren't and shouldn't make any references to real life.

[Separatist Peoples]

Guys, Max Barry clearly stated that proposals aren't and shouldn't make any references to real life.

OOC: No, the Moderators did. But whatever, that's irrelevant. Proposals and arguments can be somewhat grounded in Real Life, but the drafts need to stand independent of any direct Real Life references. That doesn't mean players cant cite Real World information to bolster their argument, depending on the topic, just that there will be varying degrees of reception based on the topic.

[Kryozerkia]

Gun Control, be it "relax" or "tighten", is about degrees of control (background checks, etc), not outright prohibition of ownership. That would be Moral Decency, since it would be removing a right or privilege (depending on how a nation views gun ownership).

What? Since when has it been the case that you can't use the category to ban guns to ban guns? That seems to flatly contradict previous statements, such as:

in theory it should mean that "RECOMMENDS that guns be banned" ... would make the proposal illegal as being too mild.

Is this another of the unappealable rulings, or can we ask for a second opinion?

Outright prohibition is the concern, not a "degree" of control, such as "Recommends that gun ownership be banned for convicted felons". That is a degree of control. Yes, it does ban it for a specific group but it's not a total ban. Similarly, banning ownership of a specific firearm rather than all is a degree of control. Just as the category of Human Rights has varying strengths, so does gun control have degrees of control.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Just as the category of Human Rights has varying strengths, so does gun control have degrees of control.

I'm going to ask again, because you have completely avoided justifying your original position:

Is this another of the unappealable rulings, or can we ask for a second opinion?

Your statement here completely contradicts previous opinions you yourself have given.

[Tinfect]

BANN GUN OWNERSHIP BY CIVILIANS
Fix that spelling error, more people will take you seriously.
COUNCIL: GENERAL ASSEMBLY
CATEGORY: GUN CONTROL
DECISION: TIGHTEN

XXX---XXX---XXX---XXX

Description: Gun ownership is not allowed to civilians and only used by military and police.
Minor grammatical errors, but nothing otherwise terribly wrong.

NOTING that anybody mentally healthy can own a gun which can lead to numerous crimes.
More minor grammatical errors, and besides that, is the person who would commit a crime usually the sort of person who could be called "Mentally Healthy"? Also, you need to define "Mentally Healthy", as the definition varies wildly from nation to nation.

BELIEVING that guns should only be used by military and police.
No real problems here.

FURTHER NOTING that without guns crimes will drop and incidents in public shouldn't harm anybody on long-range.
While technically true, that Gun Crimes will drop significantly, this sentence should probably be re-written to ease comprehension.

FURTHER BELIEVING that the military and police should use guns only for stopping a crime attempt and international incidents.
Please define an "International Incident".

HEREBY:

1. Gun ownership is banned from civilians
Should be:
Bans Civilians from owning a gun.

2. Military and police members will use guns against others only in crime attempts and international incidents.
Once again, International Incidents is undefined.

3. Owning a gun as a civilian will be punished with a 5 year sentence.
Why a mandatory sentence?

4. Police is allowed to carry only semi-automatic light guns.
Minor Grammatical Errors, besides that, why the restriction to Semi-Automatic? Further, how do you define a "Light Gun"? That could be interpreted any number of ways, for example, the FT Nation's Infantry Grade Laser, or the PMT' Nation's Pocket Grenade Launcher.

[Chester Pearson]

What? Since when has it been the case that you can't use the category to ban guns to ban guns? That seems to flatly contradict previous statements, such as:

Is this another of the unappealable rulings, or can we ask for a second opinion?

Outright prohibition is the concern, not a "degree" of control, such as "Recommends that gun ownership be banned for convicted felons". That is a degree of control. Yes, it does ban it for a specific group but it's not a total ban. Similarly, banning ownership of a specific firearm rather than all is a degree of control. Just as the category of Human Rights has varying strengths, so does gun control have degrees of control.

I'm sorry, but what are you blithering about? Outlawing gun ownership to one group would be (I know this is a hard concept) TIGHTENING! the regulations on gun ownership!!!!!

As I have said before, and I will keep on saying..... If you guys cannot make even ONE consistent ruling, I would suggest leaving the WA alone, and letting the players/voters decide on how things should be done, because quite frankly this has surpassed ridiculous!

[Hirota]

I was just thinking of that.. I'm with you

I'm with you both

It's this kind of pathetic attempt at emotional blackmail that makes my government strongly inclined towards voting for this proposal.

[Versus Militia]

BANN GUN OWNERSHIP BY CIVILIANS
Fix that spelling error, more people will take you seriously.
COUNCIL: GENERAL ASSEMBLY
CATEGORY: GUN CONTROL
DECISION: TIGHTEN

XXX---XXX---XXX---XXX

Description: Gun ownership is not allowed to civilians and only used by military and police.
Minor grammatical errors, but nothing otherwise terribly wrong.

NOTING that anybody mentally healthy can own a gun which can lead to numerous crimes.
More minor grammatical errors, and besides that, is the person who would commit a crime usually the sort of person who could be called "Mentally Healthy"? Also, you need to define "Mentally Healthy", as the definition varies wildly from nation to nation.

BELIEVING that guns should only be used by military and police.
No real problems here.

FURTHER NOTING that without guns crimes will drop and incidents in public shouldn't harm anybody on long-range.
While technically true, that Gun Crimes will drop significantly, this sentence should probably be re-written to ease comprehension.

FURTHER BELIEVING that the military and police should use guns only for stopping a crime attempt and international incidents.
Please define an "International Incident".

HEREBY:

1. Gun ownership is banned from civilians
Should be:
Bans Civilians from owning a gun.

2. Military and police members will use guns against others only in crime attempts and international incidents.
Once again, International Incidents is undefined.

3. Owning a gun as a civilian will be punished with a 5 year sentence.
Why a mandatory sentence?

4. Police is allowed to carry only semi-automatic light guns.
Minor Grammatical Errors, besides that, why the restriction to Semi-Automatic? Further, how do you define a "Light Gun"? That could be interpreted any number of ways, for example, the FT Nation's Infantry Grade Laser, or the PMT' Nation's Pocket Grenade Launcher.

i'm romanian, not a native english speaker

[Separatist Peoples]

i'm romanian, not a native english speaker

OOC: and, while players are willing to help and be patient, this is an English-based site, so the grammar and spelling of a proposal will need to be, eventually, put into a more natural English syntax. Just as a heads-up.

[Versus Militia]

i'm romanian, not a native english speaker

OOC: and, while players are willing to help and be patient, this is an English-based site, so the grammar and spelling of a proposal will need to be, eventually, put into a more natural English syntax. Just as a heads-up.

and that's why i posted this proposal here to help me out, not tell me how much it sucks and how stupid it is.

[The Silver Bloods]

OOC: and, while players are willing to help and be patient, this is an English-based site, so the grammar and spelling of a proposal will need to be, eventually, put into a more natural English syntax. Just as a heads-up.

and that's why i posted this proposal here to help me out, not tell me how much it sucks and how stupid it is.

Well we are just saying the bill is much too extreme, it would be fruitless to put so much effort into this to have it defeated. You should draft a different bill on gun control with less extreme effects, if you want to have a slight possibility of seeing it make it to the voting floor.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: and, while players are willing to help and be patient, this is an English-based site, so the grammar and spelling of a proposal will need to be, eventually, put into a more natural English syntax. Just as a heads-up.

and that's why i posted this proposal here to help me out, not tell me how much it sucks and how stupid it is.

OOC: sorry, but that's part of the drafting proposal: ambassadors analyzing both the grammar and the content of a draft, as well as declaring support or resistance. It's not just a crowd-sourced spell-check; it's a rigorous testing ground for proposals. And yours has a severely large number of issues in regards to context, not just grammar and syntax.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

"No, no, a thousand times no. The tenants of this draft are far too extreme. Perhaps if it established tighter regulations others, not us however, may be more inclined to support it, but an outright ban? Absoloutely not."

[Wrapper]

OOC: and, while players are willing to help and be patient, this is an English-based site, so the grammar and spelling of a proposal will need to be, eventually, put into a more natural English syntax. Just as a heads-up.

and that's why i posted this proposal here to help me out, not tell me how much it sucks and how stupid it is.

OOC: An honest question: Would you prefer to be coddled like a child and told, "oh dear, this will not do, shall we try again?" or would you rather know the truth up front, so you don't waste your time on something that will in all likelihood end unfavorably? In any case, as much as my ultra-pacifist nation would like to see guns outlawed, an outright ban will never pass here. Too many pro-gun nations, and also way too many moderate nations that would allow their citizens to be armed under certain conditions and/or with restrictions.

Gun Control, be it "relax" or "tighten", is about degrees of control (background checks, etc), not outright prohibition of ownership. That would be Moral Decency, since it would be removing a right or privilege (depending on how a nation views gun ownership).

IC: Ari reads the Secretariat's ruling... and is rendered speechless. He looks to Ahume, who, of course, doesn't talk much anyway, but in any case is speechless as well. They both shrug and head off to lunch, shaking their heads.

[The Land of Beer]

Opposed .. we do not support any laws that prohibit our citizens owning weapons / weaponry .. nor any laws that limit the type of weaponry our citizens can own.

[Normlpeople]

Gun Control, be it "relax" or "tighten", is about degrees of control (background checks, etc), not outright prohibition of ownership. That would be Moral Decency, since it would be removing a right or privilege (depending on how a nation views gun ownership). Further, Gun Control does not cover the use of firearms by police and military forces, only that of civilians.

Clover shook her head "Many misguided societies see firearms as neither a right nor a privilege. I would wonder how the secretariat would rule on this. While can partially understand your ruling, I would wonder why this category exists at all, especially since, if a gun ban were passed as MD, it would render the category useless. (OOC: /threadjack)"

Turning to the author, Clover smiled and continued "Welcome to the WA. I must warn you, the topic you have chosen is one of the most politically polarizing issues in here, one where both sides seem to agree the best legislation on thr topic is none at all. A gun ban has no chance of passing any more than mandating gun ownership would. You have realized this already.

On a personal note, as we have laws requiring all citizens to own firearms and to be armed at all timr while in public (we also have virtually no crime), I would not support this. I would suggest tossing it out before becoming too involved in the lost cause that this issue is.

[Old Hope]

I am not a member of that "Right to Bear Arms" movement or such, but totally forbidding owning guns for civilians under all circumstances is a very bad idea. Not having guns in dangerous natural areas can be a death sentence.

[Friday Freshman]

"If you're afraid of laws you don't like and they're about to be initialized in your nation, go ahead and resign from the World Assembly, a true WA Member should look and evaluate in a decent manner a proposal, my choice if I want to submit the proposal!"

I evaluated this proposal and I believe it is extremely flawed due to the fact that many nations on NationStates have guns legal, you can't ban them. If this goes through miraculously, I will be sure that I'm the first person to write the repeal resolution.

How do you suggest to repeal it? Because you don't like it? I'm sorry mate but that's not the way it works.

[Kalifati Arab shqiptar]

Learn how to grammar OP

[Friday Freshman]

Learn how to grammar OP

Ok, gentlemen, as a proposal writer myself.... THIS IS COMPLETELY UNHELPFUL. If you are going to put needless crap like this, don't post at all.