NationStates

Saranidia wrote:As for illegal gun ownership it's not as if prosecuting someone for self-defence is going to stop them buying illegal guns is it now?

It is a deterrent.
I would like to mention (again) that self-defense against criminals and other individuals attempting to harm you is not illegal in the Cantonese Union, however attacking/performing the "self-defense" that this resolution would allow against Law Enforcement personnel is not allowed.
We would have possibly supported this resolution if it was not as vague, however it is completely foolish to vote for it in its current state.

Tinhampton wrote:Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: The Tinhamptonian delegation, that is myself and best mates, are supporting this resolution - not despite the fact we have it, but because everybody else should do so. Given that nobody deserves to be stabbed to death whilst telling the local police help desk operator about some guy stabbing them to death, it would make sense for them to actually do something more useful about him instead!

true.
and what about self-defence from the police or military, probably a problem under racist, colonial,
Islamaphobic, Marxist and Americanised capitalist societies?

Cantonese Union wrote:

Saranidia wrote:As for illegal gun ownership it's not as if prosecuting someone for self-defence is going to stop them buying illegal guns is it now?

It is a deterrent.
I would like to mention (again) that self-defense against criminals and other individuals attempting to harm you is not illegal in the Cantonese Union, however attacking/performing the "self-defense" that this resolution would allow against Law Enforcement personnel is not allowed.
We would have possibly supported this resolution if it was not as vague, however it is completely foolish to vote for it in its current state.

Little technicalities often destroy WA resolutions.

about the illegal guns thing, do you really think people will think: If i buy an illegal gun I might be arrested for self-defence?

Saranidia wrote:

Cantonese Union wrote:
It is a deterrent.
I would like to mention (again) that self-defense against criminals and other individuals attempting to harm you is not illegal in the Cantonese Union, however attacking/performing the "self-defense" that this resolution would allow against Law Enforcement personnel is not allowed.
We would have possibly supported this resolution if it was not as vague, however it is completely foolish to vote for it in its current state.

Little technicalities often destroy WA resolutions.

about the illegal guns thing, do you really think people will think: If i buy an illegal gun I might be arrested for self-defence?

No, they'll be arrested for owning and using said firearm (only owning one results in a fine and confiscation). However, if they use it in self-defense (no matter what the intentions are), they can claim that due to this resolution, usage of the firearm is allowed and they would get off with only a fine and confiscation of the firearm in question. This situation is completely unacceptable to us.

Cantonese Union wrote:

Saranidia wrote:Little technicalities often destroy WA resolutions.

about the illegal guns thing, do you really think people will think: If i buy an illegal gun I might be arrested for self-defence?

No, they'll be arrested for owning and using said firearm (only owning one results in a fine and confiscation). However, if they use it in self-defense (no matter what the intentions are), they can claim that due to this resolution, usage of the firearm is allowed and they would get off with only a fine and confiscation of the firearm in question. This situation is completely unacceptable to us.

Yeah well they can still be prosecuted for owning one and punishing someone for self-defence won't lead them to think "if i use this i might be arrested for some forms of self-defence".
What alternative would you give to this resolution? maybe write your own supporting self-defence if you don't like it.

Saranidia wrote:What alternative would you give to this resolution? maybe write your own supporting self-defence if you don't like it.

This is being considered, but it'll have to wait until this resolution gets rejected or passes the GA vote.

Being a "bring a grenade to a fist fight" type of guy, I have issues with the "excessive force" clause. I am not the type to look for a fight. In fact, I will avoid it if at all possible. If forced however, I don't worry about force. I have only one goal, end it as quickly as possible with as little damage to me and those I love as possible. Don't care about the force I used. That went out the window when the asshole forced me into that position. Voting for this, but wanted that out there.

Explosives to defend my family? The whole thing is too vague and ambiguous. NAY

Zarkanians feels that this is a gross overstep on the part of the World Assembly. It is, plain and simple, an attempt to erode our national sovereignty. We will be voting against.

Some of the nations who are members within the WA don't have large police forces, have high crime rates, or have corruption. In these cases, a criminal with murderous or villainous intent will not be stopped before they can injure or kill someone. Let me use an example.
Criminal B attempts to mug Person A. Person A has no time to inform law enforcement and so he is attacked by Criminal B. Criminal B then runs away. Person A is now injured and has just lost their money.

If people had the right to defend themselves, then this instance would have been different.
Criminal D attempts to mug Person C. Person C pulls out a knife (typical self-defense weapon and utility tool) and tells Criminal D to back off. This then can go one of two ways. Way number one is that Criminal D backs off. Way two is that Criminal D does attack Person C. Person C may be able to injure or cause enough damage to Criminal D for Criminal D to surrender.

So what if Person C is injured and Criminal D is not?
Person C would have wasted Criminal D's time. In the case of a break in or in another situation where the law enforcement or a neighbor can assist, it can grant the law enforcement or the neighbor more time to arrive at the house, assess the situation, and engage.

What about guns and explosives?
"5. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be read to void, infringe, or adversely impact any other right to or regulation of arms..."
You can make any restriction you want on arms or weapons. Even if you are one of the people who like gun bans. There are still knives, bats, and various other weapons other than guns.
Personally, I'm a gun guy. If everyone has a gun to use as self-defense, then everyone has the ability to defend themselves and each other. Besides, it is better to have someone who can use the same or greater power to stop a criminal than a weak innocent who will be easily overpowered by a villain.

If you got questions, ask me via TG. I probably left out a lot of information on self-defense.

I don't know about anybody else out there but if somebody is about to, or has the potential to, harm me or my family I will defend myself. Calling the cops will happen after the person has been apprehended using any force necessary to contain them. Whether that force requires me to shoot or just knock out the person it will be done. I will not sit there waiting for the police while the person could be raping my daughter or stealing my possessions.

THE NEW AMER1CAS wrote:I don't know about anybody else out there but if somebody is about to, or has the potential to, harm me or my family I will defend myself. Calling the cops will happen after the person has been apprehended using any force necessary to contain them. Whether that force requires me to shoot or just knock out the person it will be done. I will not sit there waiting for the police while the person could be raping my daughter or stealing my possessions.

Amen!

We have a few concerns with this piece of legislation that has led to us voting against it.

Let us be clear, though: we wholeheartedly support the right to self-defense, and believe it to be an indispensable right given that police cannot be literally everywhere all the time. We would happily support a resolution of this sort in a slightly different form, but some characteristics of this form are less than ideal in our opinion.

Issue 1: Family
We are concerned about the limitation of self-defense to cover only the defense of oneself and family. This would omit anyone outside of the common-sense definition of ties by blood and marriage, like friends, acquaintances, and others. (We are unsure what constitutes a 'substantial and tangible' relationship, particularly as relationships are intangible, but presumably this will not extend the meaning of family beyond its common usage.) In any case, we believe that self-defense should be available to protect the life of anyone in actual peril, regardless of the relationship between oneself and that person.

Issue 2: Self-Defense against Lawful Activities
Though this may be implicit, the resolution at hand does not specifically disallow the exercise of self-defense against lawfully undertaken actions - for instance, government agents acting within the bounds of their authority. If, for example, there were to be a shootout between the police and an armed criminal, could the criminal be said to be acting in self-defense as against the police? Self defense should only be available as a right where it is exercised to oppose an unlawful activity that causes peril. (A corollary of this is that you cannot exercise self-defense against someone exercising self-defense.)

Issue 3: Excessive Force
This is an issue of great concern to us, and one that poses questions for criminal law experts across the many nations within and without the World Assembly: what constitutes excessive force? Is it any force beyond what is minimally necessary to achieve the aim of self-defense? Is it any force applied that does not reasonably serve the aim of self-defense? Further, what if the individual genuinely believed a certain application of force to be 'necessary', by whatever definition, when it was in actuality not? How far does the doctrine of mistaken beliefs apply to the application of excessive force? These ambiguities pose serious problems to the application of this resolution, and we cannot vote in favour of it until this section on excessive force is further elaborated on.

Issue 4: Reference to Arms
Though not an issue per se, it seems to us that the reference to arms in this resolution was unnecessary; its only actual usage was to affirm that the resolution would not prevent member states from restricting its usage, which is something that we feel should not need to be clarified, since no part of this resolution stipulates that such a restriction should be put in place. The right to self defense has been legitimately exercised in jurisdictions where publicly available lethal weapons have been banned. Self defense in itself does not seem to require or imply the use of firearms or other killing implements.
As previous nations have mentioned before, the stipulation that self defense with any common object should not be criminalised is not particularly meaningful; this omits uncommon objects, as weapons might be in jurisdictions outlawing them, and in any case, separate legislation can criminalise the possession or use of illegal objects, thus allowing for a circumvention of this resolution to convict an individual using an illegal object in self-defense.

Issue 5: Immediacy of Danger
This is a smaller issue, but what qualifies as 'immediate' is not defined for the purposes of this resolution. We would argue that the reason for the requirement of immediacy is that individuals can escape, and have recourse to the authorities, if the threat could not immediately be exercised. For this reason, the position we would support for any definition of immediacy would be that the individual would have no opportunity for reasonable recourse to authorities before the threat can be carried out. (If the threat could only be carried out in twelve hours, for example, but the individual is thirteen hours away from contacting law enforcement, this would qualify as immediate under this definition although it involves a substantial time-lapse.) We would ask that the requirement of immediacy be elaborated upon in the resolution.

Issue 6 (A Late Addendum): Danger to Life
Something that did not occur to us at first, but now has risen to our attention, is that under this resolution self defense can be exercised only to oppose a danger to one's life. This seems unnecessarily restrictive; what about the danger of grievous and/or irreversible bodily harm, that does not amount to a danger to life? (For instance, a threat to amputate one's limbs.) It seems like self defense should be available in these scenarios as well. A more open approach would be to make self defense available against any sort of harm, but the excessiveness of the response should be tagged to the type of harm that is threatened. This will allow a flexible approach while not condoning manifestly excessive behaviour, for instance the murder of someone threatening to inflict a paper cut. This will, of course, rely on the idea of excessive force that must be fleshed out further, as discussed under Issue 3.

These are our concerns with the current resolution, in the state in which it has been presented. As we have said before, we will be voting against it as a result; however, we would like to reiterate our willingness to support a tweaked and elaborated version of it.

we vote against because of national soveirnty

Cosmopolitan borovan wrote:we vote against because of national soveirnty

I admire your commitment to national sovereiginity but nations choose to join the WA and be subject to it's laws. Besides ideological bans are unconstitutional so the WA represents a range of ideologies.

This reads like Florida's Stand Your Ground Law,.

Albertstadt wrote:This reads like Florida's Stand Your Ground Law,.

This right here is why we voted against it. It's vague on the point of whether or not it requires nations to avoid making an attempt or inability to escape a requirement to self defense. The risk that the resolution will be interpreted in a way that takes it too far is very great. And frankly, it is not necessary enough to be worth the risk. Nations have gotten along fine enough by setting their own case law, they don't particularly need the WA to try and meddle with it.

THE NEW AMER1CAS wrote:I don't know about anybody else out there but if somebody is about to, or has the potential to, harm me or my family I will defend myself. Calling the cops will happen after the person has been apprehended using any force necessary to contain them. Whether that force requires me to shoot or just knock out the person it will be done. I will not sit there waiting for the police while the person could be raping my daughter or stealing my possessions.

OOC: And the perpetrator's family has the right to kill YOU, for threatening the life of THEIR family member. That's the issue here.

Seems pretty reasonable you have my vote

Republica de los Grandes wrote:Some of the nations who are members within the WA don't have large police forces, have high crime rates, or have corruption.

We're not sure how one could acknowledge the wide variety of nations which fill the WA's ranks, and yet fail to recognize that an attempt to micromanage the citizens of each of its member nation, with one broad, short, sweeping proposal, is problematic.

We would like to suggest that after this proposal fails to pass, we consider the institution of a bill limiting the WA's ability to impose potentially harmful policies onto nations it does not understand or care for.

Zarkanians wrote:We would like to suggest that after this proposal fails to pass, we consider the institution of a bill limiting the WA's ability to impose potentially harmful policies onto nations it does not understand or care for.

OOC: That wouldn't actually be legal because of how the proposal rules work. And also because all resolutions apply to all WA nations (within reason, of course, because if your nation is fully landlocked and has no navy, it of course doesn't need to worry about resolutions that only concern coastlines or navies.

Wabberjocky wrote:Explosives to defend my family? The whole thing is too vague and ambiguous. NAY

Though it may be slightly vague, the proposal does state that "The force used in response is not excessive with regards to the threat of the situation presented", therefore you'd struggle to find a situation where it is legal to defend against a burglar with explosives.

Doggor is against this disgusting attempt to water down defending people.

Nueva Rico wrote:Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

Ashamed that this Assembly does not already guarantee or recognize the right of an individual to defend themselves and family from an imminent threat,

Cognizant that some governments deliberately oppose affording the right of self-protection in order to suppress the freedoms and liberties of the individuals and maintain a controlling presence on the populace,

Acknowledging that government services put in place to protect the lives of public and safety from harm - such as a police force - are not always readily available in a dire situation that may endanger the life of an individual and/or the lives of their family,

Hereby,

1. Defines “family” as someone related to an individual by blood, in marriage, in law, or of some substantial and tangible relationship,

2. Further defines “arms” as any weapons, munitions, or equipment designed to inflict bodily harm or physical damage, including, but not limited to, firearms, knives, explosives, etc.

3. Affirms the right to self-defense, of oneself and/or his or her family, and declares that nations are to permit and accept the exercise of this right as an affirmative defense in cases, so long as:

a) The threat poses a clear and immediate danger to the life of the individual or his or her family,

b) The force used in response is not excessive with regards to the threat of the situation presented,

4. Assures member states the right to attest the legality of the claim that a use of force was in self-defense, as according to the conditions established in Clause 3, in the court of law of the respective nation,

5. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be read to void, infringe, or adversely impact any other right to or regulation of arms affirmed by this Assembly, but prohibits any extant criminalization of an exercise of defensive force either with any common object or unarmed, in self-protection,

Co-authored with Dirito-Opolis.

So yea, people should have to right to defend themselves against the zombies...

Of A Person wrote:So yea, people should have to right to defend themselves against the zombies...

OOC: But the proposal would also give the zombies the right to defend against being attacked by the living.

IC: "Braaaaaiiiiinnnnssss...."