NationStates

Tanaara wrote:The Un Delegate shakes his head sadly "You are forgetting that there are any number of nations that use nothing in the way of 'guns' at all - and with no optionality - you would force them to have guns? Or what about the civilizations that use higher tech weapons than solid slug projectiles, will they then beforece to privide or at least allow revolvers?"

"I've seen your other proposal and though I have not said anything I think it is a poor one indeed, and hopefully will never reach the floor of the WA. And yes Tanaara not only allows 'guns' but for all Citizens owning and being trained with them - proper operation safety, and maintence - is a legal requirement. But your arguement that people have a 'right' to own guns is specious."

Tanaara wrote:"The optionality clauxe - meaning that it is MANDATORY - means every WA nation will have to ban them / allow them."

"And any one who knows guns, has trained in their use and so on, will tell you it is not the gun, but the person holding the gun. Knives are dangerous weapons, swords are dangerous weapons, Bertie's hands are dangerous weapons and ideals are the most dangerous yet"

Bergnovinaia wrote:

Tanaara wrote:"The optionality clauxe - meaning that it is MANDATORY - means every WA nation will have to ban them / allow them."

"And any one who knows guns, has trained in their use and so on, will tell you it is not the gun, but the person holding the gun. Knives are dangerous weapons, swords are dangerous weapons, Bertie's hands are dangerous weapons and ideals are the most dangerous yet"

So banning these guns wouldn't seriuoslly reduce violent crime?!?

Veilyonia wrote:

Bergnovinaia wrote:

Tanaara wrote:"The optionality clauxe - meaning that it is MANDATORY - means every WA nation will have to ban them / allow them."

"And any one who knows guns, has trained in their use and so on, will tell you it is not the gun, but the person holding the gun. Knives are dangerous weapons, swords are dangerous weapons, Bertie's hands are dangerous weapons and ideals are the most dangerous yet"

So banning these guns wouldn't seriuoslly reduce violent crime?!?

It probably wouldn't. Regardless of the weapon, the criminal will do what he wants to do. Whether he uses an AK-47 or a pistol doesn't really change things. It's the man behind the madness that is more dangerous than the weapon, as Tanaara so eloquently stated.

Tanaara wrote:The Un Delegate shakes his head sadly "You are forgetting that there are any number of nations that use nothing in the way of 'guns' at all - and with no optionality - you would force them to have guns? Or what about the civilizations that use higher tech weapons than solid slug projectiles, will they then beforece to privide or at least allow revolvers?"

Buffett and Colbert wrote:

Tanaara wrote:The Un Delegate shakes his head sadly "You are forgetting that there are any number of nations that use nothing in the way of 'guns' at all - and with no optionality - you would force them to have guns? Or what about the civilizations that use higher tech weapons than solid slug projectiles, will they then beforece to privide or at least allow revolvers?"

Incorrect. If a nation does not use guns, the resolution simply would not affect said nation.

EDIT-- This idea is lacking however.

Seculartopia wrote:Not every countries rights on guns and other things are the same.

Bergnovinaia wrote:

Seculartopia wrote:Not every countries rights on guns and other things are the same.

Yeah but that'sthe point of the WA. To create international laws.

Rutianas wrote:

Bergnovinaia wrote:

Seculartopia wrote:Not every countries rights on guns and other things are the same.

Yeah but that'sthe point of the WA. To create international laws.

The point of the WA is to create international laws on international issues. I see no reason to ban all semi-automatics and automatics from the public. You haven't given me a reason as to why it's an international issue, therefore, I find that this isn't even worth the WA's time to consider. Tell me why it's an international issue and then we'll discuss it further. Oh, and a reduction in crime doesn't count. That's not an international issue. Banning the carry of these weapons across borders without proper permits would be an international issue. Banning these weapons from the public of all WA nations is not.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Bergnovinaia wrote:Ok so how would a gun smugling act even remotely stop people from smuggling guns???????

Rutianas wrote:

Bergnovinaia wrote:Ok so how would a gun smugling act even remotely stop people from smuggling guns???????

Mandatory compliance? If gun smuggling is banned, then it's banned.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Bergnovinaia wrote:So you mean government smuggling. just becuase it's law doesn't mean a nations citizens will comply with it.

Meekinos wrote:What is with this recent spate of unprofitable proposals? If we didn't know better, we would have to say that there is a strong anti-capitalist mentality pervading the hallow halls of this noble institution,

I have a proposal that actually allows people to own handhled guns but, I think that a proposal banning semi-automatics and automatics from the public would be better. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.