[ReDRAFT] Limitations of Firearms to the Mentally Ill

[West Guam]

Category: Gun Control
Decision: Tighten

The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the need to limit the accessibility of firearms to the mentally ill, out of a desire to preserve their own well-being, and the well being of others,

BELIEVING that while gun access may fairly be considered a right by certain nations, it is certainly not an absolute right; rather, member nations shall have an interest, if not a moral obligation, in regulating access to firearms to protect the citizens of their nation,

HOPING to protect the mentally ill from reckless activity relating to the use of firearms, as said to be upon having problems that were dealt in the past, or possibly dealing with issues such as extreme depression and/or suicidal thoughts,

THEREFORE, shall enact the rules of this proposal for the protection of both the disabled/mentally ill and the residents of all World Assembly nations, as further added here:

I. Defines "mentally ill individual" as a sapient experiencing an extreme medically-diagnosed disorder/s connected to the mind that may give them an altered or skewed view of reality, and that could potentially make them unable to understand the potential consequences of their actions

II. Defines “firearms” as any type of weapon that shoots projectiles using gunpowder or a similar substance

III. Bans people who fit the definition of "mentally ill individual", that is provided above, from using or possessing a firearm

[The First German Order]

OOC: Illegal for not doing anything and if it did it'd be illegal for contradiction.

[Imperium Anglorum]

How unhelpful. Now, OP, there is a resolution called 'Responsibility In Transferring Arms' which,

Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting . . . future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action . . .

You'd have to make a case that your regulations fall would affect people who 'pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action'. This is a hard case to make.

Also, it clearly does do something, if you could read the last clause – it quite obviously 'Bans people who fit the definition of "mentally ill individual", that is provided above, from using or possessing a firearm'.

[The First German Order]

How unhelpful. Now, OP, there is a resolution called 'Responsibility In Transferring Arms' which,

[blockquote]Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting . . . future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action . . .[/blockquote]
You'd have to make a case that your regulations fall would affect people who 'pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action'. This is a hard case to make.

Also, it clearly does do something, if you could read the last clause – it quite obviously 'Bans people who fit the definition of "mentally ill individual", that is provided above, from using or possessing a firearm'.

OOC: Oh. I didn't realize that counted as an operative clause. My bad.

[West Guam]

Thanks for clarifying IA, I was in the middle of the reply myself when I saw your reply.

These people do pose an imminent lawless action as they are so mentally ill that they cannot fully understand and comply with past gun control resolutions that have been passed. Shall I state that as another clause in my draft?

[The First German Order]

Thanks for clarifying IA, I was in the middle of the reply myself when I saw your reply.

These people do pose an imminent lawless action as they are so mentally ill that they cannot fully understand and comply with past gun control resolutions that have been passed. Shall I state that as another clause in my draft?

OOC: If whoever "they" are can't comply with past gun control resolutions, why would they comply with this one?

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. Who are these ‘they’

2. What past gun control regulation exists to make you believe this is a problem?

3. Where is your proof of failure to comply?

[Copperward]

OOC: I do have a couple of issues with this proposal. While I personally agree with instituting more gun control to a certain degree, neither I nor would my nation agree with the proposal as currently presented.

Firstly, I believe that the definition of a "mentally ill individual" needs to be further specified. There are a variety of mental illnesses - even some that are common but do not cause the people afflicted to have problems with anger, violent outbursts, or any traits exhibited by a cold-blooded, homicidal gunman. In my town, a lot of people have been diagnosed with mild anxiety disorders and other stress-related afflictions (and you can thank my school for that). While these people are technically "mentally ill," they should not be blacklisted and barred from using guns because they pose no threat to society.

Secondly, I feel that making a proposal to only prohibit the mentally ill from acquiring guns is ridiculous and terribly underthought. Taking guns away from the mentally ill does not solve the problem. From how I see it, if there is an individual with a mental illness who wants to harm or murder others, if they cannot get a gun from their nation's gun stores, they will either get a gun from the local black market, order a gun outside of the nation, craft their own guns or explosives, or resort to using makeshift weapons like a kitchen knife. Taking guns away from the mentally ill is not a solution. If anything, the solution is to give the mentally ill the help they need.

[Masurbia]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this proposal in response to the school shooting that happened in Florida, US?

[The First German Order]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this proposal in response to the school shooting that happened in Florida, US?

OOC: Though I’m not the author, I’d say most likely.

[Snowman]

Support, as long as the mentally ill get the help needed to recover or try to recover & cope from their state. Mentally ill need help, & serious conditions do not allow people to properly use weaponry.

[Separatist Peoples]

"No."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

... From how I see it, if there is an individual with a mental illness who wants to harm or murder others, if they cannot get a gun from their nation's gun stores, they will either get a gun from the local black market, order a gun outside of the nation, craft their own guns or explosives, or resort to using makeshift weapons like a kitchen knife. Taking guns away from the mentally ill is not a solution...

OOC: Yeah. We can't stop all crimes, so it's pointless to try to stop any.

IC:
"Ambassador, the terms of GAR #399 are fairly tight. You'll need to find a way to target specifically those weapon buyers who can reasonably be suspected of planning, quote, 'imminent lawless action,' unquote. Now, we're not necessarily opposed to the apparent goals of this resolution, but you will need to tread carefully. You've picked a really steep uphill battle and you've got a hell of a slog ahead of you."

"Also, you probably don't need to define firearms. It's a pretty straightforward term."

[West Guam]

OOC: I do have a couple of issues with this proposal. While I personally agree with instituting more gun control to a certain degree, neither I nor would my nation agree with the proposal as currently presented.

Firstly, I believe that the definition of a "mentally ill individual" needs to be further specified. There are a variety of mental illnesses - even some that are common but do not cause the people afflicted to have problems with anger, violent outbursts, or any traits exhibited by a cold-blooded, homicidal gunman. In my town, a lot of people have been diagnosed with mild anxiety disorders and other stress-related afflictions (and you can thank my school for that). While these people are technically "mentally ill," they should not be blacklisted and barred from using guns because they pose no threat to society.

Secondly, I feel that making a proposal to only prohibit the mentally ill from acquiring guns is ridiculous and terribly underthought. Taking guns away from the mentally ill does not solve the problem. From how I see it, if there is an individual with a mental illness who wants to harm or murder others, if they cannot get a gun from their nation's gun stores, they will either get a gun from the local black market, order a gun outside of the nation, craft their own guns or explosives, or resort to using makeshift weapons like a kitchen knife. Taking guns away from the mentally ill is not a solution. If anything, the solution is to give the mentally ill the help they need.

In no way is this resolution 'picking on' anyone because of a disease they have. We had to start somewhere with comprehensive gun reform in the WA, and this is where I chose to start.

I understand that there is no way we could ever get rid of the black market, and it will always be available as an illegal option for those who choose to break the law. This resolution will not close all the gaps when it comes to this issue, but it will get the debate started and save lives at the same time.

About your point relating my definition, if I'm not wrong, it is not super common to have a disease that could give you an altered or skewed view of reality, especially on that could potentially make them unable to understand the potential consequences of their actions and/or comply with formal rules and regulations when it comes to this topic.

Once again, I totally understand where you are coming from but remember, baby steps.

[West Guam]

... From how I see it, if there is an individual with a mental illness who wants to harm or murder others, if they cannot get a gun from their nation's gun stores, they will either get a gun from the local black market, order a gun outside of the nation, craft their own guns or explosives, or resort to using makeshift weapons like a kitchen knife. Taking guns away from the mentally ill is not a solution...

OOC: Yeah. We can't stop all crimes, so it's pointless to try to stop any.

IC:
"Ambassador, the terms of GAR #399 are fairly tight. You'll need to find a way to target specifically those weapon buyers who can reasonably be suspected of planning, quote, 'imminent lawless action,' unquote. Now, we're not necessarily opposed to the apparent goals of this resolution, but you will need to tread carefully. You've picked a really steep uphill battle and you've got a hell of a slog ahead of you."

"Also, you probably don't need to define firearms. It's a pretty straightforward term."

We'll define it just incase .

Even if someone who is extremely mentally ill but not suspected of planning 'imminent lawless action' should not be able to buy and trade firearm. These people may not be suspected of breaking the law, but they could potentially end many innocent lives because of something like a severe mood swing.

[West Guam]

"No."

Why thank you for sharing

[West Guam]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this proposal in response to the school shooting that happened in Florida, US?

This proposal was created in response to the Las Vegas, USA shooting that killed around 58 back in October of 2017. That is how long this proposal has been in the making.

[West Guam]

Support, as long as the mentally ill get the help needed to recover or try to recover & cope from their state. Mentally ill need help, & serious conditions do not allow people to properly use weaponry.

I fully agree, but that would need to be another resolution itself!!

[West Guam]

1. Who are these ‘they’

2. What past gun control regulation exists to make you believe this is a problem?

3. Where is your proof of failure to comply?

Sorry for not being clear enough, I was referring to mentally ill individuals. I was just talking about the resolution you brought up. I do not believe that this resolution fails to comply with the rules set in GA Resolution #399.

[Essu Beti]

((OOC: You by no means needed to post SIX TIMES in a row, a few minutes apart each.))

"The nation of Essu Beti is against this proposal," says Inan.

[West Guam]

((OOC: You by no means needed to post SIX TIMES in a row, a few minutes apart each.))

"The nation of Essu Beti is against this proposal," says Inan.

I just wanted to reply to each reply

You do realize that all we are trying to do is ban and extremely mentally ill person from using or having a gun on them?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I do not believe that this resolution fails to comply with the rules set in GA Resolution #399.

How and why? (Also, my comment was directed to First German Order, not you.)

[Araraukar]

((OOC: You by no means needed to post SIX TIMES in a row, a few minutes apart each.))

I just wanted to reply to each reply

OOC: You can do that by editing your post to include all the different quotes, rather than making a new post every time. When you're replying to something, scroll down to see the other posts and hit "quote" in each one you want to reply to. They'll get added as quotes to your reply draft.

You do realize that all we are trying to do is ban and extremely mentally ill person from using or having a gun on them?

Still OOC: If what you're trying to go for is "someone who wouldn't be considered a mentally competent individual capable of making important decisions concerning their own lives", there's already a resolution doing just that, so that taken together with the firearms trade one, you're going to be in serious trouble.

Also, as someone who's in Real Life mentally ill and who would fit your currently very badly worded definition without being deemed mentally incompetent or delusional (not to mention being any kind of mad murderer, be it guns or axes or chainsaws), I find the disparity between your definition and your stated intent to be dishonest and frankly speaking quite insulting.

[Separatist Peoples]

"No."

Why thank you for sharing

"Then let me share some more. This has no international utility. This is a decision for member states to make on their own. We don't require the WA hold our hands, and it sure doesn't matter to the people of West Guam if the C.D.S.P. let's the psychotic own a machine gun."

[The First German Order]

1. Who are these ‘they’

2. What past gun control regulation exists to make you believe this is a problem?

3. Where is your proof of failure to comply?

OOC: I was saying that if what the author was saying about mental ill persons not complying with past resolutions then why would they comply with this one. Also there is no regulation that make me believe that there is a problem other than some arms transferring one that I'm not sure will or will not affect this resolution. Also by they I meant mental ill persons. My apologies for not specifying.