[ABANDONED] Regulation Of Bladed Weaponry

[Recheve]

Regulation Of Bladed Weaponry

Category: Global Disarmament - Proposed By: Recheve

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that bladed weaponry plays a key role in the tactics and performance of various militaries,

Observing that bladed weaponry is widespread through the various branches of many militaries, and that in many instances its use is frequent,

Concerned that in some instances, triangular blades are employed to prevent the stitching of inflicted wounds,

Appalled that in other instances, fluting and fullers are used in triangular blades to increase bleeding and the severity of a wound, maximizing the suffering of victims,

Horrified that blades can be poisoned, heated and even barbed to maximize suffering prior to death or treatment,

Instisting that beyond the single or double-edged blade, there is no advantage to alternative features aside from increasing the amount of suffering experienced by the victim,

Suggesting therefore, that the regulation of bladed weaponry is in the best interest of all militaries and peoples,

Hereby,

1. Bans the military use of bladed weapons possessing in excess of two sharpened edges converging to a singular point,

2. Bans the military use of poisoned or anointed blades:
- a) designed with the intent to maximize suffering prior to death, or
- b) designed with the intent to cause suffering beyond what is necessary for the completion of military objectives,

3. Restricts the use of barbed weapons to personnel engaging in non-combative and recreational activities.

[Mingulay Isle]

Category: Weapons Restriction

Doesn't exist.

[Recheve]

Category: Weapons Restriction

Doesn't exist.

Oh sorry, I put that in as a placeholder and forgot to look up the categories I'll change it in a sec

[The New California Republic]

Instisting that beyond the single or double-edged blade, there is no advantage to alternative features aside from increasing the amount of suffering experienced by the victim

OOC: Wrong. Very wrong. A combat knife will often have a serrated edge on top in addition to the slight double edge of the blade, it is for cutting wood and kindling etc, its purpose is not to increase suffering of the victim, unless you mean that the wood is suffering?

1. Bans bladed weapons possessing in excess of two edges

OOC: Well, goodbye throwing stars. I think the reasoning for banning blades with more than 2 edges is seriously flawed.

- a) in vertical slits for the explicit purpose of lightning the blade

[Recheve]

Instisting that beyond the single or double-edged blade, there is no advantage to alternative features aside from increasing the amount of suffering experienced by the victim

OOC: Wrong. Very wrong. A combat knife will often have a serrated edge on top in addition to the slight double edge of the blade, it is for cutting wood and kindling etc, its purpose is not to increase suffering of the victim, unless you mean that the wood is suffering?

Perhaps I used the wrong terminology. Serrated blades still only possess one edge, unless both sides are sharpened, in which case there are two. If the individual serrations themselves each count as additional edges, then I'll update the proposal. My concern was focused more upon triangular or even square bayonets, as well as similar weaponry. Serrated knives- and to name your less practical example, throwing stars- would not cause the same issues and thus should remain unregulated.

[The New California Republic]

throwing stars- would not cause the same issues and thus should remain unregulated.

OOC: No, according to the text of the draft, they would be banned, as they fall under the following definition:

1. Bans bladed weapons possessing in excess of two edges,

Throwing stars are a type of bladed weapon with more than 2 edges...

[Greater Free Oceania]

Although your heart is undoubtedly in the right place, there are several problems with this proposal, as others have pointed out.

[Recheve]

throwing stars- would not cause the same issues and thus should remain unregulated.

OOC: No, according to the text of the draft, they would be banned, as they fall under the following definition:

1. Bans bladed weapons possessing in excess of two edges,

Throwing stars are a type of bladed weapon with more than 2 edges...

I’ll adjust the text as soon as possible.

Just out of curiosity, what terminology would you recommend I use to distinguish the types of weapons? Throwing stars, serrated blades and the like- at least as far as I am aware- have one continuous edge running along the outside of the blade. The weapons I’m attempting to ban have three or more edges converging in a point at the tip.

[Recheve]

Although your heart is undoubtedly in the right place, there are several problems with this proposal, as others have pointed out.

Understandable. If you’re willing, would you mind pointing out the specific issues, or does the issue lay in the fundemental basis of the proposal itself?

[The New California Republic]

Throwing stars, serrated blades and the like- at least as far as I am aware- have one continuous edge running along the outside of the blade.

[Greater Free Oceania]

Although your heart is undoubtedly in the right place, there are several problems with this proposal, as others have pointed out.

Understandable. If you’re willing, would you mind pointing out the specific issues, or does the issue lay in the fundemental basis of the proposal itself?

For one, as The NCR has pointed out, there is the wording of the regulation on weapons with multiple edges; Maybe you should change that to specify blades with multiple edges facing in the same direction? Or blades designed in a manner where the target will likely be struck simultaneously by more than two edges?

[United North American Commonwealths]

Regulation Of Bladed Weaponry

Category: Global Disarmament - Proposed By: Recheve

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that bladed weaponry plays a key role in the tactics and performance of various militaries,

Observing that bladed weaponry is widespread through the various branches of many militaries, and that in many instances its use is frequent,

Concerned that in some instances, triangular blades are employed to prevent the stitching of inflicted wounds,

Appalled that in other instances, fluting and fullers are used to increase bleeding and the severity of a wound, encouraging the suffering of victims,

Horrified that blades can be poisoned, heated and even barbed to maximize suffering prior to death or treatment,

Instisting that beyond the single or double-edged blade, there is no advantage to alternative features aside from increasing the amount of suffering experienced by the victim,

Suggesting therefore, that the regulation of bladed weaponry is in the best interest of all militaries and peoples,

Hereby,

1. Bans bladed weapons possessing in excess of two edges,

2. Defines the act of employing poisoned or heated blades as a warcrime prosecutable by an international court,

3. Permits fluting and grooving of blades exclusively:
- a) in vertical slits for the explicit purpose of lightening the blade
- b) in tools and blades equipped for non-combat purposes

4. Restricts the use of barbed weapons to personnel engaging in non-combative and recreational activities

I get what you are trying to do but this proposal is illegal it would prevent a nations right to use most balded weaponry so therefore I am against it. I suggest you right a new proposal that focuses more on weaponry that would prevent stitching and have biological agents but your proposed ban on basic poisoned blades is nonnegotiable your ban would prevent weapons like poisoned darts or knifes that many nations special forces like myself use when conducting critical operations like rescue.

[The New California Republic]

I get what you are trying to do but this proposal is illegal it would prevent a nations right to use most balded weaponry

OOC: Illegal based on what rule? Don't throw around the word "illegal" unless you know exactly what you are talking about.

[Recheve]

Throwing stars, serrated blades and the like- at least as far as I am aware- have one continuous edge running along the outside of the blade.

Oh I see, each arm possesses a separate blade, thus making the wording problematic. What if I were to adjust the wording?

[The New California Republic]

(Image)

Oh I see, each arm possesses a separate blade, thus making the wording problematic. What if I were to adjust the wording?

OOC: To be honest I question the reasoning for the existence of this anyway. There is no evidence to suggest that knives with more than 2 blades are more deadly, there are far more important factors at play in determining the deadliness of a bladed weapon.

[The First German Order]

OOC: I'd like to point out that what you've said about blades connecting at the tip would render swords pretty useless. They have a pointed tip for a reason.

[Recheve]

OOC: I'd like to point out that what you've said about blades connecting at the tip would render swords pretty useless. They have a pointed tip for a reason.

This is the type of weapon I'm discussing. It's sharp and used for stabbing, which is why triangular blades are effective when employed as daggers or bayonets. You're right that they're not as effective as more contemporary designs though; even though they're not officially banned, most nations agree not to employ them, especially since other bayonets are more effective for slashing in addition to stabbing.

[Recheve]

OOC: To be honest I question the reasoning for the existence of this anyway. There is no evidence to suggest that knives with more than 2 blades are more deadly, there are far more important factors at play in determining the deadliness of a bladed weapon.

The general idea was that when employed properly, a triangular spike bayonet would create a triangular hole that was difficult to stitch. Similarly, the flutes on the sides would work in combination with the wider wound, allowing blood to flow out of the incision faster, and carrying a victim's insides out when the bayonet was withdrawn. While this didn't work out flawlessly in actual practice, there are certainly examples to verify the weapon's effectiveness.

There are also serrated bayonets, most famous for their use by the Germans in the First World War. Their effectiveness was in their ability to rupture organs when being withdrawn from a victim, as instead of slicing they would tear away at material adjacent to the serrated section. The result was a more lethal blade, which could cause rapid haemorrhaging and death. The French tried to outlaw this bayonet after the war, but were unsuccessful.

I find the former more dangerous than the latter, because the whole point of a bayonet is to pierce your enemy and rupture vital organs, or cause major bleeding. The triangular, fluted bayonet is unusually cruel, in that it guts your victim and makes them nearly impossible to treat. The serrated bayonet also hastens death with minimal increase in agony, while the triangular bayonet is... well let's just say it's an exceptionally brutal way to die.

[Recheve]

For one, as The NCR has pointed out, there is the wording of the regulation on weapons with multiple edges; Maybe you should change that to specify blades with multiple edges facing in the same direction? Or blades designed in a manner where the target will likely be struck simultaneously by more than two edges?

"Hereby,

1. Bans bladed weapons possessing in excess of two sharpened edges converging to a singular point."

Is this better wording?

[Recheve]

I get what you are trying to do but this proposal is illegal it would prevent a nations right to use most balded weaponry so therefore I am against it. I suggest you right a new proposal that focuses more on weaponry that would prevent stitching and have biological agents but your proposed ban on basic poisoned blades is nonnegotiable your ban would prevent weapons like poisoned darts or knifes that many nations special forces like myself use when conducting critical operations like rescue.

Would it be more agreeable if I specified the ban against poisons that cause agony? i.e., poisons that cause painless death or non-permanent status effects would still be legal?

Keep in mind it's your right to vote against this proposal, and unless it explicitly violates established legislation, the individual 'rights' of a nation over unexplored issues are determined by WA votes.

[Greater Free Oceania]

For one, as The NCR has pointed out, there is the wording of the regulation on weapons with multiple edges; Maybe you should change that to specify blades with multiple edges facing in the same direction? Or blades designed in a manner where the target will likely be struck simultaneously by more than two edges?

"Hereby,

1. Bans bladed weapons possessing in excess of two sharpened edges converging to a singular point."

Is this better wording?

Yes, much better.

[Recheve]

(Image)

Would you agree with the above correction?

[Essu Beti]

"This proposal is excessive micromanagement," says Inan. "The nation of Essu Beti is opposed."

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium must stand in agreement with the delegation of Essu Beti; This is an utterly unnecessary resolution, and one with little merit in any case. Weaponry must be effective, and a Member-State certainly has the right to use the most effective weapons available to it. Further, so long as such weapons are controllable, that is, that they may be used in such a manner as to not cause unnecessary local or environmental damage, or to not heavily endanger civilian populations, such as with Chemical, Biological, or specifically Radiological weaponry, there is no grounds for the World Assembly to prohibit its use."

[Recheve]

"The Imperium must stand in agreement with the delegation of Essu Beti; This is an utterly unnecessary resolution, and one with little merit in any case. Weaponry must be effective, and a Member-State certainly has the right to use the most effective weapons available to it. Further, so long as such weapons are controllable, that is, that they may be used in such a manner as to not cause unnecessary local or environmental damage, or to not heavily endanger civilian populations, such as with Chemical, Biological, or specifically Radiological weaponry, there is no grounds for the World Assembly to prohibit its use."

I completely respect that stance. I suppose the main advantage to the agreement is that these blades likewise cannot be utilized back against you, though that's certainly a risk that might be worth taking depending on your individual military tactics.

I suppose that in attempting to eradicate the more gruesome bayonets and blades, I might actually inform nations of their use as psychological weapons... oh well.