[Closed] Repeal GAR #235, "Child Firearm Safety Act"

[Fordana]

Repeal "Child Firearm Safety Act"





The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that General Assembly Resolution #235 was created in order to prevent the harm of children.

Aware that General Assembly Resolution #235 does allow properly educated children to use a firearm.

Concerned that restricting the use of children using firearms may have unintended consequences.

Aware of other safety procedures put in place that protect children from firearms.

Uncertain of the level of education the General Assembly Resolution #235 intended to put into place.

Concerned that children may be defenseless in the case of intrusion.

Acknowledging that some nations are unable to provide sufficient education courses to citizens, but still encourages the use of general firearms.

Believing that legislation should not be open to interpretation.

Understanding that it is near-impossible for a nation to adequately enforce this law, due to the vague nature of General Assembly Resolution #235.

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235

I know this is already submitted, but I have a couple of issues with this resolution.

The biggest problem for me is “Concerned that restricting the use of children using firearms may have unintended consequences” This line is pretty general. What type of consequences? Then this line;”Concerned that children may be defenseless in the case of intrusion.” comes into play. If I’m interpreting right, this suggests that letting kids use guns while they have no idea how to work a gun is a good idea. Besides that, this resolution doesn’t really have much to it imo.

I could be interpreting this whole resolution wrong however

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Why?

OOC: Because regulation for regulation's sake is bad.

Yes, but this is regulation to protect the lives of children, which most people would consider a good thing.

[Kranostav]

Hard pass

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Because regulation for regulation's sake is bad.

Yes, but this is regulation to protect the lives of children, which most people would consider a good thing.

"And is a determination member states are capable of making on their own. Whats next, a mandated sticker in every toilet bowl to prevent bad aim?"

Hard pass

"There's plenty of reasons to tell nations what to do. This goes waaaaay beyond that. Besides, you can still regulate minor possession and use of firearms domestically."

[Wallenburg]

Yes, but this is regulation to protect the lives of children, which most people would consider a good thing.

"And is a determination member states are capable of making on their own. Whats next, a mandated sticker in every toilet bowl to prevent bad aim?"

OOC: The World Assembly has a long history of legislating on policies that member states are perfectly capable of implementing themselves. That member states can individually implement pesticide regulations, guarantee sexual privacy, preserve the right to an abortion, and prohibit genocide never stopped the WA from legislating on those matters anyway.

[Separatist Peoples]

"And is a determination member states are capable of making on their own. Whats next, a mandated sticker in every toilet bowl to prevent bad aim?"

OOC: The World Assembly has a long history of legislating on policies that member states are perfectly capable of implementing themselves. That member states can individually implement pesticide regulations, guarantee sexual privacy, preserve the right to an abortion, and prohibit genocide never stopped the WA from legislating on those matters anyway.

OOC: There are policy benefits to those regulations. There is nothing here to justify such a policy. There's no transboundary utility, no inherent human right, no example of gross national abuse, nothing.

[Morover]

(OOC:

OOC: Looking over the legislation with a new point of view, I fear that I have jumped the gun. I was very antsy about getting more legislation into the General Assembly, and submitted it early. I plan to continue to work on this. Also, sorry for the wait, I've have a few long days of work and I just haven't been up to editing this if I'm being honest.

IC:
Honestly, the two dashes were left over from when I mistakenly wrote "To the World Assembly--," and I failed to change the dashes too. Thank you for bringing my attention to it, I merely overlooked it and will change it.

While I agree with you on the inclusion on the topic of the lack of specified, I must ask if you believe it would be preferable to include the clause as an addition to the 'Acknowledging' clause, or to add an additional clause. I will add an additional clause clarifying this now, but if you believe that I should merely edit the existing clause, let me know.

Unless you have a way to expand or add additional content, I recommend just editing the existing clause.

And yes, I do agree with you on some parts of the draft to be rather loosely strung together thoughts, and I do plan to remedy that with my next edit.

Also, perhaps it's my fault, but I can't really understand what you mean by "However, additional safety procedures on who can obtain a gun are not banned by the target." Could you perhaps clarify for me?

My understanding of the clause in your repeal is that the WA believes there should be safety measures outside the purview of the target resolution, and I was thus pointing out that any further safety measures could be imposed by nations at a later point.

Personally, I believe that untrained children with guns can be effective against intruders, mostly due to the relatively simple mechanics of basic firearms. I do believe that a child with a gun would be more effective against an intruder than an unarmed child.

If an intruder enters with a guns, he or she is probably highly trained, whereas the resident child would have had a far lesser amount of training and be quite likely to injure themselves in the process.

Personally, I believe that the permission of firearms in children should be entirely up to the nation (I know, this sounds much like the NatSov argument), and this resolution puts much of the power to the people, which, while not an objectively bad thing, I believe that laws regarding firearm use should be put entirely up to the government, with no regard to whether or not they can supply proper education.

This may be the reason behind a lot of my citique of your proposal; I am very anti-gun in real life, as is my IC nation, and both me and Kenmoria would not be opposed to a WA-wide ban on them. I have quite a strong belief that, if they are permitted, guns should only none allowed after a several-year training course including psychological examinations.

However as this is, of course, your proposal, feel free to ignore my ideological beliefs regarding the matter, as they aren’t really relevant. I believe the majority of players, at least based off of NSG polls, are in fact quite pro-gun.

I will clarify what I mean by near-impossibility.

I will fix the spelling mistake right away.

Thanks.)

Okay, I have added an additional clause, but I will change that to a mere edit of the clauses that existed prior to my addition of the new clause.

My inclusion of that clause was the acknowledgment of other restrictions already placed on children's use of firearms, specifically GAR #4, which "Bans the participation of minors in armed conflict," and GAR#222, which forbids the "causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence." While neither of these goes to the extent of GAR#235, I believe that it is enough of a restriction on children's use of firearms. While GAR#4 specifically bans the participation of children in armed conflict, GAR#222 is more open-ended, but I believe that the inclusion of negligence covers the basis of children being harmed through being allowed firearms without having the proper education. I did not specify on these points, because, quite frankly, I do not know the standard way to mention other legislation the General Assembly has introduced, so if you have any advice on that end, it would be appreciated.

While I agree with you that it is possible for an untrained child to injure themselves, I believe it is more likely for an unarmed child to be injured by the intruder themselves, especially in nations where the threshold of majority is above that of maturity, such as teenagers, who the intruder may see as a threat.

I understand your views that guns should have heavy restrictions of them in real life, and even agree with you, I do believe in keeping your NationStates opinions separate from your actual views. Honestly, this legislation is too restricting, while not necessarily clarifying any of the points that may make it less restrictive.

Repeal "Child Firearm Safety Act"





The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that General Assembly Resolution #235 was created in order to prevent the harm of children.

Aware that General Assembly Resolution #235 does allow properly educated children to use a firearm.

Concerned that restricting the use of children using firearms may have unintended consequences.

Aware of other safety procedures put in place that protect children from firearms.

Uncertain of the level of education the General Assembly Resolution #235 intended to put into place.

Concerned that children may be defenseless in the case of intrusion.

Acknowledging that some nations are unable to provide sufficient education courses to citizens, but still encourages the use of general firearms.

Believing that legislation should not be open to interpretation.

Understanding that it is near-impossible for a nation to adequately enforce this law, due to the vague nature of General Assembly Resolution #235.

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235

I know this is already submitted, but I have a couple of issues with this resolution.

The biggest problem for me is “Concerned that restricting the use of children using firearms may have unintended consequences” This line is pretty general. What type of consequences? Then this line;”Concerned that children may be defenseless in the case of intrusion.” comes into play. If I’m interpreting right, this suggests that letting kids use guns while they have no idea how to work a gun is a good idea. Besides that, this resolution doesn’t really have much to it imo.

I could be interpreting this whole resolution wrong however

Small correction, but this was submitted rather hastily, but did fail to reach vote, so it's back to the drafting board.

I am planning on taking out the clause stating unintended consequences, because, quite frankly, there is no good way to specify that clause, but without specification, it remains too general.

I am not suggested that letting untrained children use guns is a good idea, I am merely saying that it is ridiculous to dismiss it as an inherently evil idea. I am suggesting that it is better for children to have some kind of defense above having them be completely defenseless.

OOC: Because regulation for regulation's sake is bad.

Yes, but this is regulation to protect the lives of children, which most people would consider a good thing.

Perhaps so, but this is also a bit excessive, and there is already legislation which makes it illegal for a child to be harmed due to the negligence of an adult, which implies gun safety.

"And is a determination member states are capable of making on their own. Whats next, a mandated sticker in every toilet bowl to prevent bad aim?"

OOC: The World Assembly has a long history of legislating on policies that member states are perfectly capable of implementing themselves. That member states can individually implement pesticide regulations, guarantee sexual privacy, preserve the right to an abortion, and prohibit genocide never stopped the WA from legislating on those matters anyway.

OOC: Yes, but many of those are either inherently evil (genocide), basic human rights (sexual privacy, preserving the right to an abortion, etc.), or basic rules that one can not expect the average nation to follow (pesticide regulations). Gun regulations are not inherently evil, a basic human right (and it should remain a nation's right to decide how effectively they control gun regulations), nor should it be a basic rule that average nations should follow, but cannot reasonably assume that a nation will follow.

Quite frankly, most nations that allow the ownership of firearms will have regulations for children, but it is not reasonable to force nations to have minimum regulations for children. Like The Separatist Peoples has said, this is unreasonably restrictive.

Yes, but this is regulation to protect the lives of children, which most people would consider a good thing.

"And is a determination member states are capable of making on their own. Whats next, a mandated sticker in every toilet bowl to prevent bad aim?"

Hard pass

"There's plenty of reasons to tell nations what to do. This goes waaaaay beyond that. Besides, you can still regulate minor possession and use of firearms domestically."

OOC: The World Assembly has a long history of legislating on policies that member states are perfectly capable of implementing themselves. That member states can individually implement pesticide regulations, guarantee sexual privacy, preserve the right to an abortion, and prohibit genocide never stopped the WA from legislating on those matters anyway.

OOC: There are policy benefits to those regulations. There is nothing here to justify such a policy. There's no transboundary utility, no inherent human right, no example of gross national abuse, nothing.

As always, I appreciate your support.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Because regulation for regulation's sake is bad.

OOC: Tell that to the compliance committee.

OC: Yes, but many of those are either inherently evil (genocide)

OOC: Why is genocide inherently evil, if killing other people in general isn't? And I'm not asking this to derail the thread, I just mean that "because it's bad, mm'kay" shouldn't be used to justify any resolution - or a repeal of one, for that matter.

How is requiring children to have some idea of how to safely handle guns, oppressive and tyrannical and going too far, etc.?

[Kranostav]

After giving it a second read I'm more inclined to support it. The wording is livable and I think it's application is for the best.

[Arasi Luvasa]

OOC: Yes, but many of those are either inherently evil (genocide), basic human rights (sexual privacy, preserving the right to an abortion, etc.), or basic rules that one can not expect the average nation to follow (pesticide regulations). Gun regulations are not inherently evil, a basic human right (and it should remain a nation's right to decide how effectively they control gun regulations), nor should it be a basic rule that average nations should follow, but cannot reasonably assume that a nation will follow.

Cough, cough. Christian nation here pretty much views abortion as murder so this is forcing the nation to allow a form of murder (seriously, I am iffy but not going to ban abortion IRL but to allow abortion when the child is viable ). Denial of abortion also isn't inherently evil, not any more so than allowing children to use firearms.

[Kenmoria]

My inclusion of that clause was the acknowledgment of other restrictions already placed on children's use of firearms, specifically GAR #4, which "Bans the participation of minors in armed conflict," and GAR#222, which forbids the "causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence." While neither of these goes to the extent of GAR#235, I believe that it is enough of a restriction on children's use of firearms. While GAR#4 specifically bans the participation of children in armed conflict, GAR#222 is more open-ended, but I believe that the inclusion of negligence covers the basis of children being harmed through being allowed firearms without having the proper education. I did not specify on these points, because, quite frankly, I do not know the standard way to mention other legislation the General Assembly has introduced, so if you have any advice on that end, it would be appreciated.

(OOC: That does make sense, and now the clause follows a more coherent argument. I would make the wording a little bit more direct in referencing the existing resolutions that exist, but avoid calling them by name.

OOC: Yes, but many of those are either inherently evil (genocide), basic human rights (sexual privacy, preserving the right to an abortion, etc.), or basic rules that one can not expect the average nation to follow (pesticide regulations). Gun regulations are not inherently evil, a basic human right (and it should remain a nation's right to decide how effectively they control gun regulations), nor should it be a basic rule that average nations should follow, but cannot reasonably assume that a nation will follow.

Cough, cough. Christian nation here pretty much views abortion as murder so this is forcing the nation to allow a form of murder (seriously, I am iffy but not going to ban abortion IRL but to allow abortion when the child is viable ). Denial of abortion also isn't inherently evil, not any more so than allowing children to use firearms.

However, the WA populace has collectively decided that abortion is indeed a human right, and have thus passed a resolution to that effect.)

[Fordana]

Small correction, but this was submitted rather hastily, but did fail to reach vote, so it's back to the drafting board.

I am planning on taking out the clause stating unintended consequences, because, quite frankly, there is no good way to specify that clause, but without specification, it remains too general.

I am not suggested that letting untrained children use guns is a good idea, I am merely saying that it is ridiculous to dismiss it as an inherently evil idea. I am suggesting that it is better for children to have some kind of defense above having them be completely defenseless.

Alright thanks for clarifying

If you take out that clause, I suggest adding one that says something about not dismissing untrained kids using guns not always being a bad thing, like you said, and/or writing a line that says something along the lines of “Its more dangerous for children to be unable to defend themselves in a dire situation, then to accidentally hurt themselves trying to fend off an intruder”

[Morover]

OOC: Yes, but many of those are either inherently evil (genocide), basic human rights (sexual privacy, preserving the right to an abortion, etc.), or basic rules that one can not expect the average nation to follow (pesticide regulations). Gun regulations are not inherently evil, a basic human right (and it should remain a nation's right to decide how effectively they control gun regulations), nor should it be a basic rule that average nations should follow, but cannot reasonably assume that a nation will follow.

Cough, cough. Christian nation here pretty much views abortion as murder so this is forcing the nation to allow a form of murder (seriously, I am iffy but not going to ban abortion IRL but to allow abortion when the child is viable ). Denial of abortion also isn't inherently evil, not any more so than allowing children to use firearms.

Although it's a bit offtopic, I do feel the need to mention that the banning of abortion does not require that nations require to terminate unwanted pregnancies, and only requires that a nation to allow abortion under the following terms:
"a) The pregnancy resulted from involuntary sexual activity and/or sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent;
b) Severe foetal abnormality would result in a child being born with an incurable condition which is fatal and/or painful;
c) There is a risk of a life-threatening physical or mental condition which would result in the death or life-long severe disability of the pregnant woman if the pregnancy continued;"

Even so, that would call for a repeal of GAR#128 ("On Abortion"), and would not affect this proposal at all. From what it sounds like, you do support the repeal of GAR#235.

My inclusion of that clause was the acknowledgment of other restrictions already placed on children's use of firearms, specifically GAR #4, which "Bans the participation of minors in armed conflict," and GAR#222, which forbids the "causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence." While neither of these goes to the extent of GAR#235, I believe that it is enough of a restriction on children's use of firearms. While GAR#4 specifically bans the participation of children in armed conflict, GAR#222 is more open-ended, but I believe that the inclusion of negligence covers the basis of children being harmed through being allowed firearms without having the proper education. I did not specify on these points, because, quite frankly, I do not know the standard way to mention other legislation the General Assembly has introduced, so if you have any advice on that end, it would be appreciated.

(OOC: That does make sense, and now the clause follows a more coherent argument. I would make the wording a little bit more direct in referencing the existing resolutions that exist, but avoid calling them by name.

(OOC: I will try to do that, but can't guarantee anything straight away. I will try to be hasty, though.)

Small correction, but this was submitted rather hastily, but did fail to reach vote, so it's back to the drafting board.

I am planning on taking out the clause stating unintended consequences, because, quite frankly, there is no good way to specify that clause, but without specification, it remains too general.

I am not suggested that letting untrained children use guns is a good idea, I am merely saying that it is ridiculous to dismiss it as an inherently evil idea. I am suggesting that it is better for children to have some kind of defense above having them be completely defenseless.

Alright thanks for clarifying

If you take out that clause, I suggest adding one that says something about not dismissing untrained kids using guns not always being a bad thing, like you said, and/or writing a line that says something along the lines of “Its more dangerous for children to be unable to defend themselves in a dire situation, then to accidentally hurt themselves trying to fend off an intruder”

I have taken this suggestion into consideration, and have decided to replace it (again, kinda busy, so it may not be right away, but it will happen ASAP.)

[Fordana]

I have taken this suggestion into consideration, and have decided to replace it (again, kinda busy, so it may not be right away, but it will happen ASAP.)

Alrighty sounds good

[Araraukar]

I do feel the need to mention that the banning of abortion does not require that nations require to terminate unwanted pregnancies, and only requires that a nation to allow abortion under the following terms:

OOC: Not true. There are two resolutions on abortion, one of which requires nations to allow the termination of pregnancies for any reason whatsoever, including "do not want", as decided by the pregnant individual. But that's besides the point.

I still maintain that trying to argue a child without a gun is worse off than a child with a gun, in whatever "intrusion" is, because a child with a gun is still a danger to theirself and others, and it would be easy for an adult to gain control of that gun, since children tend to be small and feeble. And because people tend not to die from a single gunshot.

What are the "other safety procedures put in place that protect children from firearms"? Or, for that matter, the "unintended consequences" that "restricting the use of children using firearms may have"?

The acknowleding clause has a grammar clash between multiple of nations but single actor verb.

[Separatist Peoples]

I do feel the need to mention that the banning of abortion does not require that nations require to terminate unwanted pregnancies, and only requires that a nation to allow abortion under the following terms:

OOC: Not true. There are two resolutions on abortion, one of which requires nations to allow the termination of pregnancies for any reason whatsoever, including "do not want", as decided by the pregnant individual. But that's besides the point.

I still maintain that trying to argue a child without a gun is worse off than a child with a gun, in whatever "intrusion" is, because a child with a gun is still a danger to theirself and others, and it would be easy for an adult to gain control of that gun, since children tend to be small and feeble. And because people tend not to die from a single gunshot.

What are the "other safety procedures put in place that protect children from firearms"? Or, for that matter, the "unintended consequences" that "restricting the use of children using firearms may have"?

The acknowleding clause has a grammar clash between multiple of nations but single actor verb.

"Why on earth does there need to be internationally-imposed procedures to protect children from firearms? We have basically no other resolutions protecting children from cars, baseball bats, rabid dogs, or grand pianos dropped from a penthouse window. Why are guns singled out?

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Not true. There are two resolutions on abortion, one of which requires nations to allow the termination of pregnancies for any reason whatsoever, including "do not want", as decided by the pregnant individual. But that's besides the point.

I still maintain that trying to argue a child without a gun is worse off than a child with a gun, in whatever "intrusion" is, because a child with a gun is still a danger to theirself and others, and it would be easy for an adult to gain control of that gun, since children tend to be small and feeble. And because people tend not to die from a single gunshot.

What are the "other safety procedures put in place that protect children from firearms"? Or, for that matter, the "unintended consequences" that "restricting the use of children using firearms may have"?

The acknowleding clause has a grammar clash between multiple of nations but single actor verb.

"Why on earth does there need to be internationally-imposed procedures to protect children from firearms? We have basically no other resolutions protecting children from cars, baseball bats, rabid dogs, or grand pianos dropped from a penthouse window. Why are guns singled out?

“Maybe it’s because guns are designed to cause harm and are intended to be weapons. Cars, baseball bats, dogs and grand pianos are created, or bred in the case of dogs, for the purposes of transport, recreation, various social benefits, and music creation respectively. On the other hand, guns are made to kill, maim or seriously injure people or animals.

Further on this matter, a lack of regulation on one topic does not mean another isn’t worth addressing. Perhaps legislation on car safety would be welcomed for the GA. The authoring delegation has decided that the current legislation isn’t up to scratch, so must be replaced; I see this as a process that occurs regardless of subject matter. With the exception of landmark bills such as GA#2, bad legislation should be replaced, no matter whether it addresses guns or crossiants.”

[Aclion]

"Why on earth does there need to be internationally-imposed procedures to protect children from firearms? We have basically no other resolutions protecting children from cars, baseball bats, rabid dogs, or grand pianos dropped from a penthouse window. Why are guns singled out?

"As part of a greater cultural opposition to civilian gun ownership."

[Araraukar]

"Why are guns singled out?

"Perhaps because private individuals more rarely have access to missiles or nuclear weapons. If they did, there would likely be resolutions restricting the use of those from children too. That said, Araraukar would support a repeal of this in favour of a resolution that left gun regulation to the individual nations. We just won't support a repeal that has crappy arguments," Johan explained patiently.

[Separatist Peoples]

“Maybe it’s because guns are designed to cause harm and are intended to be weapons. Cars, baseball bats, dogs and grand pianos are created, or bred in the case of dogs, for the purposes of transport, recreation, various social benefits, and music creation respectively. On the other hand, guns are made to kill, maim or seriously injure people or animals.

"Incorrect. Firearms are intended to place a piece of lead downrange. What happens to be downrange varies, but a gun is no more intended to kill or maim than knives are. Knives are meant to cut. What they cut varies. This merely reveals your antipathy toward what, by rights, should be a domestic matter."

Further on this matter, a lack of regulation on one topic does not mean another isn’t worth addressing.

"It is highly indicative on exactly that. Resolutions that micromanage national policy do not and have never gone over well here."

Perhaps legislation on car safety would be welcomed for the GA.

"It wouldn't. You'd be deluding yourself to think otherwise."

"Why on earth does there need to be internationally-imposed procedures to protect children from firearms? We have basically no other resolutions protecting children from cars, baseball bats, rabid dogs, or grand pianos dropped from a penthouse window. Why are guns singled out?

"As part of a greater cultural opposition to civilian gun ownership."

"You have no idea..."

[Arasi Luvasa]

“Maybe it’s because guns are designed to cause harm and are intended to be weapons. Cars, baseball bats, dogs and grand pianos are created, or bred in the case of dogs, for the purposes of transport, recreation, various social benefits, and music creation respectively. On the other hand, guns are made to kill, maim or seriously injure people or animals.

"Incorrect. Firearms are intended to place a piece of lead downrange. What happens to be downrange varies, but a gun is no more intended to kill or maim than knives are. Knives are meant to cut. What they cut varies. This merely reveals your antipathy toward what, by rights, should be a domestic matter."

"I believe you are the one incorrect here. Guns serve no purpose outside causing damage to a target, they were invented and are only used as a weapon. Knives and swords are distinguished from one another in some countries because swords are considered weapons as their intended purpose is to inflict harm while knives are created with the intended purpose of cutting dead food. What the user intends to make use of it for is irrelevant to what the tool was designed to do, swords are simply far better equipped to be weapons than knives and guns serve no practical purpose outside existing as a weapon. Saying that a firearms intent is not to cause harm is at best deluding oneself and more likely deceitful."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Incorrect. Firearms are intended to place a piece of lead downrange. What happens to be downrange varies, but a gun is no more intended to kill or maim than knives are. Knives are meant to cut. What they cut varies. This merely reveals your antipathy toward what, by rights, should be a domestic matter."

"I believe you are the one incorrect here. Guns serve no purpose outside causing damage to a target, they were invented and are only used as a weapon. Knives and swords are distinguished from one another in some countries because swords are considered weapons as their intended purpose is to inflict harm while knives are created with the intended purpose of cutting dead food. What the user intends to make use of it for is irrelevant to what the tool was designed to do, swords are simply far better equipped to be weapons than knives and guns serve no practical purpose outside existing as a weapon. Saying that a firearms intent is not to cause harm is at best deluding oneself and more likely deceitful."

"This is a fascile argument easily debunked by reality. The C.D.S.P. has approximately 4 firearms in civilian circulation for every resident. If their intent was exclusively to cause harm, and all firearms were used, you would expect the entire population to be suffering a gunshot wound. This is objectively not the case. Firearms can have an intended use that does not involve killing or maiming. The overwhelming majority of firearms are intended to put neat, little holes in a piece of paper. Long range hole punches. Some are intended to deform steel. Or destroy cans and bottles. Whatever your range preference. If intent is defined by use, then firearms are less likely to be used to kill and maim than cars. Lets not push our personal agendas by making pisspoor arguments, ambassador."

[Vichy Rich]

The nation of Vichy Rich fails beliefs in stricter firearms control, restricting the use not only away from children but independent citizens as well and should only be issued to Military and Police personnel.

[Kenmoria]

"I believe you are the one incorrect here. Guns serve no purpose outside causing damage to a target, they were invented and are only used as a weapon. Knives and swords are distinguished from one another in some countries because swords are considered weapons as their intended purpose is to inflict harm while knives are created with the intended purpose of cutting dead food. What the user intends to make use of it for is irrelevant to what the tool was designed to do, swords are simply far better equipped to be weapons than knives and guns serve no practical purpose outside existing as a weapon. Saying that a firearms intent is not to cause harm is at best deluding oneself and more likely deceitful."

"This is a fascile argument easily debunked by reality. The C.D.S.P. has approximately 4 firearms in civilian circulation for every resident. If their intent was exclusively to cause harm, and all firearms were used, you would expect the entire population to be suffering a gunshot wound. This is objectively not the case. Firearms can have an intended use that does not involve killing or maiming. The overwhelming majority of firearms are intended to put neat, little holes in a piece of paper. Long range hole punches. Some are intended to deform steel. Or destroy cans and bottles. Whatever your range preference. If intent is defined by use, then firearms are less likely to be used to kill and maim than cars. Lets not push our personal agendas by making pisspoor arguments, ambassador."

“‘If all firearms were used’ was a phrase you used, and it probably isn’t correct, as I doubt every single resident in the CDSP has used a gun in their lifetime. The gun was invented to kill or seriously injure people from a distance, just as a sword was invented to kill or seriously injure people at close range. The fact that some people may enjoy firing at targets with guns or may enjoy fencing with swords does nothing to change the fact that guns and swords are weapons and their primary purpose is harm. Likewise, we regulate biological weapons because, although a general might use them for recreation, they were created to kill people.

Regardless of who is correct, the fact remains that the original legislation had flaws in its reasoning and should be replaced by a strong piece of law. This is a process that I do not think anyone has an issue with, and I am not convinced by your reasoning that a replacement should be more pro-gun. I think a proposal with roughly the same ideological position is appropriate here.”

[Separatist Peoples]

“‘If all firearms were used’ was a phrase you used, and it probably isn’t correct, as I doubt every single resident in the CDSP has used a gun in their lifetime.

"Statistically, nearly every citizen has fired a firearm. Its part of the primary school curriculum. If you go to a school that follows the national curriculum, you have fired a rifle at least once."

The gun was invented to kill or seriously injure people from a distance, just as a sword was invented to kill or seriously injure people at close range.

"You are imputing an intent where there is none, and indeed cannot be one."

The fact that some people may enjoy firing at targets with guns or may enjoy fencing with swords does nothing to change the fact that guns and swords are weapons and their primary purpose is harm.

"This remains demonstrably false, since most firearms are never so used. Unless you suggest that millions of firearms users are using their weapons incorrectly?"

Likewise, we regulate biological weapons because, although a general might use them for recreation, they were created to kill people.

"Biological weapons are indiscriminate. Small arms are not. Bad analogy is bad."

Regardless of who is correct

"Its me."

the fact remains that the original legislation had flaws in its reasoning

"Agreed."

and should be replaced by a strong piece of law.

"Disagreed. I intend, in fact, to campaign hard to prevent any such attempt to meddle in domestic affairs. I've the feeling I have some pull around here."

This is a process that I do not think anyone has an issue with

"Any sane government would have an issue with unnecessary meddling.",

and I am not convinced by your reasoning that a replacement should be more pro-gun. I think a proposal with roughly the same ideological position is appropriate here.”

"Well, you're welcome to try. I'm cheerfully willing to scuttle any such attempt. With reckless abandon, and utter disregard for the feelings of others!"