[Draft] Restrictions on Youth Weaponization

[Morover]

This is technically an amendment to this resolution. You can see my repeal to this resolution here.

Restrictions on Youth Weaponization

Category: Gun Control
Decision: Tighten

The World Assembly--

Aware that permission to keep firearms is a large part of some nations' cultures, and can serve as both protection and recreation.

Understanding that it is unreasonable to assume that children will be naturally adept at using firearms for either protection or recreation.

Aware that children do not have the same impulse control as adults, which may lead to the rapid emergence of a threat if provided with a weapon.

Concerned that, without restrictions, some children may be dangerous if given firearms.

Hereby,

• Defines that a "child" is any individual resident of a nation that is the threshold of majority for each individual nation.
  
  
• Defines an emergency, in the case of this resolution, as any situation that could bring immediate harm to one's wellbeing.
  
  
• States that, except in the case of an emergency, it is unlawful for a nation to allow an individual to supply a firearm to an untrained child, either intentionally or as a byproduct of negligence.
  
  
• Requires that those with children within the household must keep any firearms in a location secure from being taken by a child as a result of negligence.
  
  
• Clarifies that, with a proper education (which can be decided by each individual nation), and after approved by a government official, it is no longer unlawful for a child to have access to a gun.
  
  
• Clarifies that, if within a government-mandated area, a child can be permitted to use a firearm under the condition that it is for educational purposes, especially if the education is to increase the safety of children using firearms.
  
  
• Asserts that this resolution does not affect those over a nation's threshold of majority.
  
  
• Clarifying that these restrictions have no effect on whether or not a nation is legally allowed to supply its residents with firearms.

I kept in much of the original resolution (but changed the wording, after various people have brought up concerns of plagiarism), but edited the things that I believe were not complete and needed amendments. Currently, it's kinda worded weirdly, but I don't know how else to say it while still getting my point across, so any advice there would be appreciated.

This is also my first non-repeal proposal I have written, and I'm pretty sure I did everything right, but if I didn't, please let me know.

I also didn't know if I should use the same name as Resolution #235 ("Child Firearm Safety Act") or if I should come up with a new name, so I came up with a new name. If this is frowned upon, please let me know and I'll change it.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. This is a national issue. Nobody in Moreover is affected if, say, C.D.S.P. children are armed to the teeth without training."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

I kept in much of the original resolution, but edited the things that I believe were not complete and needed amendments. Currently, it's kinda worded weirdly, but I don't know how else to say it while still getting my point across, so any advice there would be appreciated.

All comments are OUT of character for this post.

Do not do that. You need to write your own resolution unless you have the original author's permission. Plagiarism is a very serious offense here. This seems especially pertinent as your definition of child seems to be word for word the same as GA 235.

[Araraukar]

"Opposed. This is a national issue. Nobody in Moreover is affected if, say, C.D.S.P. children are armed to the teeth without training."

OOC: I can't help it, but something like this always comes to mind from the "armed to the teeth"... That's a Finnish soldier being funny, by the way.

(And this with references to American gun culture...)

your definition of child seems to be word for word the same as GA 235.

OOC: It's the same across a number of resolutions, so hardly plagiarism.

[Morover]

"Opposed. This is a national issue. Nobody in Moreover is affected if, say, C.D.S.P. children are armed to the teeth without training."

If you don't mind me asking, are you opposed to the repeal in general, or just the specific wording of this new replacement resolution? If the former, then I mention that the current resolution also requires that children have an education in use of the firearms, and I only further clarified the issue at hand.

I kept in much of the original resolution, but edited the things that I believe were not complete and needed amendments. Currently, it's kinda worded weirdly, but I don't know how else to say it while still getting my point across, so any advice there would be appreciated.

All comments are OUT of character for this post.

Do not do that. You need to write your own resolution unless you have the original author's permission. Plagiarism is a very serious offense here. This seems especially pertinent as your definition of child seems to be word for word the same as GA 235.

Oh, my bad. I thought that the original author of the resolution would have wanted me to keep in as much of the resolution as I feel is written well. I will change the plagiarised portions to use my own words, but keep the same concepts in it.

[Araraukar]

I will change the plagiarised portions to use my own words, but keep the same concepts in it.

OOC: It's still plagiarism even if you change the wording a bit.

In your repeal thread you basically argued that the existing resolution isn't good enough. So if it's not good enough, why would you want to copy it? Write a better one.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. This is a national issue. Nobody in Moreover is affected if, say, C.D.S.P. children are armed to the teeth without training."

If you don't mind me asking, are you opposed to the repeal in general, or just the specific wording of this new replacement resolution? If the former, then I mention that the current resolution also requires that children have an education in use of the firearms, and I only further clarified the issue at hand.

"I support a repeal and oppose any replacement."

[Greater vakolicci haven]

"Opposed. The Haven, for one, does not recognise an age of majority. Secondly, citizens begin education in the usage of firearms from a very early age, generally between 5 and 7."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

your definition of child seems to be word for word the same as GA 235.

OOC: It's the same across a number of resolutions, so hardly plagiarism.

That was meant as an example, more than enough on its own. I did not read much beyond Morover stating they kept much of the original resolution. Regardless, I will attempt to pay a little more attention later (from my perspective it is nearly 1am) and make an attempt at offering something a bit more constructive than "rewrite everything". My apologies to Morover for not being more eloquent at current.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Am I the only person here who reads the title as being about turning youths into weapons?
^_^

[Morover]

I will change the plagiarised portions to use my own words, but keep the same concepts in it.

OOC: It's still plagiarism even if you change the wording a bit.

In your repeal thread you basically argued that the existing resolution isn't good enough. So if it's not good enough, why would you want to copy it? Write a better one.

In my repeal thread, I believe I argued that aspects of the existing resolution weren't exactly ideal in my opinion. As the only way to amend a resolution is to repeal and then resubmit, I believe that keeping some of the core concepts intact (otherwise it wouldn't necessarily be an amendment) is necessary. As far as I know, this is the only way to do this, but if I am mistaken, please correct me.

I certainly believe that the existing resolution is in good intent, I simply believe that there must be exceptions made (which I clarified in this proposal), as well as some clarifications made (which I also made in this proposal). Is there any way to use the same ideas as prior legislation without it being seen as plagiarism?

OOC: It's the same across a number of resolutions, so hardly plagiarism.

That was meant as an example, more than enough on its own. I did not read much beyond Morover stating they kept much of the original resolution. Regardless, I will attempt to pay a little more attention later (from my perspective it is nearly 1am) and make an attempt at offering something a bit more constructive than "rewrite everything". My apologies to Morover for not being more eloquent at current.

As I said above, I believe that some of the core concepts of the idea are essential to keep, but I do not know how to make it "not plagiarised," if I'm being honest.

"Opposed. The Haven, for one, does not recognise an age of majority. Secondly, citizens begin education in the usage of firearms from a very early age, generally between 5 and 7."

While I'm not entirely sure of the implications of not recognizing an age of majority, this resolution shouldn't necessarily effect your nation in that regard, as it only clarifies clauses from the original, as well as adding several exceptions.

[Araraukar]

Is there any way to use the same ideas as prior legislation without it being seen as plagiarism?

OOC: It basically has to be entirely new phrasing, which can be difficult. That's one reason why repeal-replacement of basically good resolutions can be hard.

Instead of the current wording of the Asserts clause, you should specify "Nothing in this resolution concerns those over the age of majority", rather than basically saying nations can't place any restrictions on adult gun ownership.

[Bears Armed]

"Opposed. The Haven, for one, does not recognise an age of majority. Secondly, citizens begin education in the usage of firearms from a very early age, generally between 5 and 7."

OOC
Check GA Resolution #299.
"does not recognise an age of majority" effectively = "everybody is considered legally competent as soon as they're born", with obvious consequences...

[Araraukar]

OOC
Check GA Resolution #299.
"does not recognise an age of majority" effectively = "everybody is considered legally competent as soon as they're born", with obvious consequences...

OOC: To be fair, there's nothing stopping a nation from doing that, though I can't imagine why it wouldn't be absolute chaos.

[Falcania]

OOC
Check GA Resolution #299.
"does not recognise an age of majority" effectively = "everybody is considered legally competent as soon as they're born", with obvious consequences...

OOC: To be fair, there's nothing stopping a nation from doing that, though I can't imagine why it wouldn't be absolute chaos.

ooc: case in point, the Free Kingdom

[Morover]

Is there any way to use the same ideas as prior legislation without it being seen as plagiarism?

OOC: It basically has to be entirely new phrasing, which can be difficult. That's one reason why repeal-replacement of basically good resolutions can be hard.

Instead of the current wording of the Asserts clause, you should specify "Nothing in this resolution concerns those over the age of majority", rather than basically saying nations can't place any restrictions on adult gun ownership.

I will go clause by clause in my resolution and the original and why I feel each has it's own unique phrasing (after further editing it).

AWARE that many nations permit and/or encourage their citizens to keep firearms for various lawful purposes, including sport and family protection;

Aware that permission to keep firearms is an essential part of some nations, for either protection or recreation.

In mine, I broadened the use of the word "protection," whereas in the original, it was specified as protection for the family. While sport and recreation are essentially synonyms, it is a slight difference. In the original, it states that some nations permit their citizens to own firearms, but in mine, I mention how it is essential for some nations, as they build their national identity over the use of firearms.

ALSO AWARE that firearms create a risk of serious injury and death not only for home invaders but for family members as well;

Understanding that it is unreasonable to assume that children will be naturally adept at using firearms for either protection or recreation.

In the original, it states examples of what could happen, should an inexperienced child have access to firearms. I felt this was too exact for a WA Resolution, so I broadened it to make it address the bigger issue.

WORRIED that children, because of their youth and inexperience, are particularly susceptible to the risk of serious injury and death posed by firearms;

CONVINCED that many of the risks to children posed by firearms could be reduced by simple safety measures;

Concerned that, without restrictions, some children may be dangerous if given firearms.

I felt that the original was too drawn out, so I attempted to condense the two concerns that the original had into one.

RESOLVED that member nations have an obligation to ensure that children are protected from the risks posed by firearms kept in their home;

I left this out of mine, because I felt it was covered by the original, but was also partially self-explanatory by the submission of the resolution.

DEFINES a "child" for the purposes of this Act as "any individual under the national threshold of majority, or equivalent;"

Defines that a "child" is any individual resident of a nation that is under the threshold of majority for each individual nation.

While these are very similar, I don't know how to further differentiate mine from the original resolution, if I'm being honest.

DECLARES that it is unlawful for an individual to intentionally provide a firearm to a child, or to negligently allow a child to access a firearm;

States that, except in the case of an emergency, it is unlawful for a nation to allow an individual to supply a firearm to an untrained child, either intentionally or as a byproduct of negligence.

The most notable difference here is the inclusion of the exception in the case of an emergency in mine, which I felt was a notable exclusion in the original. In my opinion, the only thing you could argue is the same phrasing in this is my inclusion of the "intentionally or as a byproduct of negligence," but I do feel that this an essential concept of the resolution, and I feel I worded it differently enough for it to be considered unique.

Defines an emergency, in the case of this resolution, as any situation that could bring immediate harm to one's wellbeing.

This is unique to mine, but the original did not mention an emergency, so it did not need to be in it.

REQUIRES that any firearm kept or stored in the home of a child be secured in a reasonable manner to eliminate the risk of injury or death to the child;

I did not include this in mine, because I felt that mentioning that if an untrained child got a hold of a weapon due to the negligence of an adult made this redundant.

CLARIFIES that notwithstanding the above provisions, it is not unlawful under this Act to provide a firearm to a child (or allow a child to access a firearm) if that child has received an education in firearm safety and proper use, and has demonstrated knowledge thereof;

Clarifies that, with a proper education, and after approved by a government official, it is no longer unlawful for a child to have access to a gun.

While this is a very similar concept, I do specify the exact circumstances in which a child may be granted a firearm, and that is by being approved by a government official. I feel that the original was very vague, without giving actual qualifications for a child to receive a firearm, beyond "education." This could be abused to be either a 5-minute training session or a 30-day course. While this is still a possibility with my draft, I also made it so that a government must approve giving a gun to the child, which would encourage nation-wide standardization of education requirements.

CLARIFIES that notwithstanding the above provisions, it is not unlawful under this Act to provide a firearm to a child under proper supervision for the purposes of educating the child in firearm safety and proper use;

Clarifies that, if within a government-mandated area, a child is permitted to use a firearm under the condition that it is for educational purposes, especially if the education is to increase the safety of children using firearms.

The original allowed for abuse of the resolution by allowing individuals to claim that "experience is education," thus negating almost the entire resolution (I also state in my repeal thread that it is near-impossible to enforce). Mine clarifies where training can happen, even if it is a bit more restricting.

MANDATES that an individual who lives in the same home as a child, or who may regularly encounter a child, must demonstrate knowledge of proper firearm use and safety before acquiring a firearm; especially, knowledge of how to reduce the risk posed by a firearm to the health and safety of children;

I left this out of my resolution because, if the nation believes that those of the threshold of majority are free to get guns with or without training, this restricts those adults, which is not the intention of the resolution (as far as I'm aware).

Asserts that this resolution does not affect those over a nation's threshold of majority.

This merely clarifies that it does not affect those over the theshold of majority.

AFFIRMS that nothing in this Act affects the ability of member nations to legalize or prohibit firearm ownership through national or international law.

Clarifying that these restrictions have no effect on whether or not a nation is legally allowed to supply its residents with firearms.

While these are essentially saying the same thing, it is important to include, and I feel the phrasing is different enough to be acceptable.

---

As you can see, the phrasing is rather different, with some similar repeated words that could not otherwise be avoided (such as "Clarifying" and "firearms"). It's still up to you to decide whether or not it's "plagiarism," but I think, for the most part, the phrasing is different enough. Let me know if any of my logic here is flawed, because that is certainly a possibility.

[Kenmoria]

“I’ve put a few comments in red.”

Restrictions on Youth Weaponization

Category: Gun Control
Decision: Tighten

The World Assembly--

Aware that permission to keep firearms is an essential part of some nations, for either protection or recreation. I’m not sure ‘essential part of some nations’ is the correct wording here. Perhaps ‘part of some cultures’ or something similar would be more appropriate.

Understanding that it is unreasonable to assume that children will be naturally adept at using firearms for either protection or recreation.

Concerned that, without restrictions, some children may be dangerous if given firearms. Some children? I believe almost all children are not to be trusted with guns, especially very young ones.

Hereby,

• Defines that a "child" is any individual resident of a nation that is under the threshold of majority for each individual nation. The way this is worded, a child has to be under the age of majority for all nations, which, as the ambassador from the Haven Kingdom has pointed out, wouldn’t work for some. I think you mean ‘the threshold of majority for that nation’ instead.
  
• States that, except in the case of an emergency, it is unlawful for a nation to allow an individual to supply a firearm to an untrained child, either intentionally or as a byproduct of negligence. Under what possible scenario would an individual need to supply a firearm to an untrained child?
  
• Defines an emergency, in the case of this resolution, as any situation that could bring immediate harm to one's wellbeing. Definitions should be at the start of the active clauses, right beneath the ‘hereby’.
  
• Clarifies that, with a proper education, and after approved by a government official, it is no longer unlawful for a child to have access to a gun. What defines a proper education?
  
• Clarifies that, if within a government-mandated area, a child is permitted to use a firearm under the condition that it is for educational purposes, especially if the education is to increase the safety of children using firearms. I believe ‘a child can be permitted’ rather than ‘a child is permitted’.
  
• Asserts that this resolution does not affect those over a nation's threshold of majority. I don’t believe this clarification clause is necessary.
  
• Clarifying that these restrictions have no effect on whether or not a nation is legally allowed to supply its residents with firearms.

[Morover]

“I’ve put a few comments in red.”

Restrictions on Youth Weaponization

Category: Gun Control
Decision: Tighten

The World Assembly--

Aware that permission to keep firearms is an essential part of some nations, for either protection or recreation. I’m not sure ‘essential part of some nations’ is the correct wording here. Perhaps ‘part of some cultures’ or something similar would be more appropriate.

Understanding that it is unreasonable to assume that children will be naturally adept at using firearms for either protection or recreation.

Concerned that, without restrictions, some children may be dangerous if given firearms. Some children? I believe almost all children are not to be trusted with guns, especially very young ones.

Hereby,

• Defines that a "child" is any individual resident of a nation that is under the threshold of majority for each individual nation. The way this is worded, a child has to be under the age of majority for all nations, which, as the ambassador from the Haven Kingdom has pointed out, wouldn’t work for some. I think you mean ‘the threshold of majority for that nation’ instead.
  
• States that, except in the case of an emergency, it is unlawful for a nation to allow an individual to supply a firearm to an untrained child, either intentionally or as a byproduct of negligence. Under what possible scenario would an individual need to supply a firearm to an untrained child?
  
• Defines an emergency, in the case of this resolution, as any situation that could bring immediate harm to one's wellbeing. Definitions should be at the start of the active clauses, right beneath the ‘hereby’.
  
• Clarifies that, with a proper education, and after approved by a government official, it is no longer unlawful for a child to have access to a gun. What defines a proper education?
  
• Clarifies that, if within a government-mandated area, a child is permitted to use a firearm under the condition that it is for educational purposes, especially if the education is to increase the safety of children using firearms. I believe ‘a child can be permitted’ rather than ‘a child is permitted’.
  
• Asserts that this resolution does not affect those over a nation's threshold of majority. I don’t believe this clarification clause is necessary.
  
• Clarifying that these restrictions have no effect on whether or not a nation is legally allowed to supply its residents with firearms.

I'll address your comments one by one.

Firstly, I agree with you about the word saying "essential part of some nations," and I will change that as soon as possible.

Next, I said "some" children because I believe that if I said "all" children, then it would imply that, even with the proper training, they would be untrustworthy with a firearm. While I agree that "some" is not the best term, I do not know what other term would be appropriate here.

I believed the way I put it to be correct, but I also don't know enough about the wording to refute it, so I will change that right away.

As for possible scenarios, like I defined an emergency as a "situation that could bring immediate harm to one's wellbeing," so any situation that could harm the child or anybody else would be classified as appropriate. For example, if an armed intruder broke into the home of a family, and only an incapacitated adult was home with the child, then the adult could tell the child where they keep a firearm in order to have the child defend the home

I was not aware that definitions go strictly at the beginning of active clauses, I will move that there right away.

I believe that it is up to the government to decide what counts as "proper education." Is there any way to clarify that further within the resolution? (also, just for clarification, the original resolution reads to me like it's the individual who comes up with what a proper education constitutes, not the government).

That makes sense. I'll change that.

Personally, I believe that the final clarification is necessary, so I'll probably keep that part (unless I get more support for removing it).

Thanks for the feedback!

[Falcania]

OOC
Am I the only person here who reads the title as being about turning youths into weapons?
^_^

glad I wasn't the only one

[Wallenburg]

I'd argue that most of this replacement plagiarizes the resolution it intends to replace. Many of your clauses are obviously just reworded versions of the clauses of the repeal target. The two unique additions to this replacement are the exception for emergencies and the additional requirements upon educating children to use firearms.

On your fifth active clause, I must ask why firearms education must take place within a "government-mandated area" instead of at any location safe and designed for firearms practice.

I must also question why this eliminates the provision for the safe storage of any firearm in a residence with children and the requirement that individuals living with children must demonstrate knowledge of proper firearm safety and responsibility in order to acquire firearms.

Overall, I really don't see the need for a repeal + replace here.

[Aclion]

You will have a very hard time replacing this without running afoul of Responsibility In Transferring Arms. You need to demonstrate that people below the age of majority are "individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action."

OOC
Am I the only person here who reads the title as being about turning youths into weapons?
^_^

Yeah. I was expecting a child soldiers ban.

[Arasi Luvasa]

OOC
Am I the only person here who reads the title as being about turning youths into weapons?
^_^

Nope, that was my first thought too.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why this is an issue of international import."

[Greater vakolicci haven]

"Opposed. The Haven, for one, does not recognise an age of majority. Secondly, citizens begin education in the usage of firearms from a very early age, generally between 5 and 7."

OOC
Check GA Resolution #299.
"does not recognise an age of majority" effectively = "everybody is considered legally competent as soon as they're born", with obvious consequences...

((OOC: I know it doesn't make sense. The Haven generally doesn't.

[Falcania]

"I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why this is an issue of international import."

"Aha! I knew the National Sovereignty argument wasn't dead, it's merely developed a code-name!"