Self-Defense for all!

[Zelnia Khadir]

Of course everyone should have the right do defend himself. But that doesn't mean they should have the right to carry AK47s or drive around in tanks.

[Casta Nal]

So I can not destroy the issue so I must blindly charge forward with my old stance.
THE SELF-DEFENSE RIGHTS ACT
1. The responsible sentient species of the World Assembly have the right to own weapons for the purposes of self-defense of themselves and others. This resolution still allows security forces to protect the people still. It gives would be victims the right to fight back against criminals, wild animals, invaders, and other threats.
2. The right to bear arms is up to the individual alone.
3. Governments may decide if weapons other than these are legal or not and for who. These weapons are regardless, (higher, middle and lower tech etc.), Melee weapons (bladed weapons, blunt weapons, etc.), bows (crossbow or regular bows), throwing weapons (knives, axes, etc.), martial arts, and magic (classic magic, life-force, technology, “nations may decide whether magic or similar abilities are real”).Also the appropriate ammunition and supplies to upkeep the weapons and for safety. Ammunition, parts, metal, armor, and all related paraphernalia to these weapons are legal and can be bought by individuals from legal vendors.
4. Weapons listed may be used for self-defense/ entertainment “up to nations to decide”/”settling disputes if legal”.
5. Individuals may own as many of these weapons as they want. They must be acquired legally at “white” or “gray” market store. Trades and buying from owner to owner must be overviewed. Individuals must pass intense screening, fair evaluations, fair training, fair tests, and prove they are trustworthy to own weapons/ store. When passed they will now be able to buy weapons and use them legally. They will be issued a license and a fair-sized data listing all weapons and related equipment that they own and must update that regularly . The people may train in approved public ranges and in private areas legally without disturbing the peace. All weapons that used by the public must be found safe and secure. Weapons may be carried out in the open or concealed or both. All tests and licenses are overseed by the WA.
6. If an individual does an illegal activity or is suspected of with his weapon such as intentional killing, crime, illegal owning/selling, not following the law, rebellion, over-usage of self-defense, illegal hunting, duels, and battles will result in your license being revoked, weapons, and equipment seized. Until the owner is proven innocent or pardoned, if convicted the user will be sent to prison/pay fines and if released may never own weapons again unless pardoned. If the owner accidentally kills/hurts someone they must pay compensation to go jail to lose all weapons to fines depending on the severity.
7. Self-Defense is recognized as a right of the people. Self-defense is the right to use equal force to an aggressor. In Self-Defense the goal is to not kill the aggressor but wound, killing may be needed in some situations.
Commen on this one because it's the newest.

[Casta Nal]

All honest people deserve the right of defense and protection from evil. The right to bear arms is as sacred to the right of clean water, the right of okay tasting food, the right of choice/belief/speech and the right of shelter. The WA should give the people (it also includes sntitnt animals and other species) the right to defend themselves.

[Casta Nal]

If people in the Old West were not armed, they would be dead because the goverment did not have much control of the area and at most times there was a small local or no goverment.

[Meekinos]

If people in the Old West were not armed, they would be dead because the goverment did not have much control of the area and at most times there was a small local or no goverment.

This "old west" of which you speak sounds odd. Why would the west be old? And if the government had little or no control, then it would mean a near-state of anarchy, which would then be ideal conditions for a person to acquire a means of self-defence. After all, there is nothing bureaucratic in place, such as the tests your proposal suggested, to interfere with their acquisition of weapons. There was nothing stopping them. No even the law of the land. If they wanted a gun and someone was selling, they could get it.

[Casta Nal]

In many nations in the RL world or here recongnize owning a weapon for survivial is legal. American players of nations know they can by DEagle to make themselves safe from zombies. Criminals will kill people even if you ban guns, sharp objects, and poisen. They are criminals, the law-abididng can strike back in most cases. Women without revolvers are at risk from sadistic rapists. Old people may be killed in a home invasion because they don't have a crossbow to ahow would be robbers to "fuck off". Hell in the UK they ban guns, people are still murdered, and no probubly sharp objects which means people will be murdered still. A criminal in most cases is an idiot, but a career one can make a weapon out of everyhting because EVERYTHING ON EARTH CAN KILL YOU IF USED PROPERLY. SO GIVE THE VICTIUM A WAY TO FIGHT BACK. ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE PEOPLE ARE HARMED BY THE DREGS OF SOCIETY SO GIVE THEM SOMETHING TO PROTECT THEM!

[Sanctaria]

I don't want to be rude or anything, but I have absolutely no idea what the author is trying to say here. This whole thread is just confusing. Self Defence isn't supposed to be a confusing topic. I can understand most things perfectly, but this is just a whole new level of wtf.

[Picklepoo]

I don't want to be rude or anything, but I have absolutely no idea what the author is trying to say here. This whole thread is just confusing. Self Defence isn't supposed to be a confusing topic. I can understand most things perfectly, but this is just a whole new level of wtf.

Yeah, right now I think the author is mad, so they are rapidly writing any thing that they think will prove their point.

[Casta Nal]

I know, I have been trying a new thread. I am crazy, I wanted to make either resolution though. I only got this one though.

[Picklepoo]

I know, I have been trying a new thread. I am crazy, I wanted to make either resolution though. I only got this one though.

I cannot make sense of this post....

[Grays Harbor]

self defence = good
this bloody stupid excuse for a proposal on self defence = NOT good, bad even.

[Sanctaria]

self defence = good
this bloody stupid excuse for a proposal on self defence = NOT good, bad even.

I got that much. The author just isn't making sense. It shouldn't be that difficult to write a post on self-defence that everybody can understand and hate for the right reasons, not the wrong ones.

[Casta Nal]

Sorry I tend rambe and mumble even while typing

[Meekinos]

In many nations in the RL world or here recongnize owning a weapon for survivial is legal. American players of nations know they can by DEagle to make themselves safe from zombies. Criminals will kill people even if you ban guns, sharp objects, and poisen. They are criminals, the law-abididng can strike back in most cases. Women without revolvers are at risk from sadistic rapists. Old people may be killed in a home invasion because they don't have a crossbow to ahow would be robbers to "fuck off". Hell in the UK they ban guns, people are still murdered, and no probubly sharp objects which means people will be murdered still. A criminal in most cases is an idiot, but a career one can make a weapon out of everyhting because EVERYTHING ON EARTH CAN KILL YOU IF USED PROPERLY. SO GIVE THE VICTIUM A WAY TO FIGHT BACK. ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE PEOPLE ARE HARMED BY THE DREGS OF SOCIETY SO GIVE THEM SOMETHING TO PROTECT THEM!

Firstly, criminals will still kill people if there are regulations of any sort in place. Bureaucracy essentially bans something for the average citizen until they prove they have earned the privilege to defend themselves with weapons. You cannot call something a "right" if it requires a person to earn it. Your proposal was just one step away from banning weapons because it installed bureaucracy.

Why would an elderly individual want a cross-bow when there are less cumbersome weapons like small guns. Your arguments are illogical.

A victim can defend themselves using anything they believe is usable as a weapon. Why use such shoddy, burdensome legislation to achieve this?

[Holy Roman Confederate]

These arguments are so far outside the box of logic that I'm honestly at a loss. You are creating a horror movie image of the world in your mind and attempting to base legislation upon said flawed world view. You've beat this horse enough, don't you think?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper is currently at a loss as to how exactly this draft is trying to achieve. If we were asked about what the actual intention should be, it would be reduce gun crime by implementing restrictions on gun ownership by children and those with insufficient mental capacity.

Submitted for thought,

[Vitoriasa]

As others have said (correct me please if this is not what the resolution intends), people have the right to defend themselves, but with non-lethal weapons. Does this resolution allow citizens to build machine gun turrets on their front lawns to protect them from any thieves that may or may not come by?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

As others have said (correct me please if this is not what the resolution intends), people have the right to defend themselves, but with non-lethal weapons. Does this resolution allow citizens to build machine gun turrets on their front lawns to protect them from any thieves that may or may not come by?

In Ms. Harper's opinion citizens should be able to build machine gun turrets with the permission from their government. From our observations, it appears that member states can decide what weapons are allowed for this purpose. This means that when we crash-test the clause, a loophole is discovered where a government can outlaw all weapons, while on the other side all weapons could be allowed.

[Sanctaria]

I like to think I'm a nice man. I like to help all new Ambassadors as much as possible, apparantly I'm one of the "nicer" Ambassadors in the Assembly. As such I'm going to do the author a great service by writing up something later, on self-defence, and letting him decide whether or not to continue pursuing it with my copy.

I won't be seeking co-authorship or anything like that because I think Self Defence should be decided on a nation-to-nation basis.

Expect a draft within the next few hours.

Yours.,

[Birnadia]

So a psychotic would-be-killer has the right to weapons?

[Sanctaria]

As promised.

On Self Defence

Catagory: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Mild

The General Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that deviance is, unfortunately, engrained as a societal norm,

CONCERNED that some forms of deviance can cause great physical harm to innocent others,

CONVINCED that the severity of harm caused can be decreased when victims defends themselves,

SHOCKED that some nations imprison its citizens for defending themselves from attack if the original assailant is harmed,

Hereby

DEFINES, solely for the purpose of this resolution, an assailant as someone who, during the course of their illegal action(s), harms or attempts to harm an innocent bystander/victim;

FURTHER DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, a victim as someone who is harmed or is in immediate danger of being harmed by a deviant during the course of the latter’s illegal action(s);

ALSO DEFINES self-defence as appropriate and proportional actions taken by the victim against the assailant in order to prevent (further) harm being inflicted;

MANDATES that each nation shall have the ability to further define what constitutes appropriate and proportional actions in line with their cultures and beliefs;

ALLOWS victims to engage in self-defence against their assailant while at the same time obeying the limitations placed upon them by this resolution;

FORBIDS nations from convicting victims for the assault of their assailants, provided that there is proof that the victim was indeed acting in self-defence and used appropriate and proportional means, and finally;

ENCOURAGES governments to introduce educational programs and methods of rehabilitation to help decrease the number of deviant acts in their nations.

I'm assuming the author was attempting something like the attached.

Yours.,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

-snip-

OOC: It may be a good idea to set up a separate thread to avoid conflicting with the other draft.

[Mikedor]

All honest people deserve the right of defense and protection from evil. The right to bear arms is as sacred to the right of clean water, the right of okay tasting food, the right of choice/belief/speech and the right of shelter. The WA should give the people (it also includes sntitnt animals and other species) the right to defend themselves.

You'll die without water for a week. You won't die if you don't have a gun for a week.

If people in the Old West were not armed, they would be dead because the goverment did not have much control of the area and at most times there was a small local or no goverment.

Actually, in the 'old West' no town had a higher murder rate than 6 deaths per year, including Tombstone. This however, cannot be linked to firearms availability.

[Sanctaria]

-snip-

OOC: It may be a good idea to set up a separate thread to avoid conflicting with the other draft.

OOC: It's not for me, it's for the author. I don't want any recognition. I'm just throwing him a line here.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

-snip-

OOC: It may be a good idea to set up a separate thread to avoid conflicting with the other draft.

OOC: It's not for me, it's for the author. I don't want any recognition. I'm just throwing him a line here.

That's okay. We thought it was much more promising than the other version.