[draft] Repeal: "Child Firearm Safety Act"

[Morover]

WHEREAS the passage of Resolution 235, “Child Firearm Safety Act” was legitimate and well-intentioned;

WHEREAS despite these positive intentions, it remains utterly nonsensical to prevent children from being given firearms in cases of utmost emergency;

WHEREAS the resolution in question may in fact harm children in nations that has incredibly lax gun laws, and an intruder with a firearm may enter a house, leaving children nigh-defenseless if they have not “received an education in firearm safety and proper use”;

WHEREAS it is odd to specifically restrict children’s access to firearms while, due to the diverse nature of nations within the World Assembly, far more dangerous and harmful weapons may fall into children’s hands, and may cause far more widespread damage;

WHEREAS it is the duty of this assembly to protect as many people as possible, including children;

WHEREAS the target remains extraordinarily vague at times through phraseology such as "an individual... who may regularly encounter a child", "proper use [of a firearm]" and "reasonable", all of which guts the effectiveness of this proposal in all nations who will try to maliciously avoid the spirit of the proposal;

WHEREAS this resolution does not adequately demonstrate that the benefits of the resolution outweigh the drawbacks;

WHEREAS even without these issues, it is a bad use of the World Assembly's resources to be regulating the use of firearms by children when this issue can be effectively tackled by individual member nations, and that the creation of Resolution 235 makes it so that non-compliance measures must be put in place by the World Assembly over a relatively inconsequential issue, when taken on the global scale;

BE IT RESOLVED this World Assembly does hereby repeal Resolution 235, “Child Firearm Safety Act”.

The first proposal I ever drafted was a repeal of GAR235, but this is a better version methinks. Should be quick and easy, I'm trying not to get burnt out but I still have lots of stamps. I wrote this in like 10 minutes without too much thought so please let me know what I did wrong. Love y'all <3

[Tinhampton]

Support, mostly because I remember reading a proposal of the same name by Greater Cesnica about a year ago and thought it was pretty cool.

[Morover]

Support, mostly because I remember reading a proposal of the same name by Greater Cesnica about a year ago and thought it was pretty cool.

Thanks for the support - you reminded me about Cesnica's proposal (which I totally forgot about tbh), so hopefully I'm not stepping on their toes.

[WayNeacTia]

WHEREAS the resolution in question may in fact harm children in nations that has incredibly lax gun laws, and an intruder may enter a house with a firearm, leaving children nigh-defenseless if they have not “received an education in firearm safety and proper use”;

Calling this a stretch would be the understatement of the century. Any responsible gun owner would have their firearms locked up so children can't get access to them.....

[Morover]

WHEREAS the resolution in question may in fact harm children in nations that has incredibly lax gun laws, and an intruder may enter a house with a firearm, leaving children nigh-defenseless if they have not “received an education in firearm safety and proper use”;

Calling this a stretch would be the understatement of the century. Any responsible gun owner would have their firearms locked up so children can't get access to them.....

Call it a stretch all you want but your comment does not address this clause in the slightest

[WayNeacTia]

WHEREAS the resolution in question may in fact harm children in nations that has incredibly lax gun laws, and an intruder may enter a house with a firearm, leaving children nigh-defenseless if they have not “received an education in firearm safety and proper use”;

Calling this a stretch would be the understatement of the century. Any responsible gun owner would have their firearms locked up so children can't get access to them.....

Call it a stretch all you want but your comment does not address this clause in the slightest

Maybe so, but these clauses sure do....

2. 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;

3. 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;

[Morover]

Call it a stretch all you want but your comment does not address this clause in the slightest

Maybe so, but these clauses sure do....

2. 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;

3. 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;

Maybe you’re misunderstanding my clause - my point is the opposite of what you’re saying. Uneducated children having no access to firearms under all circumstances is harmful where literally anyone else can have access to them.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The repeal arguments are flimsy, but repeals of WA gun control laws will always have the full weight of my political support behind them. Gun laws are a domestic concern and a domestic concern only."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Please link to the target in the OP.

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, you do not increase a child's safety by handing them a firearm with no training on how to use it. It is the most likely outcome that they will harm themselves or some innocent bystander. The requirement for training is suitable."

[WayNeacTia]

Maybe so, but these clauses sure do....

2. 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;

3. 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;

Maybe you’re misunderstanding my clause - my point is the opposite of what you’re saying. Uneducated children having no access to firearms under all circumstances is harmful where literally anyone else can have access to them.

I can read as well as anyone else thanks. You are making the assertion that EVERY house has a gun present in it. Pretty much every state, even the one with the most lax gun laws requires firearms to be kept out of unsupervised children's hands. I understand that since R v. W was overturned, apparently laws don't actually mean what they say, but I would like to think the World Assembly has a bit more class than the United States Supreme Court.....

[Morover]

"Ambassador, you do not increase a child's safety by handing them a firearm with no training on how to use it. It is the most likely outcome that they will harm themselves or some innocent bystander. The requirement for training is suitable."

“In most circumstances we agree, but the fact that there’s no clause
for emergency situations causes harm. Perhaps a policy such as the one in place would work as part of comprehensive gun legislation, but it does not work in a vacuum.”

I’ll add the link to target when I get back to my computer

[Morover]

Maybe you’re misunderstanding my clause - my point is the opposite of what you’re saying. Uneducated children having no access to firearms under all circumstances is harmful where literally anyone else can have access to them.

I can read as well as anyone else thanks. You are making the assertion that EVERY house has a gun present in it. Pretty much every state, even the one with the most lax gun laws requires firearms to be kept out of unsupervised children's hands. I understand that since R v. W was overturned, apparently laws don't actually mean what they say, but I would like to think the World Assembly has a bit more class than the United States Supreme Court.....

I’m not saying you can’t read, I’m saying you’rw interpreting that clause incorrectly - perhaps it could be clearer and I’ll make it clearer in a moment. That’s not referring to houses with firearms in it, that intruders enter - it’s referring to intruders with firearms entering a house. Sure, not every house will have a firearm for the child to defend themselves with, but if an intruder is directly threatening a child, they should have the same right to self defense as anyone else.

On phone, sorry for typos

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

This repeal draft is full of bad and disingenuous arguments. Shameful.

[WayNeacTia]

I can read as well as anyone else thanks. You are making the assertion that EVERY house has a gun present in it. Pretty much every state, even the one with the most lax gun laws requires firearms to be kept out of unsupervised children's hands. I understand that since R v. W was overturned, apparently laws don't actually mean what they say, but I would like to think the World Assembly has a bit more class than the United States Supreme Court.....

I’m not saying you can’t read, I’m saying you’rw interpreting that clause incorrectly - perhaps it could be clearer and I’ll make it clearer in a moment. That’s not referring to houses with firearms in it, that intruders enter - it’s referring to intruders with firearms entering a house. Sure, not every house will have a firearm for the child to defend themselves with, but if an intruder is directly threatening a child, they should have the same right to self defense as anyone else.

On phone, sorry for typos

Are you referring to the child taking away the intruders gun and shooting them? If the intruder isn't following the law, what the hell makes you think the child would in a life threatening situation? Reasonable nation theory is still a thing isn't it?

[Wallenburg]

Personal gun ownership is already a terrible way for preventing or counteracting home invasion, putting those guns in the hands of kids who have no idea how to use them is even worse. Your arguments are no good here.

[Fachumonn]

Support, mostly because I remember reading a proposal of the same name by Greater Cesnica about a year ago and thought it was pretty cool.

Thanks for the support - you reminded me about Cesnica's proposal (which I totally forgot about tbh), so hopefully I'm not stepping on their toes.

Cesnica hasn't been too active in a while. I wouldn't worry about it that much.

[Juansonia]

"Resolution 235 allows for these requirements to not apply to children who have been instructed in the safe and proper use of firearms. In addition, there is nothing in said resolution that requires such education and application be in the form of formal instruction, nor is there anything that prohibits an untrained child using a firearm which was acquired by disarming an assailant. There is nothing stopping a child's parents from teaching him the basics and letting him demonstrate knowledge in the woods near their uncle's backyard, which would satisfy article IV. Therefore, this resolution does not, in fact, ban children from using firearms. Rather, it imposes a training requirement that is easy for any parents and their children to fulfill. None of Morover's argument for repeal stands, and it seems that this shot didn't even hit the target resolution."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

[WayNeacTia]

"Resolution 235 allows for these requirements to not apply to children who have been instructed in the safe and proper use of firearms. In addition, there is nothing in said resolution that requires such education and application be in the form of formal instruction, nor is there anything that prohibits an untrained child using a firearm which was acquired by disarming an assailant. There is nothing stopping a child's parents from teaching him the basics and letting him demonstrate knowledge in the woods near their uncle's backyard, which would satisfy article IV. Therefore, this resolution does not, in fact, ban children from using firearms. Rather, it imposes a training requirement that is easy for any parents and their children to fulfill. None of Morover's argument for repeal stands, and it seems that this shot didn't even hit the target resolution."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

"The equivalent of shooting at someone and hitting the person behind you instead...."

Wayne

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“Ambassador, I get that the intention of this repeal is self-defense for children. However, if should be their parent defending them using a gun, not the child using it in self-defense. First of all, it is the parent’s utmost responsibility to defend the child. Therefore, if a parent just sits back and watches the child defend him/herself, well, that’s just very lazy parenting. Second, children are not as fully developed in intelligence compared to adults, thus either they could accidentally harm someone/themselves without training. Or, when giving training, the child will take a much longer time to learn how to master shooting. And third, if the child does kill someone, he/she can be tried in an adult court later in life. I believe these three points are sufficient to shut this repeal down.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Separatist Peoples]

“Ambassador, I get that the intention of this repeal is self-defense for children. However, if should be their parent defending them using a gun, not the child using it in self-defense. First of all, it is the parent’s utmost responsibility to defend the child. Therefore, if a parent just sits back and watches the child defend him/herself, well, that’s just very lazy parenting. Second, children are not as fully developed in intelligence compared to adults, thus either they could accidentally harm someone/themselves without training. Or, when giving training, the child will take a much longer time to learn how to master shooting. And third, if the child does kill someone, he/she can be tried in an adult court later in life. I believe these three points are sufficient to shut this repeal down.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

"That last point seems very wrong for any legal system not designed to be psychotic, ambassador."

[The Orwell Society]

OOC: Can you use the word "WHEREAS" any more? It seems a tad bit too redundant for my liking, and almost tips the scales on whether or not I want to support this draft in its current state. However, I do support in concept and believe that a replacement resolution should be much more pax in its procedures.

IC:

"We do not support this repeal, not one bit. Children, as well as all non-military and in-law enforcement should be refrained from owning, purchasing, and handling firearms.
-The Orwellian Delegation

[Morover]

"My delegation has updated this draft, clarifying a few of the problem clauses and adding in a clause commenting on the relative vagueness of language leading to malicious nations likely avoiding the substantive spirit of the target."

[Heavens Reach]

WHEREAS the resolution in question may in fact harm children in nations that has incredibly lax gun laws, and an intruder with a firearm may enter a house, leaving children nigh-defenseless if they have not “received an education in firearm safety and proper use"

OOC: the number one cause of death of children in the US is firearms

[Honeydewistania]

Support for repeal but not for these arguments. Children not educated in gun safety should not be given guns to prevent home intrusions.

We would support a repeal on the basis that the target stifles arm manufacturing sales.

-Benji