• Ever thought it'd be cool to have your art, writing, or challenge runs featured on PokéCommunity? Click here for info - we'd love to spotlight your work!
  • Dawn, Gloria, Juliana, or Summer - which Pokémon protagonist is your favorite? Let us know by voting in our poll!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

The PCNation

BadSheep said:
Well the link I gave you listed statistics and listed the sources for these statistics. They aren't made up or fudged.

No one died because the man with the gun had no intention to kill them. If he had the intention to kill them, he would have. And how did he get that gun? I thought they were banned. And not every case is going to end up peacefully like this one.
Click to expand...

Because statistics can never be skewed.

Nobody died because the situation was effectively handled by trained professionals. As for the gun, no idea how he got it but guns here aren't banned they are controlled. It's not impossible to get a gun, but it's also illegal to carry them around the place so people don't and as a result we have a lot less gun violence and far fewer fatalities.

Off course not every situation will be resolved peacefully, but that's not an excuse to create as much bloodshed as possible.
 
BadSheep said:
Ok, so the country starts with no fire-arms within the nation. How will we prevent illegal weapons from entering the country? Again, gun control will not solve this issue, but only make a defenseless population. What if our government becomes a tyranny? How else will the people defend themselves?
Click to expand...

Well, let's have a look at Canada, who has to deal with smuggled weapons obtained freely in the United States. We would have a police force and border security that prevents the smuggling of such contraband items.

Personally, I believe a strong constitution is the best defence against tyranny. I can't remember the last time Americans rose up in arms against the government (if we excuse the defence of slavery), but I do know that many gun-related deaths have occurred.

I think we will have a party system whether we like it or not. I don't know how effective it would be at a national level to ban the association of parties. It might go counter to some political freedoms as well. Even if we do ban it, people will likely form factions that aren't as official, but just as real.
 
gimmepie said:
Because statistics can never be skewed.

Nobody died because the situation was effectively handled by trained professionals. As for the gun, no idea how he got it but guns here aren't banned they are controlled. It's not impossible to get a gun, but it's also illegal to carry them around the place so people don't and as a result we have a lot less gun violence and far fewer fatalities.

Off course not every situation will be resolved peacefully, but that's not an excuse to create as much bloodshed as possible.
Click to expand...

Again, the sources the article uses are in the bottom.

And them being illegal to carry around did not prevent the incident. If the ladies being held hostage had guns, the incident would never have occurred. Very few people would want to attack someone knowing they had guns.

But crime has increased:
https://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847

So gun violence has decreased, but instead, knife homicides have increased.
https://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html

Gun control is clearly not the answer!
 
BadSheep I disagree with this, I don't want to deal with a mass shooting every week, where hundreds of children get shot in their schools, I stand by my idea that making guns legal is stupid.
Edit: Can we have a vote on this issue, might as well.
Also, as gimmepie said your evidence is from Gun sites which is of course bias (you can deny it, but you know it is true). So all your evidence equals nothing, I will listen to you if you have proper evidence to support your arguments. And by saying the government is taking all your freedoms shows the type of person you are.
 
Last edited:
JohnnyMustang said:
Ok, before we go any further with this... I think it's time for a vote, all opinions have been heard and we've discussed enough in this subject. I agree with the vote.
Click to expand...

I think we should have a poll. I just thought we were going around in circles about the issues, and we needed a vote so I decided to call on one.
 
Actually most of my sources were from not from gun websites. And the websites with the guns listed their sources on the bottom (it does not prevent smudging facts 100%, but you can look at the sources and judge that for yourself). So I got the actual study by the Institute of Medicine, Committee on Law and Justice, and National Research Council and stuff download https://www.nap.edu/download.php?record_id=18319 You will have to download the PDF file of the book and look on page 45 center paragraph. it says that there are about 60,000-120,000 cases of guns used in self defense (NCVS study), and lists other studies displaying that guns used in self defense increase the victim's chance of injury or death decrease.
 
I don't feel that the right to bear arms has to be constitutionally protected. Off the top of my head, I know that only the US and Mexico has this. Canada, the UK, even Switzerland, do not constitutionally protect such a right. And even Mexico provides that the federal government set the conditions under which weapons can be owned and used. It's only the US I believe where the language protecting the rights to bear arms is so vague and open that people sincerely believe that there should be no regulations. I don't think it's appropriate to privilege that right on the same level as the right to political representation, fair treatment under the law, life, liberty, and security, and fundamental freedoms. If anything, the right to keep and bear arms is a subset to the right to self-defence, which is much more fundamental and is so obvious that I don't think it's constitutionally protected anywhere.
 
So now that's over. Should we talk about how our Parliament will work, and the different parties. I hope it is more than 2 like in the UK rather than the US which has only 2 major parties and a few others which hardly have any power or publicity.
 
Steel Master said:
So now that's over. Should we talk about how our Parliament will work, and the different parties. I hope it is more than 2 like in the UK rather than the US which has only 2 major parties and a few others which hardly have any power or publicity.
Click to expand...

I think no political parties would be best, but like what Kanzler previously stated, unofficial parties would just be created. I agree with you, more than two parties might be better because we have more choices that actually matter. For example, in the US, the Libertarian party has no power, so there is no use in voting for a Libertarian candidate. The only way around this would be for a Libertarian to run for the Republican party (ex: Ron Paul and Rand Paul did this), but even then, Republicans would never vote for them. So yes, lets have more than two parties!
 
Should the PCNation's constitution include a right to "bear arms"?

If constitution means as in structure, formation then the answering is f--king hell no. We have other pressing matters to discuss on, from monetary, medical, educational and so on. Yes that sounds serious, but let's not forget the event is about a nation.

We aren't even done with the newly established government yet (like the parliament as Steel Master says) and we're already discussing about firearms and weapons!?

Sorry for sounding so worked up, I'm pissed because the procedure is not going correctly. For Bidoof's sake, we're barely done on the appetizers, we're already taking the desserts now?
 
Sun said:
Should the PCNation's constitution include a right to "bear arms"?

If constitution means as in structure, formation then the answering is f--king hell no. We have other pressing matters to discuss on, from monetary, medical, educational and so on. Yes that sounds serious, but let's not forget the event is about a nation.
Click to expand...

So we should completely ignore a bill of rights, which be included so that our citizens don't overthrow the government and execute every politician? Should we also include no right to privacy, no right to a free trial, no religious freedom and no freedom of thought in our constitution due to no bill of rights, since you know, constitutions must only be for structure? If there is no bill of rights to insure our citizen's freedoms, we will have a country that will lead to political turmoil due to corruption. It doesn't matter a constitution has a good structure if we have no way to insure our citizen's freedoms.
 
He's just talking about doing things in order is all. You need the basic framework up first before getting to the rest, right? It's like if you tried to build a house by starting with the plumbing instead of laying the foundation. It's not that a bill of rights or some such is unimportant (because it is important), but that maybe that should discussed a bit later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sun
You can't impose that there be a certain number of parties. As long as people have the freedom of association, they will form however many parties they wish. What would affect the number of viable parties is the voting system. The two main systems are first past the post and proportional representation, but there are others as well.
 
I tend to agree that a bill of rights/constitution should come after deciding the general working of the government, that being said I don't think we should limit discussion since I feel that the two phases are a bit more interlinked than we seem to be making out. For example, a lot of our governments more intimate workings could or should go into the constitution. On another note, I'm going to write up a bill of rights and/or a constitution later.

As for Kanzler's most recent point, I feel that a FPTP in the best system. If there's one thing I dislike about politics in my own country, it's the convoluted system we have of re-allocating votes that benefits nobody but the major parties especially because it doesn't create accurate representation.
 
gimmepie said:
I tend to agree that a bill of rights/constitution should come after deciding the general working of the government, that being said I don't think we should limit discussion since I feel that the two phases are a bit more interlinked than we seem to be making out. For example, a lot of our governments more intimate workings could or should go into the constitution. On another note, I'm going to write up a bill of rights and/or a constitution later.

As for Kanzler's most recent point, I feel that a FPTP in the best system. If there's one thing I dislike about politics in my own country, it's the convoluted system we have of re-allocating votes that benefits nobody but the major parties especially because it doesn't create accurate representation.
Click to expand...

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/first-past-the-post

Im not going to argue your point, but there seems to be a lot of disadvantages. Can you elaborate a bit more? I do not know much about the voting system, but as long as its not like the United State's voting system, I'm happy.
 
BadSheep said:
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/first-past-the-post

Im not going to argue your point, but there seems to be a lot of disadvantages. Can you elaborate a bit more? I do not know much about the voting system, but as long as its not like the United State's voting system, I'm happy.
Click to expand...

It's the one thing I think the US government does well aside from not forcing citizens to vote. I don't like a system where your vote can be transferred from one party to another they support (but that you do not necessarily) if they don't have enough. It's needlessly complicated and doesn't accurately represent the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top