The PCNation

[Nah]

What is the purpose of minimum wage?

Everyone should at the very least be able to pay their rent and bills and put food on the table, regardless of their job.

It unfortunately does not work out in the US though since $7.25/hr (the minimum wage in over half the states) is more like spending money rather than a livable wage.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Free Trade between our Nation and others is encouraged to promote a trading and connected world.
War is only necessary if it is four our defence or if our allies desperately need our help in conflict.
If a person loses their job or is needed to take time off weather it be maternally leave or serious injury they are eligible to receive welfare checks until they are able to return to work, people who have lost their jobs would also receive assistance to find a new job alongside the money.
Garbage would be used in waste to energy power plants to help power our nation and get rid of useless garbage instead of filling land fills.
Renewable energy would be something that my party would be looking into in order to sources of renewable energy that are efficient and generate enough power to one day take the place of norenewable energy.
My party will crack down on crime with my proposed gun laws being our first step of fighting crime.
Refugees will only be taken if we are in a position to be able to support them and our own people.

While I do like how your current party is set-up, I don't think the first step should be proposed gun laws this harsh. I believe our parties should work together try to ensure crime is dealt with with higher sentences on violent crimes and making sure our court system isn't skewed to allow the rich to get out of most of the jail easily because they can afford the best of the best regarding lawyers. Why bother following the law when you can just buy your way out of it's repercussions?

 

[Biogoji]

Yeah I think i worded it a bit properly by saying that would be my first step to fight crime but I would be interested a potential working relationship between our two parties on the subject of crime.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Alrighty, I see it as a huge possibility. However, since we do try to protect peoples rights, we do not wish that these weapons should be banned and two specific weapon types should require special licensing as aforementioned (High-Caliber Semi-Auto Rifles and Low-Caliber Fully-Auto Pistols). To de-incentivize gun crime, we have already stated that we would rather have conceal-carry in public areas with the clause that those who have already committed a crime with a deadly weapon are restricted from conceal-carry and a ban on open-carry. Hopefully we can agree with this.

Anyways, I'll have to go for now.

 

[gimmepie]

Alrighty, I see it as a huge possibility. However, since we do try to protect peoples rights, we do not wish that these weapons should be banned and two specific weapon types should require special licensing as aforementioned (High-Caliber Semi-Auto Rifles and Low-Caliber Fully-Auto Pistols). To de-incentivize gun crime, we have already stated that we would rather have conceal-carry in public areas with the clause that those who have already committed a crime with a deadly weapon are restricted from conceal-carry and a ban on open-carry. Hopefully we can agree with this.

Anyways, I'll have to go for now.

The problem here, is that this doesn't prevent gun-violence it makes it easier. I've said it before, but the people who commit violent crimes are rarely hardened and organised criminals. It's usually the mentally unstable or normal people who have snapped under the pressure of a bad situation.

Giving these people easy access to highly dangerous weapons and the right to not only carry them in the public domain but to hide them is a recipe disaster. An absence of gun control is how you end up like the US which has one of the highest gun-violence rates in the Western world and now has guns so engrained in the culture of the country that it's all but impossible to get needed gun control passed.

Edit: Also I have the information for my own party up.

 

[Biogoji]

Alrighty, I see it as a huge possibility. However, since we do try to protect peoples rights, we do not wish that these weapons should be banned and two specific weapon types should require special licensing as aforementioned (High-Caliber Semi-Auto Rifles and Low-Caliber Fully-Auto Pistols). To de-incentivize gun crime, we have already stated that we would rather have conceal-carry in public areas with the clause that those who have already committed a crime with a deadly weapon are restricted from conceal-carry and a ban on open-carry. Hopefully we can agree with this.

Anyways, I'll have to go for now.

I have to agree with gimmepie this wouldn't prevent gun violence it would just let people carry dangerous weapons that would be hidden until the moment they decide to strike.

I agree with you we should be trying to protect our people's rights and not taking their rights away from them but this is something that needs to be done for the good of the people.

 

[gimmepie]

I have to agree with gimmepie this wouldn't prevent gun violence it would just let people carry dangerous weapons that would be hidden until the moment they decide to strike.

I agree with you we should be trying to protect our people's rights and not taking their rights away from them but this is something that needs to be done for the good of the people.

Well there's plenty of room to argue that the limitations I'm suggesting don't infringe on our citizens rights. We have a "right to bear arms" yes, and we aren't preventing people from owning a firearm. We're simply regulating which kinds of gun are available to the general public.

 

[Biogoji]

Well there's plenty of room to argue that the limitations I'm suggesting don't infringe on our citizens rights. We have a "right to bear arms" yes, and we aren't preventing people from owning a firearm. We're simply regulating which kinds of gun are available to the general public.

I probably could have worded it better what I was trying to say is that people who similar opinions to Thepowaofhax may take it as us politicians trying to take their rights away which is really not the case as we are really just regulating dangerous weapons that the average Joe does't need to make our nation safer.

 

[Kanzler]

I don't know what the exact numbers are, but a liveable wage is somewhere far north of $10 an hour, perhaps at least $15 an hour.

2. For being hard on crime, I tend to believe that less gun laws and harsher crime sentences would de-incentivize major crimes like arson, theft, armed robbery, ETC. You wouldn't want to rob a store with a gun if you could get sentenced 25 years, would you?

Less gun laws might disincentivize each possible case of violent crime, but it promotes an American-like gun society where guns are everywhere and untraceable - I believe it expands the pool of possible violent crime far more than it prevents a deterrent to violent crime.

2. A statement of exactly how much cash anyone trading in a no longer legal firearm is entitled to.

3. A stipulation preventing the carrying of a firearm in a public location, concealed or otherwise, outside of professions that warrant the possession of the weapon. This obviously would not extend to licensed firing ranges and in transit to and from said firing ranges.

I don't believe 2. is necessary. Just have it state market value (which would be an accurate description of a fair compensation) and let the bureaucrats figure it out.

I agree with 3. The carrying of firearms in public should be controlled.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

I don't know what the exact numbers are, but a liveable wage is somewhere far north of $10 an hour, perhaps at least $15 an hour.



Less gun laws might disincentivize each possible case of violent crime, but it promotes an American-like gun society where guns are everywhere and untraceable - I believe it expands the pool of possible violent crime far more than it prevents a deterrent to violent crime.

Yeah, no. In America, it's completely legal for you have to a fully-automatic weapon. And besides, if more citizens have a weapon, you wouldn't want to attack someone because of the chance you might get shot back, whether it be the person you shot at or another person.

I have to agree with gimmepie this wouldn't prevent gun violence it would just let people carry dangerous weapons that would be hidden until the moment they decide to strike.

I agree with you we should be trying to protect our people's rights and not taking their rights away from them but this is something that needs to be done for the good of the people.

Why would you try to strike when anyone in public could have a pistol? While I agree people who have already committed crimes with a weapon shouldn't be able to have a conceal-carry permit, I don't believe we should restrict guns to these levels. The citizen would be safer in public is more people have guns because most people value their lives and wouldn't be dumb enough to shoot into a crowd of people where most of them have a gun of their own.

I probably could have worded it better what I was trying to say is that people who similar opinions to Thepowaofhax may take it as us politicians trying to take their rights away which is really not the case as we are really just regulating dangerous weapons that the average Joe does't need to make our nation safer.

The only thing the average Joe shouldn't be allowed to have are fully automatic weapons. They should have the ability to get small-caliber semi-autos. They can get high-caliber ones by getting a special permit requiring no prior record and militia training. This bill ultimately limits the rights of people and could devastate our current civilian gun market.

 

[Kanzler]

Yeah, no. In America, it's completely legal for you have to a fully-automatic weapon. And besides, if more citizens have a weapon, you wouldn't want to attack someone because of the chance you might get shot back, whether it be the person you shot at or another person.

Why would you try to strike when anyone in public could have a pistol? While I agree people who have already committed crimes with a weapon shouldn't be able to have a conceal-carry permit, I don't believe we should restrict guns to these levels. The citizen would be safer in public is more people have guns because most people value their lives and wouldn't be dumb enough to shoot into a crowd of people where most of them have a gun of their own.

We're not trying to recreate America here with its high rates of gun violence. And you're missing the point - if more citizens have weapons, that's more citizens to use those weapons in crimes or to solve disputes. And I believe the factor of there being more weapons causing a greater potential for violent incidences is more significant than the deterrence factor of more people having guns.

You're assuming a society where people having guns is the default. That's why you think it's so important that the population be armed. Try placing yourself in the shoes of someone who feels safe while living in a country where most people are not armed.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

We're not trying to recreate America here with its high rates of gun violence. And you're missing the point - if more citizens have weapons, that's more citizens to use those weapons in crimes or to solve disputes. And I believe the factor of there being more weapons causing a greater potential for violent incidences is more significant than the deterrence factor of more people having guns.

You're assuming a society where people having guns is the default. That's why you think it's so important that the population be armed. Try placing yourself in the shoes of someone who feels safe while living in a country where most people are not armed.

You're assuming that the average citizen would be dumb enough to use a gun in public with no prior reason; whether it would be self-defense or for the defense of another, which would be idiotic in nature when you factor in allowing people having a conceal-carry permit and allowing them to have their gun in public with that permit.

Not only does are party think this deterrent is important since it also doesn't restrict the consumer and cause a crash in our current civilian gun market (where semi-automatic rifles are the being sold the most), but we believe in harsher crime sentences for those who commit violent crime. Both deterrents would make it a harder choice for committing a crime or not.

A country where the citizens aren't armed is not safe by default. Not only does the restriction on firearms means that the citizen is unarmed, but criminals will be more inclined not follow the law because there is no fear of getting shot by the citizen.

 

[gimmepie]

A country where the citizens aren't armed is not safe by default. Not only does the restriction on firearms means that the citizen is unarmed, but criminals will be more inclined not follow the law because there is no fear of getting shot by the citizen.

And yet places like Australia and the UK where guns are far less distributed have much less gun violence and, for memory, less violent crime in general.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

And yet places like Australia and the UK where guns are far less distributed have much less gun violence and, for memory, less violent crime in general.

Both places are geographically isolated. It would be hard to smuggle in an illegal gun. Mainly that's because they're both islands that aren't bordering any countries and they had banned guns.

 

[Kanzler]

Both places are geographically isolated. It would be hard to smuggle in an illegal gun. Mainly that's because they're both islands that aren't bordering any countries and they had banned guns.

Then consider Canada, which has an open border with the US, and has to deal with guns illegally smuggled from the US, but still enjoys a much lower rate of violent crime.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Then consider Canada, which has an open border with the US, and has to deal with guns illegally smuggled from the US, but still enjoys a much lower rate of violent crime.

Yeah, about that.

For starters, Canada has a much lower population with much of the population being located in a few specific cities. Places like Nunavut and other territories generally has less than 300,000 people in each territory over such a huge part of the landmass, meaning that the population density is relatively low. Crime tends to proliferate in more urban, higher density areas. Another thing to consider is the fact that Canada doesn't have a ban on all guns, they have a ban on automatic guns, handguns of certain barrel length or higher, modified firearms and most semi-automatic assault weapons. There are also some exemptions that allow some assault weapons, however it is controversial.

Also, gun ownership is "comparatively high". I don't see why you would use Canada to support your claim, as it still has a "higher" gun distribution, which argues in favor of not banning these weapons (or at least fully-automatic firearms). Mexico would probably be more fitting here, since it has a lot of gang violence (however most of those guns were obtained illegally to begin with.)

Source (source has citations for claims).

 

[Kanzler]

Uh, ok.

1) Crime rates take population into account. Canada has a homicide rate of 1.5 homicides per 100,000 people. The US has a homicide rate of 5.2 per 100,000. Canada has a less than a third of the homicide rate as the US.

source: https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/safety/

2) Although Canada has a low population density overall, it is about as urbanized as the US (actually even a tiny bit more) - 81.8% to 81.6% - indicating that the same proportion of people in both countries live in cities.

source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2212.html

3) We're not considering a ban on all guns, the right to firearms is in the PC constitution and I thought there was no disagreement on that. What we're talking about is gun control, limiting the kind of firearms that can be made available, limiting who can buy a firearm, limiting when and where you can use a firearm, and enforcing a level of training and discretion for those who own firearms.

4) There are a lot of guns in Canada. Why aren't we shooting each other up like you guys do in the States? Because we have gun control. Canada fits perfectly in my argument because it's an example of a country with many guns that also manages to not let that cause an exorbitant amount of violence.

So yes, let's have gun laws so we can have our guns and also be safe like Canada, and not the United States.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Uh, ok.

1) Crime rates take population into account. Canada has a homicide rate of 1.5 homicides per 100,000 people. The US has a homicide rate of 5.2 per 100,000. Canada has a less than a third of the homicide rate as the US.

source: https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/safety/

2) Although Canada has a low population density overall, it is about as urbanized as the US (actually even a tiny bit more) - 81.8% to 81.6% - indicating that the same proportion of people in both countries live in cities.

source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2212.html

3) We're not considering a ban on all guns, the right to firearms is in the PC constitution and I thought there was no disagreement on that. What we're talking about is gun control, limiting the kind of firearms that can be made available, limiting who can buy a firearm, limiting when and where you can use a firearm, and enforcing a level of training and discretion for those who own firearms.

4) There are a lot of guns in Canada. Why aren't we shooting each other up like you guys do in the States? Because we have gun control. Canada fits perfectly in my argument because it's an example of a country with many guns that also manages to not let that cause an exorbitant amount of violence.

So yes, let's have gun laws so we can have our guns and also be safe like Canada, and not the United States.

Except most of this is just banning weaponry of a specific type when Canada clearly shows that some of the weapons other want banned are the same weapons that are legal in Canada (namely semi-automatic rifles; we can ban assault weapons but not semi-automatic weaponry that doesn't fit in as an assault weapon). If anything, this only shows that more regulation on who gets those guns lowers crime.

Also, according to this, more guns = less crime. All we really need to do is put more regulations and ban fully-automatic weapons. And Britain skews their crime states. Go figure.

 

[Kanzler]

Also, according to this, more guns = less crime.

Why?

Except most of this is just banning weaponry of a specific type when Canada clearly shows that some of the weapons other want banned are the same weapons that are legal in Canada (namely semi-automatic rifles; we can ban assault weapons but not semi-automatic weaponry that doesn't fit in as an assault weapon). If anything, this only shows that more regulation on who gets those guns lowers crime.

Personally, I'm not too sure about the strength of the link between semi-automatic weapons and the menace they present to the public as well. Glad to see you're on board with improving regulations on guns in general.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Why?



Personally, I'm not too sure about the strength of the link between semi-automatic weapons and the menace they present to the public as well. Glad to see you're on board with improving regulations on guns in general.

Yes, I know the source has a lot of text, but if you read through it does shed some light. For example, some surveys exclude weapons technically owned by the government but in the hand of citizens, or how the UK and Wales excludes homicides that don't result into convictions, etc. For example, there's this:

There's also some more comparisons. I'll elaborate some more when I get back home since I have to go right now.

Edit:

Basically, it pointed out that the Small Arms Survey was inclined to be bias due to multiple factors, mentions the UK/Wales problem and how if the US did it the way they did it, the homicide rate would be close to 2.28 or so and in the other article it shown that there was a spike in the homicide rate of the UK after the UK ban on hand guns.