The PCNation

Thepowaofhax said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. Though, perhaps we should enforce the regulations we already have. Sometimes the regulations are already in place, the only thing missing is the will to implement them. If that doesn't help then we can add a few more, like lengthening the background check process, one still gets their gun, it will only take longer to get it.
 
UndertakerFreak1127 said:
I have a proposal for a law: no PokeCommunity NRA.
Click to expand...
No. Just no. We can't just ban something because of it being of a different political side. That would be against our constitution as it could be seen as silencing potential free speech.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire said:
I agree. Though, perhaps we should enforce the regulations we already have. Sometimes the regulations are already in place, the only thing missing is the will to implement them. If that doesn't help then we can add a few more, like lengthening the background check process, one still gets their gun, it will only take longer to get it.
Click to expand...
That could probably work, as long as it isn't a ridiculous wait time.
 
Thepowaofhax said:
More guns = less crime.
Click to expand...

No they do not. More guns mean more the possiblities of more massacres like Sandy Hook and Port Arthur. Further more I was comparing some statistics between Australia and Canada and Canada a country where you can buy Semi-Automatic weapons has two times more violent gun grime more then Australia where you can't buy Semi-Automatics.

Less Guns = Less Crime

Edit: Quick question to powers that be, How much longer will it be until there's a vote on this or we move on to debate of another policy.
 
Last edited:
Biogoji said:
Edit: Quick question to powers that be, How much longer will it be until there's a vote on this or we move on to debate of another policy.
Click to expand...
We can let it go for another couple of days before bringing it to vote. I don't know if we have any new laws/bills to discuss right now anyway, I haven't received any proposal PMs and I don't know what gimmie's gotten besides this one.
 
Okay, here's proposal that will please no one due to Golden Mean fallacy so hell if I know why I'm even bothering.

Automatics and deadlier: Military, high-end tactical law enforcement
Semi-automatics: Military, low-mid level law enforcement, civilians who are part of a sanctioned militia

Revolvers, bolt-rifles, shotguns: Civilians with a proper license and all other military/law enforcement

Investments in smart gun technology for civilians
Funding for mental health screening
Background checks mandatory for all purchases
For civilian level weapons: To purchases a type of weapon you must pass a background and mental health check, along with at least 40-50 hours of training from a credited institution (NRA-like lobby institutions do not count, the institutions must be impartial to the moral standpoints of gun ownership)
Open carry/concealed carry still TBD, someone get on that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nah
No to open/concealed carry. Freedom to have firearms is okay with me, but having such an open American-style gun culture is not. If all of PCNation is Vermont then I'd be okay with that, but public carrying of firearms presents a danger to already unsafe and impoverished communities.
 
Just to answer an earlier question, I have got three bills pending following this one. One of my own and two from someone else.

Anyway, I'm okay with bringing this to a vote over the next few days but I think we should discuss amendments to the bill first to finalise exactly what we're voting on. Otherwise we might have to vote for which version of the bill we're going to vote on. Welcome to politics xD
 
Well we should have profissional psichologists bacause the chances of suicide suceeding when Someone have a gun is 100℅
 
Kaneki!!! said:
Well we should have profissional psichologists bacause the chances of suicide suceeding when Someone have a gun is 100℅
Click to expand...

The chance of suicide succeeding might be 100% if the individual in question has a desire to die and also owns a gun. However I think that's much less of a problem than people killing other people. Still, I do agree that a psychological evaluation should definitely be required as a part of the process of obtaining a gun licence.
 
Right I have put together what I believe should be the finalized version of this bill I have proposed feel free to discuss anything you think should be added or taken away from the bill after I make the post.

National Fire Arms Arrangement Bill

All Fully Automatic and Semi Automatic rifles as well as Semi Automatic and Pump Action shotguns will be banned, anyone who has currently possess these weapons will be able to take place in a guyback problem that will last for at least eight months where people will be able to trade in guns for money. The money recevied depends on the value for the type of gun in particular. Anyone who is found in possession of banned guns after the buyback period will be charged with a fine the seizure of the illegal weapons and potential jail time. Anyone who wishes to buy a gun following this must qualify for the purchase by passing a background check, being eighteen or older, have a genuine reason for owning a gun. (hunting and property defence count are examples of genuine reasons), have a secure storage for the gun and have a gun license a twenty eight day waiting period for gun purchases will also be in effect. To obtain a gun license you must be over the age of twelve, pass a background check and a psychological evaluation. Note that a person under the age of twelve can only use guns and not actually own them. (People who don't have a gun license may use a gun for target practice at a home or other private property but only under supervision of someone who has a license and but only in rural and not suburban areas) A gun license can potentially can be suspend or revoked if a owner shows psychological problems and if they commit certain criminal offences. (As a speeding ticket won't cost you your gun license but something like assault or drug use may). This bill would also make carrying a concealed fire arm a criminal offence that can result in a suspension of a gun license and a fine however this does not include the transport to and from a gun range.

So that is my current final version of the bill i wish to propose the only thing I'm not sure about it is the value of guns at the gun buyback I was really just throwing around a number so if you want to make up some prices or just leave it to the bureaucrats it's your choice. I'm happy with any suggestions for the price and I'm good with hearing any more discussion about the bill before we vote on. And do tell me if I missed anything that you think should be added.
 
Last edited:
Biogoji said:
Right I have put together what I believe should be the finalized version of this bill I have proposed feel free to discuss anything you think should be added or taken away from the bill after I make the post.

National Fire Arms Arrangement Bill

All Fully Automatic and Semi Automatic rifles as well as Semi Automatic and Pump Action shotguns will be banned, anyone who has currently possess these weapons will be able to take place in a guyback problem that will last for at least eight months where people will be able to trade in guns for money. The money recevied depends on the type of gun but $900 is the maxium that will be paid for a single gun. Anyone who is found in possession of banned guns after the buyback period will be charged with a fine the seizure of the illegal weapons and potential jail time. Anyone who wishes to buy a gun following this must qualify for the purchase by passing a background check, being eighteen or older, have a genuine reason for owning a gun. (hunting and property defence count are examples of genuine reasons), have a secure storage for the gun and have a gun license a twenty eight day waiting period for gun purchases will also be in effect. To obtain a gun license you must be over the age of twelve, pass a background check and a psychological evaluation. Note that a person under the age of twelve can only use guns and not actually own them. (People who don't have a gun license may use a gun for target practice at a home or other private property but only under supervision of someone who has a license) A gun license can potentially can be suspend or revoked if a owner shows psychological problems and if they commit certain criminal offences. (As a speeding ticket won't cost you your gun license but something like assault or drug use may). This bill would also make carrying a concealed fire arm a criminal offence that can result in a suspension of a gun license and a fine.

So that is my current final version of the bill i wish to propose the only thing I'm not sure about it is the value of guns at the gun buyback I was really just throwing around a number so if you want to make up some prices or just leave it to the bureaucrats it's your choice. I'm happy with any suggestions for the price and I'm good with hearing any more discussion about the bill before we vote on. And do tell me if I missed anything that you think should be added.
Click to expand...

This is better but there's a few issues still in my eyes

1. Gun use on private property is fine, but not in the suburbs where you're right next to your neighbours. That creates unnecessary danger and irritating noise. In rural areas that's less of an issue.

2. I'd rather just say "a price equivalent to the value of the firearm".

3. I don't want carry in the public domain concealed or otherwise beyond transport to a licensed firing range or similar.
 
The banning of pump-action shotguns kind of turns me off from that proposal, seeing as how they're pretty common in household defence.

I'm honestly standing by my proposal, less formally written as is.
 
CarcharOdin said:
The banning of pump-action shotguns kind of turns me off from that proposal, seeing as how they're pretty common in household defence.

I'm honestly standing by my proposal, less formally written as is.
Click to expand...

You can claim that they're helpful for household defence, but quite frankly if someone breaks into your house they're going to be just as turned off if they find a handgun pointed at their head. Gun is generally synonymous with death to most people regardless of the size of the weapon. If that person breaks into your house intending to kill you, which is doubtful, you're probably going to die regardless of what kind of gun you own also.

I see no reason for the general public to be packing guns at all, but I see even less reason for them to be in possession of more than a handgun.
 
gimmepie said:
You can claim that they're helpful for household defence, but quite frankly if someone breaks into your house they're going to be just as turned off if they find a handgun pointed at their head. Gun is generally synonymous with death to most people regardless of the size of the weapon. If that person breaks into your house intending to kill you, which is doubtful, you're probably going to die regardless of what kind of gun you own also.

I see no reason for the general public to be packing guns at all, but I see even less reason for them to be in possession of more than a handgun.
Click to expand...
Do you know precisely and matter of fact whether or not a shotgun is inherently more powerful or deadly than a handgun? You ARE aware of the mechanics behind a shotgun, right? If you're going to make the case that a burglar is going to die regardless of what kind of gun you use, you might as well go all the way in either direction: either any kind of gun is legal to use or none of them are.
 
CarcharOdin said:
Do you know precisely and matter of fact whether or not a shotgun is inherently more powerful or deadly than a handgun? You ARE aware of the mechanics behind a shotgun, right? If you're going to make the case that a burglar is going to die regardless of what kind of gun you use, you might as well go all the way in either direction: either any kind of gun is legal to use or none of them are.
Click to expand...

I don't claim to be an expert on firearms, so can I say for sure that I know precisely the power of each gun compared to another? No. I also don't think I need to. I do however know that shotguns tend to spray a wide area when their ammunition breaks apart as opposed to an intact precise bullet. That makes them more dangerous to a wide group of people even if they may not be more powerful.

The point before is that the burglar shouldn't die for stealing. That's a ridiculous notion to me. Shooting someone for breaking into your house to steal your TV isn't self defence it's revenge. If someone breaks into your house brandishing a machete or a gun fully intending to kill you, the gun you have safety and responsibly stored away isn't going to save you either. So I don't think "I need a better gun to defend my home" really cuts it as an argument.

What's the most important is "if this person decides to commit a crime" or "if this person goes mad" how can we limit the amount of damage they can do without infringing their rights. The answer here is
1. Make it difficult to get access to guns that can fire a lot of bullets quickly.
2. Make it difficult to get access to guns that can inadvertently cause damage to others or their property due to a wide spray.
3. Psych evaluations.
4. No public carry so we don't have a bunch of armed vigilantes running around just dying to whip out their gun and play hero.

This doesn't infringe anybodies rights.
You can still defend yourself with your gun in your home if you need to (not that you're likely to get the chance if you're actually in danger).
This creates a safer country for everyone as opposed to the rampant, dangerous gun culture that pervades the United States.
 
gimmepie said:
The point before is that the burglar shouldn't die for stealing. That's a ridiculous notion to me. Shooting someone for breaking into your house to steal your TV isn't self defense it's revenge.
Click to expand...
Cool. I'll keep this in mind next time I'm in Australia. Sounds like a great place to go looting.

All joking aside, unless you're telepathically connected to the invader's brain, you have no clue whatsoever whether or not he's there to be a psychopath or make a quick buck. So as far as I'm concerned your argument of "oh, they're just going to steal the TV no guns in house" falls just as flat to me as the whole "need a better" does to you.

I really don't know why I bother. I learned long ago arguing gun rights with select people in this forum is like screwing for virginity.
 
CarcharOdin said:
Cool. I'll keep this in mind next time I'm in Australia. Sounds like a great place to go looting.

All joking aside, unless you're telepathically connected to the invader's brain, you have no clue whatsoever whether or not he's there to be a psychopath or make a quick buck. So as far as I'm concerned your argument of "oh, they're just going to steal the TV no guns in house" falls just as flat to me as the whole "need a better" does to you.

I really don't know why I bother. I learned long ago arguing gun rights with select people in this forum is like screwing for virginity.
Click to expand...

You don't need to be telepathic to tell if an unarmed intruder is there to hurt you. Hell, if you walk into to your lounge room at midnight and there's a person standing there going through your shit, weapon or no, there's a good chance they aren't there intending to hurt you. You want to stay safe in that situation, you let them do what they came to do and you'll probably never see them again.

I also never said you can't keep a gun. You just can't shoot someone unless they are a threat to your safety or your family's, which they're not unless they try make an aggressive move towards you or point a gun at you. The latter of which is highly unlikely in a society where it isn't easy to get one.

You bother because you're pro-gun.
The same as I bother because I'm anti-gun. I think you'd find that you could enjoy debates on the matter more if you didn't go in expecting you'll change peoples opinions.
 
gimmepie said:
You don't need to be telepathic to tell if an unarmed intruder is there to hurt you. Hell, if you walk into to your lounge room at midnight and there's a person standing there going through your shit, weapon or no, there's a good chance they aren't there intending to hurt you. You want to stay safe in that situation, you let them do what they came to do and you'll probably never see them again.

I also never said you can't keep a gun. You just can't shoot someone unless they are a threat to your safety or your family's, which they're not unless they try make an aggressive move towards you or point a gun at you. The latter of which is highly unlikely in a society where it isn't easy to get one.

You bother because you're pro-gun.
The same as I bother because I'm anti-gun. I think you'd find that you could enjoy debates on the matter more if you didn't go in expecting you'll change peoples opinions.
Click to expand...
I shouldn't have to come back to this forum for one post after my permanent leave to tell you how wrong that is. They are an intruder, they are committing burglary and theft, and we should just sit there idly like a fucking moron and let them steal my hard-earned shit? God forbid if I shoot someone for being exactly what they are; a burglar. It shouldn't matter if it looks like they won't attack me; the moment they know you're awake fight or flight will kick in. They are a threat by definition, and should be treated as one; you shouldn't value a criminal's life and let them free if they're going through your house. It's their fucking fault for waltzing up into the wrong house trying to steal the wrong shit. THIS is the kind of shit that would bring more crime, because why the fuck should I just earn my shit when I could steal all the shit I want and not be shot by people? Oh, that's right! Guns kill people and not the actual fucking people! Why not ban them in the suburbs as well, because clearly everyone is a fucking psychopath and clearly we can't trust them with a weapon to defend themselves, because clearly they'll shoot everyone up like Columbine!

If I ever come back for this thread, I will launch a political revolution. Truce Party majority states will break away from this disdainful union.

Biogoji said:
No they do not. More guns mean more the possiblities of more massacres like Sandy Hook and Port Arthur. Further more I was comparing some statistics between Australia and Canada and Canada a country where you can buy Semi-Automatic weapons has two times more violent gun grime more then Australia where you can't buy Semi-Automatics.

Less Guns = Less Crime

Edit: Quick question to powers that be, How much longer will it be until there's a vote on this or we move on to debate of another policy.
Click to expand...
I've already posted a source showing how the Small Arms Survey is biased, and even with their biased chart, magically Finland and Switzerland have extremely low crime rates where they placed both at around 40 guns per person (which we know that 40 guns per person in Switzerland is bullshit because they practically give every adult a gun there).

Also, the banning of guns always correlates to higher crime. It happened in England and that same source already showed England's homicide rate is skewed by if it was a persecuted homicide or not (which was introduced years later AFTER the ban), and if we did the same system, our homicide rate would decrease by more than 50%.

Again, here is the other source.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top