SENATE BILL: Firearms and Mental Health Act of 2013 (Law'd)

[Napoleon]

to make sure we don't have people using guns to take lives (whether in acts of murder or self-harm). The way I see it, the gun is a big player in this equation.

A tax will not do that. That has been my point this whole time. I understand that this is your concern, I'm just telling you that the proposed solution is going to be ineffective in achieving that.

There's also these sorts of events, which make me think that if we're going to do this whole tax thing, maybe we should include others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%932012%29

Do you really think $1 billion is enough to identify those who need help. It's estimated that over a quarter of Atlasians have some type of mental health issues.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I know it's been your point, but, again, I disagree. Maybe it won't yield enough money to completely solve the problem, but it's a start. The money is going towards something good. In many instances, mental health resources are already available, but people don't know about their availability or are uncomfortable using them. The $1 billion can complement and improve those services that already exist.

I'm aware of knife violence, but the events you cited took place over the course of two years. 26 individuals can be killed over the course of five minutes with a gun. Guns are unique in that their sole purpose is to harm or kill (humans, animals, etc.) Knives that are meant for cooking could be used to kill, but I'm not prepared to tax cooking knives or fishing knives. And taxing other knives would be even more unfair than what you argue it is to just tax guns.

[Napoleon]

I do think this is worthy of a debate. A relevant question is why do we allow guns in our society at all?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So citizens can overthrow governments that don't enjoy public consent. So people can defend themselves or their property against threats. So people can hunt... There are a number of reasons.

If other senators want to debate taxing non-gun weapons though, I'd urge them to jump in. Personally, I don't know that it's practical, but hey—this place is about debate. Let's have one.

[Spamage]

So citizens can overthrow governments that don't enjoy public consent. So people can defend themselves or their property against threats. So people can hunt... There are a number of reasons.

[Napoleon]

So citizens can overthrow governments that don't enjoy public consent. So people can defend themselves or their property against threats. So people can hunt... There are a number of reasons.

I'll reiterate that I ask this from the perspective of a neutral gun control position.

While I'm slightly disturbed by the revolutionary threats of the first reason listed, the two following intrigue me. From my point of view, people hunting would be similar to Senator Hagrid's "cooking knives" logic. I'm not trying to attack someone's meal ticket (I don't really condone hunting for sport, but that's neither here nor there). And with regard to the self-defense line of logic, I feel like we are pricing out the group that would need it most: impoverished Atlasians, likely living in crime-riddled neighborhoods filled with gangsters who purchase illegal guns. These Atlasians are the ones who will be hurt by this tax, and they're the ones who would actually need these guns for self-defense reasons more than anyone else. Agree or disagree?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I agree that self-defensive gun ownership would be of more interest to the Atlasians you mentioned, but I disagree that the tax will be so crippling. If we go by your $2000 for a gun statement, that means the gun, before tax, would've cost $1600. I believe that if buying a gun is important enough to you to spend $1600, you will find a way to make up the $400 difference. Smaller handguns don't cost $2000 though... You can get, say, a glock, for about $450. At that price, the tax ain't gonna be as devastating. Even so, I think it's more about feeling secure than actually being secure. Either way, I hold that the sacrifice is worth it. If anyone wants to chime in saying otherwise, feel free.

Re: revolutionary threats... I don't mean "let's massacre Nyman if Winfield is elected!" I mean if the very system of government falls into question and loses the consent of the governed—if the state turns against The People—there should be resources available for the citizenry to fight back.

In terms of hunting rifles versus kitchen knives, I think the difference is clear. The gun is still meant to kill. The kitchen knife isn't. You can also kill someone with a plastic bag or a pillow... would we have to tax those now too? If we only tax knives that are meant to kill, however, I feel like it'd be unfair: The kitchen knife could do just as much damage. It's this sort of circular debacle that makes me think it's better to leave knives and other weapons out of it. There's no secondary use for a gun.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I won't agree with 2.2(f), but I can be convinced largely on the rest.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'd enthusiastically support this, but I too am a little uncomfortable with 2.2 F (although the rest of 2.2 is fine).

[HagridOfTheDeep]

There is no way I could support that, Nix. I'm sorry. Either way, I still think my proposed legislation can do some good, and I'd be really disappointed if the idea got canned for something that, in my opinion, is much different from the originial legislation. We just accomplished sweeping gun reform a few months ago. Hell, we can't even be sure that the events of Newtown even happened in Atlasia.

If Nix's legislation has support, by all means, try and pass it without me. But not by way of erasing the Mental Health Fund.

[Frodo]

Before we add any more gun control legislation after this one, please make sure it isn't duplicating laws we already have on the books. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

2.2f is problematic for sure, just to start as it leaves insufficient provisions for self-defense.


Also a ban on semi-automatic weapons seems weird.

[Frodo]

Frodo: No section of my proposed bill is redundant, but we could formulate it as an amendment to our recent omnibus gun control bill rather than as a separate law.

That sounds like an excellent idea. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is the underlying bill here complete, in that case?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm happy with my bill as it stands, unless someone wants to add anything. I'm not prepared to merge Nix's proposal into this bill though.

[Napoleon]

Needs more funding.

[Frodo]

I'm happy with my bill as it stands, unless someone wants to add anything. I'm not prepared to merge Nix's proposal into this bill though.

He was referring to Senator Marokai's gun control bill which is now law.  

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It was first suggested as a possible amendment to this bill though, so I'm just reiterating my position before things move along.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The President has reiterated his concerns about funding. Is there a means by which an agreement can be reached?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

He thinks it's not enough. I think it is. He thinks we should tax more things and change the trajectory of the bill. I don't. I don't mean to be uncooperative just to be uncooperative, but I don't know that there's a way to fully satisfy his concerns without completely changing what the bill is and what the bill stands for.

Anyone have any ideas?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Then where do all of the Senators stand on this matter? What is the level of support?


Presently I am sort of conflicted here as some of the President's points are of great concern. We certainly do need to do something about mental health as it is an area where too many problems have been ignored for too long. Here in North Carolina in RL, it is an issue that is certainly most vexing as it was an area where Gov. Perdue promised to do something and four years later, she is gone and the problems haven't been fixed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well if there is no more to be said on this matter, then I will open a vote on this tomorrow.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I support this bill, as I said earlier. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators, this bill is now at final vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.