IDS 2: IDS Firearm Policy Act of 2013 (Failed)

[Dereich]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Donerail]

So this would just clear up our firearms policy. Establishes what is in the sphere of the Legislature and what is in the sphere of state/local governments, where you can legally carry a firearm and who can do so, our laws on the transportation of firearms, etc, etc, etc.

[Dereich]

Why should the IDS become a no license open carry region?

[Donerail]

Why should the IDS become a no license open carry region?

We are already a no-license concealed carry region, and open carry laws aren't a threat to public safety. Additionally, three states in our region (Tennessee, Georgia, and Mississippi) have the same open carry restrictions proposed here.

[Velasco]

Why should the IDS become a no license open carry region?

We are already a no-license concealed carry region, and open carry laws aren't a threat to public safety. Additionally, three states in our region (Tennessee, Georgia, and Mississippi) have the same open carry restrictions proposed here.

It's funny to see that you quote an opinion article instead of statistics showing people dead by fire arms and some comparisons with other countries where possession is strictly regulated, as it should be in the South and everywhere. Honestly, I hope some kind of opposition to the bill from my fellow legislators, because the indiscriminate use of guns is a threat for people's life, freedom and integrity.

[Dereich]

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this level of firearm permissiveness myself.

[Zanas]

This legislation is bad : KILL IT, KILL IT WITH... flowers ?

[Donerail]

Why should the IDS become a no license open carry region?

We are already a no-license concealed carry region, and open carry laws aren't a threat to public safety. Additionally, three states in our region (Tennessee, Georgia, and Mississippi) have the same open carry restrictions proposed here.

It's funny to see that you quote an opinion article instead of statistics showing people dead by fire arms and some comparisons with other countries where possession is strictly regulated, as it should be in the South and everywhere. Honestly, I hope some kind of opposition to the bill from my fellow legislators, because the indiscriminate use of guns is a threat for people's life, freedom and integrity.

If you'd like some hard statistics (and I'll even use the firearm murder rate), these are from 2011 (in real life so Atlasia's gun policies aren't in effect). California had 3.25 murders per 100K people (1,220 total murders), and that year was ranked by the Brady Campaign as having the strongest gun control laws in the nation. Texas, the state with the closest population but with significantly less gun control, had a firearm murder rate of 2.91 per 100K (699 total). Utah, which the Brady Campaign said had the least gun control, had a firearm murder rate of 0.97 per 100K (26 total).

So there's your evidence: the state with the strictest gun control had a much higher rate than that with almost none. Not exactly a "threat to life, freedom, and integrity"; the facts on the ground say the exact opposite.

[Velasco]

The Firearms Death Rates per 100,000 that I've found are a bit different.

Washington DC is on the top of the table with 31.2, followed by Alaska (20), Louisiana (19.5), Wyoming (18. and Arizona (18). Texas has a rate of 11, California a 9.8.  Hawaii (2. and New England states like Massachusetts (3.1) have the lowest rates.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

If we go into the murders totals by country:

#1 South Africa: 31,918 #2 Colombia 21,898 #3 Thailand 20,032 #4 USA 9,369 on the top of the list.

Some countries in the Western world:

#11 Germany 269 #14 Canada 144  #20 Spain 97  #28 Japan 47 #39 UK, Denmark 14.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

[Velasco]

Also, you can check the following analysis on states with the most gun violence. According to it, Hawaii and Massachusetts have more stringent legislation on gun purchasing and the lowest death rates. To the contrary, Louisiana, where limitations to purchase handguns didn't exist for the period between 2001 and 2010:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 http://247wallst.com/2013/04/15/states-with-the-most-gun-violence/

[Donerail]

The Firearms Death Rates per 100,000 that I've found are a bit different.

Washington DC is on the top of the table with 31.2, followed by Alaska (20), Louisiana (19.5), Wyoming (18. and Arizona (18). Texas has a rate of 11, California a 9.8.  Hawaii (2. and New England states like Massachusetts (3.1) have the lowest rates.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

You can feel free to cherry-pick misleading statistics, but here - this data is from the FBI's 2011 crime statistics, and the rankings are from the Brady campaign (the data shows violent crime per 100K people, and the rankings are top 3/bottom 3):

California: 411.1
New Jersey: 308.4
Massachusetts: 428.4

Arizona: 405.9
Alaska: 606.5
Utah: 195.0

So two out of the three states with lax laws have lower crime rates than 2 out of the 3 with strict laws. You can take that to mean that states with lax laws have lower crime rates, or you can say that there's no statistically significant difference between them; either way this legislation is not going to lead to a rise in the violent crime rate.

You can also see the effects in DC, which you brought up - violent crime increased in the district, from 188 when they enacted a ban on carrying firearms in the city, to 454 in the early 90s, and it kept rising. But then, in 2007, it was ruled that their ban was unconstitutional. Crime, since then, has gone down to 88 murders in 2012. It certainly can't be said that loose gun laws cause a rise in crime.

And since you brought it up in your Louisiana quote - we already have strict federal gun laws, as you can see in the legislation creating a national handgun registry, sale restrictions, magazine restrictions, and an 'assault weapons' ban, so several of those things you quoted would not apply. What we need to realize when considering this legislation is that we're not starting from the American status quo and liberalizing on gun rights - we're starting with where we are in Atlasia, which is significantly more stringent than America.

[Hash]

I will be voting against this legislation.

[Velasco]

You can feel free to cherry-pick misleading statistics, but here - this data is from the FBI's 2011 crime statistics, and the rankings are from the Brady campaign (the data shows violent crime per 100K people, and the rankings are top 3/bottom 3):

Don't you see the difference between "violent crime" and "firearms death rate"?  

Violent crime (copy and paste from FBI's site):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As you can see, violent crimes include not only murder (regardless if they are caused by firearms or by other means), but also rape, robbery and "aggravated assault". However, I'll give a try with the 'murder' category, even when to my understanding it's not strictly related with firearms (you can use knives, poison and many other means to kill someone).

Murder and non negligent manslaughter from 2011 FBI stats: Total (state population, thousands)

California: 1,792 (37,691); Massachussetts: 185 (6,587); New Jersey: 380 (8,821)

Arizona: 405 (6,482); Alaska: 29 (722); Utah: 54 (2,817); Louisiana 513 (4,574); Georgia 554 (9,815)

Per 100K

California 4.75; Massachussetts 2.81; New Jersey 4.31

Arizona 6.25; Alaska 4.02; Utah 1.92; Louisiana 11.22; Georgia 5.64  

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-5

Do you have something to say about the comaprison between murder rates between the USA and other developed countries? Don't you think it leaves the USA in a bad place?

Also, check the top ten states with the most gun violence (Louisiana is the number one, as FBI stats seem to confirm) in the analysis that I linked before. Stringent legislation on firearms is not the only solution but, in opposition with your argumentation, is helpful. Awful laws like the one in force in Louisiana only aggravate the problem.


The firearm death rate includes not only criminal assaults but suicides and accidents. It's not misleading but focused on the firearm topic (and this bill is about deregulating firearms). As for accidents, everybody knows that not everybody is able to handle a gun. Often things can go badly. Unfortunately some irresponsible parents, and with devotion to firearms, don't take the necessary precautions nor put weapons out of the scope of their children. Do I need to look for some news of domestic accidents involving children which occur from time to time and appear in the media? I watched in some documentary firearm fanatics instructing 5 or 6-year-old children. I think it's terrifying.

I think your highly deregulating proposal on firearms will bring more risks than supposed benefits.

[Donerail]

Don't you see the difference between "violent crime" and "firearms death rate"?  
Do you have something to say about the comaprison between murder rates between the USA and other developed countries? Don't you think it leaves the USA in a bad place?

There is really no statistic that I care about less than the firearms death rate. The death rate from firearms is really pointless. The murder rate, sure, that's important - but there's no point in isolating out firearms other than to point out how countries with less firearms have less people killed with firearms. That's common sense, sure, but it's a meaningless factoid relative to the actual murder rate. For instance, Britain has far less gun-related homicides than the US does; it also has a higher rate of violent crime than the US does.

[Velasco]

There is really no statistic that I care about less than the firearms death rate. The death rate from firearms is really pointless. The murder rate, sure, that's important - but there's no point in isolating out firearms other than to point out how countries with less firearms have less people killed with firearms. That's common sense, sure, but it's a meaningless factoid relative to the actual murder rate. For instance, Britain has far less gun-related homicides than the US does; it also has a higher rate of violent crime than the US does.

It's not pointless at all, especially regarding murder and avoidable accidents. Homicide is the worst of crimes in qualitative terms, for obvious reasons. Countries with less firearms have less people killed in total magnitudes.

551 homicides reported in 2012 (including murder, manslaughter and infanticide) in England and Wales. Murder rate in the UK is around 1 per 100,000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales

14,612 cases reported by FBI in 2011 as murder and non negligent manslaughter. Murder rate was 4.7, down from 9.3 in 1992, but still much higher than in the United Kingdom and other countries with gun restrictions.

Also, according with FBI firearms were used in 67.8% of murder offenses.

Given that you don't care about the firearm death rate, let's follow with FBI murder rates for the top ten states in gun violence. Statistics on firearm homicide death, firearm aggravated assaults and violent crime rate are provided in the article.

#1 Louisiana: 11.22  #2 Alaska 4.02  #3 Alabama 6.27  #4 Arizona 6.25  #5 Mississipi 8.03 #6 South Carolina 6.85 #7 New Mexico 7.49 #8 Missouri 6.09 #9 Arkansas 5.52 #10 Georgia 5.64

I think it's noticeable that in all cases except Alaska, murder rates are higher than in California (not to mention Hawaii or Mass.), even when in many cases violence rate is lower. None of the states of the list above require permit to purchase handguns. Why in states with lower criminality murder is at a higher rate? 6 out of 10 states in the list belong to the South region. Shouldn't we take measures to regulate the possession of firearms instead of legislating in order that anyone could carry them wherever? Preventing accidents and suicides by firearms is not important?

[Donerail]

Shouldn't we take measures to regulate the possession of firearms instead of legislating in order that anyone could carry them wherever?

Okay, okay, I get it that you have a lot of data as to why 'guns are bad'. I have lots of data as to why guns are good, some of which I've presented already, and to be quite honest this could go on for days or weeks without much getting accomplished.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But here's an amendment. Does that make it a bit more palatable?

[Bacon King]

But here's an amendment. Does that make it a bit more palatable?

The Blue-footed Booby is a bird in the family Sulidae, which includes ten species of long-winged seabirds. It is of the genus Sula, which comprises six boobies. It is easily recognizable by its distinctive bright blue feet, which is a sexually selected trait. Males display their feet in an elaborate mating ritual by lifting one and then the other up, while strutting before the female. Both males and females prefer mates with brighter feet and adjust their parental investment based on the attractiveness of their mate.

[Velasco]

Shouldn't we take measures to regulate the possession of firearms instead of legislating in order that anyone could carry them wherever?

Okay, okay, I get it that you have a lot of data as to why 'guns are bad'. I have lots of data as to why guns are good, some of which I've presented already, and to be quite honest this could go on for days or weeks without much getting accomplished.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But here's an amendment. Does that make it a bit more palatable?

I'd say neither your data nor your argumentation are convincing enough. Those numbers, in their apparent coolness, show that there's some correlation between gun control or deregulation and the amount of violent deaths. Your ammendment makes point #3 slightly less awful, but it's far away from being enough. Gun licenses, granted under conditions strict enough (lack of criminal record and psychological examinations are examples that come to my mind), a regional register for all weapons and carry limited to private properties and homes (besides some security measures mandatory for gun owners inside their properties in order to prevent accidents), would be a more palatable firearm policy. Point #4 is unacceptable as well.

[Donerail]

Your ammendment makes point #3 slightly less awful, but it's far away from being enough. Gun licenses, granted under conditions strict enough (lack of criminal record and psychological examinations are examples that come to my mind),

People who have had their right to bear arms suspended for committing a crime are already banned from carrying.

a regional register for all weapons

Why would we need a regional registry? There's already a federal one (which, despite my opposition, seems to not be going anywhere).

and carry limited to private properties and homes (besides some security measures mandatory for gun owners inside their properties in order to prevent accidents),

Well that's just a recipe for more mass shootings (like the ones in Winnemucca in 08, or Pearl high School in '97, or Edinboro in '98, or Appalachian School of Law in '02).

Point #4 is unacceptable as well.

Point 4? I mean, I expected controversy on a couple of em, but 1 & 4 aren't real big deals. 4 especially, since all it does is say that our gun laws apply to only our people: if you're traveling from the Northeast through our region to the Pacific, and you've done whatever the Northeast requires to be allowed to carry a firearm, then you don't have to comply with our restrictions since you're not a citizen of the region and you're not staying for any extended period of time in our region, just passing through. It's just making travel easier (and maybe picking up a few tourist dollars while we're at it). If you're moving here, you still have to follow our law, if you're going here you do, and if you live here you still have to follow it, but if you're passing through from and on your way to another region and it's okay in your home region to possess your gun we're not going to stop you, because you'll be gone tomorrow anyways.


Perhaps it'd be a better solution to divide the question on this bill?

[Velasco]

Your ammendment makes point #3 slightly less awful, but it's far away from being enough. Gun licenses, granted under conditions strict enough (lack of criminal record and psychological examinations are examples that come to my mind),

People who have had their right to bear arms suspended for committing a crime are already banned from carrying.

It's the minimal thing. However, in the point #2 you reject gun licenses. I think licenses are important in order to ensure that nobody with criminal records or without being mentally capable is legally a firearm owner. Psycophysical evaluation seems to me to be fundamental. Also, the owner should keep the firearm in a safe place (a room or a cupboard that they could close with key, for example) and out of the minors' scope. Nothing is said about hunters. There should be hunting licenses issued by the regional authorities, limitation of age, not necessarily the same in force for other firearms, etcetera.

As for the regional register, it might be useless existing a federal one, as you say. However, gun licenses would ensure that all legal firearms are conveniently registered, which could be very useful in order to make the work of security forces easier.

There's no issue in allowing people carry their firearms in vehicles, since they are private properties, but I don't see the need to carry them in a visible place. When someone is crossing the region's territory, it's logical to think regional laws on carry and possession are in force.

Well that's just a recipe for more mass shootings (like the ones in Winnemucca in 08, or Pearl high School in '97, or Edinboro in '98, or Appalachian School of Law in '02).

I don't see your point. All mass shootings that you mention were perpetrated in public spaces like schools and bars. I think allowing people to carry indiscriminately firearms in public spaces makes the work of mass shooters easier.

[Donerail]

Not a lot of time for a detailed response, but I think this should satisfy most of your concerns with regards to registries, sale restrictions, magazine restrictions, background checks, and permits required (the reason we don't need to do a lot of it at a regional level, like background checks or permits, is because the feds already do it).

[CatoMinor]

I am fine with this bill.

[Velasco]

Not a lot of time for a detailed response, but I think this should satisfy most of your concerns.

Thank you. I'll come back with time.

[Dereich]

Any more debate? If not I'll open voting later today

[Zanas]

I'm so glad I'm not a Legislator right now... I thank Velasco for all the trouble he's been through to try and reason a bit on this subject.

I don't really get what fascination our Emperor have for deadly things like nuclear power or firearms, but I sure have some concerns for the security of the Southern people...

Maybe the only solution would be making every bullet worth 5,000 $, like a comedian said once. Oh right you could buy guns and rifles all you want. But if you wanted to use them, you'd better be certain about it, because each bullet would cost 5,000 $. That way, people getting shot would know they really really really sucked...