NationStates 'dilemma' of the day

[rowyn]

Tragedy struck Akiruerta today, as a gunman killed three people in a suburban shooting rampage. The community is united in grief, but divided in opinion as to what should be done.

The Debate
1) The strongest voices demand tighter gun controls. "The only way to prevent further atrocities is to take the guns out of the hands of the murderers," says anti-gun campaigner Chastity Summers. "There's no justification for them in today's society. We need tighter regulations on who can hold guns, so only our police and military have them."

2) "That's not all we need," says radical left-wing activist Al Thiesen. "The government should ban all guns outright--even in the police force. This is an opportunity to make Akiruerta a totally gun-free state."

3) "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," says NRA head honcho Faith Trax. "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Is that what we want? Think, people. The answer isn't to ban guns. It's to crack down on those Hollywood movies and computer games that glamorize violence. They're the real criminals."

What I want to know is: does anyone out there like ANY of these three options?

Comments

[koogrr.livejournal.com]

They all suck.

I advise disarming everyone, police and military included, just to see how it gets skewed. You'll probably end up with populace huddling in their homes in fear of their lives. Oh wait, you'll get that with option 3 also. Maybe option 1 too, although I get the feeling Option 1 is the CORRECT Julia's Nation choice.

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

I got this earlier. Choosing option 1 yielded 'guns are banned' and 'strong police force' with very low crime.

[koogrr.livejournal.com]

The hammer of righteousness strikes again.

[rowyn]

Because, you know, doesn't disarming the populace always lead to a strong police force and low crime? Why, just look at New York City!

[rowyn]

Y'know, I can see how banning guns can work in a country with a long history of weapons-control, where the populace doesn't have guns already. I'm not sure I like it -- but I can believe that it would be doable and could lower incidence of injury and death related to criminal activitiy.

But I think disarming a populace that's accustomed to private ownership of guns is a Herculean and doomed task. NationStates isn't going to talk me out of this belief. :)

Possibly the biggest failing of the game is that every decision is effortlessly carried out. If you say you'll ban guns, *poof*, guns vanish from the country. I say I'm not going to clear-cut one rainforest, and suddenly my country is a tropical paradise and we're overrun by my national animal. Ah, if only it were that easy. :)

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

Every one of the 38683924570867 times NationStates has given me this issue, I've dismissed it.

[rowyn]

I think this is only the second or third time I've dismissed it.

[koogrr.livejournal.com]

If anything, watching my friends play Nation States has turned me off getting the author's book. The obvious wild extremist slants to absurd ends, with effortless execution of even the most contradictory policies and the utter irrelevance of prior conditions makes it seem like a bad LJ quiz. A really bad LJ quiz. It gives me the impression his novel will be full of equally bizarre premises, except that each one will come in a headpounding manner where "They must obviously be true and not simply because I'm the author and arranged it so".

Y'know, that feeling you get when you are force-fed propaganda so harshy your jaw cracks?

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

Oh, goodness, yes. If the game is any indication, the book is going to be like reading one of Terry Pratchett's everything-in-the-world-is-mockery novels. Wahoo, sign ME up. :P

[rowyn]

Oh, I'm curious about the novel, actually. The writing style on the questions is entertaining, and the game clearly doesn't take itself seriously. I doubt the book would, either.

Besides, expecting very much of a free web-based game written by one guy with no intention of ever making a profit at it ... well, that'd be a little unfair on my part. :)

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

This question is extremely biased.

Dismissing it is probably the best answer.

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

I've observed that ALL the issues NationStates gives you are biased. Very few of them offer a sufficiently wide selection of possible answers, and it routinely infers extremism in whatever direction is chosen.

Dismissing the entire game as an even remotely realistic simulation is probably the best answer!

[rowyn]

Oh, definitely. This particular one is bad even for NationStates, though.

Faith Trax? What an odd name.

[krud42.livejournal.com]

This must be one of them "loaded questions" I've heard so much about...

It bothers me that this "dilemma" is limited to those three views. Where, I ask, is the "middle ground"? You've got three extremes, two of which are basically from the same side, only one is worse than the other. (Or better than the other, depending on your perspective).

I'm still of the opinion that the penalty for a shooting rampage should discourage people from doing so. Maybe not the Death Penalty, but something just as unappealing. (And yes, there are worse things than death, I'm told.) Maybe have them watch reruns of Geena Davis' sitcom. At the very least, take the SoloFlex out of the prison gymnasium.

I am curious now, however, about this "NationStates". What is it? Or would I find out if I read earlier entries?

Re: Faith Trax? What an odd name.

[rowyn]

I think the time it identified my brother as "Miranda" was even stranger. :)

You'd find out if you read the entry before this one (I've got links to it in there), but here it is again: www.nationstates.net .