The online delegates had a lengthy debate surrounding an amendment on buy-back schemes for small arms.
With gun violence being a prominent issue for many nations, it is only natural that many hold a strong perspective on the issue. Mexico stated their belief that buy-back schemes do not work to reduce gun violence for every nation. With this in mind, they moved to replace a clause that would encourage the implementation of buy-back schemes for member nations. In it’s place, they introduced an amendment that would encourage member states to fund more civic action with a focus on restorative justice.
Many states agreed with this amendment. The USA pointed out the costly nature of these
schemes, mentioning the financial strain they could place on less developed nations. But India pointed out that this would be more suitable as an added clause. Their belief was that gun violence is an issue that should be fought from all directions. Many other delegates went on to support this opinion, believing that using both methods together would be beneficial to the physical and mental health of their citizens.
In the end, the amendment was passed, most believing that civic action would indeed be
beneficial. But this leaves the question of whether one method of gun control is enough? Or should there be multiple in action?