Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Noncompliance Kneecaps New Zealand's Gun Control Scheme

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Zara View Post
    In New Zealand and in Australia, the highest death tolls from any massacre occurred with a semiautomatic. They make mass murder too easy. That is why they are banned. Terrorists could use other weapons, however, they carry more risks, and have lower likely casualty counts - given the use of these types of mass murder weapons compared to semiautomatics in Australia and New Zealand.

    Yes, we measure homicide rates. In New Zealand there are 0.7 homicides per 100,000 people, in Australia, 0.8. In the US, meanwhile, that rate is 5.3 per 100,000 people. This is actually largely irrelevant to the point at hand.

    We could say that it is clear that guns are not making it safer to be in the US, by a long shot. Look at the correlation, high gun ownership and almost 8x the number of murders.
    Um we have 60 times the population you do. And a lot larger cities with gang problems which account for a lot of gun homicides, and are mostly illegal guns that you would not get rid of with any regulations because they are criminals. Of the legal gun owners, the homicides are usually domestic disputes (bar fight, husband killing wife for cheating) and they don't pose a danger to the population in general. Mass killings are actually pretty rare considering the size of the country, they just tend to be newsworthy so when one happens you will hear all about it for a week or two. But as has been said already in this thread, if someone is bent on mass murder, they can easily find other means: fire like the Japanese guy this weekend, trucks and vans like in France and the UK, bombs like in Israel, or poison like the subway Sarin Gas attacks in Tokyo.

    Also 5 out of 100,000 per year is a ridiculously low number. Automobile deaths are 11.4 per 100,000. You have way better chance dying in your car than getting murdered by a gun, yet we don't ban cars and people are not afraid to drive.
    Last edited by Sparko; 07-19-2019, 12:38 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Um we have 60 times the population you do. And a lot larger cities with gang problems which account for a lot of gun homicides, and are mostly illegal guns that you would not get rid of with any regulations because they are criminals. Of the legal gun owners, the homicides are usually domestic disputes (bar fight, husband killing wife for cheating) and they don't pose a danger to the population in general. Mass killings are actually pretty rare considering the size of the country, they just tend to be newsworthy so when one happens you will hear all about it for a week or two. But as has been said already in this thread, if someone is bent on mass murder, they can easily find other means: fire like the Japanese guy this weekend, trucks and vans like in France and the UK, bombs like in Israel, or poison like the subway Sarin Gas attacks in Tokyo.

      Also 5 out of 100,000 per year is a ridiculously low number. Automobile deaths are 11.4 per 100,000. You have way better chance dying in your car than getting murdered by a gun, yet we don't ban cars and people are not afraid to drive.
      And ironically, it's the cities with the strictest gun laws that have by far the most gun violence.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        And ironically, it's the cities with the strictest gun laws that have by far the most gun violence.
        Not ironic in the slightest; in those cities, it's the law-abiding citizens who can't get guns, and are easy prey for those who can.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
          It isn't so much that he thinks Stalin was right-wing, as he apparently defines authoritarianism and dictatorships as right-wing. Good to know that leftists can't be authoritarian, I guess.
          Yes. Historically being 'right-wing' has typically been about consolidating power among a small number of people (monarch, aristocrats, church leadership, dictator, land-owning males etc) and supporting related hierarchies of power that endorsed power being held in the hands of a smaller group and kept away from others (e.g. males > females, whites > blacks, Christians > Jews/atheists, high-born > low-born, rich > poor, slave owners > slaves). Whereas being 'left-wing' has typically been about distributing power more widely so that everyone has power to make key decisions in their lives and input into group decisions that affect them, and challenging the traditional hierarchies of power in favor of an egalitarian all-are-equal approach.

          The terms originate from the French parliament, in which the aristocrats and church leaders who had previously made all the decisions for the populace, sat on the right-hand side, and the democratic representatives of the masses sat on the left-hand side, i.e. the elites vs the people. However, political scientists have found the left-right continuum has remained remarkably useful over time. If you look today at Political Compass who give 2-d plots of the different parties in many Western countries at the bottom of their menu on the left, you'll see for most countries it's pretty easy to draw a diagonal line from the top-right to the lower-left of the chart, representing the traditional right-left continuum with most parties falling on it or close to it. Their 2-d plots basically represent the distribution of economic and social power to the masses (left-wing) as opposed to its consolidation among a group of elites (right-wing).

          The two main positions that don't fall neatly on that left-right axis, are libertarianism and communism. Libertarians endorse distribution of social power among the masses and endorse individuals making their own decisions on social issues rather than having a small group of elites (e.g. Church leaders) make the decisions for the populace, and so to that extent they are left-wing on social issues. But on economic issues they are quite happy for rich individuals to accrue basically unlimited amounts of wealth at the expense of the poorest citizens and so have a small number of elite individuals wielding massive power in the economic sphere while the masses are impoverished, and so to that extent they are right-wing on economic issues. 20th century communism generally tried to go the opposite way to libertarianism on each of social and economic power distribution, being dictatorial on social issues, but theoretically trying to be distributive on economic issues (though some might well argue that it didn't work out that way in practice).

          So, yes, your statement that leftists can't be authoritarian is largely correct. To the extent they ever are, they're being inconsistent with their own alleged leftism, because the point of leftism is anti-authoritarianism and to reject hierarchies and to distribute power among everyone to increase freedom.
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            And ironically, it's the cities with the strictest gun laws that have by far the most gun violence.
            Nothing ironic about it. The cities that experience unusually high amounts of gun deaths tend to panic and try and do something about it. Usually by introducing increasingly strict gun laws to successfully reduce their gun violence over time.

            Gun massacres cause stricter gun laws, just as we are seeing in New Zealand. Not vice versa as you're assuming.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post
              Nothing ironic about it. The cities that experience unusually high amounts of gun deaths tend to panic and try and do something about it. Usually by introducing increasingly strict gun laws to successfully reduce their gun violence over time.

              Gun massacres cause stricter gun laws, just as we are seeing in New Zealand. Not vice versa as you're assuming.
              That's... not what I'm assuming at all.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Um we have 60 times the population you do.
                The comment Zara made of "almost 8x the number of murders" was concerning the number of murders per 100,000 people. The population size of a country is irrelevant to that because it's a proportional number.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  Yes. Historically being 'right-wing' has typically been about consolidating power among a small number of people (monarch, aristocrats, church leadership, dictator, land-owning males etc) and supporting related hierarchies of power that endorsed power being held in the hands of a smaller group and kept away from others (e.g. males > females, whites > blacks, Christians > Jews/atheists, high-born > low-born, rich > poor, slave owners > slaves). Whereas being 'left-wing' has typically been about distributing power more widely so that everyone has power to make key decisions in their lives and input into group decisions that affect them, and challenging the traditional hierarchies of power in favor of an egalitarian all-are-equal approach.

                  The terms originate from the French parliament, in which the aristocrats and church leaders who had previously made all the decisions for the populace, sat on the right-hand side, and the democratic representatives of the masses sat on the left-hand side, i.e. the elites vs the people. However, political scientists have found the left-right continuum has remained remarkably useful over time. If you look today at Political Compass who give 2-d plots of the different parties in many Western countries at the bottom of their menu on the left, you'll see for most countries it's pretty easy to draw a diagonal line from the top-right to the lower-left of the chart, representing the traditional right-left continuum with most parties falling on it or close to it. Their 2-d plots basically represent the distribution of economic and social power to the masses (left-wing) as opposed to its consolidation among a group of elites (right-wing).

                  The two main positions that don't fall neatly on that left-right axis, are libertarianism and communism. Libertarians endorse distribution of social power among the masses and endorse individuals making their own decisions on social issues rather than having a small group of elites (e.g. Church leaders) make the decisions for the populace, and so to that extent they are left-wing on social issues. But on economic issues they are quite happy for rich individuals to accrue basically unlimited amounts of wealth at the expense of the poorest citizens and so have a small number of elite individuals wielding massive power in the economic sphere while the masses are impoverished, and so to that extent they are right-wing on economic issues. 20th century communism generally tried to go the opposite way to libertarianism on each of social and economic power distribution, being dictatorial on social issues, but theoretically trying to be distributive on economic issues (though some might well argue that it didn't work out that way in practice).

                  So, yes, your statement that leftists can't be authoritarian is largely correct. To the extent they ever are, they're being inconsistent with their own alleged leftism, because the point of leftism is anti-authoritarianism and to reject hierarchies and to distribute power among everyone to increase freedom.
                  For the record Zym, this is Starlight's version of Tassman's Southern Baptist diatribe. Any opportunity he gets to shuffle it this goofy nonsense out he takes. As I pointed out to him ages ago,

                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  I wish you would stop with this tired trope. Both left and right have been historically hierarchical and authoritarian. During the French Revolution where the concept of "left" and "right" derive, the "Left-wing" Jacobins, while anti-monarchy, were responsible for the authoritarian Reign of Terror. Stop with the historical revisionism that sees the "Left" as the good guys, and the "Right" as the bad guys. That's not how it went down. The desire for power is a people thing, not a left/right thing.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    As I said, in your warped and twisted view the only thing that matters is whether or not a firearm was used when someone is killed. If not, you don't care. They don't count. They are less than nothing.
                    No. What matters most is whether large-scale gun massacres of the type we saw in Port Arthur and Christchurch can be prevented. Nobody in these places want to replicate the unbridled firearm violence of the sort we see so regularly in the USA.

                    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...s-gun-violence
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      Both left and right have been historically hierarchical and authoritarian.
                      It's this sort of ignorant statement that shows you have literally zero clue on the subject.

                      Here's literally the first sentence in wikipedia on Left-wing politics:
                      Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy.[1][2][3][4]

                      This is basic stuff.

                      the "Left-wing" Jacobins, while anti-monarchy, were responsible for the authoritarian Reign of Terror.
                      Sure, people who otherwise consider themselves left-wing are capable of doing terrible stuff or acting in ways not consistent with that label. Just as Christians are quite capable of acting un-Christ-like.

                      Stop with the historical revisionism that sees the "Left" as the good guys, and the "Right" as the bad guys.
                      Does it hurt your feelings because you don't like the idea that morality might be relevant to politics and that some politics might actually be good and some might be actually evil? Sorry if you don't like the facts that the right-wing, overall, in terms of what it inherently stands for, is evil.

                      The desire for power is a people thing, not a left/right thing.
                      What a stupid statement. The distribution of power is exactly what the left-right continuum is all about. Whether power is distributed among the many (left-wing) or consolidated in the hands of the few who rule over the many (right-wing) has been a core issue for centuries. Shutting your eyes to that is just sad.
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Nothing ironic about it. The cities that experience unusually high amounts of gun deaths tend to panic and try and do something about it. Usually by introducing increasingly strict gun laws to successfully reduce their gun violence over time.
                        But that isn't the result. The jurisdictions that have had the strictest gun control laws are almost always the same places that have become the jurisdictions with the worst gun violence.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          No. What matters most is whether large-scale gun massacres...
                          Yup. Who cares about anyone not being killed by a gun. All that matters is that when they were murdered that a gun wasn't involved.

                          What a sick and twisted outlook.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            For the record Zym, this is Starlight's version of Tassman's Southern Baptist diatribe. Any opportunity he gets to shuffle it this goofy nonsense out he takes. As I pointed out to him ages ago,
                            His political compass has also been repeatedly been exposed as a joke. When I took it it said I was pretty far over on the left. Others had similar nonsensical results.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              Yup. Who cares about anyone not being killed by a gun. All that matters is that when they were murdered that a gun wasn't involved.
                              You erroneously assume that, because the priority is to prevent large scale gun massacres of the type at Port Arthur and Christchurch, that there is no concern about other forms of murder. Perhaps this strange logic is what enables the regular firearms massacres in the USA to continue unabated

                              What a sick and twisted outlook.
                              Look to yourself when it comes to a “sick and twisted outlook”. “No other developed nation comes close to the rate of US gun violence. Americans own an estimated 265m guns, more than one gun for every adult. Data from the Gun Violence Archive reveals there is a mass shooting – defined as four or more people shot in one incident, not including the shooter – nine out of every 10 days on average”.

                              https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...s-gun-violence

                              We don’t have this problem in Australia or NZ.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                                The comment Zara made of "almost 8x the number of murders" was concerning the number of murders per 100,000 people. The population size of a country is irrelevant to that because it's a proportional number.
                                nope. population density matters. When you have a larger population, especially gathered in urban areas, you get more crime in general. If you have people spread out and mostly in rural areas you get less crime, and it becomes harder to even have such things as mass murders.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                142 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                387 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                365 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X