Page 19 of 32 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 318

Thread: Noncompliance Kneecaps New Zealand's Gun Control Scheme

  1. #181
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,096
    Amen (Given)
    4882
    Amen (Received)
    21752
    Quote 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 at 10:38 AM.

  2. #182
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,448
    Amen (Given)
    5555
    Amen (Received)
    5760
    Quote 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

  3. Amen Sparko amen'd this post.
  4. #183
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,717
    Amen (Given)
    6067
    Amen (Received)
    11550
    Quote 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

    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

  5. #184
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,769
    Amen (Given)
    2726
    Amen (Received)
    1655
    Quote 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.

  6. #185
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,769
    Amen (Given)
    2726
    Amen (Received)
    1655
    Quote 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.

  7. #186
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,448
    Amen (Given)
    5555
    Amen (Received)
    5760
    Quote 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

  8. #187
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,728
    Amen (Given)
    217
    Amen (Received)
    649
    Quote 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.

  9. #188
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,308
    Amen (Given)
    6774
    Amen (Received)
    6528
    Quote 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,

    Quote 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.

  10. #189
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,224
    Amen (Given)
    2470
    Amen (Received)
    1777
    Quote 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.

  11. #190
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,769
    Amen (Given)
    2726
    Amen (Received)
    1655
    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •