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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Zara View Post
    1) I don't trust your figures (no offence but they are likely to be biased)
    They're official government statistics, so accuse them of bias if you want.

    Originally posted by Zara View Post
    Since you exclude other types of weapons from your constitutional right...
    The language in the 2nd Amendment is not limiting. It protects the right to bear arms. ANY arms, and I think any state or local law that tries to place any restrictions on it should be struck down as unconstitutional.
    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


    • #47
      00000000000000ab000-00b.jpg

      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


      • #48
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        In societies with gun control laws even more stringent that what you appear to be advocating for. And don't forget how firearms still make their way into prisons (or are constructed by the prisoners), which aren't high population.
        Violent crime rates in Europe remain much much lower than in the US, while gun crime is hardly comparable. While a small number of criminals use guns, law enforcement tends to take a very dim view, and deals with it without prejudice but with the full arm of the law. Officers in Europe are armed.

        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Moreover, folks with murderous intent always seem to find a way and it doesn't seem to matter if they live in a place with strict or lax gun control laws, or in an open society or police state.

        Here is a short list I put together after the Christchurch mosque shootings of mass killings taking place in this century that didn't involve firearms:
        Where's the list of mass killings that involved firearms?

        Your list contains a large number of entries that involved sophisticated terror networks, that use sophisticated bomb makers. These aren't the run of the mill school shooter or lone wolf terrorist like Christchurch and Norway. Which tend to prefer guns, guns that kill a lot of people.

        In terms of overall gun deaths per unit of population, the US is in a scary state, it's 20 times higher than in most European countries and higher than Iraq. The only countries that are substantially higher are countries in central America - countries people are fleeing.

        https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...t-of-the-world

        It seems that if you have an argument, or a crime, that involves guns, it tends to result in worse outcome for people involved than if guns aren't involved.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          The language in the 2nd Amendment is not limiting. It protects the right to bear arms. ANY arms, and I think any state or local law that tries to place any restrictions on it should be struck down as unconstitutional.
          So, nuclear arms?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            The risks of me being invaded here in the USA, or robbed are pretty low too, but that doesn't mean actually zero. Same with you in NZ.
            And I assume it varies with location. People living in a large city are more at risk from personal crimes than someone living in the country. Just because you feel safe from such crime doesn't mean that others will feel the same. And even if a burglar doesn't have a gun he can still kill you using a bat or knife, so I would rather have a gun to protect myself because I want the advantage in any such situation.
            But if you have a gun, then they too will come with a gun, now its a gun fight. Gun fights tend to end badly. I really don't see it as improving safety. Law enforcement current comes down very hard on armed offenders. So hard, that people tend to not use guns unless they're particularly feral. In which case it tends to be gang related - and not affecting people not involved in organised crime.

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            But the NZ ban is not just for AR-15s (the gun used in Christchurch I believe) It is for nearly all semi-automatic guns, and even shotguns. And even for the semi-auto pistols that are allowed they are limiting the magazines to 5 shots. When you are nervous and shooting at someone trying to kill you, you want as many bullets as you can have because you are likely to miss even at a close range.
            I think they want to prevent a high bullet magazines. Again, this seems justified. There are very few situations in which it is required - now people will need to reload more often.

            Weapons are deterrents. Actually shooting people tends to be a very much last last resort, and basically never happens in New Zealand anyway. It's usually the armed offenders squad that deals with armed people.

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Why shouldn't people have access to RPGs, etc? Most people are law abiding and won't use them to kill anyone. And even for crooks they are a bit cumbersome to carry around to use. Just license them.

            "Just reducing the boundary a bit further" is the excuse the government keeps on using till it has all guns out of the hands of all citizens. Except for the crooks who will still get them if they want them.

            Like boiling a frog. Just keep turning up the heat a little at a time.
            Again, I don't see a need to have an armed citizenry. People like to hunt, sport and defend themselves with weapons. While I can understand why some government say no to some of that, I can also see why it's not the end of the world for that to be an option. Therefore I would not vote to take away those privileges. However, here weapons are a privilege, not a right.

            Regarding the new laws, I don't disagree, if it means there's less chance of me being shot by some nutjob using a high-power rapid fire weapon designed to kill. I feel safer without these types of weapons on the market. Will terrorists find another way? Maybe, but if it's made hard for them, so that there are dozens of places to make mistakes, then the chance of them being discovered mid-plot increases.

            I don't worry about government tyranny.
            Last edited by Zara; 07-10-2019, 06:40 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Zara View Post
              So, nuclear arms?
              So, a straw man?
              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


              • #52
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                So, a straw man?
                Is it? You appear to have some standard of what is and is not allowed. I assume nuclear weapons are not allowed? I don't see how this is a straw man.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Zara View Post
                  Is it?
                  Yes.

                  Originally posted by Zara View Post
                  You appear to have some standard of what is and is not allowed. I assume nuclear weapons are not allowed? I don't see how this is a straw man.
                  If you can give me a good reason why you think the average person should be allowed to possess something like a nuclear weapon then make your case.
                  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


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Zara
                    The constitutional right to bear "ANY arms"?

                    You made the case, I am questioning its merit. The proviso to the case then seems to be "a good reason why"? But it also appears to be a "good reason why not".

                    Which is the reason we would limit access to nuclear weapons, rather than a good reason why, it's a good reason, why not?
                    So what you're saying is that you can't make a case for the possession of nuclear weapons in private hands.
                    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


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Zara
                      Your claim didn't need a case to be made. You've changed the goal posts. Which is fine, but it wasn't obvious from your statement. Or the second amendment itself.

                      Who are you to decide what I in my freedom decide is a good reason for me to have one?

                      Fyi, I don't want one.
                      I haven't moved the goal posts. You've just been unable to score a goal.
                      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


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        I haven't moved the goal posts. You've just been unable to score a goal.
                        I concede the point. And will leave the thread.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Zara View Post
                          But if you have a gun, then they too will come with a gun, now its a gun fight. Gun fights tend to end badly. I really don't see it as improving safety. Law enforcement current comes down very hard on armed offenders. So hard, that people tend to not use guns unless they're particularly feral. In which case it tends to be gang related - and not affecting people not involved in organised crime.
                          1. How would they know whether you have a gun or not? If they have access to a gun they will bring it regardless. If they don't, I still want to have one to protect myself. 2. No criminal expects to get caught and would think "Gee I better not bring a gun because they will be harsher on me"





                          I think they want to prevent a high bullet magazines. Again, this seems justified. There are very few situations in which it is required - now people will need to reload more often.
                          And could possibly die while having to reload. No, I want the largest magazine I can get. My current gun has a 17 cartridge capacity. You don't know how many people you will be facing during a break in, nor how well you can shoot in a stressful situation.

                          Weapons are deterrents. Actually shooting people tends to be a very much last last resort, and basically never happens in New Zealand anyway. It's usually the armed offenders squad that deals with armed people.
                          You don't actually seem to know much about guns, Zara. If you have to point a gun at someone you need to be ready and willing to use it. It isn't a 'deterrent' - it is self-defense and your life is on the line. You also don't shoot to wound (as I have heard others say) you shoot to kill.



                          Again, I don't see a need to have an armed citizenry.
                          As someone who seems not to know much about guns, that opinion doesn't really mean that much. And I am not mocking you or being derisive. I just mean that if you want your opinion to matter it needs to be informed.


                          People like to hunt, sport and defend themselves with weapons. While I can understand why some government say no to some of that, I can also see why it's not the end of the world for that to be an option. Therefore I would not vote to take away those privileges. However, here weapons are a privilege, not a right.
                          In the USA they are a right. And I would argue that protecting your life is a human right everywhere. And a gun is an effective way to protect your life. Therefore they should be available to anyone who wants to protect their life.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            Yes.


                            If you can give me a good reason why you think the average person should be allowed to possess something like a nuclear weapon then make your case.
                            A nuclear weapon is not a defensive or a personal weapon. It is a weapon of mass offensiveness and destruction which would kill you as well as everyone around you.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              A nuclear weapon is not a defensive or a personal weapon. It is a weapon of mass offensiveness and destruction which would kill you as well as everyone around you.
                              Exactly. There is no good argument for private ownership of nuclear weapons even if you interpret the 2nd Amendment as broadly as possible.
                              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


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                Exactly. There is no good argument for private ownership of nuclear weapons even if you interpret the 2nd Amendment as broadly as possible.
                                that really depends on exactly how annoying your neighbours are....
                                Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
                                1 Corinthians 16:13

                                "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
                                -Ben Witherington III

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                63 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                247 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                107 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                334 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X