Assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics have been banned in New Zealand

Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
17,947
Location
London
This swift reaction makes america look even more stupid than it usually does.
What makes me laugh is that through all the shootings in the US, they've totally failed to get a grip with banning any or certain types of firearms. One serious shooting and NZ have banned them in a week, its pretty remarkable.
There's a meme I can't post due to being on my phone, but it essentially trolls 'murica by saying "jeez, did they even try thoughts and prayers?" lol
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,304
Still won't really help you much unless you can convince a large portion of the military to join in :p

National armies are not particularly effective forces against soft, mobile, targets on home territory - hence why some of these middle east wars drag on despite the disparity in capabilities. In the event of a national uprising where manufacturing capabilities would be impacted and likely patchy control of the ground concentrated strategically cutting off some supplies you'd quickly run out of missiles, etc. if you were drone striking individual houses without great returns.

Please identify the 'extreme restrictions' in this new legislation.

How is a widespread, broad reaching, knee jerk implementation of policy that will have a big effect on 1000s of legal gun owners not extreme?
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,917
And what are the downsides of this legislation? Do tell.

I agree with him but perhaps from a different perspective in this case!

I think the main downside with reactionary legislation like this is that it comes a bit too late. Australia banned semi auto rifles a while ago (also reactionary). NZ could have banned them too then. I guess politicians like to wait for an excuse - perhaps a shooting in Australia isn’t a good enough reason for NZ MPs and so haven’t done it there until some people died in a massacre in NZ too.

I mean it does seem silly on one level, it is a risk that is known but we still want to see it happen once before doing anything about it.

“Yes people may die in a massacre, we’re aware of this but we’d like to have a massacre first, see it happen here too, have a few dozen innocents killed here before we bother doing anything.”
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Sep 2005
Posts
29,995
Location
Norrbotten, Sweden.
Well done NZ. Its a pity the USA didn't have the same strength.

I've read this by various people so many times but it is stupid.....

The NZ population is not even 5 million (2017) compared to USA 325 million.
The US has 100s of years of gun ownership and its an ingrained part of their culture and very constitution.
A "military-style semi-automatic rifle" might look more edgy and dangerous but an old wooden m14 is just as, if not more dangerous.

No I dont have the answer and yes im SO in favour of what NZ has done but to say the USA should or even COULD do it is like comparing apples to Saturn 5 rockets.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
31,991
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
wow. i see they are doing exactly what the terrorist wanted them to do, what happened to not negotiating with terrorists?

He wanted NZ to put pressure on the USA to change her gun laws. Which is not going to happen.

now they can just shoot people up and get laws made :rolleyes:

They can shoot people up and get laws made that make it more difficult to shoot people up. Do you think that's really what they want? How exactly does that work for them?
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
31,991
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
National armies are not particularly effective forces against soft, mobile, targets on home territory

Absolute nonsense. In the entire history of the human species, there has not been one single case of an armed civilian uprising waging a successful civil war against the armed forces of its own government.

The German Peasants' War involved 300,000 peasants (and some mercenaries) against imperial forces numbering just 8,000. The peasants were utterly slaughtered; they lost ~100,000 people, and surrendered.

- hence why some of these middle east wars drag on despite the disparity in capabilities.

Wrong again. The wars in the Middle East drag on because they involve multiple combatants from different countries, with different aims, sponsored by more powerful nations for their own ends. These combatants are not civilians; they are either trained and well armed militia, or well trained and well armed government forces.

Completely different scenario.

In the event of a national uprising where manufacturing capabilities would be impacted and likely patchy control of the ground concentrated strategically cutting off some supplies you'd quickly run out of missiles, etc. if you were drone striking individual houses without great returns.

Not a chance. The US war machine has total field dominance, and enough manpower and supplies to utterly devastate a civilian uprising within days.

How is a widespread, broad reaching, knee jerk implementation of policy that will have a big effect on 1000s of legal gun owners not extreme?

What exactly is extreme about it? They're banning some semi-automatic weapons (but not all of them). Did you think it was 'extreme' when car seat belts became law?
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Mar 2007
Posts
9,744
Location
SW London
perhaps NZ doesn't have a 2nd Amendment?
The whole 2nd amendment argument is BS. It doesn't specify which types of guns that should be allowed. When it was created the only guns around were old musket or flint lock jobs. They could easily just ban assault rifles and similar without completely stopping people from owning a different kind of gun instead
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jun 2012
Posts
11,259
Impractical to ban guns from the US. Nearly 400million guns, an underground market would appear surely if guns were banned. Many businesses out of business. And all the believers in the 1st & 2nd amendments, small government, against tyranny etc.

The idealistic ways of the founders worked largely with small populations but now a large diverse population arguably has nullified parts of the constitution as need bigger government and central/state authority to control any problems such as gang violence, drugs, and other groups, look at the bikers for example.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Mar 2010
Posts
11,089
Location
Bucks
The right to keep and bear arms doesn't specify semi-automatic rifles does it?

Same as you can't buy a surface to air missile launcher...
Correct but it does create an unusual political dynamic that other countries simply dont have to deal with. Its basically another layer of BS politicians have to somehow get through to change anything, whilst having to fight the other corner on the issue too. Its a big battle for even the best politicians.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Sep 2005
Posts
29,995
Location
Norrbotten, Sweden.
Absolute nonsense. Stuff....
What about wars/battles of revolution.
Obviously, a civilian population isn't going to theoretically beat a standing army on paper, but no government has that much real loyalty/control over their armed forces. They splinter off, rebel against their orders, or just damn right ignore them, Armies are built from civilians.
 
Back
Top Bottom