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

[Rich1988]

I find it a bit laughable that some people are like "you are giving in to terrorists" or "knee jerk reaction" etc etc. This is how new laws are made... something bad happens and laws are put in place to make it less likely to happen again. look at most laws and they will have been made in this way.

Also just seen a comparison made between a car and an assault rifle...? wut?

Person living in a town, uses car to commute to work, shopping, would otherwise have to walk/bus.

person living in tow, has a good use for a gun for what reason?

 

[Screeeech]

Arguably those things happened because of cars.

Could you explain how roads, which existed before cars, would exist without them?

Ambulances and trucks aren't cars. I think you need to read what a car is. Not sure how you've gotten to your age without understanding that tbh.

I'm very sorry to have to say this, but only a complete cretin of the highest order - would ever dare to draw comparisons between a ban of assault rifles on public use, as though there's some sort of comparison to cars - just because both things cause death.

Only a stupid person would dare do it, grow some grey matter, stop saying stupid things - if it continues go see your GP.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

These are the people that want to own semi automatic guns
I'd remove all sharp objects in their vicinity tbh

 

[Will Gill]

Stop the arguing, try and keep the thread mildly on topic or the thread will be deleted, just like all the other threads you guys seem hellbent on derailing and ruining......

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Yes but that doesn't mean the implementation of all laws is the same - some are better thought out or less reactionary than others.

How can a law that by it's very definition cannot fail and 100% achieves what it sets out to do be 'better thought out'
We get it you like guns and think every human on planet earth should be allowed to be armed to the teeth, unfortunately for you very few people in the UK think like this.
Have you considered moving to the US? Texas lets you own pretty much anything

 

[jsmoke]

I say wait for AI to give us the answers?

What will likely happen, and this comes from listening to various people on YT, is, the US will keep churning out more and more anti gun students from their schools/colleges and uni's as these places are usually more democratic party sided so in the next 20 years or so the balance will be changed enough for them to force tougher gun legislation through, I'm not necessarily saying that's the best thing in the long run but that's what could happen.

Who knows what the world will be like in 20 years though in these bizarre times with the internet fully fledged and high speed internet for most people.

The net has been around a while but people didn't bother in the days of 56k modems it was only in around 2005-2009 that the main herd started using it regularly so that's only 10-15 years worth, before that you just didn't anything apart from TV and magazines and travelling or where you lived.

 

[ianh]

Doesnt matter. The USA could do it. It would upset a ton of people and cost a fortune.

Lives matter more. I applaud NZ.

Sadly they don't matter to the vast majority of people, not even to yourself if you're honest to yourself. So how can I prove that dramatic/stupid statement - in 2017 there were 1710 Vehicle deaths vs 32 Gun deaths in UK - If "Lives Matter More" was a truthful statement vehicles would be banned as they killed 5343% more people than guns did - THATS OVER FIVE THOUSAND TIMES MORE PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY VEHICLES IN ONE YEAR THAN BY GUNS!

So, if lives matter more was a genuinely truthful statement and we know that vehicles killed over 5000% more people than guns, then why do people (including yourself) still use vehicles quite happily yet want guns banned?

Is this a ridiculous argument - Yeap, it's a 100% "Pants on Head" stupid argument but I only use it to prove this point - it shows is that Lives DO NOT matter regardless of what people actually say out-loud.

Personally they'd have to take my car keys from my cold dead hands before I'd willingly just hand them over but thats just me

 

[Dis86]

Sadly they don't matter to the vast majority of people, not even to yourself if you're honest to yourself. So how can I prove that dramatic/stupid statement - in 2017 there were 1710 Vehicle deaths vs 32 Gun deaths in UK - If "Lives Matter More" was a truthful statement vehicles would be banned as they killed 5343% more people than guns did - THATS OVER FIVE THOUSAND TIMES MORE PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY VEHICLES IN ONE YEAR THAN BY GUNS!

So, if lives matter more was a genuinely truthful statement and we know that vehicles killed over 5000% more people than guns, then why do people (including yourself) still use vehicles quite happily yet want guns banned?

Is this a ridiculous argument - Yeap, it's a 100% "Pants on Head" stupid argument but I only use it to prove this point - it shows is that Lives DO NOT matter regardless of what people actually say out-loud.

Personally they'd have to take my car keys from my cold dead hands before I'd willingly just hand them over but thats just me

Completely my point but Screeech went full derp over it.

 

[jsmoke]

Sadly they don't matter to the vast majority of people, not even to yourself if you're honest to yourself. So how can I prove that dramatic/stupid statement - in 2017 there were 1710 Vehicle deaths vs 32 Gun deaths in UK - If "Lives Matter More" was a truthful statement vehicles would be banned as they killed 5343% more people than guns did - THATS OVER FIVE THOUSAND TIMES MORE PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY VEHICLES IN ONE YEAR THAN BY GUNS!

So, if lives matter more was a genuinely truthful statement and we know that vehicles killed over 5000% more people than guns, then why do people (including yourself) still use vehicles quite happily yet want guns banned?

Is this a ridiculous argument - Yeap, it's a 100% "Pants on Head" stupid argument but I only use it to prove this point - it shows is that Lives DO NOT matter regardless of what people actually say out-loud.

Personally they'd have to take my car keys from my cold dead hands before I'd willingly just hand them over but thats just me

Yeh but, guns are designed to kill or at least maim, we have a thing called personal freedoms and responsibilities. I don't really get your arguement.

You have to correct your numbers also taking into account the number of cars vs the number of guns. I think heart disease is the biggest killer of all.

 

[Troezar]

Not sure if anyone has made the point but group punishment is a dodgy road to go down. Taking legally owned property from the law abiding can be extended to anything else once you start.

It is of course political not practical or why else do motor vehicles that can exceed the speed limit exist? They aren't needed, kill people and are therefore dangerous but it would be political suicide to ban them as well as expensive to compensate owners.

Sensible controls of whatever it might be is sensible but I really dislike outright bans. Once you've been on the wrong end of one it looks a little different...

 

[Rroff]

How can a law that by it's very definition cannot fail and 100% achieves what it sets out to do be 'better thought out'

Sure if you are anti-gun I can see why you'd think like that - personally I try to have a more balanced view.

We get it you like guns and think every human on planet earth should be allowed to be armed to the teeth, unfortunately for you very few people in the UK think like this.
Have you considered moving to the US? Texas lets you own pretty much anything

Actually I'm quite happy with UK firearms rules/regulations (aside from the crazy stuff they tried to do over 50 cal - which my beef was it was obviously dreamed up by people with about as good knowledge of the subject as the suggestion of tagging every knife with GPS). I do however like to apply some balanced thinking on the subject - the vast majority of firearms will not be used in situations like this and we need to be careful how far we allow the actions of a incredibly tiny number of crazy people dictate regulations for people in general.

Yeh but, guns are designed to kill or at least maim, we have a thing called personal freedoms and responsibilities. I don't really get your arguement.

You have to correct your numbers also taking into account the number of cars vs the number of guns. I think heart disease is the biggest killer of all.

Where do you draw the line? if a firearm is made with the intent of target shooting is that different to a car made from scratch with the intention of killing people? if someone made a drone from scratch to carry explosives or armed with blades so as to carry out a massacre is that different? do we have to wait until someone carries out an attack with a drone in the style ISIS have been using them before we ban them all? I mean no one has a need to own a drone so surely we should ban them all before someone kills a load of people with them?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Not sure if anyone has made the point but group punishment is a dodgy road to go down. Taking legally owned property from the law abiding can be extended to anything else once you start.

Many people have made this point but the Government is not taking legally owned property from law abiding citizens - it is taking property that was once legal and is now no longer legal from citizens who have an appropriate way of remaining on the right side of the law by way of buy back.

It is of course political not practical or why else do motor vehicles that can exceed the speed limit exist? They aren't needed, kill people and are therefore dangerous but it would be political suicide to ban them as well as expensive to compensate owners.

A car's primary function is to transport people and things from A to B. A gun's primary function is to maim or kill things. The fact that a car can be used as a weapon is less relevant than a gun is used as a weapon (notwithstanding the arguable cases where the use of it as a weapon is not detrimental to human life).

Sensible controls of whatever it might be is sensible but I really dislike outright bans. Once you've been on the wrong end of one it looks a little different...

The ban is very specific in what it targets. Very specific.

To those talking of knee-jerk reactions rather than quick actions, I'd point you to the success Australia had when it underwent a similar change. This is not without precedent and can demonstrably work to reduce (not eliminate necessarily) the type of event which happened last week.

The part which I half-expected but kind of hoped wouldn't come up in the thread is this notion of "no, a country I don't live in shouldn't do this thing and here are some arguments I have with it" rather than "the worst that can happen is that nothing improves and the law may be revised or revisited but if it does make a change, well then ..."

But no, your 'freedoms' don't allow you freedom of thought.

 

[Jumper118]

Nope, why would I be interested in the dribblings of some psychopath?

Do you read Islamic terrorists manifestos when they blow people up?

It was a pretty interesting read tbh. Had some good memes in it tbf. He has played the media and the government pretty well, if they had read it maybe they wouldn't have done exactly what he wanted. TBH they should do the exact opposite.

No i have not read any Islamic terrorists manifestos. I would be interested in reading one thats in English tbh. Do they normally spend 2 years making a 74 page documented with an FAQ?

The reason why members of the public should be able to see these things and read them, is because otherwise the government or msm could just make stuff up and people would believe it.

Jordan Petersons 12 Rules For Life has been removed from a well known NZ book store (Whitcoulls) because of links to the shooting yet they still have Hitlers Mein Kampf on their shelves.

Censorship knows no bounds...

wow that is impressive.

 

[The_Abyss]

Are you an advocate for the banning of all vehicles with engines that go above the legal speed limit ? I mean why do people need cars at all when we have public transport, bicycles and legs ?

For all you freedom hating opinion forcing authoritarians, why don't you just **** off to North Korea or China where you'll obviously be happy being free to do what the state tells you to do

Not banning, but capping top speed is sensible. These are already in place, and Volvo is going one step further soon.

The remainder of your post is just a childish insult and shows why you’re incapable of having a reasonable debate in this topic. Some might say it also shows why some people especially shouldn’t be allowed to own firearms.

 

[The_Abyss]

Someone could weaponise a drone for mass killing so maybe ban them as well as no one has an actual need to own one.

Agreed. If weaponised drones capable of mass killings were for sale then they should be banned.

 

[The_Abyss]

Mostly all gun violence is by Handguns, not Rifles, all of these weapons are semi automatic. The concept isn't difficult to understand really is it.

So ban them all then.

 

[The_Abyss]

True, but it's nice to have an adult conversation about a very serious subject anyway.

Yeap, thats a sad truth I agree but I think the number of deaths by firearms in the UK/NZ is tiny compared to the huge amount of deaths caused by things that which we hardly pay attention too. For example in the UK in 2017 there were 32 shooting deaths but we had 1710 car crash deaths in the same time. We 'should' be absolutely appalled by the number car deaths and have it debated in parliament, on the front page of newspapers etc but we're not appalled so instead the tiny number of 32 gun deaths (only 1.8% of the total car deaths) gets all the press in comparison because we have a primal reaction to violent death caused by another. The US on the other hand, wow

Agreed n the adult conversation, it seems like you’re one of the few firearm advocates in this thread who’s able to conduct one, thank you.

I agree on the car debate. It should be had. It’ll probably be one of the key drivers (pun) towards driverless cars. But the difference is that most cars are owned out of necessity. I’d venture that most firearms are not.

 

[Rroff]

Agreed. If weaponised drones capable of mass killings were for sale then they should be banned.

Potentially flying one into an airline could very much make them capable of mass killing without weaponising them for mass killing in the way I was talking earlier.

 

[The_Abyss]

Potentially flying one into an airline could very much make them capable of mass killing without weaponising them for mass killing in the way I was talking earlier.

Indeed. But in the meantime, what do we do about all those deaths that are actually happening and being caused by firearms?

 

[Rroff]

what do we do about all those deaths that are actually happening and being caused by firearms?

I'm not saying don't have firearm restrictions or gun regulations. It just shouldn't be based on "well no one needs a firearm so lets get rid of all firearms".