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

They didn't think banning the guns would stop illegal use of guns obviously :rolleyes:
What they are saying is, as a civilised society they don't want to have any part whatsoever in helping nutters commit these atrocities.
Passing these sensible laws makes it impossible for them to ever be complicit in another Christchurch, these new laws cannot fail at achieving this.
 
But your premise is that legal guns will not be used to kill... That and my previous statement shows you are still reliant on an individual not going postal
ttaskmaster said:
Murder is.
Killing actually isn't. This is why murder is defined as unlawful killing. .
Click to expand...

Human wise was my implication
 
ttaskmaster said:
Tosh - We were making crude pipe bombs in the 2nd year of secondary school. If we had a couple hundred quid, we could have quite legally purchased enough material to drop a block of flats... and had we been over 18, we could have bought some far more heavy duty stuff.
It actually takes very little, properly applied, but it's also not rocket science... unless you're making sugar rockets in chemistry class...!
Click to expand...

So why is the school shooter, or grievance killer's weapon of choice an AR-15 and not a pipe bomb?

Answer; because it's the quickest, easiest most guaranteed way of killing lots of people.

ttaskmaster said:
Actually, light artillery is vastly superior. Millions of soldiers, the pinnacle of expertise with both assault rifles and machine guns, and training in how to kill people, will still tell you mortars and artillery is the easiest and most effective way to kill loads of people... and the battlefield statistics still assert that explosives and artillery are the biggest killers.
Click to expand...

Of course, you're aware that the context of what I wrote, was in civilian life - not on a battlefield.
 
RaohNS said:
But your premise is that legal guns will not be used to kill... That and my previous statement shows you are still reliant on an individual not going postal

Human wise was my implication
Click to expand...

No my premise is that a repeat of CHristchurch is impossible, which is 100% correct and exactly what the new legislation sets out to do.
 
ttaskmaster said:
What's the average number of deaths per mass shooting, since 2000?
What's the average of a bombing incident?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter.

The fact is, in mass shootings, particularly school shooters and other grievance killers - including terrorists in the USA and also completely freak incidents like the Vegas shooter - people turn to semi-automatic rifles to kill, hence the focus on banning them, because they serve no useful, reasonable purpose in civilian life - there's no positive reason to have them. (I want them because I like guns, does not constitute a valid reason)

ttaskmaster said:
However, I assert that the same is still technically true of civvy street, assuming both bombs and guns are equally available. One person, one bomb, one bang, block of 120 flats, say 300-odd people, all done in a few seconds and easily planted. Same for a train bomb, or any number of other applications.
However, one person with one gun, relatively good marksmanship required, one casualty per hit, takes a fair bit of time, might even get spotted and stopped along the way. Odds far lower.
Click to expand...

I think you don't understand how grievance killings work, especially school shootings.

In the vast majority of cases, somebody goes off the handle - they hastily decide to 'go out with a bang' due to how life has treated them, a good example would be Nicolas Cruz (the Stoneman Douglas shooting) it doesn't really require much planning, get your gun and your ammo and just go - armed with something like an AR-15, it's practically guaranteed to be successful.

Compare that to blowing up a building full of people, it has to be planned, someone with a cool head has to assemble a bomb, they need to learn the expertise before they assemble it, they have to get it there and plant it - they'll almost certainly need help from somewhere. Building bombs to do something like that is a seriously difficult thing to pull off, which is why grievance killers and terrorists, tend to default to AR-15s, rather than build bombs, where they're available, because it's easier.

Why do you think the ISIS terrorists who were building bombs, all had to go to various training camps, and get bomb making manuals from ISIS, along with help from other operatives? Because building effective bombs is complicated, difficult and very risky.
 
@Screeeech there's no valid reason for a lot of people to have a lot of things. Cars are a prime example. Many people don't need one. They just like them. Do you know how many people are killed by cars in NZ each year? More than are shot with semi autos. Shall we ban cars?
I don't need a gas barbeque. Many people suffer horrific injuries from them or are killed. Ban gas barbeques?

Look at all of the people that are injured or even killed as a result of football in this country or around the world. Not to mention the property damage. Ban football?
 
Dis86 said:
@Screeeech there's no valid reason for a lot of people to have a lot of things. Cars are a prime example. Many people don't need one. They just like them. Do you know how many people are killed by cars in NZ each year? More than are shot with semi autos. Shall we ban cars?
I don't need a gas barbeque. Many people suffer horrific injuries from them or are killed. Ban gas barbeques?
Click to expand...

This is the worst argument I've ever heard, to advance the legal ownership of assault rifles.

Cars are required to make society function, we need to travel to work, we need to move goods around (logistics) we need cars because the societies we've built rely on them, therefore we accept the risk of using cars, and the accidents which may occur - because the advantages that cars provide to society, outweigh the disadvantages of banning cars, because of accidents.

We don't need semi-automatic assault rifles in order for society to function.
 
Screeeech said:
This is the worst argument I've ever heard, to advance the legal ownership of assault rifles.

Cars are required to make society function, we need to travel to work, we need to move goods around (logistics) we need cars because the societies we've built rely on them.

We don't need semi-automatic assault rifles in order for society to function.
Click to expand...

We existed for millennia without them. I think we can survive without them. And as I pointed out, some people don't need them yet have them.

And the other examples?
 
Dis86 said:
@Screeeech there's no valid reason for a lot of people to have a lot of things. Cars are a prime example. Many people don't need one. They just like them. Do you know how many people are killed by cars in NZ each year? More than are shot with semi autos. Shall we ban cars?
I don't need a gas barbeque. Many people suffer horrific injuries from them or are killed. Ban gas barbeques?

Look at all of the people that are injured or even killed as a result of football in this country or around the world. Not to mention the property damage. Ban football?
Click to expand...

LMAO BAN CARS COZ WE DON'T NEED EM BAN OXYGEN COZ WE DON'T NEED IT BAN HUMANS COZ WE DON'T NEED EM
 
Dis86 said:
We existed for millennia without them. I think we can survive without them. And as I pointed out, some people don't need them yet have them.
Click to expand...

Honestly? (jesus wept)

We survived for millennia without cars, because at that time our societies were small, we didn't commute long distances, we didn't need cars because our societies were tiny.

However in the last 100-200 years, our societies have exploded, along with the population, and the distances between us have increased, we have logistic needs, commuting needs.

Without cars, huge numbers of people wouldn't even be able to get to work, ambulances wouldn't exist, roads wouldn't exist, logistics and trucks wouldn't exist.

I mean...??
 
Screeeech said:
Honestly? (jesus wept)

We survived for millennia without cars, because at that time our societies were small, we didn't commute long distances, we didn't need cars because our societies were tiny.

However in the last 100-200 years, our societies have exploded, along with the population, and the distances between us have increased, we have logistic needs, commuting needs.

Without cars, huge numbers of people wouldn't even be able to get to work, ambulances wouldn't exist, roads wouldn't exist, logistics and trucks wouldn't exist.

I mean...??
Click to expand...

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.
 
Efour said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Lives matter more. I applaud NZ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom