Plenty of time for a lie-in, what are you worried about?
Get to bed you daft ****.
Nighty nightAssault rifles and military-style semi-automatics have been banned in New Zealand
- Thread starter [FnG]magnolia
- Start date
Nighty night
Last edited:
@maschio
Eh? You asked for elaboration then you get it and you respond like that? You need firearms to enjoy life? You're making no sense in that last post.
Presumably you don't really have much of an argument left for your all weapons should be allowed position, especially when citing terrorism.
Eh? You asked for elaboration then you get it and you respond like that? You need firearms to enjoy life? You're making no sense in that last post.
Presumably you don't really have much of an argument left for your all weapons should be allowed position, especially when citing terrorism.
Caporegime
Mein Kampf isn't a terrorist manifesto, so... pretty logical decision there.
It's not censorship when a private company makes an independent decision to stop selling a product.
Caporegime
It doesn't even say that.
Caporegime
Show me which ones contradict my point.
Caporegime
Sooner we have ww3 the better. A hard reset.
Im so tired of seeing how 50 dying in one part of the world is so tragic but 500 in another, nobody batters an eyelid after a 12h newscycle.
Ban religions, best results.
Ok doesnt have to be ww3, just some global wake up call, alien invaders could work. Global warming won't work, too slow.
Im so tired of seeing how 50 dying in one part of the world is so tragic but 500 in another, nobody batters an eyelid after a 12h newscycle.
Ban religions, best results.
Ok doesnt have to be ww3, just some global wake up call, alien invaders could work. Global warming won't work, too slow.
Last edited:
Soldato
The argument was simple and effective - KoolPC said "Lives Matter More" and my argument proved that it doesn't, thats it.
The way I did that was to reverse the most common "anti-gun" argument used on here - that guns kill people so they must be banned and there is no reason to own them - so I showed that cars killed over 5000% more people in the UK during 2017 than guns did yet, despite that fact, people will still find all manner of excuses as to why vehicles that killed 1710 people should not be banned yet guns, which only killed 32, must be banned and there is no reason to keep them, which disproves "Lives Matter More".
So, a nice simple argument which highlights is just how poorly thought-out the "guns must be banned because they're dangerous" argument really is when shown in context to other deaths and it also shows that "fear" is far more important than logic when it comes to firearms i.e 1710 road deaths creates less "fear" because "well they're accidents" etc i.e. not deliberate, yet 32 gun deaths are deliberate acts of murder, so we "fear" those far more. So we take away the object causing that "fear" i.e. banning guns, so that we'll feel safer, despite not actually doing anything to prevent the real mass killers like road deaths etc which again shows that Lives don't Matter More.
Again, I know my argument is 100% pants on head silly but that doesn't mean it's not right
Soldato
Thank you for proving the point I made so well
"Cars are a necessity" is just another excuse people use to justify not banning vehicles which killed 5000% more people than firearms in the UK in 2017, yet only firearms are bad and need banning.
If "Lives Matter More" were true (which is the only thing my replies have dealt with) then which would be better - 1710 people not killed or only 32? The choice should be extremely easy if Lives really did Matter More, but people (myself included) prefer to accept 1710 deaths as perfectly acceptable, because the "fear" of death by firearms, despite being so rare, is far more important to remove.
"Cars are a necessity" is just another excuse people use to justify not banning vehicles which killed 5000% more people than firearms in the UK in 2017, yet only firearms are bad and need banning.
If "Lives Matter More" were true (which is the only thing my replies have dealt with) then which would be better - 1710 people not killed or only 32? The choice should be extremely easy if Lives really did Matter More, but people (myself included) prefer to accept 1710 deaths as perfectly acceptable, because the "fear" of death by firearms, despite being so rare, is far more important to remove.
I guess the equivalent argument would be that a car with an engine bigger than 1litre is not necessary and potentially dangerous in the wrong hands so they are now banned for everyone.
Is this a UK example where gun laws have already been introduced? Because that's an unfair comparison. You also didn't note the number of cars in circulation versus the number for guns in circulation and both of these points ignore the basic design argument which is cars are for transport and guns are, broadly speaking, designed very much to injure, maim, or kill things. So I agree it's a silly argument but I disagree that it's right (or the double negative if you prefer).The argument was simple and effective - KoolPC said "Lives Matter More" and my argument proved that it doesn't, thats it.
The way I did that was to reverse the most common "anti-gun" argument used on here - that guns kill people so they must be banned and there is no reason to own them - so I showed that cars killed over 5000% more people in the UK during 2017 than guns did yet, despite that fact, people will still find all manner of excuses as to why vehicles that killed 1710 people should not be banned yet guns, which only killed 32, must be banned and there is no reason to keep them, which disproves "Lives Matter More".
So, a nice simple argument which highlights is just how poorly thought-out the "guns must be banned because they're dangerous" argument really is when shown in context to other deaths and it also shows that "fear" is far more important than logic when it comes to firearms i.e 1710 road deaths creates less "fear" because "well they're accidents" etc i.e. not deliberate, yet 32 gun deaths are deliberate acts of murder, so we "fear" those far more. So we take away the object causing that "fear" i.e. banning guns, so that we'll feel safer, despite not actually doing anything to prevent the real mass killers like road deaths etc which again shows that Lives don't Matter More.
Again, I know my argument is 100% pants on head silly but that doesn't mean it's not right
It's a hard to resolve problem, that's for sure
Soldato
As said before, it's only an argument to show that the current "anti-gun" argument is massively flawed when it relies on "guns kill people so must be banned" when people also say "Lives Matter More" - that's all, and thats why I picked vehicles to use as an example.
I mean just look at all the excuses people will come up with for keeping vehicles, despite them killing so many, yet when other people make excuses for keeping firearms, which kill so few, they're in the wrong.
There is a much better argument for banning firearms but it definitely isn't "because they kill people", it's because people are scared of them and fear overrules logic every-time, that's a primal instinct and it's a strong one. It doesn't make it right or wrong to be scared it's just how people are, yet we can't have a laws only based on "fear" they must be based on Logic, so we use a range of poor logical reasons to allow us to bring a law into effect which does very little other than to make people "feel" safer.
Again, we don't feel "fear" of road deaths anywhere near as much as we "fear" being shot, despite the chances of dying on the roads being so much higher, so we're happy to accept 1710 deaths for example without asking for the law to be changed vs the visceral reaction people generally have when people are shot, which is extremely rare.
It's a hard to resolve problem, that's for sure
Yeap, thats an absolutely sad but true fact
Caporegime
Cars that go over 80mph 100kph shpush be banned for sure and hard locked to do only 30 in urban areas.
Which will be entirely possible with a ban on manual cars circa 20 years from now.
The data difference between that and a constantly improving web of connected vehicles, will force governments to legislate out anything that does not meet the standard set.
It will be described as ‘infallible’, until such a time as a human enters the system to abuse it, but that will be ignored.
Isn’t the future great?
It's quite obvious here how many people here have a total lack of experience of firearms especially in their sporting context. The UK is not the US firearms are not used here for self defence. They make holes in bits of paper or other targets, control vermin etc.
I've owned and used firearms for 30+ years. Never even heard of an accident let alone reckless use. Why should I (emphasis not I) be penalised for other people's crimes?
I've owned and used firearms for 30+ years. Never even heard of an accident let alone reckless use. Why should I (emphasis not I) be penalised for other people's crimes?
Nobody is penalising you. And I imagine if the subject weren’t about New Zealand, and specifically whether or not the uk’s current laws are good enough, then your annoyance might be a bit more legitimate.
I also imagine it would be a very short thread because almost everyone is fine with the situation in this country.
Edit: just found a survery done in 2011, 4% wanted relaxation, rest were a 3 way split between apathy, more control and outright ban. Which I take as being ok with the situation if no one specifically campaigns for it.
I already have been. I was a very good 1500 competitor and spent hundreds of hours and a lot of money practicing and competing. Overnight my sport had gone (1997). We're at the point where NZ may end up and it won't end until the sport had gone. Don't worry though as single shot .22 short pistols have gone but semi auto shotguns are quite legal. It's political, not about safety.
Soldato
I agree, experience tends to remove most fears so people with experience of firearms (like yourself and I) have less fear of them than Joe Public who only sees them in Hollywood or in the news or occasional Police use. So when the government says "handguns are banned" for example, it makes people feel much safer when in reality all it does is make them 0.01% safer at most (the number of illegal uses of legally held handguns divided by the total number of legal handguns), yet the ban has massive effects on legal owners, gun shops, firearms manufacturers, ammunition manufacturers, gun ranges, target makers, national sport teams, Olympic teams etc and all just to make people "feel" safer, which is all the government is really concerned with.
My Dad is a firearms officer and I grew up in a house with lots of shotguns & i used to go clay pigeon shooting with him occasionally when I was a kid. Also never heard of any accidents.
I see no issues with our current laws that allow this, the requirements and restrictions needed to get a shotgun license are pretty strict as it is.
I however have also fired an assault rifle in america (M4) and literally cannot understand how it could be legal to own. Once you actually shoot something like this you see how easy it would be for nut cases to kill masses of people if they got their hands on one, there is really no need for them to be legal anywhere.