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

[[FnG]magnolia]

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.

I appreciate where you're coming from but people feel "much safer" when mass shootings don't occur - see Australia for a prime example of positive change. It goes a lot further than GOVT BANS SOME GUNS = PEOPLE FEEL SAFE. People feel safe because they are safe because the Bad Thing that happened hasn't been repeated.

Having said all of that, I can understand why you don't see it that way. It does suck when an infrequent occurrence impacts the 'good guys'. I can see that being difficult to swallow (I mean that genuinely as even writing it I was aware it sounded like sarcasm - it is not).

 

[Roar87]

Mein Kampf isn't a terrorist manifesto, so... pretty logical decision there.

And 12 rules for life is? Is this a serious post?

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

And 12 rules for life is? Is this a serious post?

Its Jorden Peterson, one of the most outspoken and accurate critical thinkers in the last 20 years, of course its a terrorist manifesto.

 

[iamtheoneneo]

Its Jorden Peterson, one of the most outspoken and accurate critical thinkers in the last 20 years, of course its a terrorist manifesto.

Oh jezz. This is why we can't have nice things in life. Because morons will attach themselves to individuals that talk the talk, but actually when you analyse everything they say in detail becomes a bunch of trash.
JP is one of those guys, thats made a living out of. Just like Milo, Ben Shapiro and many others.

 

[Sankari]

 

[Sankari]

Its Jorden Peterson, one of the most outspoken and accurate critical thinkers in the last 20 years, of course its a terrorist manifesto.

Jordan Peterson is just another self-help guru, they're a dime a dozen. He's nothing special.

 

[The_Abyss]

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".

Well, you see that's where we disagree. I think the starting point should be "Nobody needs guns." Exceptions to that position can then be worked on from there.

 

[ianh]

I appreciate where you're coming from but people feel "much safer" when mass shootings don't occur - see Australia for a prime example of positive change.

The total number of firearms murders in Australia has only dropped by 47 people since the 1997 ban when the were 79 deaths (table 1) to only 32 in 2016 (table 4).

In 2016 there were 32 firearms related deaths in Australia.
In 2016 there were 1293 road deaths in Australia.

Why do people feel "safer" when firearms get banned? We can prove that firearms deaths are already incredibly rare (32 deaths in 2016 which is a 0.000128% chance based on 25 million population) so why do the same people feel perfectly safe in vehicles and allow 1293 Australians to die per year without doing anything? One of those figures is MUCH worse than the other so why are we "safe" with one and not the other?

Again, the answer is fear - fear of mass shootings, fear of firearms, fear of violent death so we allow our fear to demand changes, and a government who wants to be popular will change things to calm people, to reduce their fear and in the course of these changes we never stop to use logic once, as our fear over-rides everything. It's a simple, understandable and hugely powerful human reaction.

Having said all of that, I can understand why you don't see it that way.

I just think we need to wean ourselves away from the "guns kill people and should be banned" when we don't apply the same logic to everything else which kills far more people. We need a much better argument for banning firearms than the one we are currently using.

Personally I understand why NZ has decided to change it's guns laws and I see why the rest of the world is applauding it, as 50 extra deaths in small country that only has 50 total murders per a year is horrific.

I think the starting point should be "Nobody needs guns." Exceptions to that position can then be worked on from there.

I agree but "Exceptions" is where the problems start for many on here as "no guns ever" seems to be the slightly unrealistic, but heart-felt, opinion of many here.

 

[Nasher]

But people can't kill people with guns if they can't get hold of guns, especially ones that belong on a battlefield. If it was a knife attack one guy wouldn't have killed anywhere near 50 people.

 

[Rroff]

Well, you see that's where we disagree. I think the starting point should be "Nobody needs guns." Exceptions to that position can then be worked on from there.

Lot of things in life that people might not need that might or might not be dangerous.

But people can't kill people with guns if they can't get hold of guns. If it was a knife attack they wouldn't have killed anywhere near 50 people.

In that scenario no but in another scenario more suited to the use of a bladed weapon another story - don't really want to go into examples and give anyone ideas.

 

[IronWarrior]

Again, the answer is fear - fear of mass shootings, fear of firearms, fear of violent death so we allow our fear to demand changes, and a government who wants to be popular will change things to calm people, to reduce their fear and in the course of these changes we never stop to use logic once, as our fear over-rides everything. It's a simple, understandable and hugely powerful human reaction.

It's an interesting paradox about the fear of a violent death, because road accidents and deaths are very violent that can result in your body totally mangled and broken all over the place, that if your body remains together.

 

[IronWarrior]

But people can't kill people with guns if they can't get hold of guns, especially ones that belong on a battlefield. If it was a knife attack one guy wouldn't have killed anywhere near 50 people.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/33-dead-130-injured-china-knife-wielding-spree-n41966
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...tacker-kills-children-middle-school/557777002
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/man-stabs-22-children-in-china.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-43921567
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_London_Bridge_attack

Mass stabbings happen.

But I get what you saying, I agree that it's easier for someone with a firearm to cause injury and kill than you can with a knife.

 

[Roar87]

Oh jezz. This is why we can't have nice things in life. Because morons will attach themselves to individuals that talk the talk, but actually when you analyse everything they say in detail becomes a bunch of trash.
JP is one of those guys, thats made a living out of. Just like Milo, Ben Shapiro and many others.

Yeah I can see you doing a detailed analysis of his fairly extensive work as a Professor when you barely have a command of the English language

 

[i-bert]

Oh jezz. This is why we can't have nice things in life. Because morons will attach themselves to individuals that talk the talk, but actually when you analyse everything they say in detail becomes a bunch of trash.
JP is one of those guys, thats made a living out of. Just like Milo, Ben Shapiro and many others.

Really?

REALLY?

The guy was given a Fellowship by Cambridge university , only to be revoked after an outcry from the Leftists there.

Not really in the same league as Milo now is he.

 

[The_Abyss]

Lot of things in life that people might not need that might or might not be dangerous.

Yes, they are. But few of those are things that have a solitary design purpose of killing or injuring people. Don't deflect away from guns with 'but other things can hurt people too'. That is the case, and we should look at those too. But we're talking about guns, an argument and subject you seem very keen to not be talking about in a thread about guns.

 

[mootonandy]

The total number of firearms murders in Australia has only dropped by 47 people since the 1997 ban when the were 79 deaths (table 1) to only 32 in 2016 (table 4).

In 2016 there were 32 firearms related deaths in Australia.
In 2016 there were 1293 road deaths in Australia.

Why do people feel "safer" when firearms get banned? We can prove that firearms deaths are already incredibly rare (32 deaths in 2016 which is a 0.000128% chance based on 25 million population) so why do the same people feel perfectly safe in vehicles and allow 1293 Australians to die per year without doing anything? One of those figures is MUCH worse than the other so why are we "safe" with one and not the other?

Again, the answer is fear - fear of mass shootings, fear of firearms, fear of violent death so we allow our fear to demand changes, and a government who wants to be popular will change things to calm people, to reduce their fear and in the course of these changes we never stop to use logic once, as our fear over-rides everything. It's a simple, understandable and hugely powerful human reaction.



I just think we need to wean ourselves away from the "guns kill people and should be banned" when we don't apply the same logic to everything else which kills far more people. We need a much better argument for banning firearms than the one we are currently using.

Personally I understand why NZ has decided to change it's guns laws and I see why the rest of the world is applauding it, as 50 extra deaths in small country that only has 50 total murders per a year is horrific.



I agree but "Exceptions" is where the problems start for many on here as "no guns ever" seems to be the slightly unrealistic, but heart-felt, opinion of many here.

Its the UN that wants all citizens disarmed, don't be surprised if the NZ PM gets a high ranking position in the UN as a reward when she leaves office, it really should be obvious why authoritarian rulers hate the idea of an armed populace.

 

[mootonandy]

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.

Its supposed to be about having the ability to overthrow tyranny.

 

[Rroff]

Yes, they are. But few of those are things that have a solitary design purpose of killing or injuring people. Don't deflect away from guns with 'but other things can hurt people too'. That is the case, and we should look at those too. But we're talking about guns, an argument and subject you seem very keen to not be talking about in a thread about guns.

Not deflecting from guns - it is just they seem to provoke a reaction that other things don't just by nature of being firearms and I'm not a fan at all of the mentality towards anything firearms or otherwise of just broad banning it because I don't like/afraid of it and can't see/don't care whether other people find enjoyment from it, etc.

Personally I'm not even interested as such in changing other people's attitude towards firearms - if people are anti-gun I'm fine with that but I'd like to see some balance to it. There are a lot of people who get innocent pleasure from shooting that will never murder or be a threat to anyone or use firearms in any way but responsibly who can often be catered for without such broad swings in laws and regulations as you tend to get.

 

[iamtheoneneo]

Yeah I can see you doing a detailed analysis of his fairly extensive work as a Professor when you barely have a command of the English language

Wow an internet quip from the early 2000's, you are so edgy! congrats.
I dont need to. You know why? Because there are hundreds of youtube videos out there that have done it for me.

 

[The_Abyss]

Not deflecting from guns - it is just they seem to provoke a reaction that other things don't just by nature of being firearms and I'm not a fan at all of the mentality towards anything firearms or otherwise of just broad banning it because I don't like/afraid of it and can't see/don't care whether other people find enjoyment from it, etc.

Personally I'm not even interested as such in changing other people's attitude towards firearms - if people are anti-gun I'm fine with that but I'd like to see some balance to it. There are a lot of people who get innocent pleasure from shooting that will never murder or be a threat to anyone or use firearms in any way but responsibly who can often be catered for without such broad swings in laws and regulations as you tend to get.

Ok, so I'll break down my view and translate your interpretation a little more, for clarity.

My view is that guns have an inherent design purpose and capability to kill or injure people. The existence of guns makes it more likely that people will be killed by them. Today, in the 21sr century in a more civilised and controlled society, there are very few reasons for people to NEED to own a gun. If fewer people owned guns then fewer people would be killed by them. That's my starting point.

That's nothing to do with 'I don't like it' or 'I'm afraid of it' (I don't understand what this even means - guns don't 'scare' me unless one was being pointed at me). I can perfectly well see how and why people would enjoy using them. That's fine. I've shot before, at cadets in school and for quite a few years after shooting clays. So I can see the enjoyment side of it, and I've experienced it.

The point I'm trying to make, but clearly failing, is that while gun ownership exists the risk that people will be killed by them increases. They can't be uninvented but they can, to some extent, be controlled. The point I mad earlier in this thread is that I thought very few people actually needed to own a gun. I plucked a 1% figure out of the air. I don't believe I received a satisfactory response to that point.

If it is accepted that guns pose a risk to people, and that greater control over guns reduces that risk, then the argument for gun ownership becomes very weak for the majority of cases. For example, people could still enjoy firing guns in highly controlled circumstances - they don't own the guns, they're at a controlled premise that has very strict guidelines on how the guns are used, who uses them, where they can be taken, supply of ammunition is controlled etc. The risk isn't eliminated but it is partially mitigated. People can still enjoy firing a gun, and fewer people will be killed by them. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples too where the argument is that gun ownership is required, but the perceived need for ownership can be met in different ways.