I'm not even having a dig, I'm being serious, your grammar is atrocious and you're criticising a Professor who's IQ is probably > 150 based on some Youtube videos. It's like me criticising one of Ronaldo's free kicks, it's laughable really.
Assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics have been banned in New Zealand
- Thread starter [FnG]magnolia
- Start date
I'm not even having a dig, I'm being serious, your grammar is atrocious and you're criticising a Professor who's IQ is probably > 150 based on some Youtube videos. It's like me criticising one of Ronaldo's free kicks, it's laughable really.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,490
NVM
Last edited:
No not failing I see your point and I'm not saying you should modify your view - but neither do I think we should go these lengths of a purely need basis of modifying how we regulate society based on the actions of a tiny number of madmen.
It is a good thing most of these shootings aren't carried out by experienced shooters with actual assault weapons rather than semi-auto AR-15s decked out in tacticool.
Last edited:
Doesn't really matter which it is - make access to them harder and you help to reduce the chance of those incidents regardless.
Fact is we have some people in this country that would like to kill a lot of citizens, the fact we don't have easy access to guns means that some terrorist attacks have had to involve knives and vehicles or have involved people plotting to construct bombs and in the process of planning getting caught etc.. that those people can't just grab a legally possess semi auto rifle, walk into the street and just start a massacre is rather a good thing.
Sure if we had great mental health provision, minimal terror threats and no gang cultures then perhaps we could have a bit more leniency with regards to guns, unfortunately we don't and so restricting them is rather sensible.
Fair enough, and we therefore have an agreed disagreement with different opinions, which is fine 
I think it is a great pity that some of the pro-gun arguments put forward in this thread have not been as reasoned or eloquent.
I think it is a great pity that some of the pro-gun arguments put forward in this thread have not been as reasoned or eloquent.
In 2018 there was 1 nerve agent related death in the UK.
In 2018 there were 1770 road deaths in the UK
Why do people feel "safer" when nerve agents get banned? We can prove that nerve agent deaths are already incredibly rare [insert pointless stats] so why do people feel perfectly safe in vehicles and allow 1770 Brits to die per year without doing anything? One of those figures is MUCH worse than the other so what are we safe with one and not the other?
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,373
- Location
- Bucks
You being 'serious' and having a 'dig' seem to go hand in hand.
You have a gd day, I gotta get back to work at one of the worlds top unis and cry over my grammar.
More guns, more crime: New research debunks a central thesis of the gun rights movement
Source = https://www.livescience.com/39813-gun-ownership-increases-firearms-deaths.html
Source = http://worldobserveronline.com/2013/09/13/largest-gun-study-ever-more-guns-more-murder/
Source = https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/14/more-guns-more-crime-new-research-debunks-a-central-thesis-of-the-gun-rights-movement/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1f12a9a7378e
Source = https://www.livescience.com/39813-gun-ownership-increases-firearms-deaths.html
Source = http://worldobserveronline.com/2013/09/13/largest-gun-study-ever-more-guns-more-murder/
Glad to see someone gets it. Militaries use bombs then comes rifles and handguns are just laughable in military terms. I see as my low powered handguns have been replaced with much higher powered firearms all in the name of safety. I just see the same people with no experience deluding themselves that life is safe and are prepared to give away every right they have and others rights, to live and let live, to maintain that illusion.
For those that will scoff, check out a semi auto shotgun and a .22 pistol on YouTube The first is legal in the UK the second isn't. Come back and tell me that there was any logic to bans. It was politically unpalatable to ban all firearms as it looks too draconian. It wasn't about safety it was about looking like you're doing something.
There are more mass shootings in states with weaker gun laws, according to a new studypublished in The BMJ, a medical journal, on Wednesday.
The study, from researchers at Columbia, New York University, Boston University, and the University of Pennsylvania, analyzed states’ mass shooting rates, the permissiveness of their firearm laws, and levels of gun ownership from 1998 to 2015. It then tested each of these to see if there was a link.
The result: Where there are more guns, there are more mass shootings. And where gun laws are weaker, there are more mass shootings.
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15945050/state_mass_shooting_rates.png)
More guns, more crime: New research debunks a central thesis of the gun rights movement
Source = https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/14/more-guns-more-crime-new-research-debunks-a-central-thesis-of-the-gun-rights-movement/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1f12a9a7378e
Source = https://www.livescience.com/39813-gun-ownership-increases-firearms-deaths.html
Source = http://worldobserveronline.com/2013/09/13/largest-gun-study-ever-more-guns-more-murder/
I trust you have looked into the figures to see who is shooting who and why? It isn't law abiding citizens like me. There appears to be a much bigger issue with legally obtained drugs killing people in the US. Oxycontin alone has apparently killed 72,000 in 2017.
The point is bans are political not about safety. No one needs alcohol but I don't see a ban being suggested despite it not being "safe".
Can you just stop being pasting huge news stories with giant pictures completely lacking any commentary or insight of your own, we all know where the Washington post is.
More guns, more crime: New research debunks a central thesis of the gun rights movement
Source = https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/14/more-guns-more-crime-new-research-debunks-a-central-thesis-of-the-gun-rights-movement/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1f12a9a7378e
Source = https://www.livescience.com/39813-gun-ownership-increases-firearms-deaths.html
Source = http://worldobserveronline.com/2013/09/13/largest-gun-study-ever-more-guns-more-murder/
There's more to it than guns and killing. It's about the social architects plan for a new world order. They have very specific ideologies they are putting into place. They don't so much care about guns it's the attitudes and beliefs of your stereotypical gun advocate they want to get rid of and by taking away their guns their on the road to doing this.
Take away their idol. All ideological. I'm still a bit split between the whole thing going from the old world to this new world. A lot in here will be the last people who kind of understood the old world even though we were at the tail end of it but we certainly have lived through the founding of the new world with the internet et al.
lawl
Once again you are being disingenuous, the ban was a DIRECT result of the slaughter in Dunblane. It was a ban to prevent ANOTHER Dunblane from ever happening again, and once again by definition IT COULD NOT FAIL.
You guys are laughable if you think you're more informed then professors and experts who spend months studying DATA and statistics to prove their position.
Please show me YOUR peer reviewed evidence and include links to the University's please
Don't bother with the fake BS either:
I'm anti-gun in an uncontrolled context. I don't like the NRA perspective that everyone you should be armed or carrying arms like you have you're mobile phone. Guns *are* serious business and as such you should need that level of control.
I have shot clays (so has the mrs) and I am considering getting a shotgun licence etc. I have been a reference for a friend's shotgun licence. I would consider going on a game shoot. I also sea fish, keeping for the table only.
Before I would ask - why would you ever need a gun etc. Now I see the sporting/game/vermin side and understand they can be used safely but I still ask - why do you need a .50 for shooting targets at extreme range. I know the reason I would - because it's hard to shoot at extreme ranges but why .50 that was developed for military use. Certainly why use a weapon that is fully automatic for the same reason - it was developed with a different purpose in mind and should be military only/extremely heavily controlled.
Guns are designed to kill - be it animal or human. There is a subset of guns that are sporting/vermin but do you need guns overpowered for sports/vermin in public hands? No - not without extreme controls. However the gun-lobby don't make it easy for themselves by linking possession with carrying and shooting people (regardless of self defence or not).
One thing to note looking at the US shotgun issue - UK shotguns are limited to 3 shots/reload on a shotgun licence or a firearms licence is required. That means you can use a side-by-side/over-and-under/semi-automatic or pump action as long as the gun can carry only 3 cartridges (including in the barrel and in the magazine) on a shotgun licence.
Semi-auto shot gun is that you load 1 in the chamber and two in the magazine. The speed of chambering a new round is very fast - as fast as you can can repeat pull the trigger.
In the US I believe you are not limited in this way thus 8 shot are widely available. So the question is - for shotguns, how much less likely are they to be used if the US implemented a 3 shot limit and removed automatic shotguns.
I'm also unsure why you'd need a pistol for shooting vermin, and target shooting only needs a certain sub-set of pistol configuration (power, number of shots per reload).
Air pistols in the UK are limited to under a power level before they require a firearm certificate.
However controlled you are - a person can get access to non-legal guns. Not all are stolen in the UK from gun owners, the majority are imported because the number of people that have a gun they're interested in is very low due to controls.
Last edited:
Crazy by name... don't be daft another incident is easily possible. There just aren't that many nutters around that want to kill themselves and others. Don't give me the research line. Universities are hotbeds of left wing activism and always check who finances any research. It can say what ever you want it to if you have a narrative...
lawl (Can't challenge the meta DATA so go full tin foil hat conspiracy nonsense ! pathetic)
It's physically impossible for another Dunblane to happen, because the guns used WERE BANNED!
I bet half you gun fanatics haven't even shot a real gun so don't have a clue how utterly deadly and horrific they are!
Wait you're telling me that murderers aren't law abiding citizens?
Nah I think they are, sure they might not be ideally implemented and you've got a chip on your shoulder about your hobby, that is fair, perhaps they went too far in banning .22 handguns... but I don't think that is a good argument against the principle in general but rather a minor aspect of the implementation.
Not allowing the ownership of semi auto rifles or handguns (AFAIK .22 still allowed in the case of rifles) makes it much harder for a repeat of either of the two notable mass shooting events we've had in the UK using those respective types of firearms or indeed this incident in NZ.
But if your caught with it it's 5 years minimum in jail. If your seen waving it around in public, the police may just shoot you. There are no grey areas.
If those terrorists who attacked London had easy access to guns instead of just knives it would have been FAR worse. So the ban has worked.
This entire thread should be given GOLD status, I honestly cant believe people are actually trying to defend gun ownership for anything else other than pest control/farming or a plinking a target at a competition. The public do not need automatics, semi - automatic, pistols in any shape or form, no matter how much fun it is to shoot them (and it is fun) It should be the police and military only, hell just walking around Germany with a 9mm as a squaddie while attached to MP`s when i was 19 messes with your head.
It really is a big fat no, and well done to NZ for stepping up and doing something. (shame on you America SHAME)
It really is a big fat no, and well done to NZ for stepping up and doing something. (shame on you America SHAME)