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

Ayahuasca · 22 Mar 2019 at 14:22

iamtheoneneo · 22 Mar 2019 at 14:22

Lord-Jaffa said:
Nice to see you forming your own arguments and opinions after some research and critical thinking.

Thank you.

C.R.A.Z.Y · 22 Mar 2019 at 14:23

It's actually a rather fantastic French/Canadian film, though that would require you to read subtitles so I understand your ignorance of it

Lord-Jaffa · 22 Mar 2019 at 14:33

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
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:

The numbers of defensive gun uses (DGUs) each year is controversial. But one studyordered by the CDC and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”:

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsi...n-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives

C.R.A.Z.Y · 22 Mar 2019 at 14:41

lawl
Peer reviewed please, not some sketchy forbes article written by someone clearly pro gun

ttaskmaster · 22 Mar 2019 at 14:41

Lord-Jaffa · 22 Mar 2019 at 14:42

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
lawl
Peer reviewed please, not some sketchy forbes article written by someone clearly pro gun

It's by the CDC, not Forbes. The link is even there, you dismissing it is meaningless as you're obviously ignorant.

C.R.A.Z.Y · 22 Mar 2019 at 15:02

I've seen to many disingenuous 'studies'/opinion pieces to waste my time reading them (like the John R Lott Jr one cited below)
If it's peer reviewed and an actual study by a University them I'm all ears:

Source = https://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-academic-a-lott-of-lies/

Not only does he think he knows more about gun stats and reality than professors who have studied it and released peer reviewed papers, he also thinks that he knows more than the climate experts :rolleyes:

If this is the best 'Academic' the pro gun lobby have then they are pretty ******!

C.R.A.Z.Y · 22 Mar 2019 at 15:23

ttaskmaster said:
I've probably fired more different models of firearm and artillery than there are gun fanatics on this forum. Might even take the time to list them, had you been interested. I've also had to deal with the opposite ends of that on more than one occasion.

Listing different models of guns is meaningless, anyone can do that irrespective if they have actually shot/used them.
I'm a very sceptical person by nature, unless you can provided solid evidence I'll take your position on being a firearms user/expert with the shovel of salt it deserves!

Sasahara · 22 Mar 2019 at 15:33

ianh said:
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?

A better comparasion would be usage hours. How many hours of road transport usage per death compared to the hours of gun usage per death. I think you'd get a much better idea of how safe each item is.

C.R.A.Z.Y · 22 Mar 2019 at 15:44

It's a ridiculous comparison which just further illustrates the weakness of their arguments

ttaskmaster · 22 Mar 2019 at 15:47

C.R.A.Z.Y · 22 Mar 2019 at 15:50

Just as I thought, no credible evidence whatsoever.

Ohh, I've shot:

AK47
M16
M1
Glock 9mm
.45 Magnum
.38 snubnose
Pump Action shotgun
+ loads of other .22

And yes, these things are horrifically dangerous and deadly.

NickK · 22 Mar 2019 at 15:51

Lots of bias there.

Firearms deaths vs accidental. Firearms where more than one victim involved. Firearms legal vs illegal.
Road deaths vs animal collisions, purposeful homicide with a car as a weapon..

I get your point but it's the Shark vs Mosquitos argument. Sharks get a bad rap but mosquitos don't. It's all about predatory fear.

However cars aren't designed with killing as their primary purpose. (Sport is killing a synthetic)

Rroff · 22 Mar 2019 at 15:55

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Just as I thought, no credible evidence whatsoever.

Ohh, I've shot:

AK47
M16
M1
Glock 9mm
.45 Magnum
.38 snubnose
Pump Action shotgun
+ loads of other .22

And yes, these things are horrifically dangerous and deadly.

There are plenty of people here who have likely shot firearms as well as those who never have who might claim they have but still. 1-2 posters in this thread have previously posted videos or photos of themselves shooting guns at Las Vegas, etc.

C.R.A.Z.Y · 22 Mar 2019 at 15:57

Then they should know how deadly and dangerous they are and not be making light of widespread ownership imho

Rroff · 22 Mar 2019 at 15:59

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Then they should know how deadly and dangerous they are and not making light of widespread ownership imho

I've always found it interesting the different reactions people have to firing a gun for the first time from those who it isn't a big deal through to those it puts the fear of god into or they find an addictive feeling of power from it, etc.

StriderX · 22 Mar 2019 at 15:59

NickK said:
Lots of bias there.

Firearms deaths vs accidental. Firearms where more than one victim involved. Firearms legal vs illegal.
Road deaths vs animal collisions, purposeful homicide with a car as a weapon..

I get your point but it's the Shark vs Mosquitos argument. Sharks get a bad rap but mosquitos don't. It's all about predatory fear.

However cars aren't designed with killing as their primary purpose. (Sport is killing a synthetic)

Really now, because there’s currently a plan to eradicate mosquitos completely...

NickK · 22 Mar 2019 at 16:04

StriderX said:
Really now, because there’s currently a plan to eradicate mosquitos completely...

You know that mosquitos are a seriously large part of the food chain for birds... but that's a separate thread.

Lord-Jaffa · 22 Mar 2019 at 16:05

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
I've seen to many disingenuous 'studies'/opinion pieces to waste my time reading them (like the John R Lott Jr one cited below)
If it's peer reviewed and an actual study by a University them I'm all ears:

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

You are probably one of the most blinkered and dishonest posters i've ever seen on these boards, the report is here, commissioned by the CDC and undertaken by the institute of medicine and national research council of the national academies.