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

What makes me laugh is that through all the shootings in the US, they've totally failed to get a grip with banning any or certain types of firearms. One serious shooting and NZ have banned them in a week, its pretty remarkable.
 
You can’t stop herpers from being derpers but you can at least try and minimise the damage of said derping.

By derping I do of course mean the unspeakable act of murdering of dozens of people.

Seems sensible and is welcomed by me.
 
Malevolence said:
All fair good, but not all .22 rounds are the same though. That you posted looks like a .22LR rimfire which, whilst being a small round, is perfectly capable of killing a person with ease. However, this is also a .22 - a polymer tipped .22-250 Remington to be exact (muzzle velocity is ~4000fps) and would most definitely give you a bad day if you get hit by one.

yS0grxS.jpg
Click to expand...

The cartridge on a 22-250 is a "necked" down .308 cartridge, thats a huge amount of powder for such a small round, thats how it achieves its 3650fps.You wouldnt belive the damage it does to foxes at 250 yards.Small vermin literally evaporate when.Some countries even use it as a sniper rifle in an urban enviroment due to the lack of riccohet.
 
StriderX said:
Ar style mags can be ridiculously large, especially if there’s a drum available.
Click to expand...

I've never really got the argument over magazine capacity - it doesn't really make any odds in shootings like this - it might modify the way the shooter approaches the situation but won't impact much on the outcome - the only time it might be relevant is in some situation where someone is mag dumping 100 round drums at 100s of RPM fully automatic.

The most important aspect is rate of fire but is often one of the last considered aspects in kneejerk reactions to these kind of events. Also for the most part it is one aspect that impacts the least on gun enthusiasts and those that shoot for pleasure, etc. who are mostly fine with such restrictions the odd nutcase aside.
 
snips86x said:
What makes me laugh is that through all the shootings in the US, they've totally failed to get a grip with banning any or certain types of firearms. One serious shooting and NZ have banned them in a week, its pretty remarkable.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that is?
 
Evangelion said:
And that's a good thing, because .22 is a civilian round, whereas .223 is military.

main-qimg-c7161a8861d374d26b3ff94f72e66cb1.jpg


The .22 (left) has a speed of ~1,600 feet per second. It creates small entry and exit wounds. The .223 (right) has a speed of 3,000 feet per second. It creates a larger wound as it enters, tumbles inside the body for maximum damage, and causes additional trauma on exit.

Which would you prefer to be hit by?
Click to expand...

.223 Remington was (and still is) a civilian cartridge long before a young Eugene Stoner decidied it would make an effective intermediate range round with a tweaks when fired through the new lightweight rifle he was designing in the 1960s.
 
VincentHanna said:
They might have pests like rats and the like, but there isn't even a dangerous animal that you would need a big gun for.

It's not like they have bears roaming around their islands.
Click to expand...

Can’t speak for NZ, but Australia has a huge feral pig problem and a semi automatic rifle with good ergonomics and decent magazine capacity is ideal for culling them. Ask a rural Texan if you don’t believe me.
 
Didn't the shooter say in the manifesto that he knew his actions would make NZ ban these weapons with the aim to put pressure on the US to do the same?
 
Luckily NZ doesn't have the kind of gun nuts that the US does. Many won't mind ditching them if they are getting their money back.

I don't see why anyone needs an assault rifle at home, it won't protect you from the government like rednecks claim. They will just drone your house if they really wanted to get you.
 
Nasher said:
I don't see why anyone needs an assault rifle at home, it won't protect you from the government like rednecks claim. They will just drone your house if they really wanted to get you.
Click to expand...

The assumption is a large scale uprising against the government not the odd nut job having a stand off.
 
Why are people seemingly criticising it for being reactionary? Most gun bans in history have been reactionary. Looks at the UK, we only banned semi automatic rifles and repeating shotguns after Hungerford, and it took the death of many kids to get handguns banned. Statistics would no doubt show that those bans haven’t done us any harm, and probably saved many lives. The only mass shooting since was Bird in Cumbria, but there’s nothing more really that can be done with our gun laws.
 
Rroff said:
Seems a bit weird to me that someone from Australia was seemingly able to either move or purchase such a quantity of weapons and attachments so seemingly easily in NZ? were the gun laws that lax before?
Click to expand...

Not weird at all. NZ gun laws have always been more relaxed than Australian gun laws.

I'm always pro responsible gun laws but not a fan of allowing the actions of a small number of "mad" people dictating extreme restrictions.
Click to expand...

Please identify the 'extreme restrictions' in this new legislation.
 
Malevolence said:
All fair good, but not all .22 rounds are the same though. That you posted looks like a .22LR rimfire which, whilst being a small round, is perfectly capable of killing a person with ease.
Click to expand...

It is, but only if you're careful enough to hit a vital spot. With a .223, almost anywhere qualifies as a vital spot because the damage is so much greater.
 
wow. i see they are doing exactly what the terrorist wanted them to do, what happened to not negotiating with terrorists? now they can just shoot people up and get laws made :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom