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

[StriderX]

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.

Isn’t the cdc only allowed biased reports on this matter?

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

Isn’t the cdc only allowed biased reports on this matter?

No, Currently the federal government’s Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is restricted by Congress from using tax money to promote gun control (although not from conducting research into gun-related violence)

 

[Minusorange]

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

A gun is only as deadly and dangerous as the person wielding it

 

[ttaskmaster]

NVM

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

''The report expresses uncertainty about gun control measures, stating that “whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue,” and that there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” It also stated that proposed “gun turn-in programs are ineffective.”

Source = https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

Hardly a glowing report that owning guns make you safer!

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

Well plenty of those things are illegal - I suspect that if they weren't we might well have already seen a terror attack in the UK carried out using them.

We have of course had massacres the UK using both semi auto rifles (Huntington) and handguns (Dunblane) - in both incidents the perpetrators legally owned firearms and after each incident bans were brought in covering the firearms used and surprisingly enough we've not had mass shootings/massacres of that nature since.

Likewise Australia had a mass shooting and banned semi auto rifles too, guess how many mass shootings they've had since then?

For comparison - how many mass shootings do you think the US has?

To answer your question, there have been 7 mass shootings since the ban (involving at least 3 dead) and many more mass murder events not involving guns, especially arson.

To say there have been no shootings since 1996 is an outright lie.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

The Republicans and NRA have been blocking funding for CDC gun violence research for decades, I wonder why

But one reason the positions are so intractable is that no one really knows what works to prevent gun deaths. Gun-control research in the United States essentially came to a standstill in 1996.
After 21 years, the science is stale.
“In the area of what works to prevent shootings, we know almost nothing,” Mark Rosenberg, who, in the mid-1990s, led the CDC's gun-violence research efforts, said shortly after the San Bernardino shooting in 2015.
In 1996, the Republican-majority Congress threatened to strip funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention unless it stopped funding research into firearm injuries and deaths. The National Rifle Association accused the CDC of promoting gun control. As a result, the CDC stopped funding gun-control research — which had a chilling effect far beyond the agency, drying up money for almost all public health studies of the issue nationwide.
The National Institute of Justice, an arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, funded 32 gun-related studies from 1993 to 1999, but none from 2009 to 2012, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The institute then resumed funding in 2013, in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting the year before. Researchers in search of private funding say they know to avoid the word “gun” or “firearm” in the titles of violence-prevention studies to avoid blowback.

SOurce = https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/04/gun-violence-research-has-been-shut-down-for-20-years/?utm_term=.f233782396b7

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

Source = https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

Hardly a glowing report that owning guns make you safer!

The CDC’s finding that guns are an effective and often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not fatal.

In the same news article you posted, anyone can cherry pick parts to try and prove a point, something you are all too familiar with.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

What the CDC who have constantly been threatened with funding removal from the government!
lawl
No wonder the research is so vague and contradictory in places to other independent research and studies

Source = https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/las-vegas-shooting-australia-gun-laws-control-stephen-paddock-2nd-amendment-nevada-firearm-a7980671.html

Source = https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/strict-gun-laws-ended-mass-shootings-australia

Source = https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world/australia/australia-gun-ban-shooting.html

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

What the CDC who have constantly been threatened with funding removal from the government!
lawl
No wonder the research is so vague and contradictory in places to other independent research and studies

Source = https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/las-vegas-shooting-australia-gun-laws-control-stephen-paddock-2nd-amendment-nevada-firearm-a7980671.html

What a surprise, they never conducted the research btw, its published by a university academy yet its still not valid enough for you even though that was your initial criteria. At this point I can only assume you are some kind of poor troll, incapable of realising your own hypocrisy.

Murder rates were already on a downward trend before gun control laws were introduced, which is yet another one of your disingenuous lies. There have been 7 mass shootings since the ban also (involving 3 or more deaths + wounded), its been claimed here that there has been zero since 1996, which is false.

Maybe others have more energy to constantly prove you wrong, I'm done with you though, you are exactly what is wrong with this world, blind fanatical rhetoric, even when evidence is presented to counter everything you say.

 

[Troezar]

Some muppets in this thread so I'll be bowing out. Same sort of quasi religious beliefs about firearms that I hear about Brexit.

I think I'm wasting my time trying convey the wider more serious issue of restricting the civil liberties of law abiding citizens before a crime is committed. So much for Minority Report being fiction!

 

[chrcoluk]

I have never understood how an assault rifle can be passed as legal, what is the legal purpose of owning one?

 

[dowie]

Yes, you stop those incidents...

Exactly - and that is the point!

but if that were the best option, we would indeed ban all cars.

That doesn't follow at all.

Any ******* halfwit can still burn a building down, though, or take one of several other options which typically kill a lot of people.

So what? That isn't a good reason to not ban semi automatic firearms.

So as long as the weapons are illegally obtained, it's all good, yes?

Erm no, what an odd remark.

The mental unhealthy don't fully comprehend the law the way we expect, while terrorists and gangs don't give a **** about breaking it. How does stopping only the people who do follow the law in any way helpful?

I think you've got a bit of a false premise there, it is (relatively) rather hard for anyone to obtain semi automatic firearms in the UK. They're somewhat limited in supply. This is intentional.

OK, shotguns next, yeah?
Or just all guns?
Then all knives.
Then all cutlery.
Then all acid.
Then all bleach, metal, wood, plastic, chicken bones, rocks, leather belts, paper, and anything else that can be used to kill?

No.

Btw.. if you want to try engaging in some dialogue here instead of breaking down a post into little snippets in order to respond with rather obtuse replies then this might be a bit more constructive. At the moment I've got rather silly little snippets to reply to with mostly one line comment.

 

[Felon]

I still haven’t read a single, coherent argument, that states why it’s reasonable or sensible, to allow members of the general public to own a semi-automatic assault rifle.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

I still haven’t read a single, coherent argument, that states why it’s reasonable or sensible, to allow members of the general public to own a semi-automatic assault rifle.

Same with arguments of why it's reasonable to make them illegal following a single incident in an otherwise sensible and low crime democracy.

 

[Felon]

Same with arguments of why it's reasonable to make them illegal following a single incident in an otherwise sensible and low crime democracy.

Pretty much the exact response I expected.

Because nobody can do it - nobody can successfully advance an argument, that explains why it’s sensible to allow members of the general public to own assault rifles.

Deflection is the best you can do.

 

[Dis86]

@Screeeech

Fun. Simple. Pure. Fun.

 

[Zenduri]

Pretty much the exact response I expected.

Because nobody can do it - nobody can successfully advance an argument, that explains why it’s sensible to allow members of the general public to own assault rifles.

Deflection is the best you can do.

Daring to ask a question here but i expect you may go off the deep end.

As a keen hobby shooter why shouldn't i have access to semi auto rifles for things like 3 gun challenges and speed target trials?

 

[Felon]

As a keen hobby shooter why shouldn't i have access to semi auto rifles for things like 3 gun challenges and speed target trials?

Just because you can be responsible with such a thing, doesn’t mean the the aggregate of society can or will be.

That’s why it’s reasonable and sensible to prohibit certain things, like hand grenades. It’s not sensible to allow the general public to own them, because whilst most people might just use them for fun - at some point, it’s likely someone will use them to cause harm or crime. With such an object it’s very very easy to wreak havoc, so the argument for banning them ultimately outweighs the argument for allowing them.

 

[Dis86]

Just because you can be responsible with such a thing, doesn’t mean the the aggregate of society can or will be.

That’s why it’s reasonable and sensible to prohibit certain things, like hand grenades. It’s not sensible to allow the general public to own them, because whilst most people might just use them for fun - at some point, it’s likely someone will use them to cause harm or crime. With such an object it’s very very easy to wreak havoc, so the argument for banning them ultimately outweighs the argument for allowing them.

And that exact argument works for cars. As previously pointed out.