Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,663
Assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics have been banned in New Zealand
- Thread starter [FnG]magnolia
- Start date
That's a piece of Carl McCrow art. What's your point?
Bit of a moot point tbh... as you've acknowledged weapons like the SLR aren't assault rifles but are semi automatic rifles which have been used by several militaries. Not much benefit to allow civilian ownership of something like that but some major drawbacks.
Well firstly that gun free zone claim isn't true, secondly even if it were the case this legislation is applying countrywide, it isn't like someone in one town has strict laws and someone a few minutes away in the next town has rather liberal laws and easy access to weapons.
Maybe if the people in New Zealand had hum-veees and R-peegees and Raptor drones and heavy artillery this wouldn't have happened.
It's not weapons that kill people. It's not bullets. It's not high-energy rapidly combusting chemical compounds. It's not hands either. Not even squeezing the trigger. Can't even blame brains or nervous systems or minds or souls.
As they say on that "Seconds From Disaster" programme, it's not one single factor that causes these tragedies. It's a deadly combination of all of those tiny elements that add up to these utterly unpredictable disasters. What are the chances of all of those specific elements coming together again? A gun and a hand and a brain and a bullet and a ... you get the idea. Pretty low, you know. Less than 1/10.
Those odds don't seem too bad.
/This post was sponsored by your friendly local gun lobby. Shoot someone new today!
It's not weapons that kill people. It's not bullets. It's not high-energy rapidly combusting chemical compounds. It's not hands either. Not even squeezing the trigger. Can't even blame brains or nervous systems or minds or souls.
As they say on that "Seconds From Disaster" programme, it's not one single factor that causes these tragedies. It's a deadly combination of all of those tiny elements that add up to these utterly unpredictable disasters. What are the chances of all of those specific elements coming together again? A gun and a hand and a brain and a bullet and a ... you get the idea. Pretty low, you know. Less than 1/10.
Those odds don't seem too bad.
/This post was sponsored by your friendly local gun lobby. Shoot someone new today!
Probably correct except overall more people in the country would have died due to shooting either on purpose or accidently that year
There was no point to be made, I'm just clarifying the terminology for folks after seeing that quite a large number of people are asking for an "assault rifle" ban, which just gets a bit tiresome when we know an assault rifle is not what was used. It's pedantic I'll fully admit but when people are talking about a new ban on something which is already banned (because they called it the wrong thing), I think it does matter in the discussion.
Not to mention someone sane can go insane at any point in their life, or they may e.g. hit financial issues and maybe sell their weapon to a criminal out of desperation for cash.
It doesn't matter, you can play with words and terminology - but it doesn't alter reality.
In the final analysis, the amount of firepower or 'damage' that can be put out by something like an AR-15, is comparable with an actual military assault-rifle from a battlefield, because it's design and purpose was derived directly from battlefield weaponry. The only exception would be full auto, I'd argue auto vs full-auto doesn't really make much of a difference to a mass shooter.
The fact is, these weapons are semi-automatic, can easily be equipped with large magazines, are quite compact and small (can be dismantled and rapidly assembled) shoot lots of rounds very quickly at much higher power than a conventional handgun, or conventional rifle - resulting in highly unsurvivable injuries.
That's all there is to it really, you can argue about what constitutes what, or what gun is classified as X or Y until you're blue in the face, but the reality is really quite clear and obvious.
Makes a huge difference - most of the fatalities in these situations are in the opening moments before people can react - a weapon putting out 10-20 rounds per second in full auto has the potential to significantly increase the initial body count (firing into a crowded place) versus a semi automatic which in the hands of an average shooter is more like 0.5-1.5 rounds per second.
"Conventional" rifles tend to be bigger calibres in the .3xx region and typically more powerful than .223. The rate of fire between semi-automatic weapons of all types is fairly similar.
Maybe, maybe not - I'd still argue that even with a semi-automatic rifle, the NZ shooter was able to shoot over 100 people, killing 50, in a short space of time.
The Las Vegas shooter used an array of different weapons, many with bump-stocks (practically full auto) and managed 59, with many, many more targets.
I'd argue the practical difference is negligible, it's the usability, capacity and damage of a semi-auto assault rifle, that makes it so dangerous.
Agreed, but conventional rifles (Such as a Remington 700) tend to be larger, are bolt action - and tend to have much smaller capacity magazines (4-5 shot) and are far more unwieldy.
I'm not "playing with words" I'm being factually correct, that is the "reality". If you call for a ban on something which is already banned it makes you look very silly, thats a fact and I was trying to help prevent that. I wanted to help you by giving you the correct "words and terminology" so you don't look silly. Yet despite trying to help you with your argument, by giving you the correct terminology to use so you don't look silly, you actually think I'm arguing against you?
Yeap, 100%, and the reality is that "Assault Rifles" are already banned and there are no such things as "semi-automatic assault rifles", so you look silly when you demand they get banned which is why I was genuinely trying to help you word your argument correctly.
However, when you stop actually reading the comments I make and just start making things up in your own mind, it makes trying to help you feel like a waste of my time.
Very different scenarios though - the Las Vegas shooter was at the upper end of the effective range of the intermediate rifle rounds he was using (to the point he was having to use ballistic calculations) and he was firing from an upper story window of a hotel at a crowd 100s of yards away - over 400 were injured by gunfire in the final toll - at closer range the fatalities would have been a lot higher.
Whether it's specifically classed as an assault rifle, an assault-style rifle, a semi-automatic assault rifle, or a rifle derived in design from an assault-rifle - it doesn't matter, if it walks and talks like an assault rifle - then any differences in terminology you may use to try and divert around the issue are absolutely irrelevant, and you fail to advance your argument in any way shape or form. Instead you're merely confined to a defence which revolves around semantics and terminology only, it ignores all practical reality.
The problem is you have no legitimate argument that adds up, the only thing left for you to say - is to point out specific definitions of certain things, then attempt to hide behind that as though it makes everything null and void, which is ridiculous.
In any case, the strict definitions you refer to - specifically your claim that there's "no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle" vary depending on where you look, the definition of "semi-automatic assault rifle" is widely used, in fact it's used in the first sentence of the wiki page for the AR15.
It is a horrid definition hence in NZ they've been talking about military style semi-automatic - but it is actually kind of meaningless as you can have "assault" style weapons that fire very low powered rounds and non-military looking rifles that are proper assault weapons :s unfortunately the general public perception of it is lead by some of these high profile cases.
For me the focus needs to be on effective rate of fire when dealing with regulation as it is one of the key components regardless of the power of the rounds used.
I'm not a fan at all of legislating around firearms purely on a need basis but the fact is the larger amount of gun enthusiasts would be perfectly happy with shooting some form of bolt/lever action type system even if they might desire fully automatic - for most a manual action that had to be used to both chamber and eject with multiple pulls would be perfectly suitable and significantly reduce the potential for fatalities from either accidental discharge or malicious/criminal use. (And a lot harder to modify for fully automatic fire than semi-automatic).
I'd agree on legislating against effective rate of fire, in my mind - that's essentially what they're doing, in banning 'semi-automatic rifles' because only 'semi-automatic rifles' really have the capability to generate that sort of rate of fire, even if the classification is a bit wonky - I still think it's effective, if someone says "semi-automatic assault rifle" most people know the sort of thing being discussed.
Even in the US, many gun owners I know are perfectly happy with bolt action rifles they use for target shooting and/or hunting, they don't like the idea of something like an AR15 being banned, however they have no legitimate use for one, other than "I want it because I want it, therefore I should be allowed"
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
This.
There is no plausible, valid argument to support civilian ownership of any semi-automatic weapon of any sort.
The mere wish to own one is significant reason not to allow it.
If you believe facts are irrelevant then you are beyond trying to help. When your blind hatred has made you see someone trying giving you "help" (so you don't look so bloody stupid) as someone who is instead in an "argument" against you (when I'm not) then I can't help with your mental problems, sorry.
The whole discussion is hilarious,
It starts off drawing comparisons between cars and guns, (as though there's some sort of equivalence, because either one is capable of causing loss of life)
When that fails, it turns into a battle of terminology, which seeks to ignore all practical reality.
When that fails, I'm the one who has mental problems. (rofl)
It starts off drawing comparisons between cars and guns, (as though there's some sort of equivalence, because either one is capable of causing loss of life)
When that fails, it turns into a battle of terminology, which seeks to ignore all practical reality.
When that fails, I'm the one who has mental problems. (rofl)
Well the last page of posts are a pointless argument that essentially boils down to a willy waving contest about who knows what about guns 
anyone who actually knows the first thing about them understands that fully auto is quite useless in most scenarios anyway as after the first few rounds you're going to struggle to hit a barn door. That's why, when operating an automatic rifle, the user would flick it to repetition/semi auto and fire aimed shots anyway.
anyone who actually knows the first thing about them understands that fully auto is quite useless in most scenarios anyway as after the first few rounds you're going to struggle to hit a barn door. That's why, when operating an automatic rifle, the user would flick it to repetition/semi auto and fire aimed shots anyway.