Many of these mass shooting scenarios involve - atleast initially - shooting at a crowd - which is often where the larger number of fatalities come from where you have 1 or maybe 2 shooters. In this instance people relatively confined in meeting rooms.
Assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics have been banned in New Zealand
- Thread starter [FnG]magnolia
- Start date
Many of these mass shooting scenarios involve - atleast initially - shooting at a crowd - which is often where the larger number of fatalities come from where you have 1 or maybe 2 shooters. In this instance people relatively confined in meeting rooms.
Which is equally where explosives are as, if not more effective. Explosives which can be made from everyday chemicals.
All this ban will do is drive those that want to commit these acts down that route.
Just look at the terrorist acts in the UK. All the larger ones or attempts were bombings. Not shootings. A ban on semi autos didn't stop London or Manchester from happening.
There is the aspect though that cooking up an effective explosive mixture (most people don't have access to the kind of off the shelf explosives suitable for this) takes time and a certain degree of skill during which someone might change their mind, an automatic weapon makes it far easier for someone to commit an act like this while in the midst of anger, etc.
Explosives can be far more horrific in terms of injuries though potentially.
I agree. A ban doesn't stop criminals acquiring the weapons they desire. Regulation is useful but out right banning is useless.
UK is a good example - regulations, most of them common sense, has reduced these kind of incidents involving firearms to effectively zero - but you still get those determined to carry out such atrocities finding ways to do that whether it involves explosives or using vehicles as a weapon, etc. looking at other parts of the world with relatively high firearm ownership but good regulations the use in these kind of attacks is also very low to effectively zero.
I still don't know why NZ allowed someone like this to acquire a gun let alone the collection he did so relatively easily or had so limited vetting of individual weapons - people applaud them for taking such quick action but we'd already closed off things like that 30 odd years ago, Australia did the same what 20 years ago? but I guess that doesn't fit the narrative of some.
I was showing WHY comparing cars to guns is pointless (I actually said it was a "ridiculous argument" in my posts about it) - isn't that your EXACT point as well???? So if you and I agree then why do YOU think we're in an argument?
"When that fails, it turns into a battle" - again you somehow believe that me trying to help you means that you and I are in an argument - WE'RE NOT - You were using the "wrong" terminology and it made you look very stupid. I was HELPING YOU by telling you the RIGHT words to use so you WOULDN'T look very stupid. Go back and re-read all 4 of my my replies to you - At NO point in ANY my replies to you have I disagreed with you - yet YOU still think we're in an argument?
"when that fails" - Again even now after several replies where I do nothing but try and help and don't disagree ONCE, you still somehow think we're in an argument - we are not, I was helping you get the terminology right - "HELPING" doesn't mean the same thing as "DISAGREEING".
I have said over numerous replies that "I'm not arguing with you, I'm helping you get the words right" yet YOU continue to believe (somehow) that we're in an argument. If you're having an imaginary argument which feels real to you but DOESN'T EXIST to anyone else then yes, I genuinely do think that you might have some issues which you need help with, whether it's Keyboard Warrior rage or something else.
Strangely I'm able to have an adult conversation on this very difficult topic with various folks like FnG_Magnolia, Greebo, The-Abyss etc where I have said I disagree with them yet I listened to their points thoughtfully and things were amicable as at no point did anyone involved on either side in those discussions just start making things up.
Anyway, at this point I genuinely don't believe that any further discussion with you will make this thread any better as I really don't think you're capable at this point of reading my replies without making up even more imaginary things that I haven't said, so I'll ignore your inevitable "so you lost the battle then" or similar reply.
Absolutely 100% not, it is however it may be a mental problem to believe with absolute 100% certainty that you in an argument with someone who hasn't disagreed with you (not once), especially if, after being told more than once "we're not arguing", you still believe they are.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,018
- Location
- La France
You know both Hungerford and Dunblane featured firearms holders known by the police to have tempers/mental issues and yet the police still allowed them to posses firearms?
This is the thing that frustrates me - in many cases there is no realistic way for someone to choose what gun laws they want to live under - not everyone wants to live in a society with extreme control over things like firearms other people might not want to live in a society with rules like the US, etc.
I was referring to the rules post those incidents especially Dunblane. Though I see your other point that they weren't the most common sense originally.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
I'm amazed this is even a debate. Imagine the death toll in the UK at some of the terror incidents if they had also had access to these types of weapons. The Westminster Bridge attack would still have killed the ones he drove into but then he comes out of the car and starts gunning down public and police. The death toll could have doubled. The Manchester bomb, he could have waited outside and as everyone ran in panic and just fired into the crowd until he ran out of ammo. The Las Vegas shooting showed what could be achieved in a situation like that! Then there is a random deaths from people killing others in a fit of rage or mistaken identity thinking a relative is breaking into their house. The best thing we did was ban them and I was a gun owner for 12 years.
Contrary to sometimes public belief if someone is determined enough you can legally own a straight pull AR-15 in .223 in this country, etc. for instance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnoEmp_hjgM
The Las Vegas shooting is only the tip of the iceberg what someone could achieve with full automatic and lots of ammo
IIRC he didn't manage to get his original target settling for an event that was several 100 yards away which massively reduced fatalities!
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Contrary to sometimes public belief if someone is determined enough you can legally own a straight pull AR-15 in .223 in this country, etc. for instance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnoEmp_hjgM
The Las Vegas shooting is only the tip of the iceberg what someone could achieve with full automatic and lots of ammo
Yeah but you need a firearms certificate and that is not an easy licence to get now, it wasn't easy 25 years ago when I had one. I suppose you could get one and then modify that weapon illegally to fire semi-auto and even get a bump stock but that carries great risk as customs seem to check everything coming from the US, at least they do when ever I order anything
so yeah its possible but it isn't easy.Yeah but you need a firearms certificate and that is not an easy licence to get now, it wasn't easy 25 years ago when I had one. I suppose you could get one and then modify that weapon illegally to fire semi-auto and even get a bump stock but that carries great risk as customs seem to check everything coming from the US, at least they do when ever I order anything
AFAIK though I'd have to check - one of the conditions in the UK is that it has to be developed or adapted for straight pull in a way that isn't easily modified for semi/full auto. Obviously if someone is determined enough and skilled enough though that wouldn't be a barrier but significantly narrows the potential. (EDIT: Someone with that level of skill and the tools required though probably could build their own firearms from scratch).
Las Vegas is kind of scary in that most of the people hit were between 490 and 700 yards from the shooter - if that had been like 50-100 yards or so the death toll could easily have been more like 300-400.
That was nothing to do with you, it was aimed at the conversation in general.
Unfortunately, because it's clear you have no reasonable argument - you're forced into the position of having to drag up technical details, semantics and terminology, because that's all you have to hide behind, whilst ignoring all the practical realities, involved with these sorts of weapons.
Amid all of this, I've read no successful argument from anybody - that attempts to reason why these sorts of weapons should be permissible to own by members of the general public.
For example, I think it's quite reasonable - considering the correct checks are done, and subject to the proper laws and regulations, that a firearm such as a Remington 700 could be owned by members of the public, provided the correct controls are in place. There would be a risk in allowing it, but I think the risks vs benefits could be balanced out, and it could perhaps be argued that this would be reasonable.
However
Try having the same risk vs benefits analysis with a weapon like an AR-15, the risk is so much higher - because aside from all the technical differences, in the end - you can kill a lot more people with an AR-15, than you can with a traditional bolt action with a 4-5 shot mag. At that point it can be successfully argued that the risks outweigh the benefits, and thus it is neither sensible nor reasonable to allow weapons like AR-15s to be owned by the general public.
My question was why does it have to be about need - there are a lot of things we could rationalise and force people to comply with that don't necessarily make the world a better place even when in some cases they could in some capacity make the world a safer place.
The number of incidents where firearms have been used like this is actually an incredibly tiny fraction of a fraction compared to overall firearms ownership and use - there obviously has to be a balance to it but we should be careful how much we let a small number of mad people dictate the world people live in.
Who’s ‘we’?
For decades people vote in the very people that overreach on authority due to ‘unforeseen’ circumstance, perhaps if the general public weren’t so easily misled, these singular individuals wouldn’t have such power to change the status quo.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,663
Huh so it seems you can buy an AR15 in the UK that is semi auto providing it's designed for .22LR rounds 
http://www.lannertactical.com/LanTac-Online-Shop/AR15-Firearms/CMMG-22-AR15-Rifles.html
http://shootingsuppliesltd.co.uk/new-tippmann-arms-m4-22-22-lr-semi-auto-rifle/
I have no interest in owning a gun, I'm just pro gun because I'd like the freedom to choose if I want one or not and not have some authority decide for me
http://www.lannertactical.com/LanTac-Online-Shop/AR15-Firearms/CMMG-22-AR15-Rifles.html
http://shootingsuppliesltd.co.uk/new-tippmann-arms-m4-22-22-lr-semi-auto-rifle/
I have no interest in owning a gun, I'm just pro gun because I'd like the freedom to choose if I want one or not and not have some authority decide for me
There are, I'd agree in some respects - I'm not going to claim that the systems by which the rules are created are always fair or make sense.
I just think that in the case of semi-automatic assault/style/derivative rifles, that it's pretty clear cut.
Huh so it seems you can buy an AR15 in the UK that is semi auto providing it's designed for .22LR rounds
http://www.lannertactical.com/LanTac-Online-Shop/AR15-Firearms/CMMG-22-AR15-Rifles.html
http://shootingsuppliesltd.co.uk/new-tippmann-arms-m4-22-22-lr-semi-auto-rifle/
I have no interest in owning a gun, I'm just pro gun because I'd like the freedom to choose if I want one or not and not have some authority decide for me
The difference with the UK legal version of an AR-15, vs one you'd buy in the US, is that it's manual action, or straight-pull - essentially shoot, recock, shoot etc, which drastically limits the amount of rounds you can fire per minute. It's basically like a traditional bolt-action rifle in how you shoot it, except it has a much higher capacity magazine.
I don't really have a problem with a manual action AR-15 being legal in the UK, subject to the specific checks.
Huh so it seems you can buy an AR15 in the UK that is semi auto providing it's designed for .22LR rounds
Can't just rock up to a shop and buy one and amongst other things need an appropriate rifle range (or other circumstances) which are getting harder in the UK unless you travel - off the top of my head I think all the rifle ranges within an hour or so drive of me have now closed/changed to shotgun only.
^^^^ exactly - London Bridge attacks are a good example, multiple terrorists with knives... sadly some people caught up in it, plenty more were able to use a simple trick of running away... bars and restaurants in the area were able to use the simple trick of locking their doors.
That attack could have had a far higher death toll if they'd had easy access to semi auto firearms.
No the difference there is the caliber, he's talking about a semi auto weapon.