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

Screeeech said:
it's manual action, or straight-pull - essentially shoot, recock, shoot etc, which drastically limits the amount of rounds you can fire per minute.
Click to expand...

Look again, it's a semi-auto rifle not straight-pull


It's apparently legal under section 1 because it's a .22Lr caliber, something I guess you never knew either ?
 
Screeeech you'll make less mistakes if you take the extra time to properly read peoples replies instead of skimming them and getting the wrong idea.

dowie said:
No the difference there is the caliber, he's talking about a semi auto weapon.
Click to expand...

Minusorange said:
Look again, it's a semi-auto rifle not straight-pull
Click to expand...

You guys better be careful if you help screeeeech correct his mistake, he'll think you're arguing with him :D

EDIT - I was unduly harsh with my first line so I've changed it.
 
Last edited:
ianh said:
Oh look, screeeech gets another thing wrong because yet again he doesn't bother to read posts and instead just makes things up, so sad.





You guys better be careful if you help screeeeech correct his mistake, he'll think you're arguing with him :D
Click to expand...

It’s quite funny how the best you can do, is to wait until I made a minor mistake, then of course you’re all over it like a cheap suit.

However, this is only because you’ve been completely unable to actually provide a reasonable argument to what I’ve asked several times now, which is;

Why is it sensible or reasonable to allow high powered semi-automatic assault rifles into the hands of the general public?
 
Screeeech said:
It’s quite funny how the best you can do, is to wait until I made a minor mistake, then of course you’re all over it like a cheap suit.

However, this is only because you’ve been completely unable to actually provide a reasonable argument to what I’ve asked several times now, which is;

Why is it sensible or reasonable to allow high powered semi-automatic assault rifles into the hands of the general public?
Click to expand...

It was provided pages ago. You just ignored it.

Fun.
 
Dis86 said:
It was provided pages ago. You just ignored it.

Fun.
Click to expand...

As far as I’m concerned it wasn’t even a vaguely serious attempt at providing a reasonable argument, so in that sense it just failed spectacularly.

You can’t do it, @ianh can’t do it, nobody can do it - which is why no argument has been heard.

All we have is diversion and silliness.
 
Screeeech said:
As far as I’m concerned it wasn’t even a vaguely serious attempt at providing a reasonable argument, so in that sense it just failed spectacularly.

You can’t do it, @ianh can’t do it, nobody can do it - which is why no argument has been heard.

All we have is diversion and silliness.
Click to expand...

Its hard to argue with the deaf. It's only an invalid argument because you don't like it.
 
I edited the first line of my post as, looking back, it was unduly harsh for which I apologise.

Screeeech said:
However, this is only because you’ve been completely unable to actually provide a reasonable argument to what I’ve asked several times now, which is;

Why is it sensible or reasonable to allow high powered semi-automatic assault rifles into the hands of the general public?
Click to expand...

Please read your replies to my posts because this post right now is the FIRST time you have ever asked me that question. You have NOT asked me that question "several times" at all and, because you have NEVER asked me that question, it is no surprise I haven't "been able to give you a reasonable argument" - because you have actually NEVER asked me that question until now. Genuinely, go check your replies to my posts, I'm not making this up.

However, since you have now asked me, I'll try and answer the question for you to the best of my abilities. Now you may not like or agree with this reason but that doesn't matter, this just for your information -

Q. Why is it sensible or reasonable to allow high powered semi-automatic assault rifles into the hands of the general public?
A. I absolutely 100% don't believe its sensible or reasonable :eek: but in some countries where I can't change anything (like the US) it's legal regardless of my opinion.

Hope that helps!
 
Dis86 said:
Its hard to argue with the deaf. It's only an invalid argument because you don't like it.
Click to expand...

I give you my word 100% if you provide a reasonable argument, that explains why it’s sensible to allow members of society access to high powered semi-automatic assault rifles, or derivatives thereof that are practically the same - I’ll change my opinion.
 
Screeeech said:
I give you my word 100% if you provide a reasonable argument, that explains why it’s sensible to allow members of society access to high powered semi-automatic assault rifles, or derivatives thereof that are practically the same - I’ll change my opinion.
Click to expand...

Personally I'm OK with people being against members of society having access to high powered rifles, etc. even if there was/is a solid basis for it. What I like to see it balance to it - too many people have a strong reaction to firearms based on the association with death and being firearms and would happily see them all banned regardless and don't give a **** that many people enjoy recreational use of firearms who aren't and never will be a threat to society and that in many cases both sides can/could be catered for. It worries me in the context of the current focus on knives that we'll see reactionary measures based on that many people don't need knives aside from cutlery, etc. and even further reaching bans will be put into place over even owning all but the most innocuous of knives. It actually isn't a health road for society to go down in the long run despite being arguable that it can make society safer.
 
Rroff said:
Personally I'm OK with people being against members of society having access to high powered rifles, etc. even if there was/is a solid basis for it. What I like to see it balance to it - too many people have a strong reaction to firearms based on the association with death and being firearms and would happily see them all banned regardless and don't give a **** that many people enjoy recreational use of firearms who aren't and never will be a threat to society and that in many cases both sides can/could be catered for. It worries me in the context of the current focus on knives that we'll see reactionary measures based on that many people don't need knives aside from cutlery, etc. and even further reaching bans will be put into place over even owning all but the most innocuous of knives. It actually isn't a health road for society to go down in the long run despite being arguable that it can make society safer.
Click to expand...
Not being able to see things from others perspective is also a problem here. Someone who lives in a big city in the UK probably has no need for a firearm (other than recreational), someone from Montana who lives out in the wild with grizzlys, wolves and cougars might feel outraged that some idiot from the UK is questioning his rights to own a firearm with the "Ameticans are stupid and nobody needs a gun" mentalist attitude. The world is a large place and not everything is black and white, I think gun ownership has its place in a well developed modern thinking democracy, it most definitely isn't for everyone though as is seen by acts of terrorism by lunatics, regardless of if the weapons are legal or not. All I can hope is people fact check their arguments beforehand, the no mass shootings in australia since guns were banned is especially stupid since a 10 second Google can show you this isn't true. You would have to be an absolute fool to believe everything the media tells you.
 
Bans make politicians feel like they have done something and usually the black market for banned things increases the UK being a prime example where criminals have now setup their own factories to produce firearms. The main cause of mass shootings gets buried by the ban nonsense and never gets addressed that being mental health issues and of course bans only take things out of the hands of honest law abiding citizens. Firearms don't kill people people kill and a mentally ill person can do as much damage with a vehicle as they can with a firearm as we have also seen multiple times around the world nobody's campaigning to ban high power vehicles or 4wd. Bans are a quick lazy answer to a problem not a real solution and yes i used to be a shooter in the UK.
 
Minusorange said:
Look again, it's a semi-auto rifle not straight-pull


It's apparently legal under section 1 because it's a .22Lr caliber, something I guess you never knew either ?
Click to expand...

Quote from the original you-tube video: "Shooting a British made Southern Gun Co. AR-15 at 300 yards. This is a straight pull rifle to comply with UK laws."

It literally says it's a straight pull in the description, which is why people watching the video might be under the impression it's a straight pull.
 
Dis86 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So... you're arguing we should allow people to own semi-auto and/or assault rifles because otherwise terrorists might turn to explosives?

That's not the most compelling argument I've ever heard
 
Ergates said:
Quote from the original you-tube video: "Shooting a British made Southern Gun Co. AR-15 at 300 yards. This is a straight pull rifle to comply with UK laws."

It literally says it's a straight pull in the description, which is why people watching the video might be under the impression it's a straight pull.
Click to expand...

It's a different gun, do you people not bother to watch or read before actually commenting ? Even watching the vid you'd see that is in fact semi auto with no straight pull

This is an MP-15 22, a .22lr semi-automatic rifle based on the famous US M4 Carbine. It is fully legal in the UK with a Section 1 firearms licence. This is a club gun owned by the Target Sports Centre in Dorset.
Click to expand...

That is the description from the video I posted to show that we actually can own semi auto's providing they're .22Lr calibre
 
Lord-Jaffa said:
Not being able to see things from others perspective is also a problem here. Someone who lives in a big city in the UK probably has no need for a firearm (other than recreational), someone from Montana who lives out in the wild with grizzlys, wolves and cougars might feel outraged that some idiot from the UK is questioning his rights to own a firearm with the "Ameticans are stupid and nobody needs a gun" mentalist attitude. The world is a large place and not everything is black and white, I think gun ownership has its place in a well developed modern thinking democracy, it most definitely isn't for everyone though as is seen by acts of terrorism by lunatics, regardless of if the weapons are legal or not. All I can hope is people fact check their arguments beforehand,
Click to expand...

I'm broadly in agreement with this. It's easy to look inwards and be intentionally ignorant of what else is out there. You'll note I'm being quite open with my agreement because ...

the no mass shootings in australia since guns were banned is especially stupid since a 10 second Google can show you this isn't true. You would have to be an absolute fool to believe everything the media tells you.
Click to expand...

You'll have to provide reliable sources for that. Guns were not banned is probably the place you want to start at ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom