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

Rroff said:
But why? plan ahead a bit more and you can get to places in good time. The only exception maybe would be emergency services.
Click to expand...

In order to save time. Do you drive at no faster than 30mph or are you just putting forth stupid arguments for the sake of it?
 
Rroff said:
That is the question I am asking.
Click to expand...

I know, you’ve asked about need in relation to cars and I’m asking why?

Why not just cut to the chase and get your point across instead of this pointless nonsense of “why not limit all cars to 30mph” etc...
 
dowie said:
I know, you’ve asked about need in relation to cars and I’m asking why?

Why not just cut to the chase and get your point across instead of this pointless nonsense of “why not limit all cars to 30mph” etc...
Click to expand...

Is the reason for invention such a material difference?

You have a car moving at speed (because it can) towards someone with the intent of the driver to kill.
You have a bullet moving at speed towards someone with the intent of the shooter to kill.

The car was designed to carry people from A to B, the rifle in this case was designed from the ground up for competition shooting of targets - getting a projectile from A to B.

If we go down this whole road of need basis then surely the car needs to be regulated in such a way it minimises or prevents the usage of it to kill someone?
 
Rroff said:
Is the reason for invention such a material difference?

You have a car moving at speed (because it can) towards someone with the intent of the driver to kill.
You have a bullet moving at speed towards someone with the intent of the shooter to kill.

The car was designed to carry people from A to B, the rifle in this case was designed from the ground up for competition shooting of targets - getting a projectile from A to B.

If we go down this whole road of need basis then surely the car needs to be regulated in such a way it minimises or prevents the usage of it to kill someone?
Click to expand...

The car is regulated (and drivers are licensed). They're rigorously tested for safety, roads/signs etc.. are designed with safety in mind. Cars require a license to drive etc..

I'm really not sure what the relevance is here to a thread about firearms?
 
dowie said:
The car is regulated (and drivers are licensed). They're rigorously tested for safety, roads/signs etc.. are designed with safety in mind. Cars require a license to drive etc..

I'm really not sure what the relevance is here to a thread about firearms?
Click to expand...

Put it another way - if someone built and designed a car purely for killing people it would be banned, people also want guns to be banned for that reason - but is there a material difference between a car used to kill someone using its speed versus a firearm designed from the ground up for competition shooting used to kill someone?

Or no one needs to be shooting at targets? so what about the need for vehicles to be able to travel at significantly lethal speeds? you can still get from A to B in reasonable time at speeds that make a car far less potent as a potential weapon.

Schlong&Stable said:
Irrational and immoral lawmaking. Frankly, we should be relaxing gun laws in the UK, not celebrating their tightening in New Zealand.
Click to expand...

Personally I think we have pretty good firearms laws and approach in this country - a few areas I'd tweak in both directions but overall I think they are pretty reasonable and effective.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Probably about as much as your arguments.
Click to expand...

My arguments are about firearms, (the thread subject) not chemicals or cars or should we limit cars to 30mph etc...

I already did that. You questioned it and now you have your responses. If you wish to make a separate presentation, instead of trying to shoehorn your own variant into someone else's and then pretending theirs was the same as your own, feel free.
Click to expand...

No I'm just requesting that you stick to what I've posted if quoting me rather than argue against some point or position I've not put forth, that's all thanks.
 
Rroff said:
Put it another way - if someone built and designed a car purely for killing people it would be banned, people also want guns to be banned for that reason - but is there a material difference between a car used to kill someone using its speed versus a firearm designed from the ground up for competition shooting used to kill someone?

Or no one needs to be shooting at targets? so what about the need for vehicles to be able to travel at significantly lethal speeds? you can still get from A to B in reasonable time at speeds that make a car far less potent as a potential weapon.
Click to expand...

Again you're back with this necessity argument. FWIW the recent instances in the press of a car being used as a weapon seem to have been at low speed - for example the supermarket instance or indeed the terror attack at London Bridge. Though I'm not really interested on dwelling on that much as this cars comparison doesn't seem to be particularly relevant. I'd again ask what your point is here?

Banning semi-auto firearms (the subject of the thread) doesn't prevent people from shooting at targets at some rifle club.

Personally I think we have pretty good firearms laws and approach in this country - a few areas I'd tweak in both directions but overall I think they are pretty reasonable and effective.
Click to expand...

So why are you quoting me with this inane stuff about cars etc...?
 
ttaskmaster said:
Good for you.
We're talking about the overall principles of the legislation and the manner in which it is inconsistently applied.
Click to expand...

You waffled a bit about chemicals and didn't really provide much of a link. Please do feel free to elaborate if there is indeed some principle you'd care to illustrate.

ttaskmaster said:
Straight back at you, then.
Click to expand...

No, I've responded to what you've posted.
 
dowie said:
Again you're back with this necessity argument. FWIW the recent instances in the press of a car being used as a weapon seem to have been at low speed - for example the supermarket instance or indeed the terror attack at London Bridge. Though I'm not really interested on dwelling on that much as this cars comparison doesn't seem to be particularly relevant. I'd again ask what your point is here?

Banning semi-auto firearms (the subject of the thread) doesn't prevent people from shooting at targets at some rifle club.
Click to expand...

I'm addressing the fact that the argument often falls back to a purely needs rationale - but it isn't really a good thing for a health society to reduce everything back to being dictated by cold logic reason and the actions of a small number of madmen.

In that supermarket incident I don't believe anyone was killed and the terror attacks in London were at speed "Witnesses said the van was travelling at high speed.".

EDIT: I'm not so much talking about the semi-auto restrictions as such but the general tone of anti-gun sentiment that comes up in these threads that often boil it down to a purely need rationale - I'm generally an advocate of enthusiast shooting, etc. being only straight pull/bolt action as that does satisfy the uses of those weapons in most cases but I'm also wary how far the need basis goes.
 
I guess it can come down to harm.

What harm would be done by banning cars travelling over 30? Quite significant social and economic harm.

What harm would be done by banning semi automatic firearms? Some minor social harm for gun enthusiasts, some minor economic harm for those that rely on firearms for part of their livelihood. Not great if you are one of those people, but society may deem that it is a price worth paying for the reduction in risk.
 
Rroff said:
I'm addressing the fact that the argument often falls back to a purely needs rationale - but it isn't really a good thing for a health society to reduce everything back to being dictated by cold logic reason and the actions of a small number of madmen.
Click to expand...

In that supermarket incident I don't believe anyone was killed and the terror attacks in London were at speed "Witnesses said the van was travelling at high speed.".
[/quote]

Relative tbh... They also were able to walk/run away from the crash and start slashing people with knives ergo high speed could well be more indicative of the fact they were no breaking when they slammed into people...

EDIT: I'm not so much talking about the semi-auto restrictions as such but the general tone of anti-gun sentiment that comes up in these threads that often boil it down to a purely need rationale - I'm generally an advocate of enthusiast shooting, etc. being only straight pull/bolt action as that does satisfy the uses of those weapons in most cases but I'm also wary how far the need basis goes.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not really interested in arguments about the general tone of the thread. I've not said we should ban all guns either so it seems a bit pointless to come out with nonsense about limiting cars to 30mph when quoting me in order to make some general point about some argument I've not even put forth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom