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

[Roar87]

So that is now covered lets tighten UK gun laws even more.

My neutered rabbit is more rational with it's concerns for it's safety than half the posters in here, I feed it every day and sometimes it still mistakes me for a predator. How many people were killed by legally held guns in the UK last year? I'm sure we're talking single digits, yet you want to deprive law abiding citizens of their guns? This is why people like you should never have any sort of authority.

 

[ttaskmaster]

NVM

 

[MBennett]

One thing that's quite apparent in this thread, is that some people are against there being rules or regulations, in the sense that they should be allowed access to anything they want, in some cases where the only reason may simply be 'for fun' or 'because I want it'. Just because a minority might misbehave and cause disaster, that shouldn't affect the majority who ultimately behave - I understand that view.

However.

You have to draw the line somewhere, not because we should sacrifice our rights and become slaves to a tyrannical government, but because you simply have to draw the line, if you want a sensible, civilised society where it's citizens can afford a reasonable level of protection and safety. If you don't or can't draw the line somewhere, you essentially open up the ability for people to have what they want, which may make people feel free or liberated somehow, but would the ability to own or do anything you like with no sensible rules - really translate into a better or reasonable society worth living in?

People posting in here, who support the idea that civilians should have general access to weapons which are derived from things used on a battlefield, probably haven't thought about how it would feel, if some of their loved ones were wiped out in a school shooting such as Newton or Parkland, via an attacker using such a thing. A bereaved individual in such a situation, would be well within their rights to look towards their leaders (the government) and ask "What can we do to prevent this" then expect their leaders to come up with sensible rules and legislation that attempt to prevent a reoccurrence, because that's what leaders are there to do, that's why we elect them, that's why we have laws and rules that we enforce.

Where would a reasonable person expect their leaders to focus their energy? Mental health, social equality, education, would all be prime candidates for attention, however I get the impression that some people on here, would expect their leaders to look at these issues - yet somehow turn a blind eye to the fact that it might be just a little excessive, to allow weapons of war (or close enough to be) into the hands of civilians.

They often make the point that "guns don't kill, people kill" to attempt to advance an argument that banning or imposing further controls on something won't make any difference, because nothing other than the person is to blame, however I think that ignores how people really behave.

In the wake of Sandy Hook, Dr Rowan Williams (then Archbishop of Canterbury) spoke on thought for the day back in 2012, and I think what he said stayed with me for a very long time, because for me it crystallised the whole issue and allowed me to understand it much more deeply. I'd urge anyone who wants to sit behind the 'guns don't kill, people kill' argument, to at least give 3 minutes to what he says on it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0138b5h

Basically everything in life has a risk, the aim is to minimise the risk as much as possible within reason. I think in the UK we have done that with regards to firearms - the numbers killed by legally owned firearm that are not suicides is so low it is almost zero statistically. Wanting to ban something to get that value down to zero and affect the livelihood/freedoms of hundreds of thousands almost vindictively based on ill researched, knee jerk popular opinion is a very very bad idea in my opinion.

Ultimately the end game of that thought process is everything worth living for is slowly removed until we all end up eating grey sludge in a padded cell ‘for our own safety’. For example look at the sugar tax and ‘porn ban’ - both brought in as some people cannot control themselves and this is the thin end of the same wedge. Even if you do not like it you can’t just say ban it because it is ‘needless’ and you don’t care - one day it might be something you do care about.

 

[SPG]

My neutered rabbit is more rational with it's concerns for it's safety than half the posters in here, I feed it every day and sometimes it still mistakes me for a predator. How many people were killed by legally held guns in the UK last year? I'm sure we're talking single digits, yet you want to deprive law abiding citizens of their guns? This is why people like you should never have any sort of authority.

Why not, we are always talking about prevention... because when it happens and it will happen its to late, besides you took the entire post out of context, no need for public to have firearms, unless its shotgun or a plink plink target popper.

 

[Rroff]

Why not, we are always talking about prevention... because when it happens and it will happen its to late, besides you took the entire post out of context, no need for public to have firearms, unless its shotgun or a plink plink target popper.

So ban drones as well then?

 

[StriderX]

So ban drones as well then?

Yes, if the majority doesn’t disagree.

 

[Dis86]

So ban drones as well then?

I've been in favour of this for a while tbh!

 

[Felon]

Drug use, rape, murder, theft, buglary, arson, piracy... we have rules and laws against things like this, which we enforce, right? How good are they at stopping them from ever recurring?

This essentially boils down to reductio ad absurdum.

Just because laws can be broken, doesn't really advance an argument that laws and rules are a waste of time - which is basically what you're advocating.

If you think that's the case, maybe you should move to somewhere like Somalia and let us all know how wonderful it is, living in a society with hardly any rules or laws.

 

[RDM]

But if that only saves one life, it is worth it, no........?
That's the argument, right?

It isn’t an argument I’ve made...

 

[ianh]

no need for public to have firearms, unless its shotgun or a plink plink target popper.

Lots of Governments around the world, including NZ, don't agree with you and aren't likely to change their mind in the near future.

 

[dowie]

Let me rephrase - "We're not discussing the specific thing you just mentioned, but have instead moved on to a wider issue". Your comment was in response to things said around that wider issue.
Why quote you? Because you said it.
[...]

How is that a strawman, given that this is exactly what people are proposing?

If they are then quote them. I don't know why you're struggling with this but quoting me in order to argue against some other point that I haven't made is rather silly/pointless.

 

[SPG]

So ban drones as well then?

Is a drones primary function to to kill/mame..thought not. Next question please.

 

[ianh]

Is a drones primary function to to kill/mame..thought not. Next question please.

A Swords primary function is to kill/maim - Legal to own
A Bow and Arrows primary function is to kill/maim - Legal to own
A Javelins (spear) primary function is to kill/maim - Legal to own
A Crossbows primary function is to kill/maim - Legal to own
A Military Bayonets primary function is to kill/maim - Legal to own
The list goes on........etc etc.

You could even use ridiculous stuff for this and still be correct i.e. A Pesticides primary function is to kill/maim - Legal to own (the first nerve gas was Tabun, a strong pesticide created in 1936)

An argument that uses "An items primary function is to kill/maim so it should be banned" is a flawed argument when you can easily prove that the same argument is not applied consistently to every other item whose primary function is also to kill/maim.

I know you believe that there is "no need for public to have firearms, unless its shotgun or a plink plink target popper." from your post above and I'm not trying to make you change your mind on that, but I would hope you have a better, stronger argument to say why Governments around the world are all wrong and that firearms must be banned, rather than the very weak (and provable false) one of "An items primary function is to kill/maim so it should be banned" which you're currently using.

 

[SPG]

Oh please stop trying to defend stupidity.

A sword for example means you have to run up and chop like a dervish, while sitting on the roof of a vauxhall corsa with a semi automatic means you can pop off multiples before anyone has the idiocy to run at you....

Its not about swords, cars its about GUNS nothing more or less.

People are stupid (as this thread has shown) which makes guns stupid.

As someone said before, if you do not like the reason behind laws move to Somalia.

 

[Rroff]

Is a drones primary function to to kill/mame..thought not. Next question please.

Is that what is important? a drone unmodified could be used to bring down an aircraft killing multiple people what practical purpose or need does anyone have to own a drone? or do we need to wait until someone commits an act of mass murder with one?

It is amazing how quickly people start throwing around insults on this topic.

 

[StriderX]

Is that what is important? a drone unmodified could be used to bring down an aircraft killing multiple people what practical purpose or need does anyone have to own a drone? or do we need to wait until someone commits an act of mass murder with one?

It is amazing how quickly people start throwing around insults on this topic.

Yup, need to wait for hundreds of dead civvies to do anything, and look good while doing it.

Not even sarcasm, it will happen.

 

[stockhausen]

Is that what is important? a drone unmodified could be used to bring down an aircraft killing multiple people what practical purpose or need does anyone have to own a drone? or do we need to wait until someone commits an act of mass murder with one?

It is amazing how quickly people start throwing around insults on this topic.

I am somewhat surprised at the suggestion that SPG was "throwing around insults", I must have missed that post . . .

However, I entirely agree that semi-automatic guns -of ANY sort - should not be in the hands of random members of the public.

I don't disagree that there are questions about drones being freely available either but that doesn't change my views on semi-automatic guns.In the right hands, drones and semi-automatic guns are appropriate and even useful - neither should be freely available to absolutely anyone who happens to fancy one.

 

[dowie]

Is that what is important? a drone unmodified could be used to bring down an aircraft killing multiple people what practical purpose or need does anyone have to own a drone? or do we need to wait until someone commits an act of mass murder with one?

Which is why you're not allowed to fly them near airports and why some manufacturers implement geofencing.

Yes legislation on drones could also be improved.

But this thread is about firearms and it seems some are just using it as an exercise in whataboutery with a mix of both sensible and utterly ludicrous points.

 

[ttaskmaster]

NVM

 

[Roar87]

Which is why you're not allowed to fly them near airports and why some manufacturers implement geofencing.

Yes legislation on drones could also be improved.

But this thread is about firearms and it seems some are just using it as an exercise in whataboutery with a mix of both sensible and utterly ludicrous points.

Yes, the debate on firearms is a philosophical one that requires analogies to be used, it's not merely a deflection to suggest other items are capable of mass murder so could similarly could be banned using the same logic being applied to guns. The logical endpoint of this is that everything that can be used for mass murder eventually will be given enough time, so either we ban everything that can be used for mass murder now, or we deal with the fact that bad people will do bad things on occasion but maintaining personal freedoms is important.