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

[dowie]

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.

Well it seems to be deflection and rather bad/silly analogies so far... The logical endpoint isn't that we ban everything - that is an entirely silly argument. In fact the topic of the thread isn't a ban on all firearms but simply a ban on semi auto (.22 aside).

Just as we have regulations for cars and drones we have regulations for firearms. It isn't like the other examples have no regulations.

 

[Rroff]

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.

I actually don't think the use of drones should be significantly impacted due to the potential actions of a small number of madmen, other than some common sense regulation - but the rationale behind what some posters are using to advocate far reaching or complete gun controls also applies more widely or they are being too subjective as to which is the material part of their requirements depending on what supports their argument.

that is an entirely silly argument. In fact the topic of the thread isn't a ban on all firearms but simply a ban on semi auto (.22 aside).

It isn't the thrust of many posters here who are anti-gun and see banning semi-automatic as just a step down the road.

 

[ianh]

Oh please stop trying to defend stupidity.

I'm not trying to defend you. I'm showing you just how weak that particular argument is (weak doesn't mean wrong, it just means weak) and suggesting that if you could find a strong argument which actually makes "pro-gun" people genuinely think "yeah, thats a good point" you would be doing a better job at presenting a rational argument.

 

[Felon]

The point I've made all along, is that personal freedom is important - essentially I'm pro firearms, with the correct controls and legislation in place. I'm fine with the UK's gun laws, I think they make sense and are reasonable, the fact that nowadays we have literally no mass shootings here - adds some credence to that argument, but I'm in no way complacent that legislation can be effective 100% of the time.

However, somewhere along the line from a law making position the question must be asked; "How much firepower is too much?" as a way to garner an opinion on weighing up the risks vs benefits either way, because not all firearms are equal - some are far more powerful than others.

That to me, is exactly what New Zealand have done - they've analysed the 'tools' the shooter used, specifically an AR-15 with high capacity magazines. They've come to a sensible determination that the risks of allowing that sort of firepower are too great compared to the benefits.

 

[Roar87]

Well it seems to be deflection and rather bad/silly analogies so far... The logical endpoint isn't that we ban everything - that is an entirely silly argument. In fact the topic of the thread isn't a ban on all firearms but simply a ban on semi auto (.22 aside).

Just as we have regulations for cars and drones we have regulations for firearms. It isn't like the other examples have no regulations.

There are ways to kill a lot of people using merely a bolt action rifle, you could fashion a suppressor and sit in a van and drive around shooting people in busy places until the Police catch up with you like that guy did in D.C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._sniper_attacks

Oh and why are the analogies bad/silly, because you decided?

 

[robgmun]

Oh please stop trying to defend stupidity..

I'm not trying to defend you.

Sorry, but i just want to take a moment to point this one out, total genius

 

[dowie]

There are ways to kill a lot of people using merely a bolt action rifle, you could fashion a suppressor and sit in a van and drive around shooting people in busy places until the Police catch up with you like that guy did in D.C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._sniper_attacks

Yeah you perhaps could. It doesn't mean that banning semi auto rifles is a bad thing.

Oh and why are the analogies bad/silly, because you decided?

Well do you think that limiting all cars to 30mph is a good idea?

 

[ianh]

Well do you think that limiting all cars to 30mph is a good idea?

"Analogy" - A comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

He doesn't actually believe that limiting cars to 30mph is a good idea, he's using that example as an "analogy" to show how silly he believes your comment was by making his own silly comment and then comparing them.

Hope that helps!

 

[Roar87]

Yeah you perhaps could. It doesn't mean that banning semi auto rifles is a bad thing.

Banning anything is a bad thing if all you do is change the instrument used for mass killing.

Well do you think that limiting all cars to 30mph is a good idea?

30mph? Nah. I think you could make arguments for restricting cars to 85mph though. You'd probably actually save more lives doing that than banning semi-automatics, except of course you'd get massive public outcry.

 

[Rroff]

Well do you think that limiting all cars to 30mph is a good idea?

You do realise I used that to illustrate a point? one which seems to have gone over your head and instead you keep trying to use a few keywords to make it look stupid. But hey keep banging on about the 30mph bit literally as if it is the material part of that argument.

30mph? Nah. I think you could make arguments for restricting cars to 85mph though. You'd probably actually save more lives doing that than banning semi-automatics, except of course you'd get massive public outcry.

The speed itself whether 30, 85 or whatever doesn't matter it is the rationale used and where else it could be applied.

He doesn't actually believe that limiting cars to 30mph is a good idea, he's using that example as an "analogy" to show how silly he believes your comment was by making his own silly comment and then comparing them.

First bit is right - same as with my comments about drones - not so much I think the/a comment(s) are silly but that there needs to be some balance to it.

 

[dowie]

"Analogy" - A comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

He doesn't actually believe that limiting cars to 30mph is a good idea, he's using that example as an "analogy" to show how silly he believes your comment was by making his own silly comment and then comparing them.

Hope that helps!

Not particularly as it wasn't a very good analogy, for a start what do you think was silly about my comment?

Banning anything is a bad thing if all you do is change the instrument used for mass killing.

Well that doesn't seem to be the case here, you'd also be making things harder for wannabe mass killers.

30mph? Nah. I think you could make arguments for restricting cars to 85mph though. You'd probably actually save more lives doing that than banning semi-automatics, except of course you'd get massive public outcry.

Cars are restricted to 70mph in the UK already - of course you're talking about perhaps some modification to the car itself, I'm not sure that is necessarily a bad thing. Volvo is already moving in that direction.

 

[dowie]

You do realise I used that to illustrate a point? one which seems to have gone over your head and instead you keep trying to use a few keywords to make it look stupid. But hey keep banging on about the 30mph bit literally as if it is the material part of that argument.

The speed itself whether 30, 85 or whatever doesn't matter it is the rationale used and where else it could be applied.

Please do explain then, what exactly were you trying to illustrate? Apparently it has gone over my head - or perhaps it was a really bad analogy and you might be better off attempting to just put forth your point. You quoted my post and suggested limiting cars to 30mph - why? How does that relate to what I've posted?

 

[Rroff]

Please do explain then, what exactly were you trying to illustrate? Apparently it has gone over my head - or perhaps it was a really bad analogy and you might be better off attempting to just put forth your point. You quoted my post and suggested limiting cars to 30mph - why? How does that relate to what I've posted?

Everything is in my earlier posts albeit strung out to build upto the point and as I said before as much aimed at the wider thought brought to the topic by those on the anti-gun side as it was connected to your post. Some of the car comparisons might be flawed but in general the comparisons aren't without some relevance to the rationale used as an argument against firearms.

 

[dowie]

Everything is in my earlier posts albeit strung out to build upto the point and as I said before as much aimed at the wider thought brought to the topic by those on the anti-gun side as it was connected to your post. Some of the car comparisons might be flawed but in general the comparisons aren't without some relevance to the rationale used as an argument against firearms.

So you're not going to explain the analogy then and apparently it doesn't relate to my post. I'll keep my previous view that it was an irrelevant/silly analogy and a waste of time.

 

[Rroff]

So you're not going to explain the analogy then and apparently it doesn't relate to my post. I don't think we need to waste much more time on this, I'll keep my previous view that it was a pointless analogy and a waste of time.

TBH my reply to that is whatever! I think your off hand manner in dealing with it is more a reflection on yourself than my analogy.

 

[dowie]

TBH my reply to that is whatever! I think your off hand manner in dealing with it is more a reflection on yourself than my analogy.

Well if you can't be bothered to explain it or even construct an argument in relation to what I posted when you've chosen to quote my post then I don't see the point of it.

I've called it a silly analogy and you've just given some hand waving explanation that it is about some general arguments etc... Unless you're going to explain the relevance then it is a silly waste of time.

You stated before: "You do realise I used that to illustrate a point? one which seems to have gone over your head" is it so unreasonable to ask what point you were trying to make when quoting me?

 

[ttaskmaster]

NVM

 

[dowie]

And yet since the bans in 1988 and 1997 we've had 101 people killed and over 1,200 injured by mass killers, only one of which used a firearm of any kind... doesn't seem all that hard a thing to do, actually.

The last massacre involving firearms in the UK was 1996, over 20 years ago. Who are all these other mass killers you're referring to? Bombers etc..? So what?

That people have been able to make use of knives bombs and vehicles doesn't seem like a good argument for also giving them easy access to semi auto firearms. If anything it helps illustrate that the ban has indeed made things harder.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Cars are restricted to 70mph in the UK already - of course you're talking about perhaps some modification to the car itself, I'm not sure that is necessarily a bad thing. Volvo is already moving in that direction.

Mass murder was restricted in New Zealand.

 

[ttaskmaster]

NVM