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

[dowie]

We've not actually made it in any way harder for criminals either, though, since those who tended to break laws with them (with very few exceptions) did so with already illegal or illegally obtained ones.

And again that isn't a reason to give them even easier access to them....

It's also not a good argument for a number of other things, none of which were the point being asserted, either.... So again, what's your point?

As already explained the point is to not allow the use of semi automatic firearms in order to try and help prevent or at least reduce the ability of people to conduct mass shootings. Unlike the US we don't have a big issue with them, I'd quite like to keep it that way.

This doesn't mean that no one is ever going to get shot or that criminals will never be able to get hold of firearms or that someone can't run over people with a car. None of those points negate the usefulness of banning semi auto rifles.

 

[Felon]

Perhaps if you tried making one, you'd find out?

I cannot argue with somebody, who thinks that laws are essentially ineffective and a waste of time, so we should make it permissible for full-auto machineguns to be legal, because someone with such opinions is clearly out of their mind, and totally unreachable.

 

[dowie]

I think he's just gone a bit full ****** and is throwing out all sorts of crazy stuff about cutting limbs off and allowing people to use machine-guns or giving people an apache helicopter because he doesn't really have an argument.

The breaking things down into ever smaller quotes in order to reply to things a sentence at a time is a bit tedious but the argument just seems to be along the same lines - somehow because other things can be used for killing then we should allow semi auto firearms??? It just isn't an argument.

 

[Nasher]

Look at how many people carry guns in the US and look at how many times they have actually been useful in self defense or preventing mass killings. Next to none...

Guns are only useful for protection if everyone already knows what to aim at. In a warzone that's easy, on the street, nope. Someone can pull a gun out and kill 20 people before anyone realises what's going on.

 

[ttaskmaster]

NVM

 

[dowie]

Great more multi quotes.... I guess this little snippet perhaps sums it up well:

I think a lot of society has already gone beyond redemption and isn't worth safeguarding any more.

If that is the position then fair enough, I can see why you'd not care/would be happy to allow semi automatic rifles. But for most people who'd rather not be living in an environment where firearms like that are easily available it seems pretty sensible to not allow them.

This is the other recurring flaw, along with the "but cars/[insert other stuff] can be used to kill people too:

If it does nothing to stop people getting hold of them anyway, the ban serves no purpose except to stop responsible people from benefiting from their responsibility.

see previous post:

This doesn't mean that no one is ever going to get shot or that criminals will never be able to get hold of firearms or that someone can't run over people with a car. None of those points negate the usefulness of banning semi auto rifles.

You seem to want to deal in absolutes... just because some people still get shot in the UK doesn't mean our policy towards firearms is flawed. Especially when you compare with the likes of US cities... it is pretty obvious what would happen if various London gangs had easier access to various weapons.

 

[Felon]

It takes a real man to admit when he's wrong.

Make no mistake, I'm doing no such thing and you know it.

Unfortunately, I think your perspective is so fundamentally broken, no reasonable argument from anyone will get through or make a difference to that broken perspective - so there's no point continuing, other than simply see who gives in first - which I can't be bothered with, because it's a waste of time.

 

[ttaskmaster]

NVM

 

[dowie]

I'd rather live in the sort of society I grew up in, where people could simply be trusted not to be *****, but thanks to a nanny state and ever-increasing restrictions it's becoming an ever-distant memory.

It isn't thanks to nanny state restrictions but rather it is down to reality, plenty of people can't be trusted not to be ***** thus it is probably not a good idea to allow automatic or semi automatic weapons to be easily available.

So like every pollutician, you'd rather make a token gesture than address the underlying cause of this and several other problems...

No, hardly a token gesture. Also who said you can't tackle underlying causes too?

 

[Strife212]

Look at how many people carry guns in the US and look at how many times they have actually been useful in self defense or preventing mass killings. Next to none...

This is just false, robberies/small crimes are often prevented.

 

[ianh]

Look at how many people carry guns in the US and look at how many times they have actually been useful in self defense or preventing mass killings. Next to none...

This is just false, robberies/small crimes are often prevented.

Strife212 is correct, it's widely reported by various studies that there's anywhere between *108,000 to 3 million "Defensive Gun Uses (DGU's)" per year in the US, where a DGU is classed as "the use or presentation of a firearm for self-defence, defence of others or in some cases, protecting property." so saying that the number of times they're used in self defence is "next to none" is false, it's actually a common occurrence.

*different studies use different figures but those are the min/max figures

 

[dowie]

so saying that the number of times they're used in self defence is "next to none" is false, it's actually a common occurrence.

He didn't comment on the number of times they were used but the number of times they've been useful in "self defence or preventing mass killings". I suspect he's thinking of situations in which shots are being fired.

 

[edscdk]

It should be law everyone carries an ak47, a kilo of heroine and a suiside vest...ban cars (as they are dangerous) any **** goes down everyone safe as the purp gonna get shot down or blown up in seconds....

 

[Nasher]

Strife212 is correct, it's widely reported by various studies that there's anywhere between *108,000 to 3 million "Defensive Gun Uses (DGU's)" per year in the US, where a DGU is classed as "the use or presentation of a firearm for self-defence, defence of others or in some cases, protecting property." so saying that the number of times they're used in self defence is "next to none" is false, it's actually a common occurrence.

*different studies use different figures but those are the min/max figures

108,000 to 3 million lol, so basically no one knows. How many are successful? A citizen with a gun didn't stop ANY of the mass shooting over the last few years.

Around 40,000 people were killed by guns in the US last year. I bet many of those were also carrying a gun for protection...

 

[Felon]

This was linked in another thread a while ago, I thought it was quite interesting because it highlights the fact that even if you're armed, the average person has no time to react or are able to do so in an effective way, when placed in a situation such as a mass shooting.

(the rage in the comments is also quite entertaining)

 

[Jumper118]

This was linked in another thread a while ago, I thought it was quite interesting because it highlights the fact that even if you're armed, the average person has no time to react or are able to do so in an effective way, when placed in a situation such as a mass shooting.

(the rage in the comments is also quite entertaining)

[MEEDIA]

yes in the case where someone is attack you it wont help, but in a case where someone else is being attacked you can be a massive help.

 

[ianh]

108,000 to 3 million lol, so basically no one knows.

The various studies use different definitions of a DGU, hence the wide variation in numbers, neither of which BTW are "Next to none" which is what you claimed as a fact.

 

[StriderX]

yes in the case where someone is attack you it wont help, but in a case where someone else is being attacked you can be a massive help.

Only if you don’t shoot the victim and become the attacker yourself...

They ‘can’... I’d rather someone didn’t point another gun in my vicinity tyvm.

 

[Felon]

but in a case where someone else is being attacked you can be a massive help.

Not necessarily.

In the Dallas police shooting, there was a situation where general members of the public were running around with guns, trying to 'help' all it did was cause confusion and slowed down law enforcement.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dallas-chief-20160711-snap-story.html

"But it's increasingly challenging when people have AR-15s slung over their shoulder and they're in a crowd," he said. "We don't know who the good guy is versus the bad guy when everyone starts shooting."

 

[ianh]

This was linked in another thread a while ago, I thought it was quite interesting because it highlights the fact that even if you're armed, the average person has no time to react or are able to do so in an effective way, when placed in a situation such as a mass shooting.

It's a great video to show why you absolutely must take your responsibilities as a concealed carry permit user seriously and train constantly (and not with toys) to reduce that all too human "flight/flight" reaction delay. However far too many CC's think that carrying a concealed weapon will suddenly make them an elite tier 1 operator etc when infact the vast majority are untrained folks who'll just make the situation worse.