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

[Rroff]

Because they're designed to kill people, and when they're not being used to kill people even in other controlled circumstances there's still a risk that they'll be used to kill people.

So what? the vast majority of firearm owners have no interest in killing people and will never kill someone with a gun and if someone is intent to kill there are a lot of ways they can do that.

 

[The_Abyss]

So what? the vast majority of firearm owners have no interest in killing people and will never kill someone with a gun and if someone is intent to kill there are a lot of ways they can do that.

Semi automatic rifles to make it easier to kill people though, and despite you claiming that the vast majority of firearm owners have no interest in killing people, semi automatic rifles still keep getting used to kill people. There's a common factor here that can be removed.

So I'll ask again, what valid uses are there for owning semi automatic rifles. 'I like them' is not a valid answer because, you see, people are being killed by them.

 

[ttaskmaster]

NVM

 

[Rroff]

Semi automatic rifles to make it easier to kill people though, and despite you claiming that the vast majority of firearm owners have no interest in killing people, semi automatic rifles still keep getting used to kill people. There's a common factor here that can be removed.

My original response was to your comment about needing a firearm.

I'm not even defending semi-automatic firearms as such as I see little reason for weapons in civilian ownership to be anything but straight pull/bolt action type configuration (while many would like semi/auto most gun enthusiasts are happy to shoot bolt action) except in specific cases like some parts of the US where there are dangerous wild animals but out of all the semi-automatic rifles ever sold to civilians a tiny number have been used to kill someone - literally something like 0.00000000003%. While AR-15 type rifles have featured prominently in high profile mass shootings and terrorism the vast majority of firearms used to murder someone are handguns and shotguns.

Why are we not storming archery clubs to close them all down with the same reasoning, then?

Interesting point.

Weirdly enough this was on my YouTube feed about an hour ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2WhUu15B5E

 

[VincentHanna]

Why are we not storming archery clubs to close them all down with the same reasoning, then?

Can you name some recent mass casualty terror events where a bow and arrow was the primary weapon?

 

[Minusorange]

Best knee jerk of 2019, congrats to NZ turning hundreds, probably thousands of law abiding citizens into criminals overnight if they choose to keep their legally obtained guns, all because of 1 psychopath

 

[Rroff]

Can you name some recent mass casualty terror events where a bow and arrow was the primary weapon?

Do we need to wait until someone does to ban them?

 

[VincentHanna]

Do we need to wait until someone does to ban them?

Most changes in the law to do with firearms are preceded by tragedy

See: Hungerfood Massacre, Dunblane etc

 

[GGizmo]

I think its trying to legislate against nutcases, the odd one of a crowd.

I had the displeasure of watching an excerpt from the video yesterday and can confirm he's an idiot The sad reality is that apart from bringing in more stringent background checks its near impossible to stop someone like him getting a gun.

 

[ianh]

@The_Abyss - You don't like guns and we'll never change your mind, I get that.

Instead, we're trying to answer your question, whether you agree with what we say or not is immaterial, we're just giving you legal reasons so you can have a better understanding of why other people enjoy/like/use firearms. Again, you don't have to agree with these legal reasons but you do have to understand what they are, two very different things.

I'll bite. Please enlighten us on all the uses that people have for semi-automatic weapons. Feel free to leave out the 'I like them' or 'Why shouldn't I be allowed to have them' reasons.

Your problem is one of "definition" as the words semi-automatic ONLY refer to the way a firearm operates and nothing else. You can have semi automatic air-rifles, pistols, carbines, rifles, shotguns, cannons etc firing anything from a tiny 4.5mm ball bearing which can't puncture skin all the way to 203mm artillery shell and ALL of which are all "semi-automatics".

So you see why it's difficult to give you a list of a civilians uses for a "semi-automatic" firearm when you clump everything into a "why do people uses semi-automatics" but to try and answer, the biggest need (and the NZ Government agreed) is the use of .22 semi-automatics in Pest Control for agriculture. However whether you agree/disagree is moot, it's a lawful use.

In the spoiler below I've gone into why even saying ".22 for pest control" is a confusing nightmare just due to the definition of "what is a .22".

Spoiler: Why the definition matters

The NZ government is allowing .22 rifles to stay, yet within the .22 calibre are the following different versions yet ALL of which are the same calibre (width) bullet, yet all extremely different in their effects -

• .22 Long Rifle (LR), the most common cartridge type of this caliber, often referred to simply as ".22 caliber"
• .22 BB (Bulleted Breech Cap)
• .22 CB (Conical Ball Cap)
• .22 CB cap, an American rimfire cartridge
• .22 Long, same length, but lighter bullet than .22 LR
• .22 Extra Long, an American rimfire rifle and handgun cartridge
• .22 Short, used mostly in pocket pistols and mini-revolvers
• .22 Winchester Rimfire, an American rimfire rifle cartridge
• .22 WMR, (.22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire) a cartridge that is longer and more powerful than a .22 LR
• .22 Winchester Automatic, an American rimfire rifle cartridge
• .22 Accelerator, a special loading of the .30-30, .308, and .30-06 cartridges that is manufactured by Remington
• .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer, a cartridge for a rifle
• .22 Hornet, a powerful variation, also known as 5.6×35R mm 5.728mm
• .22 Remington Jet, an American centerfire revolver and rifle cartridge
• .22 BR Remington, a wildcat cartridge commonly used in varmint hunting and benchrest shooting
• .22 Savage Hi-Power, a.k.a. 5.6×52R, .22 Savage Hi-power, .22 Imp, a cartridge similar to the 22 Hornet introduced by Savage in 1912
• .22 Spitfire, an American rifle cartridge
• .22 PPC, a firearm cartridge used primarily in benchrest shooting
• .22 TCM (a.k.a. .22 Micro-Mag), a 9mm diameter case necked to a .22 caliber bullet and designed to load into standard 9mm magazines

The difference between the most common .22LR and the most "powerful" .22 Hornet is absolutely huge along with the way they operate which is different.

Some are small cartridges like the .22LR which is fired by striking the edge (rimfire) and some like the .22 Hornet are powerful and fired using a percussion cap in the centre (centrefire) so even within the NZ government saying ".22 semi-automatic will be still be allowed" you can see that there is a huge range of .22's which they will have to go through deciding before they finally say what is going to be allowed, my guess would be .22LR.

 

[StriderX]

Ahh... uhh... wow.

There is and always will be only one human race on this planet, anyone arguing otherwise should descend into a hole.

 

[Felon]

Can you name some recent mass casualty terror events where a bow and arrow was the primary weapon?

lol I used to be an archer, used to shoot a very powerful compound bow in competitions - however if you put me in a 'target rich environment' I could probably shoot maybe 2 or 3 people at the most, before people run / take me down / hide, those people would also stand a chance of being saved, due to the nature of bow injuries. (minus head or chest shots)

However, if I had a semi-auto assault rifle, (I'm a member of a gun club in the US and also trained in the use of assault rifles and handguns ) I could easily kill most people in sight very quickly, and continue to do so, and even take on initial law enforcement when it arrived, (law enforcement would most likely be outgunned initially)

This is why I don't believe that semi-automatic assault rifles should be permitted for public circulation anywhere, it's just too much firepower - and there's no legitimate reason why a civilian would need such a thing.

Bolt action rifles, handguns so on and so forth, in my opinion should be controlled - but not banned, because the capability of mass murder is drastically reduced compared to semi-auto rifles, I think it is possible to allow some types of guns with the correct controls.

Overall, some people will be foaming at the mouth over the ban, but in the final analysis - I've never seen anybody successfully argue the case for such things to be permitted for general civilians.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Wonder if the posters in the other thread who called @ianh stupid for saying pest control wasn't a legitimate reason for gun ownership would apologise to him now? @Greebo @Psycho Sonny @Zethor

If we keep chipping away at civil liberties and personal freedoms at this rate I expect to be living in demolition man in the next 50 years, have a joy joy day.

So what pests do you need a gun for that you couldn't get rid of with other means? be it bear traps, poisoned bait, cages, etc, etc.

 

[Rroff]

bear traps, poisoned bait

Atleast a gun is relatively humane and less likely to get the wrong target when controlling pests...

 

[Psycho Sonny]

I'll bite. Please enlighten us on all the uses that people have for semi-automatic weapons. Feel free to leave out the 'I like them' or 'Why shouldn't I be allowed to have them' reasons.

He already made a list in the other thread and none of them required people owning guns.

The fun / target practice aspect could already be controlled at gun clubs with strict security in place so it's impossible for someone to steal them.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Atleast a gun is relatively humane and less likely to get the wrong target when controlling pests...

Bow and Arrow then? Followed up with a hunters knife. Or a taser. There are plenty of safer options out there.

 

[Hagar]

I was varmint hunting (excuse the levity) I would much prefer a bolt action long barrel rifle, .22 or similar, to a military style carbine which is probably less accurate at >25 yards.

 

[ttaskmaster]

NVM

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Mass.... Maybe. I'd have to Google. Failing that, just give it time. In contrast to Screech, there, I reckon I could take down 5-10 people in a minute with a bow, based solely on speed-shooting exercises in archery.
I could probably find a dozen arrow-murders in the past year or two easily enough, though.


Then why aren't vehicles being banned, especially when we've had mass pile-ups that accidentally kill 10-20 people, and especially now we're even getting crazies deliberately driving vehicles into crowds for the express purposes of killing... usually in the name of some cause or other?


The sad reality is that things like the post-Dunblane bans mean the same people who previously supplied illegal guns simply put their prices up a bit.


Only in certain countries... I'd say more, but I don't want people from the other thread screaming 'raaaaaaaaaaaciiiiiiiiiist' in this one too.


In this country, probably not many, but the issues here are with unintended victims of traps, poison, etc.
Out somewhere like Aus, NZ, Africa, etc there are lots of pests where you really want immediate follow-up shots, even if your first does not miss!!


B&A, too easy to miss a clean killshot and not very humane (and hunting with it is also outlawed in the UK already). Knife, good luck getting close enough. Taser, I think those are banned already too.

Running out of options. You're pretty much down to Harsh Language at this point.... and even then, Political Correctness will probably step in on that, followed by people who feel offended by your use of it!!

A crossbow then. Which is basically a mix of a gun and a bow and arrow. You could even use poison on the tip for a quick humane kill.

 

[ttaskmaster]

NVM