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

[The_Abyss]

@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.



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".

The thread's about semi automatic rifles. But for clarity, I'll save you the long definition and why I don't think that's important. I'll just replace semi automatic rifles with firearms. I don't have a problem with definition - firearms are designed to kill or wound.

Why do people need firearms. So far we have a use put forward of pest control. Unless there are a lot of pests in the UK or New Zealand, I've seen nothing to suggest that 99% or more people don't need to control pests with firearms. So they don't need firearms.

Any other need for firearms? I don't think that you can use 'legal reasons' by the way - that's part of the debate: making some things illegal that are currently legal. By definition, not all currently legal uses are valid. That's why this discussion has started.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

I believe hunting with those is also illegal already.
No, the world will have to rely on cars loaded with fertiliser, weedkiller and sugar, or some other IED... or just starve when crops and livestock are destroyed, but die happy in the knowledge that you prevented deaths.

Also, could be of some interest: http://evonomics.com/the-connection-between-a-poor-economy-and-mass-shootings/

How is it possible hunting/killing pests with a crossbow is illegal but a gun not?

 

[Felon]

How is it possible hunting/killing pests with a crossbow is illegal but a gun not?

One of the problems with bow hunting, is that the shot isn't always fatal and/or incapacitating, in the sense that if you hit a deer in the neck - it might carry on running around with the arrow in it for weeks, before it gets infected and dies a slow and terrible death.

In contrast from a rifle - which puts out so much more damage, hitting a deer pretty much anywhere, from any range (with the correct calibre) will almost certainly immediately incapacitate it, or kill it out right.

 

[VincentHanna]

Well poisoning them with bait isn't exactly a quick death is it?

 

[Felon]

Well poisoning them with bait isn't exactly a quick death is it?

I'm not 100% sure what the law is, however I *think* it's illegal to poison many different types of pests, like deer, badgers, etc - however rats and mice are obviously not illegal to poison. I think bigger 'pests' such as deer can only be lawfully culled with a firearm, and it might actually be illegal to kill them via any other means.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

are deer actually a pest though? can't fences stop them from getting onto your land?

 

[StriderX]

are deer actually a pest though?

Yes. We annihilated their predators. Though a better solution would be to rewild instead, as culls aren’t great for the increasingly barren landscape in the uk. (The deer is removed completely, thus it’s nutrients can’t cycle)

 

[G-MAN2004]

The problem with banning guns in the US is that no one will hand them in. I imagine the people of NZ aren't as gun crazy so it will be smooth sailing. Good luck trying to get yanks to give up their most precious possessions. It will never, ever happen.

 

[ianh]

Why do people need firearms. So far we have a use put forward of pest control. Unless there are a lot of pests in the UK or New Zealand, I've seen nothing to suggest that 99% or more people don't need to control pests with firearms.

Just highlighting this for you so know I'm talking about ALL firearms - NOT just semi-automatics, here is a quick list of LEGAL reasons people use any kind of firearms which I posted in another thread - For quite a few reasons, not limited to, hunting for food, wildlife population control (culls), target shooting, sports shooting, clay pigeon shooting, Olympic games qualification, historical interest, historical re-enactments and many others including for myself (shock/horror) "entertainment" because shooting safely and responsibly is fun and I personally got enjoyment from it over the 20+ years I spent shooting in the Military as well as 15+ years doing pest control and target shooting as a hobby.

Again, those are LEGAL reasons so whether you agree/disagree with any/none of them makes no difference to anyone other than yourself. However I understand if that list causes you to reply with "well I think you're wrong". I get it, I mean it makes no difference but I get it.

How is it possible hunting/killing pests with a crossbow is illegal but a gun not?

Because it causes an animal to suffer inhumanly from a slow death via a crossbow (not accurate shot placement unless at VERY close range <5m on a rabbit etc) vs an instant death from a firearm at ranges upto 600m for big things like deer, and yes deer culls can be allowed under the General License, the "rule book" which tells you what you can/can't kill and what methods how you can/can't use to do so.

There is a reason why people who aren't hunters get so many things wrong about it. It's not a blood-lust to kill things that we have, the vast majority hunters KNOW how to kill humanely, carry the correct equipment for the task and are usually devastated if they cause ANY suffering to an animal instead of getting a "clean kill", the moron trophy hunter who shot a sleeping lion excluded (can't stand that, it's not "hunting" at all).

 

[VincentHanna]

Yes. We annihilated their predators. Though a better solution would be to rewild instead, as culls aren’t great for the increasingly barren landscape in the uk. (The deer is removed completely, thus it’s nutrients can’t cycle)

Bit off topic, but I don't really buy the re-wilding argument.

We have Sheep/Cattle etc penned in to fields, and people want to re-introduce wolves to that eco-system?

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

All this nonsense about pest control and need for semi automatic weapons is asinine.
Please explain to me how the Aborigines and Native Americans managed to cope just fine for centuries without them?
What a pathetic and weak argument, semi automatic guns ARE utterly lethal and have no place in civilised society

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Yes. We annihilated their predators.

I used to see them all the time in fact i nearly hit at least 1 on 3 seperate occasions but that was over 10 years ago now. i've not encountered one on the road in ages.

i thought cars had culled the majority of them which is why i haven't seen one in nearly a decade. i live in the countryside btw and it's all country roads to go to parents / in laws and friends houses.

 

[Rroff]

All this nonsense about pest control and need for semi automatic weapons is asinine.
Please explain to me how the Aborigines and Native Americans managed to cope just fine for centuries without them?
What a pathetic and weak argument, semi automatic guns ARE utterly lethal and have no place in civilised society

A civilised society is one that cares about the welfare of the animals it interacts with... guns are simply more humane at putting down pests when you need to.

(That is relative to aboriginal methods - I'm sure we could do it even better if we put our minds to it).

 

[The_Abyss]

here is a quick list of LEGAL reasons people use any kind of firearms which I posted in another thread - For quite a few reasons, not limited to, hunting for food

Not needed.

wildlife population control (culls)

If needed, then no need for individual firearm ownership. Can be put into the responsibility of controlled businesses / government. If it is absolutely necessary, then perhaps this is that 1% I mentioned.

target shooting, sports shooting, clay pigeon shooting, Olympic games qualification,

No individual firearm ownership needed. I could be a **** and go further and say just how relevant are these 'sports' in the modern world, and what's the point, but I won't. I'm not arguing for the sake of it.

historical interest, historical re-enactments

Why do you need working firearms for historical re-enactments?

and many others including for myself (shock/horror) "entertainment" because shooting safely and responsibly is fun and I personally got enjoyment from it over the 20+ years I spent shooting in the Military as well as 15+ years doing pest control and target shooting as a hobby.

When it comes to choosing between people being killed and a hobby, life kind of wins. Why do you as an individual need to own a firearm to do these things anyway?

Again, those are LEGAL reasons so whether you agree/disagree with any/none of them makes no difference to anyone other than yourself. However I understand if that list causes you to reply with "well I think you're wrong". I get it, I mean it makes no difference but I get it.

Don't get me wrong, I doubt that we'll ever agree. It is just with your position people continue to be at a higher risk of being killed with firearms than they do with mine.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

We had a pest problem a few years back where a field mouse kept sneaking into our kitchen and looking for grub, I bought a cheap (£2) humane trap off ebay, caught the little fella and released him in the woods a couple of miles away.
Never saw him again Problem solved, it's not rocket science.
I appreciate this isn't possible in all cases but feel many in the same circumstance would have simply chucked down a trap and killed the mouse, lazy and cruel when with a little bit more effort the problem could be solved without any killing.

 

[RaohNS]

The problem with banning guns in the US is that no one will hand them in. I imagine the people of NZ aren't as gun crazy so it will be smooth sailing. Good luck trying to get yanks to give up their most precious possessions. It will never, ever happen.

Exactly. This is one of my favourite discussions to have.

Anti-Gun/2A: I would legislate to make guns illegal
Me: And what when they refuse?
Anto-Gun/2A: I would send police to seize
Me: Congratulations, you've now just provoked the worlds largest standing Army who are all armed with multiple weapons. Most Police and the Army will be on their side. There would be a very short civil war with a lot of people, like you, being put into camp. After which, you have lost the war and likely your position in society. Still think it's a good idea?

Knee-jerk reactive legislation is as history often shows some of the worst.

 

[Minusorange]

Why do people need firearms.

Are you an advocate for the banning of all vehicles with engines that go above the legal speed limit ? I mean why do people need cars at all when we have public transport, bicycles and legs ?

For all you freedom hating opinion forcing authoritarians, why don't you just **** off to North Korea or China where you'll obviously be happy being free to do what the state tells you to do

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Brilliant, well balanced rational argument

 

[Rroff]

Not needed.



If needed, then no need for individual firearm ownership. Can be put into the responsibility of controlled businesses / government. If it is absolutely necessary, then perhaps this is that 1% I mentioned.



No individual firearm ownership needed. I could be a **** and go further and say just how relevant are these 'sports' in the modern world, and what's the point, but I won't. I'm not arguing for the sake of it.



Why do you need working firearms for historical re-enactments?



When it comes to choosing between people being killed and a hobby, life kind of wins. Why do you as an individual need to own a firearm to do these things anyway?



Don't get me wrong, I doubt that we'll ever agree. It is just with your position people continue to be at a higher risk of being killed with firearms than they do with mine.

Someone could weaponise a drone for mass killing so maybe ban them as well as no one has an actual need to own one.

 

[RaohNS]

Brilliant, well balanced rational argument

Checked your arguments lately?

Rational? No
Balanced -Nazis nazis white supremacist racist homphobes racist nazi supremacists everywhere... Racist... White supremacist... No

Meanwhile you ignore that the premise of that statement would be very sound. The 2A supporters would not be handing over their weapons.