New Zealand Doesn't Hesitate to Ban Automatic Weapons

[Dan From Smithville]

I and many of my friends hunt feral hogs which are a growing problem. They are not a one shot one kill animal. You need to be able to shoot fast and at several or you don't make it back home.

Yes. Agreed. Feral hogs have become a serious problem in my state of Missouri as well. It is to the point that in some locations it is wise to walk in the woods armed with a fairly potent handgun on the order of a .357 Magnum or something more powerful. Not all of us are good at climbing trees as we once were.

 

[Stanyon]

I don't see how firing 200 rounds of high powerful large caliber bullets is necessary for anything other than mass killings.

There are gun ranges that do rent machine guns (of course under close supervision), go rent one and shoot a few hundred rounds, you might understand how fun it can be, no mass killing involved.

 

[oldbadger]

And you guys still haven't banned knives?

Yes, we have.

Several years ago I heard (on RF) about a mass murder of children in a USA school. Over the years I have heard of more, many more. In the coming years I will hear about more, and more, in the USA.

And I don't expect that these will ever end.

But we will do our very best to reduce and deter the murders here, however committed. I expect that we will have some success.

 

[oldbadger]

Went back and found your source. About 2/3 of these deaths are suicides. Just think how much more painful it would be for these 2/3's to commit suicide with a baseball bat, say.

You just keep carrying on, carrying on.

New Zealand is going to do its best to reduce, deter or even stop such dreadful crimes as this last one. And while it does, you can keep on making excuses for doing nothing about yours.

It's never going to end for you. Is it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you think we should curtail the rights of others to commit suicide by the method of their choosing?

is suicide a right? If it is my answer would be no. All suicide methods would have to be made available at the nearest suicide center, if it is a right. Though a person may be required to pay the expenses for is passing. I could not see the government paying for this:

monty python suicide topless - Bing video

Edit: NSFW. But rather low resolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Other Western countries don't have a huge problem with hate groups and militias. Probably because they ban them.

Africa doesn't have anything to so with this.

I do not think that is true. Far right hate groups seem to be on the rise everywhere. Europe is no exception. But it is true that we have a lot here. According to the SPLC, there are over 1,000 in the US that they track. Stephen Bannon appears to be trying to export some of ours overseas or bolster support or unification for existing groups and growing movements in Europe.

 

[Revoltingest]

is suicide a right? If it is my answer would be no. All suicide methods would have to be made available at the nearest suicide center, if it is a right. Though a person may be required to pay the expenses for is passing. I could not see the government paying for this:

monty python suicide topless - Bing video

Rights needn't be subsidized.
They're defined by government not being able to deny them to us.

 

[oldbadger]

Top 20 Causes of Mortality Throughout the World

Guns don't make the top 20 however automobiles make the top 10

Top 20 Causes of Mortality Throughout the World

I'm guessing that you are a US citizen? Yes?

So.......... you don't think that your country needs to do anything about its 300 million guns?

Well then, carry on. I wonder how many mass shootings you have had so far this year? It was an amazing number even a few weeks ago. I wonder how many more to come?

However, New Zealand is going to do what we did (in the UK) nearly thirty years ago. I think the people there will support any new laws.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

is suicide a right? If it is my answer would be no. All suicide methods would have to be made available at the nearest suicide center, if it is a right. Though a person may be required to pay the expenses for is passing. I could not see the government paying for this:

monty python suicide topless - Bing video

That is a tough one. It has been argued that control of our own ultimate fate should be left up to the individual. I sort of support that, but the baggage that comes along with it is potentially setting a stage that allows ease of people that need and might benefit from other types of help to choose and engage in suicide.

I am not sure how my father knew this particular person, but he did know a man that survived a failed attempt at suicide by shotgun. According to the story he related to our family, this man placed the shotgun under his chin, but in trying to reach the trigger, changed his geometry of position and the angle of the gun so that it blew a major portion of his face off without killing him. He survived the attempt, but that is survival in name only if you ask me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Rights needn't be subsidized.
They're defined by government not being able to deny them to us.

That is how I see it. Our rights are outlined and given a legal basis, free of government interference, but it is left to us to exercise them and how we go about that within established regulation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rights needn't be subsidized.
They're defined by government not being able to deny them to us.

Rights come from the government. Something that the writers of the Constitution realized. That was why a Bill of Rights was added to it. One could say: "Yes, off yourself anyway that you can afford".

One can claim to have a right, but without government support that claim is toothless.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In the wake of a terrorist attack at a Muslim Mosque, New Zealand doesn't hesitate to respond.

New Zealand banning semi-automatic, assault rifles after mosque shootings | CBC News

Thoughts?

I think that New Zealand can do what the government and its people decide to do. Even if I disagree with it, my opinion does not count in their business. It would amount to me throwing in my 2 cents about what my neighbor is or is not going to do when I have no stake in my neighbors decisions. We do not like people from other countries telling us what to do.

Regardless of what I think of the action, I am impressed with how quickly they have moved to take it. You do not see that sort of turnaround in a bureaucracy very often. From a US perspective, that is also more than a little troubling. It speaks of a leader than can move passed the will of the people, but this may not be a problem for the New Zealand democracy. It is also a much smaller country than the US, with a population that is less than that of the state I live in.

What bothers me is this idea of 'assault rifle'. What is that? Is it a military weapon or just one that looks intimidating and similar to a military weapon. Here in the US, a person can purchase any of a number of AR-15 variants or something like a Remington Woodmaster semi-automatic that is basically the same firearm as the AR. One looks intimidating and dangerous, while one looks like a traditional hunting rifle. I do not like the idea that I would have to live with someone else's arbitrary definition forming the basis of a law, when that definition is practically meaningless and can be misapplied to a number of firearms that rarely get used in mass murders or are seen as scary. A man with a good quality bolt action rifle and a little training can do a lot of damage with each single pull of the trigger. I suppose a major effective difference between a bolt action rifle and a semi-automatic is that the latter gives a completely unskilled person that cannot or chooses not to control their actions, a lot of fire power. Maybe we should be focused on keeping guns out of hands of these kinds of people, rather than just deciding that no one has the ability to control themselves and we must remove the guns from these children. The argument that women are the temptress that needs to be covered from head to toe so as not unjustly instill the lust of men, instead of teaching men that they are responsible for any bad behavior to women seems like a similar argument to me. It is covering reasonable, law abiding citizens head to toe in a garb of laws that says they are the cause of crimes they did not commit and must have their rights taken away.

 

[Father Heathen]

One of the biggest mass murders of our century was perpetrated by using commercial airliners.

Airliners serve a practical purpose, aren't intended or designed to be weapons, and aren't readily accessable to the public, and deaths from such aren't a daily occurrence.

So did you have a point?

 

[oldbadger]

Thank God we don't have that nonsense here...

Idea!

Since it is unlikely that the USA will do anything to control or reduce fast-fire guns......... the NZ initiative could be most interesting for you all in the USA.

New Zealand's government has already set an Amnesty in motion so that owners of assault weapons and fast-fire guns can hand them in. We hear in the UK that the NZ government is offering to purchase these weapons, and that's going to cost a lot of money.
But if NZ could ship 'em all to the USA to help with your Hog, Coyote, Mountain Lion, Trespasser, or any nasty government problems etc offering them at half the purchase cost, then that could help the USA with it's paranoia whilst helping NZ with it's initial costs?

Bingo!

Whadaya think?

 

[Father Heathen]

There are gun ranges that do rent machine guns (of course under close supervision), go rent one and shoot a few hundred rounds, you might understand how fun it can be, no mass killing involved.

Blowing **** up is fun too, but I wouldn't trust the general public with explosives.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Idea!

Since it is unlikely that the USA will do anything to control or reduce fast-fire guns......... the NZ initiative could be most interesting for you all in the USA.

New Zealand's government has already set an Amnesty in motion so that owners of assault weapons and fast-fire guns can hand them in. We hear in the UK that the NZ government is offering to purchase these weapons, and that's going to cost a lot of money.
But if NZ could ship 'em all to the USA to help with your Hog, Coyote, Mountain Lion, Trespasser, or any nasty government problems etc offering them at half the purchase cost, then that could help the USA with it's paranoia whilst helping NZ with it's initial costs?

Bingo!

Whadaya think?

When Australia had its buy back I had 2 x SKS 7.62 Assult rifles, a 6.5 sniper rifle and a .22 10 shot lever Magnum.

Made good money selling them back, way more than I paid for rhem.

Never missed them since 1996

Now I very happy never to own or use a firearm.

Regards Tony

 

[Revoltingest]

Rights come from the government. Something that the writers of the Constitution realized. That was why a Bill of Rights was added to it. One could say: "Yes, off yourself anyway that you can afford".

One can claim to have a right, but without government support that claim is toothless.

Not so toothless.
It's very very difficult to prosecute someone for committing suicide.
The law really only comes into play when someone needs assistance.

 

[oldbadger]

When Australia has its buy back I had 2 x SKS 7.62 Assult rifles, a 6.5 sniper rifle and a .22 10 shot lever Magnum.

Made good money selling them back, way more than I paid for rhem.

Never missed them since

Now I very happy never to own or use a firearm.

Regards Tony

I didn't know that you had been a shooting enthusiast.

Now if Oz had thought to flog 'em all to paranoid Americans......... what a blip for its economy.

In retirement my Father was a part-time gamekeeper. After his death I had to sort out his property and he had a licensed 1906 BSA pump action .22 rifle. Because of our firearms laws it was worthless...... my local gunsmith gave me £10 for it because it would take months for him to move it on. So it's best if governments do buy all those guns that would soon become worthless because of the new legislation.

 

[Audie]

Seriously if you don't get a coyote on the first shot the odds of getting it on any further shots goes down at an incredibly rapid rate. If you don't get one on the first seven shots you definitely are not getting it on any that follow. I remember the first time I went squirrel hunting with some cousins and a brother or two. Most of us had semi-automatic shotguns. We saw a squirrel over us and let loose. The only thing we got were leaves. I did much better with a bolt action .22 rifle. Find your target, take your time. And one shot. Coyotes are even wilier than squirrels and if you miss it it is gone. One might have better luck with a muzzle loader, if one could find one that shot accurately. It would force patience and judgement rather than simply letting bullets fly and hope that one hits.

Well, ok..like I would know. I just repeated what I was told.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Taking away the privilege of owning and using anything the vast majority use lawfully and responsibly because of the intentional unlawful use by one individual seems arbitrary to me.

I get your point of view, but police in NZ have been raising questions about increased gun violence and in particular increasing levels of semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons for (literally) many years.

These same police don't carry guns.

Faced with a choice between increased militarization of their police or an attempt to scale back ownership of certain weapon classes, they've taken the latter option.

Most countries seek to balance individual rights with societal considerations. New Zealand, for example, has been progressive in both indigenous and women's rights.

So, sure, you can paint this as knee jerk, or as ripping rights from lawful people. Much of the world doesn't view a healthy society as a group of individuals only, though.

It makes conversations difficult due to this constant balance, but it's why most of the first world falls a different way to the US on things like universal healthcare.