New Zealanders hand over guns in Christchurch

[+DieChecker]

23 hours ago, joc said:

But the founding of America was all about the individuals and their wants. 

I don't really know the history of New Zealand...but I do know the history of the United States and it began with a big Bang of gunfire involving the British soldiers of King George.  

  Wyatt Earp cleaned up Tucson Arizona by taking guns at the City Limit.  But then again...Mayor Giulliani cleaned up New York City just by enforcing  existing laws which resulted in  a large number of guns off the streets.  

 

Works... except in the cases where it hasnt... 

Many US cities that have banned guns are some of the leading areas people get shot in. 

[Gwynbleidd]

10 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I find that data interesting, but it lacks context. How many of those shot, injured, killed... teenagers... were due to violent crime and gangs? Gangs, IMHO, are every bit as dangerous as guns. 

Australia has successful banned gangs pretty much, also, correct?

I used to live in Queensland but I believe they've banned all motorcycle gangs up there now.  I don't think you can be affiliated with one at all - but perhaps someone from Qld could verify that for me.

[+joc]

25 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Works... except in the cases where it hasnt... 

Many US cities that have banned guns are some of the leading areas people get shot in. 

That is because you cannot 'ban' guns.  What Wyatt Earp did was take everyone's gun as they came into the town.  A different time.

We don't need to get rid of guns...we need to get rid of all the bad people.

[+and-then]

9 hours ago, DingoLingo said:

it wont impinge on the 2a on owning guns.

So you'd be okay with removing the ability  - the RIGHT - for poor and some middle class from buying firearms legally but okay with the wealthy or criminals to still be able?  I doubt that was your meaning but that would be the result.  AND it would create new criminals because middle class people would still find a way to buy them.  

Here's the extra fly in the ointment - when mass shootings still occur as they certainly will - what then?  Raise the tax?  No.  The only ultimate solution to stopping people from acting out to kill is to remove the guns COMPLETELY.  That simply could not be done in America despite the desire by so many for government to create a perfectly safe and secure living environment for them as though they were children needing mommy to watch over them.  

If laws are enforced then we'd have many fewer of these events but nothing is going to stop them until people stop wanting to slaughter strangers for the rage they feel at the world.  If you can design a way to help with THAT problem, you'll be well on the way to a solution.  

[psyche101]

On 8/19/2019 at 9:38 PM, joc said:

But the founding of America was all about the individuals and their wants. 

I don't really know the history of New Zealand...but I do know the history of the United States and it began with a big Bang of gunfire involving the British soldiers of King George.  

They invented trench warfare. The invaders didn't know what hit them. 

Basically.... 

Smart natives. They signed a 200 year lease - The Waitangi treaty. Others developed and built the land up, now the Maori people are getting the country back piece by piece developed and prospering all nice and legal. They also bargained rights for their people as British subjects. 

No Paul Revere, but all the same, quite a bit in common really. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

On 8/19/2019 at 9:38 PM, joc said:

  Wyatt Earp cleaned up Tucson Arizona by taking guns at the City Limit.  But then again...Mayor Giulliani cleaned up New York City just by enforcing  existing laws which resulted in  a large number of guns off the streets.  

New times call for new measures though. The efficacy of regulations cannot be ignored. The main common denominator that stands out in successful models is support of the people from what I can see. That's only when I feel its likely to be a success. 

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I find that data interesting, but it lacks context. How many of those shot, injured, killed... teenagers... were due to violent crime and gangs? Gangs, IMHO, are every bit as dangerous as guns. 

Gangs are less prominent or harmful to the general public. And the worst can be outlawed too, just as we have banned outlaw biker clubs. One step leads to another. 

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Australia has successful banned gangs pretty much, also, correct?

Just my state so far I think. 

 

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, pixiii said:

I used to live in Queensland but I believe they've banned all motorcycle gangs up there now.  I don't think you can be affiliated with one at all - but perhaps someone from Qld could verify that for me.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/30/wearing-bikie-club-colours-in-public-banned-under-queensland-organised-laws

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Works... except in the cases where it hasnt... 

Many US cities that have banned guns are some of the leading areas people get shot in. 

Won't work unless everyone is involved and supportive. 

The large majority at least. 

[+and-then]

On 8/8/2019 at 11:28 PM, psyche101 said:

I honestly think your argument is greatly exaggerated.

I could say the same of yours after finding this little gem online.  You'll reject it, of course, but you'll do so without investigating it and disproving his research.  And he is a very competent researcher who is willing to share his methodology AND dataset.  

What say you?

[aztek]

11 hours ago, DingoLingo said:

hmmm just had a thought.. with the 2a.. would it stop the gov putting a gun tax on new guns purchased? 

ie.. 

add in a gun tax that raises the price of the gun .. say a extra 2k.. that should limit it a bit .. do the same on ammo..

it wont impinge on the 2a on owning guns.. but would make it costly to.. 

that is infringement on a right, what if you had to pay 3k a year for your driver license, and 10k for each car registration, and 5k each year for inspection, i bet we can lower car accident fatalities significantly. 

[+DieChecker]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Won't work unless everyone is involved and supportive. 

The large majority at least. 

True. If you have a sizable population of citizens that praise violent, thug culture, passing laws will not help.

But that feeds into the question of, if you have mostly good citizens, why take their guns, if any criminals are not going to obey anyway?

I think that question is why so many resist giving up guns.

[+DieChecker]

4 hours ago, and then said:

I could say the same of yours after finding this little gem online.  You'll reject it, of course, but you'll do so without investigating it and disproving his research.  And he is a very competent researcher who is willing to share his methodology AND dataset.  

What say you?

I like when people like President Obama use terms like, "Civilized Nations", "Westernized Nations", or "Advanced Nations". Isnt that sort of calling many nations "**** holes"?

62nd. That matches up with what I've seen in the past from data that wasn't presented in specific slanted ways.

If there were (not real numbers) 500 shooters in the US with a population of 350 million, and 12 in Norway with 2 million people, it can be said The US is more dangerous, even though the ratio per citizen shows it is less dangerous.

Manipulation of terms is key to these people.

[DingoLingo]

10 hours ago, and then said:

If laws are enforced then we'd have many fewer of these events but nothing is going to stop them until people stop wanting to slaughter strangers for the rage they feel at the world.  If you can design a way to help with THAT problem, you'll be well on the way to a solution.  

There is.. gun control

take the latest one over here in sydney.. if australia had the type of gun culture you guys have over there with the same limp laws you do when owning one.. that guy would not have had a knife he would have had a gun.. there would be more then one person dead from that.. now throw in the one from 2015 in parramatta .. because of our gun laws.. the only gun these guys could easily get a hold of was a revolver.. so what we have is one dead civilian police worker.. instead of a few.. 

8 hours ago, aztek said:

that is infringement on a right, what if you had to pay 3k a year for your driver license, and 10k for each car registration, and 5k each year for inspection, i bet we can lower car accident fatalities significantly. 

ok now how is that a infringement on a right?  this is a honest question.. you can still buy a gun you can still own that gun.. it would just cost you more.. now as for you car analogy hell me I would agree with it.. would get a number of idiots off the road that should not be driving.. would increase the public transport sector.. improve the quality of it.. add more jobs.. cut down air polution..  would have people become more healither.. ease traffic congestion on the freeways.. 

[aztek]

1 hour ago, DingoLingo said:

 

ok now how is that a infringement on a right?  this is a honest question.. you can still buy a gun you can still own that gun.. it would just cost you more..

yea, and that makes guns unaffordable for some segment of population, unnecessarily, by legislation, ,  if voter id is infringement in illegals right, that is definitely  an infringement on constitutional citizens right,  i find it strange that such infringement is proposed from thousands of miles away, lol

Edited August 21, 2019 by aztek

[openozy]

On 8/19/2019 at 11:18 AM, and then said:

Being free comes with a lot of responsibility.  A LOT of people don't want to have ANY responsibility for their actions.  Those people usually have some poor outcomes.  That's life.  If I had a mentally ill person in my home, I would take steps to secure a loaded firearm from them.  It would be no different than having children in the home OR living in a situation where children might come there at some point.  

That's ok but a lot of people aren't very responsible or careful.I don't think owning firearms is a sign of freedom,just the opposite.

[+and-then]

6 hours ago, DingoLingo said:

There is.. gun control

Two things people simply overlook or are in denial about:

1. 350 MILLION guns

2. OPEN BORDERS

In short, no law is going to stop or remove the guns.  The issue seems to really be about people outside America posturing and virtue signalling.  It gets old and insulting after awhile but hey, whatever you guys want to do is okay.  It doesn't change anything here and never will do.

[+and-then]

1 minute ago, openozy said:

That's ok but a lot of people aren't very responsible or careful.I don't think owning firearms is a sign of freedom,just the opposite.

True, they aren't so we live with the consequences of their actions.  Would you give up a right of yours just because it is abused by someone else?  If you did, how many rights would you have?  Or do you not care if someone else tells you everything you MUST do in your life?  You may be okay with that, most Americans tend to bridle at the thought.

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, and then said:

Two things people simply overlook or are in denial about:

1. 350 MILLION guns

2. OPEN BORDERS

In short, no law is going to stop or remove the guns.  The issue seems to really be about people outside America posturing and virtue signalling.  It gets old and insulting after awhile but hey, whatever you guys want to do is okay.  It doesn't change anything here and never will do.

Canada has a big, open, southern border.

[openozy]

1 hour ago, and then said:

True, they aren't so we live with the consequences of their actions.  Would you give up a right of yours just because it is abused by someone else?  If you did, how many rights would you have?  Or do you not care if someone else tells you everything you MUST do in your life?  You may be okay with that, most Americans tend to bridle at the thought.

I have handed in semi auto guns when they became illegal.I don't like being told what to do but when it could save thousands of innocent lives I can't see what the argument is.

[psyche101]

20 hours ago, and then said:

I could say the same of yours after finding this little gem online.  You'll reject it, of course, but you'll do so without investigating it and disproving his research.  And he is a very competent researcher who is willing to share his methodology AND dataset.  

What say you?

I say what research? 

He just did the same thing he accused Langford of! He said Langford didn't reveal methods so he did his own study and broadly stated that he used methods missed in Langford research citing a couple of criticisms. Then he produced his own, no doubt tailored, results. What was his method and why was it more accurate? 

He is a gun nut novelist with an opposing view. Honestly, what else would you expect him to say? 

Langford has actual qualifications in the field. Can that be said of his accuser? 

And when have I cited the Langford study? You're grasping at straws. What about the constant threads on mass killings in the states? I'm not seeing that from other countries. How do you explain the actual body count we discuss here? How many school shootings do other countries report? How often do they pop up with news of mass murder compared to the States? We had a mass shooting every decade up until gun regulation was enacted. Are you claiming the radical change is just coincidence? 

New Zealand have done a responsible thing here and they will benefit from it as we did. But we all know another mass shooting headline from the US is just a matter of time don't we. 

[psyche101]

16 hours ago, DieChecker said:

True. If you have a sizable population of citizens that praise violent, thug culture, passing laws will not help.

But that feeds into the question of, if you have mostly good citizens, why take their guns, if any criminals are not going to obey anyway?

I think that question is why so many resist giving up guns.

Because it's not about disarming people, it's about removing the ability to easily obtain a deadly weapon illegally. Criminals don't have a choice. When an average new black market pistol will set one back 20k it just removes the ability to obtain one at all for average crime. The only people who can get them at an affordable price are those on a register with good reason to legally own one. That makes tracking the weapons easier too. Keeping guns in high circulation lowers the value to a point where they are easily obtained for nefarious purposes. That's what gun regulation targets, and why it works. 

[Habitat]

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

When an average new black market pistol will set one back 20k

How do you know that ?

[psyche101]

15 minutes ago, Habitat said:

How do you know that ?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/business/black-market-guns-triple-in-price-20141013-115f08.html

[openozy]

6 hours ago, and then said:

Two things people simply overlook or are in denial about:

1. 350 MILLION guns

2. OPEN BORDERS

In short, no law is going to stop or remove the guns.  The issue seems to really be about people outside America posturing and virtue signalling.  It gets old and insulting after awhile but hey, whatever you guys want to do is okay.  It doesn't change anything here and never will do.

Well,don't show us classrooms full of kids being shot and we may not be so concerned for our World.

[aztek]

12 hours ago, openozy said:

I have handed in semi auto guns when they became illegal.I don't like being told what to do but when it could save thousands of innocent lives I can't see what the argument is.

so you think by giving up YOUR guns, lives would be saved?  did you plan on taking innocent lives with your gun? do you not store it responsibly?