Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

New Zealanders hand over guns in Christchurch

275 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Kismit
2 minutes ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

 Thinking with your feelings again. As long as you feel safer it doesnt matter that there are more illegal guns than ever in this country with no idea where the vast majority of these firearms are.

 

I assume the police/goverment will set some precedents with the most obvious offenders with the desired result being the rest of the firearms community will quietly dispose of their illegal firearms. 

Quoting Ben Shapiro? Your guess is as good as mine, again I will wait to see who is right out of the both of us.

Using logic to discuss feelings, how much safer do you think people feel when a Government stands up and makes changes compared to when a Government just carries on with the status quo changing nothing? Which one of the two scenarios would logically change the mind set of the general public?

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Golden Duck
38 minutes ago, Gunn said:

The point is, do you know what is going to happen in the future for sure, 100 percent? Or is it just your best guess opinion?

The point is if you can imagine it, then it can happen.  However, we're told that The Founding Fathers knew; and, they have been proven right throughout history.

They are seemingly wrong about standing armies.

The question is where are these lessons from history?

38 minutes ago, Gunn said:

That's there, were you live. Some things over here are cheap even illegal things like drugs and guns, it's not the same. I still read about gang members in police reports here, obtaining semi-auto guns in their gang wars. Like I said, different countries, different worlds. You don't know what you are talking about until live here for years and seen things up close, not from afar.

Again, the "supply and demand" offers an explanation of why things are cheap.   

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
29 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The point is if you can imagine it, then it can happen.  However, we're told that The Founding Fathers knew; and, they have been proven right throughout history.

They are seemingly wrong about standing armies.

 

Yeah anything can happen, but it doesn't mean just because you imagine it will always happen the way you think. It's speculation at best. And I have no idea what you are talking about with the founding fathers. Like huh?

Quote

The question is where are these lessons from history?

Okay what does this question have to do with my statement to Psyche about knowing what exactly will happen in the future in any given future event? I'm not trying to get out of the question, but clarify. Who, where, when,etc, all that? How is your question related to my statement to Psyche?

Quote

Again, the "supply and demand" offers an explanation of why things are cheap.   

What does your short statement here, exactly mean pertaining to the U.S. Because the demand for drugs and guns here is great, but they're still cheap.

You are very vague sometimes on things and I have hard time comprehending what you are getting at. I wish you would clarify more.

Edited by Gunn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
2 hours ago, Gunn said:

You and nobody else knows that 100 percent, Psyche. Your not a psychologist and I doubt you're psychic if there is such a thing. You're just entitled to your opinions and not your own facts. That's it.

I'm just being realistic. Honestly, what are the chances of a rogue government going into hand to hand combat with US citizens in this day and age? Is that in any way shown to be a greater threat than public massacres? Some say its so important that sacrifices are accepted as collateral damage to maintain that national security. Then I'm told about redcoats. Redcoats don't exist anymore. That style of threat doesn't exist anymore but public massacre is very much a regular event in the states. 

Quote

In your opinion all that is outdated, because you never grew up here.

What diffence do you honestly think that would make? I've met some great US posters here that agree the US gun laws are ridiculous. What makes you sure I would not have the same opinion? 

My parents had certain ideologies they favoured too. I didn't embrace them myself because life taught me they were limited views and better ways exist. I don't feel tradition should be followed blindly. 

Quote

That's like me saying your laws and culture is wrong, when I have no idea what it's really like living over their in Australia. All I got to go by is what I read and hear, that's not enough to make a fair judgement.

I'd be more than happy to discuss any such inquiry. It's how we break these walls down. And I've discussed gun culture with a number of US posters. Some I agree with, some I don't. This is a discussion forum. I have never said American culture is wrong. Like so many in the planet, including many of your own countrymen, I find the gun culture tradeoff illogical and at the cost of innocent lives. Sure, I have no say, and I cant change that, but I have every right to despise it. I don't think you honestly realise how many globally do. 

Quote

Because the more lunatics and criminals do harm with guns, the more 1984 nannyism type laws is put on the rest of us law-abiding citizens.

Utter nonsense. 

Your laws have not changed, and let's face it, they are not going to change. 1984 nanysim is ridiculous and childish way to push aside logic and common sense. Gun regulation is nothing like that, and expressing it as such just makes you appear very ignorant. But I honestly don't believe that gun proponents are at all interested in any good arguments for control. It's not confiscation like you are making out here. 

Quote

It's the throwing the baby out with the bathwater concept and it's not fair.

It most certainly is not. It's a tried and proven solution. 

Not fair to whom? Is it fair to the constant flow of innocent victims? 

Quote

And criminals still get the guns in this country.

Not with regulation they don't. That's where its benefits are strongest. I put up a link recently explaining how a pistol on the black market here will set one back 15 to 20 thousand. Thanks to gun regulations. Anyone who has that much cash doesn't need to do break and enters or rob people in the street. But sports owners, farmers etc aren't bound to that price range. 

Quote

I'll just say for myself, I never thought that. But each country is like living on a different world with different ideologies and beliefs. You live on a island nation, we don't.

So what? People are people. We come from multicultural western predominantly Christian counties. We have more in common than not. Gun culture is not anything special, many had it. The difference is many countries are much more responsible about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
4 hours ago, Gunn said:

Yeah anything can happen, but it doesn't mean just because you imagine it will always happen the way you think. It's speculation at best. And I have no idea what you are talking about with the founding fathers. Like huh?

Okay what does this question have to do with my statement to Psyche about knowing what exactly will happen in the future in any given future event? I'm not trying to get out of the question, but clarify. Who, where, when,etc, all that? How is your question related to my statement to Psyche?

What does your short statement here, exactly mean pertaining to the U.S. Because the demand for drugs and guns here is great, but they're still cheap.

You are very vague sometimes on things and I have hard time comprehending what you are getting at. I wish you would clarify more.

Well you did respond in this thread,;and the particular post from Psyhce101 was part of a sub-thread, or conversation, that was in the context of a tyrannical government, and by transitive relationship the US Constitution.  It's reasonable to assume you may have read more, of this thread, than just Psyche101's post. 

I don't have time to search through this thread in detail (I'm off to music bingo), but the excuse of fear of a tyrannical government has been raised in this thread.  If you don't want to address it that fine.  You won't be the first one to say "that's the way things are".

I also thought that 'supply and demand' was a reasonably common and well understood concept.  Illegal guns are costly to obtain because of  the low supply.

I know your not antagonistic, but I can't help feeling you're being antagonistic in avoiding context here.  I really have no desire to be adversarial.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 9/15/2019 at 2:37 PM, Golden Duck said:

Not quite.  There was a reason for the report. You don't engage a retired High-Coury Judge on a whim. The report was written in 1997, and I suspect because of a fairly significant event "across the ditch". I'd hardly call that "hardly anyone".

I read part of the Report. I didnt see any actual numbers to support a ban. Just mostly the arguement from common sense. But maybe I missed it? 

Plus, I meant people killed in NZ by assault weapons. Obviously tens of thousands of people are killed worldwide every year by Assault Weapons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
9 hours ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

So no one wants to discuss the fact that the "buyback" scheme has been a complete failure? Do you really think that the remaining 90% of these firearms will be surrendered by 20th of December?

Does anyone feel safer yet?

Let us revisit this comment in December. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 9/15/2019 at 6:26 PM, psyche101 said:

Nope. 

Then I'd suggest you are purposefully doing so. You can understand an arguement, while still not agreeing with it. I understand your arguement, yet dont agree....

Quote

White supremists seems a much more logical target? Seeing as that is what this person promoted and that killing is a goal of that group? 

I don't want people to be killed, but white supremists do. Tourists and immmgants are not a threat, cultural ideologies are. Like religion, supremacy and gun culture. They influence others to take up arms and force ideologies. Taking a holiday is not affiliated with ideologies that threaten others lives. 

So how to determine if an immigrant is a terrorist, or supremisist? If you truly want to save everyone, putting all immigrants on a watch list would be a logical choice. Monitoring the social media if those on the list would also be obvious. Perhaps automatic denial of any gun license would also be logical.

Quote

But again, why would gun culture be appropriate for other countries? Its uniquely American. Nobody else wants it, and it puts the US in a global dim light. Why do you feel it should be considered in New Zealand?

I dont believe I'm arguing such. I'm arguing if we assume guns are bad, why not assume other variables are bad and ban those also... especially if we want zero violent deaths. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
7 hours ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

 Thinking with your feelings again. As long as you feel safer it doesnt matter that there are more illegal guns than ever in this country with no idea where the vast majority of these firearms are.

 

I assume the police/goverment will set some precedents with the most obvious offenders with the desired result being the rest of the firearms community will quietly dispose of their illegal firearms. 

I believe the gun owners think the government will increase the buyback rates first, before going with seizing them. Holding out for more money as it were. Probably be better for NZ Gov press then storming homes.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
11 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Then I'd suggest you are purposefully doing so. You can understand an arguement, while still not agreeing with it. I understand your arguement, yet dont agree....

No, I just don't see how tourists and Australians are any more of a threat than anything else. Clearly this is the same motivation as we see worldwide with white supremecy. It's not localised to Australia or tourists. It makes it difficult to make sense of. I can understand it to the extent I mentioned earlier comparing it to equating all Muslims as radical, which I know isn't what you subscribe to, so how does the example make sense? 

11 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So how to determine if an immigrant is a terrorist, or supremisist? If you truly want to save everyone, putting all immigrants on a watch list would be a logical choice. Monitoring the social media if those on the list would also be obvious. Perhaps automatic denial of any gun license would also be logical.

Completely agree. This creature that committed the crimes was a known threat. 

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc.net.au/article/10952876

IMHO, authorities dropped the ball here. Anyone like that should not be given a weapon or allowed to travel. New Zealand should at the very least have been clearly warned the man was a threat and should be watched. Local government should be responsible for identifying risks in their own communities. Hopefully this lesson was learned and such loose ends are tidied up. 

The recipient of the threat, who wanted to remain anonymous, said he went to Eltham police station in September 2016 with a copy of the conversation to warn officers Tarrant could be dangerous.

He claimed police advised him to block Tarrant on social media and did not take an official statement.

We don't need looser laws, we need tighter ones to close nets around these identified threats. They need to be completely disarmed for a start. New Zealands new laws will accomplish this. They too are an island nation and should see guns become out of the reach of criminals. There's no reason to think what worked here would not work there. Our circumstances are very similar. 

11 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I dont believe I'm arguing such. I'm arguing if we assume guns are bad, why not assume other variables are bad and ban those also... especially if we want zero violent deaths. 

Because the other variables can be properly evaluated by addressing the obvious one. The weapon of death. It seems this creature went to NZ  because our gun laws are too hard to get around. That's changed. Now it's hard in NZ too. Guns are designed to kill. Tourism isn't a means to murder, either is being Australian. Firing a gun is and has been used for such billions of times over. Removing guns results in less gun crime. I know you don't believe that but I don't see how else you can explain a black market pistol going for 15 to 20 thousand here these days. Honestly, what criminal is going to afford that? Not one that's going to be breaking and entering or robbing you in the street. Not to mention such a risky deal isn't going to be available to just anyone. Of course guns are bad. They are very easy to be used badly. I get hunting and sporting, those people aren't affected by regulation. Guns can be used responsibly sure, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous. I honestly don't think restricting guns to people with good reason to have one is wrong or a violation of any right. It's protecting rights if anything. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
34 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I believe the gun owners think the government will increase the buyback rates first, before going with seizing them. Holding out for more money as it were. Probably be better for NZ Gov press then storming homes.

Well that fellow I quoted earlier in the thread certainly was happy with his big payout. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I'm just being realistic. Honestly, what are the chances of a rogue government going into hand to hand combat with US citizens in this day and age? 

In Egypt, Libya, Syria... it was 100%. Other nations, like Brazil, and Venezuela, arent that far behind. Coups still happen every year. The belief that industrialized, "Western" nations are immune to such is a weak argument and ignores human history, were democracy and republic are often turned to dictatorship and empire. Hitlers Germany. Stalin's Russia. Maos China. Cuba. Venezuela... If the people had had weapons, the government would need to deal with that first... and indeed in almost all those examples, that is what happened.

Is a even more radical leader then Trump never going to be elected? Imagine what he'd do if he had the entire Congess on his side? We were told Trump would never be elected... could never be elected...

Quote

 Like so many in the planet, including many of your own countrymen, I find the gun culture tradeoff illogical and at the cost of innocent lives. 

I think this is the assumption coming from "socialized", "industrialized", "enlightened" countries. Countries that have seen little violence, or change, in the last decades. 

To use a parallel, why have insurance on your car, if you've not had an accident in 40 years? Why have home owners insurance if you have never used it in 40 years? 

Gun ownership is insurance. As long as citizens have guns, the government MUST take that into account. It is a check/balance on government, and like you've said, I am willing to have some collateral damages to maintain it.

If I suggest other variables to legislate against, like religion, or nationality of origin, to ALSO save lives, if statistically clear, would you support such?

Quote

It's not confiscation like you are making out here.

Several candidates running in the Democrat party for president have stated exactly that. Gun confiscation of assault weapons if they win.

Quote

Not with regulation they don't. That's where its benefits are strongest. I put up a link recently explaining how a pistol on the black market here will set one back 15 to 20 thousand. Thanks to gun regulations. Anyone who has that much cash doesn't need to do break and enters or rob people in the street. But sports owners, farmers etc aren't bound to that price range.

The problem is two fold. Demand and Avsilability.

Demand... Demand is high in the US and low in Australia. And both are likely to remain that way for at least another generation. Even if guns were banned here, demand would be high. Thus smuggling would exist, and guns would not be actually prevented.

Price would not be a problem. As just a single stolen large screen television would pay for a gun. 

Availability... Availability would still be enough to keep prices down. We have basically open borders, and evidence shows illegal cartels own vast parts of Mexico. So guns coming into the US would not be prevented much. I suppose we could build a Wall, and do inspections at checkpoints across the highway system, but I doubt that would work either. Australia on the other hand is an island, with limited import points. Infrastructure, of boats and fuel and such would be needed, which isnt necessary in the case of smugglers in the US.

Plus there are already hundreds of millions of guns here. Make them illegal and millions will just "disappear".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
DieChecker
4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No, I just don't see how tourists and Australians are any more of a threat than anything else. 

"How does it make sense", is entirely my point. I see what is going on with semiautomatic guns in the same way we both see banning/registering/tracking muslims. Why punish those who are good citizens for an extreme minority sub set? I'm not saying a gun ban is even wrong. I'm simply saying let's not say it is fair and other ways are not fair, because no bans are really ever fair, if based on the actions of an extreme minority set.

Quote

Completely agree. This creature that committed the crimes was a known threat. 

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc.net.au/article/10952876

IMHO, authorities dropped the ball here. Anyone like that should not be given a weapon or allowed to travel. New Zealand should at the very least have been clearly warned the man was a threat and should be watched. Local government should be responsible for identifying risks in their own communities. Hopefully this lesson was learned and such loose ends are tidied up. 

Agree here. Immigration officials never should have let this fellow immigrat. Perhaps not even allowed his tourist visa?

There would have been no shooting, and no ban, if this fellow had been denied entry to NZ.

Quote

Because the other variables can be properly evaluated by addressing the obvious one.

Is it only the obvious variable because of you belief/opinion? I hold a different opinion perhaps, and my opinion is wrong?

Quote

Removing guns results in less gun crime. I know you don't believe that but I don't see how else you can explain a black market pistol going for 15 to 20 thousand here these days. Honestly, what criminal is going to afford that? Not one that's going to be breaking and entering or robbing you in the street.

I've said many times that a single robbery on a single middleclass home here in the US would more then pay for a gun, even at 10k dollars. That's just a reality. Someone that robs a dozen homes a year would have no problem affording a gun. If they wanted one.

I do believe less guns is less desth... in general. But, at the same time there are places in the US where guns are/were entirely illegal and gun violence actually increased. So then it is a matter of availability... and that is an impossible issue to address in the US as our borders exist today. And as gun ownership is viewed today.

Quote

I get hunting and sporting, those people aren't affected by regulation. Guns can be used responsibly sure, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous. I honestly don't think restricting guns to people with good reason to have one is wrong or a violation of any right. It's protecting rights if anything.

But, if someone did kill a dozen with a hunting rifle, would you support banning them, or support people pushing back?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

In Egypt, Libya, Syria... it was 100%. Other nations, like Brazil, and Venezuela, arent that far behind.

Do you have examples of Governments turning on their own people only to be repelled and overcome by armed citizens. Some links would be great please. 

Quote

Coups still happen every year. The belief that industrialized, "Western" nations are immune to such is a weak argument and ignores human history, were democracy and republic are often turned to dictatorship and empire. Hitlers Germany. Stalin's Russia. Maos China. Cuba. Venezuela... If the people had had weapons, the government would need to deal with that first... and indeed in almost all those examples, that is what happened.

How did that happen? 

Hitler murdered millions. They all did. Armed citizens died. 

And how can it happen in a western civilisation? Very old wars aren't a great example. They happened. People have better structures in place today to prevent that happening. They work. 

And why do you think you would not simply be wiped out? If a government is going to go as far as to attack its own people, what makes you think they won't use chemical weapons and missles to just wipe you all out? If you are fiercely patriotic and ready to die in battle, what good are you to a new order? Uprising is always a constant threat. There's 7 billion people on earth. Enough immigrants could replace enough of the population to make America functional and with a smaller population, more economically viable. The most likely scenario I feel would be genocide in that situation. 

Quote

Is a even more radical leader then Trump never going to be elected? Imagine what he'd do if he had the entire Congess on his side? We were told Trump would never be elected... could never be elected...

Trump got elected because the people were behind him. If the people were to elect such a radical character, what's to say he wouldn't have the support of the majority? I see some serious hate comments directed at 'the left', it seems to me that if such a character got into power  he would have the support of many people? 

I see guns as a real game changer for the worse if that eventuated. 

Quote

I think this is the assumption coming from "socialized", "industrialized", "enlightened" countries. Countries that have seen little violence, or change, in the last decades. 

True, but isn't that why they haven't seen violence or change in decades? We try to do better than that. The majority strive to do so. 

Quote

To use a parallel, why have insurance on your car, if you've not had an accident in 40 years? Why have home owners insurance if you have never used it in 40 years? 

That's not a parallel. 

How many people die from taking out insurance? How often has insurance been used to enact terrorist acts? What is the impact of insurance in the community? It's positive. It protects citizens. Someone can't steal an insurance receipt and go shoot up school kids either. 

Quote

Gun ownership is insurance. As long as citizens have guns, the government MUST take that into account. It is a check/balance on government, and like you've said, I am willing to have some collateral damages to maintain it.

I just can't agree with that. The price is too high unnecessarily. There's no good reason to think there will be such an action, but we both know another public massacre is just around the corner. Probably several by Xmas. 

Quote

If I suggest other variables to legislate against, like religion, or nationality of origin, to ALSO save lives, if statistically clear, would you support such?

If statistically clear. Very clear. Then, factored in. 

Quote

Several candidates running in the Democrat party for president have stated exactly that. Gun confiscation of assault weapons if they win.

Why do people need assault weapons? That's heavy duty gear right? Detachable magazines, semi and automatic? 

Quote

The problem is two fold. Demand and Avsilability.

Demand... Demand is high in the US and low in Australia. And both are likely to remain that way for at least another generation. Even if guns were banned here, demand would be high. Thus smuggling would exist, and guns would not be actually prevented.

Demand is low here because gun regulation makes them unobtainable by illegal means without large amounts of cash and certain connections. 

Where are the majority of guns made, which are smuggled into the US? 

Quote

Price would not be a problem. As just a single stolen large screen television would pay for a gun. 

Not here. You would have to sell 30 at least at a pretty decent price. Then you have a was if cash. That's if one has the right connections to get a black market gun without getting killed robbed or both in the process, what's the point if you have the skill to make 30+ break ins without getting caught? What's the motivation to make that investment? 

That's what regulations do best. Make illegal weapons hard to obtain. 

Quote

Availability... Availability would still be enough to keep prices down. We have basically open borders, and evidence shows illegal cartels own vast parts of Mexico. So guns coming into the US would not be prevented much.

Indeed. But why not another approach? Isn't something better than nothing? 

Above I asked about the source of supply, surely these cartels don't own weapons factories. Wouldn't that be a better target? 

Quote

I suppose we could build a Wall, and do inspections at checkpoints across the highway system, but I doubt that would work either. 

Didn't I read something about the wall now under construction the other day? Pictures looked very tall, thin and smooth. 

Quote

Australia on the other hand is an island, with limited import points. Infrastructure, of boats and fuel and such would be needed, which isnt necessary in the case of smugglers in the US.

But isn't that a real good reason why its highly likely to be effective in New Zealand? Why encourage people to stand against what seems a very sensible measure and adopt a US approach? 

Quote

Plus there are already hundreds of millions of guns here. Make them illegal and millions will just "disappear".

Exactly. It can't work unless the people support it. That's why it worked here and why it will work in New Zealand. Unless there's a large cultural shift in America, it won't work there. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

"How does it make sense", is entirely my point. I see what is going on with semiautomatic guns in the same way we both see banning/registering/tracking muslims. Why punish those who are good citizens for an extreme minority sub set? I'm not saying a gun ban is even wrong. I'm simply saying let's not say it is fair and other ways are not fair, because no bans are really ever fair, if based on the actions of an extreme minority set.

Because its not punishment. And the extreme minority set has a regular notable impact. Like I say, if the people are behind it, it works. It's not punishment if people are actively involved. New Zealand is not being punished. They are forward thinking a more peaceful society. Do you think Australians see regulations as punishment? I certainly don't. 

Quote

Agree here. Immigration officials never should have let this fellow immigrat. Perhaps not even allowed his tourist visa?

Without doubt. 

Quote

There would have been no shooting, and no ban, if this fellow had been denied entry to NZ.

With proper attention, picked up before any incident. Whilst the ball was dropped in this case, I have to admit that they do stop more than those that get through. Every incident is another hole for violence closed though. 

I'd actually be much happier if New Zealand never had to consider these measures. I'm genuinely sorry the need arose, but here we are. 

Quote

Is it only the obvious variable because of you belief/opinion? I hold a different opinion perhaps, and my opinion is wrong?

It depends, are you referring to the statistical verified information or tourists and Australians in general? As I agree with the former and have already explained my views on the latter? 

Quote

I've said many times that a single robbery on a single middleclass home here in the US would more then pay for a gun, even at 10k dollars. That's just a reality. Someone that robs a dozen homes a year would have no problem affording a gun. If they wanted one.

Why would they want one? 

If they are that skilled at robbery, they don't need a gun. If they do get caught, it's a longer sentence. What is the motivation to invest that heavily? 

And then there's knowing the right people. If someone rips you off 15k for a gun, what are you going to do? The Black Market isn't like a flea market for criminals. 

Quote

I do believe less guns is less desth... in general. But, at the same time there are places in the US where guns are/were entirely illegal and gun violence actually increased. So then it is a matter of availability... and that is an impossible issue to address in the US as our borders exist today. And as gun ownership is viewed today.

I agree. Major changes would have to happen that seem unlikely at the moment. 2a almost seems to have religious status listening to some. 

And those States never had a chance. We both know why. I see them as more of a protest or demonstration. Perhaps they see their collateral damage in the same way you view yours. Necessary to make a stand and be noticed. 

Quote

But, if someone did kill a dozen with a hunting rifle, would you support banning them, or support people pushing back?

I'd listen to both arguments and I don't see myself supporting a ban, but regulation if anything. I really don't see what's so bad about helping authorities define legal from illegal weapons quickly and easily. A little cooperation goes a long way. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I read part of the Report. I didnt see any actual numbers to support a ban. Just mostly the arguement from common sense. But maybe I missed it? 

Plus, I meant people killed in NZ by assault weapons. Obviously tens of thousands of people are killed worldwide every year by Assault Weapons. 

There are mentions of incidents in the background, of the report, such as Aramoana, Paerata and Dunedin.  The Background also mentions shootings in DC in 1994, Dunblaine and Port Arthur.  The Thorp Report clearly doesn't restrict it's research to NZ.

Kiwis and Aussies don't immigrate to each other's countries.  At least I've never heard the term used in that context - they just move.  KIwis and Australia pretty much are entitled to residency and employment in the other country.

It's entirely normal to keep an eye on what they are doing "across the ditch".

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Do you have examples of Governments turning on their own people only to be repelled and overcome by armed citizens. Some links would be great please. 

I think the easiest one to promote is Libya. The city people and desert tribesmen rose up and conquered military bases and defeated the as ir force by attrition and by people taking military gear with them and defecting to the rebel side.

It has almost happened in Afghanistan, even with US occupation.

True, it doesn't usually work, but it still has to be considered and is a clear check on government power.

Quote

Hitler murdered millions. They all did. Armed citizens died. 

All those who Hitler murdered were politically banned from gun ownership soon after he took control. They were good citizens and had nothing to fear, so they turned in their guns.

Quote

And how can it happen in a western civilisation? Very old wars aren't a great example. They happened. People have better structures in place today to prevent that happening. They work. 

Those who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it. 

Quote

And why do you think you would not simply be wiped out? If a government is going to go as far as to attack its own people, what makes you think they won't use chemical weapons and missles to just wipe you all out? If you are fiercely patriotic and ready to die in battle, what good are you to a new order? Uprising is always a constant threat. There's 7 billion people on earth. Enough immigrants could replace enough of the population to make America functional and with a smaller population, more economically viable. The most likely scenario I feel would be genocide in that situation.

First, I dont think civilians are going to stand up to a 1st rate military. Such is not my argument. Guns are to resist the existing government. Resist... not necessarily to win.

You seriously believe a nation that is advanced enough to conquer the US would go for genocide? I doubt even the Chinese, at their worst, or Stalin's Soviet Union would resort to that.

Quote

Trump got elected because the people were behind him. If the people were to elect such a radical character, what's to say he wouldn't have the support of the majority? I see some serious hate comments directed at 'the left', it seems to me that if such a character got into power  he would have the support of many people? 

So you seem to agree that a radical could take power, like in Venezuela, and almost in Brazil, and become a dictator. All it requires is a momentary majority. 

Hitler had a super majority, and used it to disarm and murder millions. 

Quote

Why do people need assault weapons? That's heavy duty gear right? Detachable magazines, semi and automatic? 

Well, they dont. They dont need them most of the time. In NZ probably never. However NZ didnt just ban assault weapons. They banned all semi automatic weapons. That's going from like 5% of weapons to like 80% of weapons. That's quite a big step in my opinion.

Quote

Not here. You would have to sell 30 at least at a pretty decent price. Then you have a was if cash. That's if one has the right connections to get a black market gun without getting killed robbed or both in the process, what's the point if you have the skill to make 30+ break ins without getting caught? What's the motivation to make that investment? 

 

Do you know the main reason for burglary in the US? Drug addiction, I believe. These people arent in their right mind anyway. Those people getting killed who arent mass shooting victims? Drug dealers, shooting each other, and robbery/burglary victims. Criminals want guns because killing someone is easier then letting them live to testify and send them to prison.

Quote

Indeed. But why not another approach? Isn't something better than nothing? 

I'd be willing to listen to any good ideas. I'm not even entirely against banning guns. At least not in NZ. I just think that a whip flash banning of guns looks good, but does it address the real issue? If NZ continues to let crazy supremisists in, they will continue to act badly.

Quote

Above I asked about the source of supply, surely these cartels don't own weapons factories. Wouldn't that be a better target? 

They didnt used to have huge drug farms and factories either, but now they do...

Quote

Exactly. It can't work unless the people support it. That's why it worked here and why it will work in New Zealand. Unless there's a large cultural shift in America, it won't work there.

True.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
13 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Well you did respond in this thread,;and the particular post from Psyhce101 was part of a sub-thread, or conversation, that was in the context of a tyrannical government, and by transitive relationship the US Constitution.  It's reasonable to assume you may have read more, of this thread, than just Psyche101's post. 

I don't have time to search through this thread in detail (I'm off to music bingo), but the excuse of fear of a tyrannical government has been raised in this thread.  If you don't want to address it that fine.  You won't be the first one to say "that's the way things are".

I also thought that 'supply and demand' was a reasonably common and well understood concept.  Illegal guns are costly to obtain because of  the low supply.

I know your not antagonistic, but I can't help feeling you're being antagonistic in avoiding context here.  I really have no desire to be adversarial.

Naw I got a little confused and frustrated, which probably did come off as antagonistic. I just need details as to what you are referring to sometimes or I'm not sure how to answer. Unfortunately, generally that is the way it is sometimes when communicating over the internet when things are not exactly clear.

But I went back through the thread and I think I see now what you are getting at. And it's more then "that's the way things are". I think there have been some borderline tyrannical actions done to us in the past since the British monarchy over the colonies up to our current government, that makes some of us distrustful and suspicious as hell. From the days of the American Revolution to Ruby Ridge to Waco to the Patriot Act to the illegal gun seizure when Hurricane Katrina hit. But maybe we are not so concerned whether full fledged tyrannical governments happened elsewhere or not, but it's more to do with a independent nature ingrained in most Americans, along with a "it's better to be safe, then sorry" mentality.

 A note about the Patriot Act; After 911 happened Bush Jr. and congress declared an emergency and passed the Patriot Act because of the terrorist attack. And that has nothing to do with gun control of course, but it's the act of government invasion of privacy to supposedly keep us all safe. At the time, it felt like a page right of George Orwell's 1984  that added to the distrust and suspicion of the U.S. government possibly going tyrannical.

And I understand the concept of 'supply and demand', but what I've been trying to point out, unlike what they say, apparently is it's not a guarantee that it works perfectly or the way you expect it to work 100% of the time. Because anytime the government banned things in the U.S. that were most desirable, alcohol, drugs or guns, people were still able to get the stuff in the U.S. at reasonable prices and not at the high prices in other countries. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work, people kept on drinking, so government gave up on that. Then there is illegal drugs we've completely banned for years (war on drugs), and the cost of those illegal drugs is still reasonable and the demand is still there today. And the 10 year 1994 assault weapons ban didn't work. The demand was still there and people were still able to buy semi-auto rifles at reasonable prices during those 10 years, and mass shootings still happened, maybe not as much, but just enough to still be a problem.

 

Edited by Gunn
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think the easiest one to promote is Libya. The city people and desert tribesmen rose up and conquered military bases and defeated the as ir force by attrition and by people taking military gear with them and defecting to the rebel side.

I take it that you are referring to the 2011 uprising? 

Gadaffi had a poor military force. He kept it that way to stop an uprising. Had the opposite effect. That's not the case in the US. 

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It has almost happened in Afghanistan, even with US occupation.

True, it doesn't usually work, but it still has to be considered and is a clear check on government power.

I honestly don't see how it's statistically viable knowing the chance is miniscule at best but we do both know massacres are a certainty in the near future. How is that not a more immediate threat and as such a greater need? 

As you say, it also does not usually work, making the possibility even more remote. In the meantime, innocent people will die. 

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

All those who Hitler murdered were politically banned from gun ownership soon after he took control. They were good citizens and had nothing to fear, so they turned in their guns.

That's not actually true. 

Nazi gun control argument

 

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Those who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it. 

But what makes you think we have not learned? Gaddafi was in power for 42 years. That's not going to happen in our countries for a start. We have states, Congress, all sorts of red tape to flag any such ambitions. There's better ways than expecting hand to hand battle. 

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

First, I dont think civilians are going to stand up to a 1st rate military. Such is not my argument. Guns are to resist the existing government. Resist... not necessarily to win.

Agree. 

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

You seriously believe a nation that is advanced enough to conquer the US would go for genocide? I doubt even the Chinese, at their worst, or Stalin's Soviet Union would resort to that.

For sure. Why would they retain an armed population ready to defend to the death? That's no good to a dictator. There's billions of people. Immigrants seeking a good life would be grateful to a generous government doling out stolen resources for hard work. Then there's the radicals who feel wiping you out would be gods work. 

Its not logical to retain a resistive population when they can be replaced with a submissive one. Who would have believed pilots would fly intentional suicide missions? The kimikazee were quite a surprise too. In war, human life is cheap. Break us down to minerals and we are worth about $8.00 each. 

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So you seem to agree that a radical could take power, like in Venezuela, and almost in Brazil, and become a dictator. All it requires is a momentary majority. 

Hitler had a super majority, and used it to disarm and murder millions. 

There's a couple of posters in this forum claiming all readiness to go as far as civil War if they feel their constitutional rights are in jeapordy. Like you say, Trump got in. That really surprised much if the world. As you said earlier, likely? Not really, but possible? Very. 

See above on Hitler. 

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Well, they dont. They dont need them most of the time. In NZ probably never. However NZ didnt just ban assault weapons. They banned all semi automatic weapons. That's going from like 5% of weapons to like 80% of weapons. That's quite a big step in my opinion.

Military style assault weapons. Small calibre semi autos are still available upon clearance of request. 

I disagree. If its what they seem necessary, so be it. I'd say there's quite a few hunters in NZ,  just a guess, I think quite a few will still qualify with a weapon of choice. 

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Do you know the main reason for burglary in the US? Drug addiction, I believe. These people arent in their right mind anyway. Those people getting killed who arent mass shooting victims? Drug dealers, shooting each other, and robbery/burglary victims. Criminals want guns because killing someone is easier then letting them live to testify and send them to prison.

That's even worse though. If a gun costs 15 to 20 thousand, and one has to enact 30 to 50 robberies to get enough for a weapon (as is the case here with regulation established) there's no way a drug addict is going to hold out to buy a gun. That's a lot of opportunity for drugs missed in the meantime. Heck, many would be clean by the time they have enough money to buy a gun. 

And again. Connections. They aren't in the local phone book. It's a whole new opportunity for easy crime. Easy 15 to 20k that won't be reported. It's a much higher risk and much more difficult with good regulation. 

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I'd be willing to listen to any good ideas. I'm not even entirely against banning guns. At least not in NZ. I just think that a whip flash banning of guns looks good, but does it address the real issue? If NZ continues to let crazy supremisists in, they will continue to act badly.

They are into that too. Just not as popular headlines I guess. 

NZ's border to be tightened

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

They didnt used to have huge drug farms and factories either, but now they do...

True.

But is the source of their supply clear? 

This source suggests the US is the largest supplier. 

Where do Mexican drug cartels get their guns? The US.

As such, wouldn't gun regulations have a major impact in this area too? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
On 9/16/2019 at 11:09 PM, psyche101 said:

I'm just being realistic. Honestly, what are the chances of a rogue government going into hand to hand combat with US citizens in this day and age? Is that in any way shown to be a greater threat than public massacres? Some say its so important that sacrifices are accepted as collateral damage to maintain that national security. Then I'm told about redcoats. Redcoats don't exist anymore. That style of threat doesn't exist anymore but public massacre is very much a regular event in the states.

 

No you are speculating, just like we are, when the overall truth is - that anything can happen, it's Murphy's law. And a possible unforeseen great threat is based on "the sacrifice of the few for the greater good of the many" philosophy. And I told you before, which I know you already know this, I was pointing out one of the beginning reasons for the distrust related to a historical reference to the British monarchy gun seizure and partly why we have the 2nd Amendment now. It's got nothing to do with your ridiculous asinine notion, as if, we think redcoats are going to rise from the dead and try to confiscate guns again. It's a case of "It happened in the past in this country, it could happen again, no matter who the current government is now", it would be walking a razor's edge for us not to pay attention to those historical events, and take chances just because in your opinion you think we should pay no attention those historical events.

Quote

 

What diffence do you honestly think that would make? I've met some great US posters here that agree the US gun laws are ridiculous. What makes you sure I would not have the same opinion? 

My parents had certain ideologies they favoured too. I didn't embrace them myself because life taught me they were limited views and better ways exist. I don't feel tradition should be followed blindly. 

 

A helluva lot of difference, because it's about personal experience here. Not what you think you may know just from reading books, newspaper, internet pages and watching TV about us from afar.

Quote

I'd be more than happy to discuss any such inquiry. It's how we break these walls down. And I've discussed gun culture with a number of US posters. Some I agree with, some I don't. This is a discussion forum. I have never said American culture is wrong. Like so many in the planet, including many of your own countrymen, I find the gun culture tradeoff illogical and at the cost of innocent lives. Sure, I have no say, and I cant change that, but I have every right to despise it. I don't think you honestly realise how many globally do. 

I said you are entitled to your own misguided opinion and I'm saying I don't think your opinion is fair judgement from where you sit. You don't really know us or the U.S. like you think you do. How do you know anything about the entire U.S. population based on communication over the internet?

Quote

 

Utter nonsense. 

Your laws have not changed, and let's face it, they are not going to change. 1984 nanysim is ridiculous and childish way to push aside logic and common sense. Gun regulation is nothing like that, and expressing it as such just makes you appear very ignorant. But I honestly don't believe that gun proponents are at all interested in any good arguments for control. It's not confiscation like you are making out here. 

 

No our current gun laws won't change all that much. Because on the other hand, none of that matters if the authorities over here don't quit being laxed like they have been in the past on the current laws we already have here in the first place. Apparently from the recent arrests over here, which is really obvious beginning a month ago, they really haven't been enforcing the laws we've had in the U.S. for years. But now they decided to enforce a few terroristic threat laws and crack down on the lunatics and supremacist making mass shooting threats before they act.

Yeah you want to talk about us not being interested in any good arguments, at the same time I honestly believe there is some intellectual dishonesty coming from your side as well. In all the gun debates on this very board and elsewhere, not once have I ever heard your side point out or discuss about South Africa's failed strict gun control. I wonder why that is? And the logic and common sense is seeing how far a government is willing to go when the usual common gun regulation has failed here in the U.S and South Africa. So let's look at South Africa, they have a lot more in common with us. Yet they have similar (if not more strict) gun regulations like your country does and it's failing them. And even though they've banned semi-auto rifles out of the hands of SA citizens, now they've been talking about going even further with their gun control measures because of what they saw happened in the Christchurch, New Zealand shooting incident. Given their strict gun regulations, so what's left? The only thing left is to completely ban all the remaining guns (single shot/bolt action guns)out of SA citizens. So don't make it out like I'm saying any usual common gun regulation is a complete gun ban, expressing as much makes you look just as ignorant, when I'm saying with the wrong politicians in power, yesterday's common sense gun control could eventually lead to total gun confiscation in the end.

Quote

 

It most certainly is not. It's a tried and proven solution. 

Not fair to whom? Is it fair to the constant flow of innocent victims? 

 

No it's a halfass solution for the U.S., because it didn't work for us during 1994 to 2004 assault weapons ban, which was more then our current gun regulations at the time. And I witnessed that first hand seeing guns being bought and sold, when I was teen. And mass shootings still happened back then, maybe not as much, but just enough to still be a problem. And there were still innocent victims killed during that time, while it cost law-abiding gunowner's 2A rights at the same time, making it not worth it for both sides.

Quote

Not with regulation they don't. That's where its benefits are strongest. I put up a link recently explaining how a pistol on the black market here will set one back 15 to 20 thousand. Thanks to gun regulations. Anyone who has that much cash doesn't need to do break and enters or rob people in the street. But sports owners, farmers etc aren't bound to that price range. 

Ah no way, at least not here in the U.S. Once again - We had an assault weapons ban for 10 years and at the time,  people in my own family was still able to buy cheap semi-auto rifles (and I'm not just talking one or two guns) during that entire time from a local gun runner back in those days. That's how I know, that ban didn't set most people back from buying semi-auto rifles in the U.S. And hey, what about South Africa's gun regulations? You think black market gun prices it's setting the criminals there back all that much like in your country? Apparently not, last I read, about six years ago "the price of an illegal AK-47 in South Africa was $180 (about R1600 at current exchange rates)" and they passed their gun regulation laws as far back as 2000.

Quote

So what? People are people. We come from multicultural western predominantly Christian counties. We have more in common than not. Gun culture is not anything special, many had it. The difference is many countries are much more responsible about it. 

I don't believe our two countries have more in common, the U.S. has more in common with South Africa then with Australia. For one thing, your country is influenced more by European political socialist ideologies and still has English monarchy ties. And although there may be some commonalities in some ways, there are stark differences in how things are managed between our two countries and the nature of people here versus over there and how citizens view and think about things. You've even got better mental health care over there, the U.S. and South Africa doesn't.

Edited by Gunn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
12 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

All those who Hitler murdered were politically banned from gun ownership soon after he took control. They were good citizens and had nothing to fear, so they turned in their guns.

That's not actually true. 

Nazi gun control argument

Actually your link doesnt disprove what I wrote there. The link says that there was already gun control, and even though Jews and others were disarmed, they could not have successfully defended themselves anyway. 

They were targeted by legislation and disarmed and also later murdered. The debunk is that they would have somehow survived if they did have guns.

The fact that the debunk revolves around was that the Jews, Gypsies, etc... already had few guns, and all together were less then 5% of the population. What the debunk does not address is if those people had had numerous rifles, and if they were, say, 30% of the population, if such would have had an effect to slow down, or depose Hitler.

Quote

For sure. Why would they retain an armed population ready to defend to the death? 

Usually "Western", "Enlightened", nations are loath to attack their own people. And the military would likely revolt.

Are you suggesting the US is not a enlightened nation? If so then your arguement that we should ban guns like all other enlightened nations... is contradictory to how I read your statement here.

Quote

Its not logical to retain a resistive population when they can be replaced with a submissive one. 

So you are saying the USA is too advanced to allow a dictator to take over, but at the same time would be willing to genocide 50+ million people on the off chance some would resist?

I dont buy into resisting an invasion, because, really, who is going to invade the US mainland? Anyone who did, and required resisting would be overwhelmingly powerful. No nation exists today that could even try.

Quote

Military style assault weapons. Small calibre semi autos are still available upon clearance of request.

I thought I had read all semi automatic weapons were illegal. Just single shot are allowed. I believe there were a handful of exceptions?

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/10/711820023/new-zealand-passes-law-banning-most-semi-automatic-weapons

Quote

The law makes some exceptions. Semi-automatic firearms up to .22 caliber that can hold up to 10 rounds will be permitted, as will magazines for shotguns that can hold up to five cartridges. Licensed dealers, pest controllers and "bona fide collectors" will also enjoy "narrow exceptions" to the ban.

 

Quote

...there's no way a drug addict is going to hold out to buy a gun. That's a lot of opportunity for drugs missed in the meantime.

Cant fault that logic...

Quote

They are into that too. Just not as popular headlines I guess. 

NZ's border to be tightened

Good for them. At least they aren't just being political, but actually trying to protect their citizens.

Quote

This source suggests the US is the largest supplier. 

Where do Mexican drug cartels get their guns? The US.

As such, wouldn't gun regulations have a major impact in this area too? 

Depends. How long does it take to set up a gun factory? Could a gun factory in, say Michigan, if guns are illegal, not just up and move to Mexico. Automobile plants have done so in recent years.

If there is demand, there will be supply.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
On 9/18/2019 at 7:18 AM, Gunn said:

Naw I got a little confused and frustrated, which probably did come off as antagonistic. I just need details as to what you are referring to sometimes or I'm not sure how to answer. Unfortunately, generally that is the way it is sometimes when communicating over the internet when things are not exactly clear.

But I went back through the thread and I think I see now what you are getting at. And it's more then "that's the way things are". I think there have been some borderline tyrannical actions done to us in the past since the British monarchy over the colonies up to our current government, that makes some of us distrustful and suspicious as hell. From the days of the American Revolution to Ruby Ridge to Waco to the Patriot Act to the illegal gun seizure when Hurricane Katrina hit. But maybe we are not so concerned whether full fledged tyrannical governments happened elsewhere or not, but it's more to do with a independent nature ingrained in most Americans, along with a "it's better to be safe, then sorry" mentality.

 A note about the Patriot Act; After 911 happened Bush Jr. and congress declared an emergency and passed the Patriot Act because of the terrorist attack. And that has nothing to do with gun control of course, but it's the act of government invasion of privacy to supposedly keep us all safe. At the time, it felt like a page right of George Orwell's 1984  that added to the distrust and suspicion of the U.S. government possibly going tyrannical.

And I understand the concept of 'supply and demand', but what I've been trying to point out, unlike what they say, apparently is it's not a guarantee that it works perfectly or the way you expect it to work 100% of the time. Because anytime the government banned things in the U.S. that were most desirable, alcohol, drugs or guns, people were still able to get the stuff in the U.S. at reasonable prices and not at the high prices in other countries. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work, people kept on drinking, so government gave up on that. Then there is illegal drugs we've completely banned for years (war on drugs), and the cost of those illegal drugs is still reasonable and the demand is still there today. And the 10 year 1994 assault weapons ban didn't work. The demand was still there and people were still able to buy semi-auto rifles at reasonable prices during those 10 years, and mass shootings still happened, maybe not as much, but just enough to still be a problem.

 

The thing that is apparent with Ruby Ridge and Waco is that the antagonists were found, on review, to only be accountable for petty crimes; and that without lawyers.  The charges against the Bundy family members have been dismissed.  Does the evidence really exist?   I'm aware of the conjecture about the AR15 in JFK (first example off the top of my head); so, I don't discount government corruption, collusion, or conspiracy.  Benjamin Franklin endorsed Blackstone's ratio tenfold.  What you seem to be asserting is the apprehension for an unfair trial is so great that it worth death to avoid court.

The story of of John Joe Gray is eyebrow raising.  A man who: declares he has a god-given right to carry a gun when challenged by a LEO; cries that vaccination is tyranny; doesn't feel he is accountable to answer charges of biting a LEO; and, thinks it reasonable to involve his grandchildren in the longest siege in the USA.  The local sheriff is right when he says people like Gray are not worth risking the lives of deputies.  Is Gray a fit and proper person to be mentoring children or in charge of weapons?  Is this the way things are supposed to work - an anti-vaxxer, who's imaginary friend gives him the right to carry and put a Muslims in the White House, can point his gun long enough until charges are dismissed?

If you add in Shay's Rebellion and The Bonus Army, it seems clear that the citizen airing a grievance, down a barrel, is still dependent on the government weighing cost and benefit in a rational manner.  It's a paradox that while fighting for their freedom the are at the mercy of tyrant.

If we look into Corruption Perception Index USA sits outside the top 20 right in-between France and the UAE (the highest ranking in ME and Africa) and behind the likes of Estonia.  South Africa is ranks in the mid-seventies behind the likes of Jamaica.  Xenophobia and corruption is what I think of when you say USA and ZA are fellow-travellers. I have a close Zimbabwean friend who contends that her country needs stability more than freedom; ie, the likes of Tito.  

<div class="cpi-node" data-embed="table"></div><script src="https://www.transparency.org/assets/scripts/cpi2018/embed.js"></script>

The mental health issue has a lot of  private funding - either through insurance or it might be provided by the workplace.  I'd guess there are a lot of, economically, disadvantaged without any access to care. 

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
16 hours ago, Gunn said:

No you are speculating, just like we are, when the overall truth is - that anything can happen, it's Murphy's law.

I'm being realistic. You cannot deny that others will die from gun violence needlessly this year. That's going to happen. Murphy isn't hard to predict there. 

Quote

And a possible unforeseen great threat is based on "the sacrifice of the few for the greater good of the many" philosophy.

Are you agreeing with DieChecker that the school deaths are a necessary sacrifice to ensure a resistance is always at the ready? 

Quote

And I told you before, which I know you already know this, I was pointing out one of the beginning reasons for the distrust related to a historical reference to the British monarchy gun seizure and partly why we have the 2nd Amendment now. It's got nothing to do with your ridiculous asinine notion, as if, we think redcoats are going to rise from the dead and try to confiscate guns again. It's a case of "It happened in the past in this country, it could happen again, no matter who the current government is now", it would be walking a razor's edge for us not to pay attention to those historical events, and take chances just because in your opinion you think we should pay no attention those historical events.

You might as well be talking about those redcoats rising from the dead as its about as likely as the rougue government and shootouts fantasy in this day and age. That's the point. It was a long time ago under very different circumstances that makes it not only uikely, but show no signs of rising. Living in the past isn't learning from old lessons. Right now there's an immediate threat. It's not logical or sensible to ignore that for something that shows no indication of becoming a threat. 

Quote

A helluva lot of difference, because it's about personal experience here. Not what you think you may know just from reading books, newspaper, internet pages and watching TV about us from afar.

You're not citing personal experience. You're citing history. 

Feel free to make a case. This is a discussion forum. I have. How is a rouge government a higher concern than mass shootings? What makes it so likely that victims should be viewed as collateral damage? 

What makes you think we have not learned from history? Isn't that why you reelect every 4 years with only 2 terms allowed? Isn't that why our countries have democratic political processes? 

Quote

I said you are entitled to your own misguided opinion and I'm saying I don't think your opinion is fair judgement from where you sit. You don't really know us or the U.S. like you think you do. How do you know anything about the entire U.S. population based on communication over the internet?

You don't think talking to Americans in here is a help? Some very kind posters have taken the time to explain a great deal about the culture, some hunters with very respectable lifestyles have discussed their views, which I not only agree with, but have some common ground with having grown up in a rural area. And then there's others who outright promote the idea of regulation and some whom I shudder to think own deadly weapons. It's a mix. Like anywhere. Some of the comments I saw supporting Drejka during that fiasco were very enlightening indeed. There's a very dark side to gun culture. 

What about the regular flow of gun violence threads with posters from the states commenting? Do you not feel this forum offers unique insights into other cultures and beliefs? 

Quote

No our current gun laws won't change all that much. Because on the other hand, none of that matters if the authorities over here don't quit being laxed like they have been in the past on the current laws we already have here in the first place. Apparently from the recent arrests over here, which is really obvious beginning a month ago, they really haven't been enforcing the laws we've had in the U.S. for years. But now they decided to enforce a few terroristic threat laws and crack down on the lunatics and supremacist making mass shooting threats before they act.

That sounds great

I really hope it goes well. If that turns out to be your best solution, that's fantastic. I'll keep an eye out fir those threads. 

Quote

Yeah you want to talk about us not being interested in any good arguments, at the same time I honestly believe there is some intellectual dishonesty coming from your side as well. In all the gun debates on this very board and elsewhere, not once have I ever heard your side point out or discuss about South Africa's failed strict gun control. I wonder why that is? And the logic and common sense is seeing how far a government is willing to go when the usual common gun regulation has failed here in the U.S and South Africa. So let's look at South Africa, they have a lot more in common with us. Yet they have similar (if not more strict) gun regulations like your country does and it's failing them. And even though they've banned semi-auto rifles out of the hands of SA citizens, now they've been talking about going even further with their gun control measures because of what they saw happened in the Christchurch, New Zealand shooting incident. Given their strict gun regulations, so what's left? The only thing left is to completely ban all the remaining guns (single shot/bolt action guns)out of SA citizens. So don't make it out like I'm saying any usual common gun regulation is a complete gun ban, expressing as much makes you look just as ignorant, when I'm saying with the wrong politicians in power, yesterday's common sense gun control could eventually lead to total gun confiscation in the end.

You can't be serous. Strict gun control that allows home weapons for self defence? 

What are the requirements to own a gun in South Africa?

You must be a South African citizen or permanent resident and at least 21 years old;

You must be mentally stable and fit;

You will have to pass a background check;

You can't have a criminal record;

You can't be addicted to drugs or alcohol.

https://m.news24.com/Analysis/6-questions-answered-about-gun-ownership-in-sa-20181022

Nothing like our solution at all. And personally, I'd say more like South America than the States. Surely you are, well aware of the farmer murders?The open corruption? Constant civil wars? Car jacking? Are you really saying that's what the US is like? In that scale? 

Quote

No it's a halfass solution for the U.S., because it didn't work for us during 1994 to 2004 assault weapons ban, which was more then our current gun regulations at the time. And I witnessed that first hand seeing guns being bought and sold, when I was teen. And mass shootings still happened back then, maybe not as much, but just enough to still be a problem. And there were still innocent victims killed during that time, while it cost law-abiding gunowner's 2A rights at the same time, making it not worth it for both sides.

According to Mother Jones, there was a slight drop in mass shootings and an immediate climb straight after the ban. 

In the USA, a small decline was evident during the 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapon Ban. Incidents and fatalities increased after 2004.

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JCRPP-05-2015-0013/full/html

Logically it wouldn't have an overall effect, unless I'm wrong, it's my understanding that gun violence overall is more often enacted with handguns? Robberies, murders, suicide etc. If the statistics are correct, it does seem to have had some effect in the required area. 

How is that affecting rights? Many other weapons were readily available were they not? Isn't that sufficient to satisfy the 2nd?

According to this study, there was a hike in prices initially, turned around by a glut on the market due to large scale manufacture right before the ban. 

Prices of assault weapons rose substantially around the time of the ban's enactment, reducing the availability of assault weapons to criminal users in the very short run. However, a surge in assault weapon production just before the ban caused prices to fall in the months following the ban

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1016055919939

 

Quote

Ah no way, at least not here in the U.S. Once again - We had an assault weapons ban for 10 years and at the time,  people in my own family was still able to buy cheap semi-auto rifles (and I'm not just talking one or two guns) during that entire time from a local gun runner back in those days. That's how I know, that ban didn't set most people back from buying semi-auto rifles in the U.S. And hey, what about South Africa's gun regulations? You think black market gun prices it's setting the criminals there back all that much like in your country? Apparently not, last I read, about six years ago "the price of an illegal AK-47 in South Africa was $180 (about R1600 at current exchange rates)" and they passed their gun regulation laws as far back as 2000.

Apparently that's a lot of money there to a criminal. So much in fact that according to this source, they rent them instead. 

SA criminals are hiring AK47s because it’s too expensive to buy them – this is how much it costs

While purchasing an AK-47 on the black market could cost anything between R1,000 and R1,800, smaller criminal gangs that cannot afford large sums of money hire the rifles for between R100 and R250 each.

Three open borders, corrupt government and about 12 guns a person (mostly illegal) per head. 

Without a responsible government and the cooperation of the nations citizens, it won't work. Its a community effort. 

Quote

I don't believe our two countries have more in common, the U.S. has more in common with South Africa then with Australia. For one thing, your country is influenced more by European political socialist ideologies and still has English monarchy ties. And although there may be some commonalities in some ways, there are stark differences in how things are managed between our two countries and the nature of people here versus over there and how citizens view and think about things. You've even got better mental health care over there, the U.S. and South Africa doesn't.

Apart from gun culture, how do you see us as so different? Our ties to the monarch are weak, its more a figurehead symbol, we are an independent nation. Why do you feel a political model reflects in the people? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 9/19/2019 at 10:46 AM, DieChecker said:

Actually your link doesnt disprove what I wrote there. The link says that there was already gun control, and even though Jews and others were disarmed, they could not have successfully defended themselves anyway. 

They were targeted by legislation and disarmed and also later murdered. The debunk is that they would have somehow survived if they did have guns.

The fact that the debunk revolves around was that the Jews, Gypsies, etc... already had few guns, and all together were less then 5% of the population. What the debunk does not address is if those people had had numerous rifles, and if they were, say, 30% of the population, if such would have had an effect to slow down, or depose Hitler.

I think it adresses the first part (Bernard Harcourt's claim) quite well. 

the disarming and killing of Jews was unconnected with Nazi gun control policy, and it is "absurd to even try to characterize this as either pro- or anti-gun control." If he had to choose, Harcourt said, the Nazi regime was pro-gun compared with the Weimar Republic that preceded it.[5]:671,677 He says that gun rights advocates disagree about the relationship between Nazi gun control and the Holocaust, with many distancing themselves from the idea. Political scientist Robert Spitzer said (in the same law review as Harcourt, who stated the same thing) the quality of Halbrook's historical research is poor.

As for 'if' 30%of the population had guns, they did. 

. Nazi laws systematically disarmed "unreliable" persons , especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for so-called "ordinary" German citizens.[5]:

The German people themselves were better armed than ever. They were in a position to help but didn't. And as you pointed out, we're by far the majority of the population. 

On 9/19/2019 at 10:46 AM, DieChecker said:

Usually "Western", "Enlightened", nations are loath to attack their own people. And the military would likely revolt.

Are you suggesting the US is not a enlightened nation? If so then your arguement that we should ban guns like all other enlightened nations... is contradictory to how I read your statement here.

So you are saying the USA is too advanced to allow a dictator to take over, but at the same time would be willing to genocide 50+ million people on the off chance some would resist?

I thought we agreed that any internal conflict would be a short lived resistance, unlikely to succeed? And what about 4 year terms? 2 terms maximum? Democracy? Congress? Doesn't that all help prevent the rise of a dictator? Gaddafi was in power for 42 years! That's not going to happen now is it. 

With genocide, I was referring to invading nations. With the democratic election process in place, it is extremely unlikely that anything internal will happen. Too much red tape even. 

But like you said, Trump got in. Perhaps many things are possible that we thought not? Perhaps a government would genocide it's own?  First time for everything. Is it any less likely than the scenario of a rogue government would take power? Enlightened goes out the window with such a hypothetical leader doesn't it? 

What I'm saying is that there are other measures in place. We did learn from history.

What makes you think others haven't? Many Americans brag a lot about owning guns. It's no secret. Don't you think that would be taken into account? 

The point is, gun massacre is an immediate threat. There's steps in place to deal with the far lesser and what seems a very unlikely threat. It makes no sense to consider the more unlikely scenario prominent when people and kids are dying. 

On 9/19/2019 at 10:46 AM, DieChecker said:

I dont buy into resisting an invasion, because, really, who is going to invade the US mainland? Anyone who did, and required resisting would be overwhelmingly powerful. No nation exists today that could even try.

You are assuming hand to hand combat or war. 

If someone is that bat**** crazy, what in earth makes you think they would play by the rules? Why wouldn't they  wipe you out with currently globally illegal weapons and methods like gas or chemicals and walk in when the nation is wiped out? And then just replace you and take your stuff? All they have to deal with is a big clean up and import their own people. 

After discussing the holocaust yourself, how does that strike you as less likely than your own government managing to bypass all red tape and attack its own people? 

On 9/19/2019 at 10:46 AM, DieChecker said:

I thought I had read all semi automatic weapons were illegal. Just single shot are allowed. I believe there were a handful of exceptions?

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/10/711820023/new-zealand-passes-law-banning-most-semi-automatic-weapons

Its also based on a case by case basis. 

I'd say that seems pretty fair? 

On 9/19/2019 at 10:46 AM, DieChecker said:

Cant fault that logic...

I really don't think so. I just can't imagine a junkie holding out to save up for a gun. Can you? That seems to contradict the nature of addiction? 

On 9/19/2019 at 10:46 AM, DieChecker said:

Good for them. At least they aren't just being political, but actually trying to protect their citizens.

I honestly think you might be surprised how amicable regulation is if looking at it without the 2A mentality. 

On 9/19/2019 at 10:46 AM, DieChecker said:

Depends. How long does it take to set up a gun factory? Could a gun factory in, say Michigan, if guns are illegal, not just up and move to Mexico. Automobile plants have done so in recent years.

I don't think time would be an issue, but money. 

That's a good point and obviously should be a consideration to protect against as well. 

On 9/19/2019 at 10:46 AM, DieChecker said:

If there is demand, there will be supply.

Doesn't that indicate a good way to begin the process? Rather than try to change an ingrained mindset, take away the source. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
DieChecker
16 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I think it adresses the first part (Bernard Harcourt's claim) quite well. 

the disarming and killing of Jews was unconnected with Nazi gun control policy, and it is "absurd to even try to characterize this as either pro- or anti-gun control." If he had to choose, Harcourt said, the Nazi regime was pro-gun compared with the Weimar Republic that preceded it.[5]:671,677 He says that gun rights advocates disagree about the relationship between Nazi gun control and the Holocaust, with many distancing themselves from the idea. Political scientist Robert Spitzer said (in the same law review as Harcourt, who stated the same thing) the quality of Halbrook's historical research is poor.

As for 'if' 30%of the population had guns, they did. 

. Nazi laws systematically disarmed "unreliable" persons , especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for so-called "ordinary" German citizens.[5]:

The German people themselves were better armed than ever. They were in a position to help but didn't. And as you pointed out, we're by far the majority of the population. 

Ah, but the German people were not being oppressed. In my arguement it wouldnt be 1%, or 5%, of the population targeted, but 100%.

As to, "...the disarming and killing of Jews was unconnected with Nazi gun control policy...", I believe that is mainly opinion.

Quote

I thought we agreed that any internal conflict would be a short lived resistance, unlikely to succeed? And what about 4 year terms? 2 terms maximum? Democracy? Congress? Doesn't that all help prevent the rise of a dictator? Gaddafi was in power for 42 years! That's not going to happen now is it.

Depends, most dictators started as elected populists, who gain control of the Legislative end of the government... and Bam! Ruler for life... all legally legislated.

Quote

But like you said, Trump got in. Perhaps many things are possible that we thought not? Perhaps a government would genocide it's own?  First time for everything. Is it any less likely than the scenario of a rogue government would take power? Enlightened goes out the window with such a hypothetical leader doesn't it?

Look at what Merkle did... Welcomed millions of undocumented migrants into the EU, and spawned the greatest conservative movement across "liberal" Europe in almost a century. There is a point of going too far...

Quote

The point is, gun massacre is an immediate threat. There's steps in place to deal with the far lesser and what seems a very unlikely threat. It makes no sense to consider the more unlikely scenario prominent when people and kids are dying. 

I agree to that. What my point was, was something banned on the perception of danger based on a single incident.

Thay can do what they want, but IMHO, it was a knee jerk reaction, not a thought out, public input, methodology.

Quote

You are assuming hand to hand combat or war. 

ISIS... Afghanistan... Iraq... didnt those all evolve into basically short range level combat?

Very likely, unless the case of your total genocide.

Quote

If someone is that bat**** crazy, what in earth makes you think they would play by the rules? Why wouldn't they  wipe you out with currently globally illegal weapons and methods like gas or chemicals and walk in when the nation is wiped out? And then just replace you and take your stuff? All they have to deal with is a big clean up and import their own people. 

Name a single nation you believe would do anything close to such a genocide?

Quote

Its also based on a case by case basis. 

Got an example of such a case by case basis? Collectors? Ranchers?

In other words... banned, for the general populace.

Quote

I honestly think you might be surprised how amicable regulation is if looking at it without the 2A mentality.

That's hard to do for someone who grew up responsibly using guns, and everyone I know responsibly using guns, for fifty years.

Quote

Doesn't that indicate a good way to begin the process? Rather than try to change an ingrained mindset, take away the source.

I'm not anti regulation, but what happened in NZ was a ban, not simple regulation. 

Good people are not usually against regulation, but often will be against a ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.