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

283 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

DieChecker
14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

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. 

This hasnt worked with illegal drugs....

Why should I expect it to work with guns?

Making drugs illegal was supposed to make them so expensive people would stop buying them. But today we have as much drug use as 20, 30, or 40 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
19 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.

You would think that anti gun people would praise the Trump Wall since it would stop illegal guns. But that interferes with their Virtue Signalling on immigration. Guess they like illegal aliens more then they like preventing gun deaths.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So a average 9mm pistol that sells for 250 dollars, when illegal, will sell for 700 to 800 dollars? 

One stolen big screen TV will pay for that.

https://www.cabelas.com/catalog/browse/_/N-1114851?CQ_ztype=GNU&CQ_ref=~priceRange-700

That's the Cabela's website. Near all larger towns have a Cabela's. And even in the small town I live in at the edge of the metro area, there are two or three gun stores. Plus various other department stores that also sell guns.

Once guns are illegal, there's still going to be hundreds of millions of them in circulation. Price isnt going to be too steep.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
19 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Canada has a big, open, southern border.

They don't have a 240+ year history and culture of gun ownership though.  Unless you are implying that this makes them better human beings then your argument falls apart over the lack of demand for weapons.  Leaving aside the virtue signalling, if it were possible to confiscate 350 million weapons you'd still have to close that border tight to keep a resupply of guns from coming in.  It's a bad joke and the people who spend time on dissing us for our choices should find a more productive way to spend their time.  I can assure you that there isn't a single choice that any person in Europe, OZ, NZ or any other country on the planet makes that I would be so enraged by that I'd tell them they were wrong to choose it.  Live and let live.  Here's the thing... I have no need to defend my desire to own firearms to anyone, here in America and certainly not in some other nation half-way round the globe.  In America it is seen as an inalienable RIGHT and no one is taking it away with the stroke of a pen or a shame and blame campaign.  

Those who are so invested in maligning our choice here seem to be okay with the possibility of potential widespread chaos and bloodshed here to achieve THEIR choice for America.  That sounds an awful lot like "it's okay to kill gun lovers for the sake of the children"  THAT sir, is irrational to the point of being evil.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy
7 hours ago, aztek said:

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?

I didn't give up all my firearms just the semi auto's as I can't see the need for them in hunting situations here,they are really meant for human combat imo,same as pistols.Luckily I live in a country where there is little use for these, unless you are an outlaw.Firearms to me are for procuring food for the pot,not killing school kids,but not everyone is nice like me :devil:.That's the point,thieves target homes just to steal guns that end up in the hands of cowards who reach for them instead of fighting like real men do at times,with their fists.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

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. 

NZ and OZ have made a choice about how they want to live and I applaud them.  I'm glad they feel secure in their choice and that it is working for THEM.  Yep, another mass shooting is guaranteed, and another after that, and after that.  Individuals who are either insane, evil or in a rage about their life.  Your choice in OZ works because YOUR citizens WANTED IT.  The majority of ours do not.  When that changes, we have a way to change 2A left to us through our founding documents.  The Constitution can be amended when enough citizens desire that change.  You'll note that NO ONE on the Left have mentioned such a process.  It's because they KNOW they are in the minority in a process that requires a supermajority so they want to use emotion, anger and shame and blame against people who've done nothing wrong.  Maybe you'll be satisfied if the Left make a move to confiscate and it leads to mass violence.  I'm sure that'll be beneficial for the the poor children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
3 minutes ago, and then said:

They don't have a 240+ year history and culture of gun ownership though.  Unless you are implying that this makes them better human beings then your argument falls apart over the lack of demand for weapons.  Leaving aside the virtue signalling, if it were possible to confiscate 350 million weapons you'd still have to close that border tight to keep a resupply of guns from coming in.  It's a bad joke and the people who spend time on dissing us for our choices should find a more productive way to spend their time.  I can assure you that there isn't a single choice that any person in Europe, OZ, NZ or any other country on the planet makes that I would be so enraged by that I'd tell them they were wrong to choose it.  Live and let live.  Here's the thing... I have no need to defend my desire to own firearms to anyone, here in America and certainly not in some other nation half-way round the globe.  In America it is seen as an inalienable RIGHT and no one is taking it away with the stroke of a pen or a shame and blame campaign.  

Those who are so invested in maligning our choice here seem to be okay with the possibility of potential widespread chaos and bloodshed here to achieve THEIR choice for America.  That sounds an awful lot like "it's okay to kill gun lovers for the sake of the children"  THAT sir, is irrational to the point of being evil.

I wasn't virtue signalling, so leaving nothing aside, from what I've read gun smuggling flows (mostly) from US to MX.  The gun manufacturing industry was mentioned in another thread; but, there's not a lot of clear and easily obtainable data about Chapter 93 commodities.

Your own words say the gun culture is more significant than any porous border.  Thus we fall back to the usual begging the question - the founding fathers were omniscient and set 2A, and because they set 2A they must be omniscient.  It's a form of natural idolatry and anyone who disagrees is evil; and you're evil if you disagree.  

Leaving aside the logical fallacy, who's virtue signalling?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

This hasnt worked with illegal drugs....

Why should I expect it to work with guns?

Because it already has worked in countries that embraced gun control. Others did the trials for you. 

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Making drugs illegal was supposed to make them so expensive people would stop buying them. But today we have as much drug use as 20, 30, or 40 years ago.

It didn't though did it? Hard core drugs like heroin and cocaine have plummeted 60-80% over those years. Either the US failed, is corrupted or the ease of making large amounts of drugs easily and in temporary residences wasn't accounted for. That's not possible with weapons. You can't set up shop in an apartment fit the weekend and churn out millions of dollars worth of guns can you. 

Would you feel that legalising drugs would solve the issue or make it worse? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Your own words say the gun culture is more significant than any porous border.  Thus we fall back to the usual begging the question - the founding fathers were omniscient and set 2A, and because they set 2A they must be omniscient.

I never said they were omniscient or even infallible.  They created a means for citizens to change their government through an Amendment process but they made it difficult so that any changes to the basic design of our government would require a supermajority of States to desire the change.  These men also understood human nature and were scholars of the Enlightenment.  People do not change.  Their trappings and technology does but people remain quite predictable where government and the misuse of power are concerned.  2A is a uniquely American ideology and it came from founders that knew government always trends toward overreach and corruption.  Those who disagree with these tenets and who feel that the safety of some of our citizens is more important than the continuation of the underpinnings of the nation have the right to disagree but so long as Americans value their freedom, wise people will look to other, achievable means to protect the innocent from mentally ill or vicious amoral individuals who use firearms to wreak havoc in public.  My point it that there ARE other actions that will help lower the rates of these events but when one side is focused solely on taking the guns away by any means necessary, we make no progress at all.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
13 hours ago, openozy said:

I didn't give up all my firearms just the semi auto's as I can't see the need for them in hunting situations here,they are really meant for human combat imo,same as pistols.Luckily I live in a country where there is little use for these, unless you are an outlaw.Firearms to me are for procuring food for the pot,not killing school kids,but not everyone is nice like me :devil:.That's the point,thieves target homes just to steal guns that end up in the hands of cowards who reach for them instead of fighting like real men do at times,with their fists.

it does not answer my question, you steering away from it,  whether you need that particular type or not is not what i'm asking, it is irrelevant, what i do ask is DO YOU THINK GIVING UP YOUR GUN WILL MAKE YOUR COUNTRY SAFER??? if yes why? were you planing to use it against people? 

so you are not confident you can safe keep one, ok, then maybe you should not have guns, any guns, not just semi auto, cuz according to your logic your guns can be stolen.  and that can happen to any gun semi auto or not,

if you do not see any need for semi auto, why did you get them in a first place? did you have a different opinion before tv changed it?

Edited by aztek
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy
6 hours ago, aztek said:

it does not answer my question, you steering away from it,  whether you need that particular type or not is not what i'm asking, it is irrelevant, what i do ask is DO YOU THINK GIVING UP YOUR GUN WILL MAKE YOUR COUNTRY SAFER??? if yes why? were you planing to use it against people? 

so you are not confident you can safe keep one, ok, then maybe you should not have guns, any guns, not just semi auto, cuz according to your logic your guns can be stolen.  and that can happen to any gun semi auto or not,

if you do not see any need for semi auto, why did you get them in a first place? did you have a different opinion before tv changed it?

I had semi auto's as I was doing pest control,but not really needed.Bolt actions take time to reload,so less likely to be used in a mass killing.If you can get passed my eight dogs,break into my gun safe,if you can find it,good luck.I'm not answering you again,your questions are insane,the greatest argument for gun control.I don't know where your from but firearms should be banned completely from your country if you are an average citizen.

Edited by openozy
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DingoLingo
19 hours ago, aztek said:

it does not answer my question, you steering away from it,  whether you need that particular type or not is not what i'm asking, it is irrelevant, what i do ask is DO YOU THINK GIVING UP YOUR GUN WILL MAKE YOUR COUNTRY SAFER??? if yes why? were you planing to use it against people? 

so you are not confident you can safe keep one, ok, then maybe you should not have guns, any guns, not just semi auto, cuz according to your logic your guns can be stolen.  and that can happen to any gun semi auto or not,

if you do not see any need for semi auto, why did you get them in a first place? did you have a different opinion before tv changed it?

I will answer it.. 

Yes.. giving up the guns has made our country safer.. look at the gun related crime satistics prior to Port Arthur.. and then after the laws were implented.. its there in black and white.. there has been a huge reduction in gun related crimes.. suicides by fire arms .. etc.. so yes it has.. and no.. I have yet to meet a gun owner here that says they have a gun for protection.. (we leave that to you guys to say).. paranoia is not big over here ;)

most semi autos here were owned by farmers for pest control.. rabbits etc.. hell i used to own one.. because I would go shooting on farms.. none of my family had any hesitation in handing them in..(and my family were keen shooters.. a number of them are.. a cousin of mine has the most awesome collection of blackpowder rifles.. I drool each time i vivist him) sure we could not kill as many rabbits or roo's quickly as before.. but we could still cull the numbers with a bolt action.. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
2 hours ago, DingoLingo said:

I will answer it.. 

Yes.. giving up the guns has made our country safer.. look at the gun related crime satistics prior to Port Arthur. 

i did and amount of mass murders stays relatively the same they just use arson now, which  still kills, that is all i care about, you however seem to be ok with it as long as it is not guns that kill. 

the thing is you do not care about other murders,  but only those committed by a gun, that is why i will never see things your way

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
15 hours ago, openozy said:

I had semi auto's as I was doing pest control,but not really needed.Bolt actions take time to reload,so less likely to be used in a mass killing.If you can get passed my eight dogs,break into my gun safe,if you can find it,good luck.I'm not answering you again,your questions are insane,the greatest argument for gun control.I don't know where your from but firearms should be banned completely from your country if you are an average citizen.

fortunately you have absolutely no say in it, and it will never happen in my country,  

but i'm curious why do you think the same should not be done in your country? why should you be allowed to own even a bolt action rifle, you have absolutely no need for it

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
4 hours ago, DingoLingo said:

I will answer it.. 

 

 

 

but you did not really answer it,  i was asking how did removal of YOUR gun make your country safer.

btw, your country is no safer now than it was pre 1996,   there has been more mass murders since 1996 than during the same period before 1996, when are  you gonna stop denying facts?

go ahead see for yourself,  count all mass murder events for 23 years before 1996 and  as many after.  19 during 1973 -1996, 26 since 1996. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

Edited by aztek
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Buzzkill
On 8/20/2019 at 11:04 PM, psyche101 said:

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

What total crap.  Where in the treaty does it mention a lease? Let alone a 200 year lease?

Not all tribes signed the treaty, which lead to the land wars, where you correctly point out that trench warfare was invented by Maori chiefs and warriors 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
10 hours ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

What total crap.  Where in the treaty does it mention a lease? Let alone a 200 year lease?

Not all tribes signed the treaty, which lead to the land wars, where you correctly point out that trench warfare was invented by Maori chiefs and warriors 

Well Mr charming, not sure what prompted that rude approach, several New Zealanders I know quite well explained it to me that way. It is a founding document right? If I'm wrong there, I'm happy to stand corrected. Would you like to explain it yourself and bring us all up to speed in a brief synopsis please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 8/21/2019 at 7:36 PM, openozy said:

I didn't give up all my firearms just the semi auto's as I can't see the need for them in hunting situations here,they are really meant for human combat imo,same as pistols.Luckily I live in a country where there is little use for these, unless you are an outlaw.Firearms to me are for procuring food for the pot,not killing school kids,but not everyone is nice like me :devil:.That's the point,thieves target homes just to steal guns that end up in the hands of cowards who reach for them instead of fighting like real men do at times,with their fists.

Question. When someone does shoot up a store, church, clinic, or mosque, using a bolt action rifle, are you going to give yours up?

What about when they come for the axes and ornamental swords?

Where should the line be drawn?

The NZ law at first was about assault weapons. Then it was changed to semiautomatic weapons. What prevents them from just "guns"?

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Question. When someone does shoot up a store, church, clinic, or mosque, using a bolt action rifle, are you going to give yours up?

What about when they come for the axes and ornamental swords?

Where should the line be drawn?

The NZ law at first was about assault weapons. Then it was changed to semiautomatic weapons. What prevents them from just "guns"?

Coming for axes and ornamental swords? 

Really? 

Do you think you might be getting a little carried away? 

Share this post


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

Coming for axes and ornamental swords? 

Really? 

Do you think you might be getting a little carried away? 

I'm thinking they might get a little carried away. If they have, "good reason".

A frog doesn't know it is in boiling water if it is heated up slowly.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DingoLingo
On 8/23/2019 at 11:19 PM, aztek said:

but you did not really answer it,  i was asking how did removal of YOUR gun make your country safer.

btw, your country is no safer now than it was pre 1996,   there has been more mass murders since 1996 than during the same period before 1996, when are  you gonna stop denying facts?

go ahead see for yourself,  count all mass murder events for 23 years before 1996 and  as many after.  19 during 1973 -1996, 26 since 1996. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

Again.. And this is the part you never seem to understand.. The change of laws were made to stop and please read this part carefully.. 'gun related crimes'.. Which it has 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Buzzkill
8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Well Mr charming, not sure what prompted that rude approach, several New Zealanders I know quite well explained it to me that way. It is a founding document right? If I'm wrong there, I'm happy to stand corrected. Would you like to explain it yourself and bring us all up to speed in a brief synopsis please.

Basically the treaty said Maori acknowledge the sovereignty of the English monarch over NZ and that our 2 peoples are one nation.

The non revised history of NZ shows that educated Maori were worried about the French (and with good reason when you look at the natives in New Caledonia etc). The revised history is that Maori thought they were signing into a position of power over white peoples as "partners" with the queen. This is objectively false when you look directly at the words from the chiefs who signed.

But you need to be called on your crap when you spout outright lies like they are facts and would be equally abrasive if someone said that aboriginal Australians signed a peace treaty in Vienna with James Cook

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Coming for axes and ornamental swords? 

Really? 

Do you think you might be getting a little carried away? 

What about knife bans? 

Is Mr Khan getting a little carried away in London?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
1 hour ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

What about knife bans? 

Is Mr Khan getting a little carried away in London?

That's carrying them.

If you carry an ornamental sword down the street it wouldn't be surprising to encounter police.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy
10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Question. When someone does shoot up a store, church, clinic, or mosque, using a bolt action rifle, are you going to give yours up?

What about when they come for the axes and ornamental swords?

Where should the line be drawn?

The NZ law at first was about assault weapons. Then it was changed to semiautomatic weapons. What prevents them from just "guns"?

No,I'm not giving up these. Auto,semi auto guns and rifles and pistols should be banned,they were mainly designed for human combat.By the time you put another bullet in a bolt action maybe enough time for people to escape in a mass shooting.I believe you should be able to keep a firearm for self defence,which is not a valid reason here for ownership.not a legal reason I should say.

  • Like 2

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.