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

268 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101
13 hours ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

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

I said that too I believe? 

13 hours ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

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.

Thanks. This is why the treaty has been undergoing great scrutiny I take it? That's how the Maori are regaining land is it not? 

13 hours ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

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

I said I'm happy to stand corrected. I didn't challenge you. As I said, some of your own people told me that. I did not say anything I hadn't heard. Thanks for the corrections but if you could hold back on the hostility in future, that would be great. I don't see how I prompted that. 

Share this post


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

What about knife bans? 

Is Mr Khan getting a little carried away in London?

No he is not. He is trying something. He is trying to better a situation. Whether his idea is good or not doesn't matter. Its got focus on the subject. 

Share this post


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

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

Who are they and what might they get carried away with? 

19 hours ago, DieChecker said:

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

You surely aren't talking about the New Zealand government here? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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.

Hopefully they never ask. Hopefully some idiot doesn't shoot up some place in the future.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Who are they and what might they get carried away with? 

You surely aren't talking about the New Zealand government here? 

Considering what you just posted in the previous post...

7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

No he is not. He is trying something. He is trying to better a situation. Whether his idea is good or not doesn't matter. Its got focus on the subject. 

I already know what your answer would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 8/25/2019 at 7:58 AM, DingoLingo said:

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 

Familicide seems to be up. And in rural areas. Ironically, the rural sector. The only people in Australia trusted with weapons. Not public killings which as you say are down. I think your mate there might have had too many loud blasts too close to his head. :)

Share this post


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

Hopefully they never ask. Hopefully some idiot doesn't shoot up some place in the future.

Always possible but OZ is a land infested with feral animals that need controlling.I can see firearms banned in cities here in the future regardless of another incident.

Share this post


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

Considering what you just posted in the previous post...

I already know what your answer would be.

Mate 

That crazy idea of your government turning on you, and then the cowboy fantasy of fighting them off with guns is purely US nonsense. I don't know any other country that buys into that silly scenario. With all due respect, its ridiculous. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)
On 8/24/2019 at 5:58 PM, DingoLingo said:

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 

so death by arson is ok, as long as it is not a gun death, ok got it. 

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 8/25/2019 at 3:48 PM, psyche101 said:

Mate 

That crazy idea of your government turning on you, and then the cowboy fantasy of fighting them off with guns is purely US nonsense. I don't know any other country that buys into that silly scenario. With all due respect, its ridiculous. 

Regardless, what about my question? Where is the limit drawn?

If the government bans Automatic weapons, then they can ban semiautomatic weapons. If they ban semiautomatic weapons, they can ban single action weapons. If they ban all guns, they can ban carrying knives and tasers. If they can ban knives being carried they can ban knives in the home....

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

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

People call it a slippery slope fallacy... but the fact is it happens. Some South American nations are ruined because everyone just let it happen. It can happen here, and there... Those who give away all their rights forvsagety end up being slaves. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
13 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Regardless, what about my question? Where is the limit drawn?

If the government bans Automatic weapons, then they can ban semiautomatic weapons. If they ban semiautomatic weapons, they can ban single action weapons. If they ban all guns, they can ban carrying knives and tasers. If they can ban knives being carried they can ban knives in the home....

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

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

People call it a slippery slope fallacy... but the fact is it happens. Some South American nations are ruined because everyone just let it happen. It can happen here, and there... Those who give away all their rights forvsagety end up being slaves. 

It's really quite simple - the line is drawn at reasonable use.

Knives are banned unless you have a reasonable use for them, eg fishing.  I'd guess there is no reason to carry a cleaver or a cane knife on the street; but, they are used in the home and in the garden.

I reckon, here in Queensland, cane knives are more common than machetes.  I can't recall one being used in an attack - but, wouldn't discount it - except for where a elderly lady severed a burglars hand while he attempting to break in.  (I read that in the Courier Mail. I wish I could find the article again online.) 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Regardless, what about my question? Where is the limit drawn?

If the government bans Automatic weapons, then they can ban semiautomatic weapons. If they ban semiautomatic weapons, they can ban single action weapons. If they ban all guns, they can ban carrying knives and tasers. If they can ban knives being carried they can ban knives in the home....

Golden Duck answered this admirably already. Gun regulations aren't about disarming the people to control them. 

Its about making illegal weapons difficult to procure. And that works. We have had regulation for decades now. Nothing remotely like that has ever happened. People with legitimate reasons can still apply for weapons. 

The paranoia that 2A breeds is unfounded. 

52 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

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

People call it a slippery slope fallacy... but the fact is it happens. Some South American nations are ruined because everyone just let it happen. It can happen here, and there... Those who give away all their rights forvsagety end up being slaves. 

But nobody is giving up rights. Guns aren't rights, they are a privilege. 

How many countries that have implemented gun control have been run over by dictator governments? 

And honestly, a gun in your cupboard (locked in a safe if people are honest about safety) it's not going to be any good in self defence and today's war technology would obliterate resistance from a comfy office miles away. It's a fantasy. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

 

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

It's really quite simple - the line is drawn at reasonable use.

Knives are banned unless you have a reasonable use for them, eg fishing.  I'd guess there is no reason to carry a cleaver or a cane knife on the street; but, they are used in the home and in the garden.

I reckon, here in Queensland, cane knives are more common than machetes.  I can't recall one being used in an attack - but, wouldn't discount it - except for where a elderly lady severed a burglars hand while he attempting to break in.  (I read that in the Courier Mail. I wish I could find the article again online.) 

Still, "reasonable use" is defined by the government. If the government says there is no reasonable use for, say, a cane knife. No one will be allowed to own one.

Share this post


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

 

Still, "reasonable use" is defined by the government. If the government says there is no reasonable use for, say, a cane knife. No one will be allowed to own one.

We have check that is safer than any bladed weapon... compulsory voting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Golden Duck answered this admirably already. Gun regulations aren't about disarming the people to control them. 

Its about making illegal weapons difficult to procure. And that works. We have had regulation for decades now. Nothing remotely like that has ever happened. People with legitimate reasons can still apply for weapons. 

The paranoia that 2A breeds is unfounded. 

But nobody is giving up rights. Guns aren't rights, they are a privilege. 

How many countries that have implemented gun control have been run over by dictator governments? 

And honestly, a gun in your cupboard (locked in a safe if people are honest about safety) it's not going to be any good in self defence and today's war technology would obliterate resistance from a comfy office miles away. It's a fantasy. 

That it "hasnt happened" is why the US is having a outbreak of measles, chicken pox, and other diseases.... because, "That doesn't happen here anymore.". Point being, that's a fallacious argument, even if it is true.

You dont need snake antivenom until you need it. 

Several South American countries had strict gun control enacted, and then dictators took over, and the countries turned basically medieval. We dont know that the people would have risen up, but the choice was gone to them anyway.

As a military veteran, I'm going to have to call BS. A good bolt action rifle, with a hunting scope, will function to kill out to 1000 meter, where as a M-16 has a poor chance at 300 meters. Unless a military wants to burn the civilians to the ground, rebels will not be able to be engaged by tanks and planes. Why do you think the Taliban, and ISIS, did as well as they did? Certainly not because they had tanks or planes.

Perhaps gun regulations arent there to control the people, but it could easily be used that way by someone who gained control.

Sure, people can still buy guns, now, but just the guns the government says they can. And nothing prevents them from expanding what is included next year and the year after, and ....

Question still is where does it stop? Fair use is good, but as long as the people decide what is fair, and not  bureaucrats looking to score political points.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

That it "hasnt happened" is why the US is having a outbreak of measles, chicken pox, and other diseases.... because, "That doesn't happen here anymore.". Point being, that's a fallacious argument, even if it is true.

No its not. Measles don't have a motive. You stating a motive for actions of a dictator. Dictators haven't been a problem in the states either. Anti vaccination just being careless and stupid. 

Quote

You dont need snake antivenom until you need it. 

And if you live in New Zealand never need it. No venomous Snakes there. 

Quote

Several South American countries had strict gun control enacted, and then dictators took over, and the countries turned basically medieval. We dont know that the people would have risen up, but the choice was gone to them anyway.

How do you see that as comparable to large first world countries? 

Quote

As a military veteran, I'm going to have to call BS. A good bolt action rifle, with a hunting scope, will function to kill out to 1000 meter, where as a M-16 has a poor chance at 300 meters. Unless a military wants to burn the civilians to the ground, rebels will not be able to be engaged by tanks and planes.

As a military vetran, how well do you think your bolt action would go against a tank or drone? 

If a government wants submission, they will just remove a large percentage of the population. America would function fine with half the population gone, even if they removed 90 percent of the population, immigrants needing hones and works would soon fill any hole. 

Quote

Why do you think the Taliban, and ISIS, did as well as they did? Certainly not because they had tanks or planes.

Home ground, unknown underground terrain and using human Shields. 

Quote

Perhaps gun regulations arent there to control the people, but it could easily be used that way by someone who gained control.

I really doubt that from a first world country. Its not some backwater town with a drug lord thug taking control. It would be very difficult. 

Its made places safer. Why overlook the results for paranoid ideas? As I say 2a has breed a ridiculous level of paranoia. Our public killings have been dramatically affected by gun control. I saw some imbecile link to a list of Australian massacres in this thread. The majority are rural families these days. The only place here still entrusted with guns, and in a high stress area leaving those residents at high risk. Quite clearly, where there are guns, there are dead people. Whilst our public shootings have halted, in the US they appear regularly. We both know more innocents will die before Christmas in the US by gun massacre. That's not a high concern here. I cannot understand how the concept of a tyrannical government is placed above real world situations. It seems ridiculous. 

Quote

Sure, people can still buy guns, now, but just the guns the government says they can. And nothing prevents them from expanding what is included next year and the year after, and ....

And history shows that doesn't happen. Several countries have embraced gun control and benefited greatly. Logic says it won't happen in today's world, examples show it. 

Registering guns tells the police if a gun is legal or not very quickly. And weapons used in crimes are traced quickly and removed from circulation. The main people who are affected are criminals. Not civilians. 

Quote

Question still is where does it stop? Fair use is good, but as long as the people decide what is fair, and not  bureaucrats looking to score political points.

Here it was a joint effort. The Australian Police Ministers' Council and Council of Australian Governments, entered into three national agreements that were responsible for shaping contemporary Australian firearm laws.

There has not been anything concerning to stop. There has been a massive turnaround in public massacres. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DingoLingo
On 8/27/2019 at 4:25 AM, aztek said:

so death by arson is ok, as long as it is not a gun death, ok got it. 

Lol no its not.. But I will point out time and time again when you and your fellow NRA supporters try and twist the facts around Australia's gun reforms to say it doesn't work.. When the facts prove it does.. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, DingoLingo said:

Lol no its not.. But I will point out time and time again when you and your fellow NRA supporters try and twist the facts around Australia's gun reforms to say it doesn't work.. When the facts prove it does.. 

yea sure, just this year there was a mass shooting in Australia using restricted gun, yea they sure work, lol keep fooling yourself, then when you get tired look up your own stats, count mass murder events since 1996, there are more happened after 1996 than for as many years  before 1996, like i said keep fooling yourself.  you never had any gun problem to begin with, nothing changed, look up your own data.

i greally do not get why you lot keep lying to yourself when your own data contradicts your beliefs

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
55 minutes ago, aztek said:

yea sure, just this year there was a mass shooting in Australia using restricted gun, yea they sure work, lol keep fooling yourself, then when you get tired look up your own stats, count mass murder events since 1996, there are more happened after 1996 than for as many years  before 1996, like i said keep fooling yourself.  you never had any gun problem to begin with, nothing changed, look up your own data.

i greally do not get why you lot keep lying to yourself when your own data contradicts your beliefs

To conflate arson with gun reforms is a lie!

Darwin was the first time in 23 years a prohibited weapon was reported to be used in a crime.

Geez... you're gettin onerous.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

To conflate arson with gun reforms is a lie!

Darwin was the first time in 23 years a prohibited weapon was reported to be used in a crime.

Geez... you're gettin onerous.

Indeed it is. 5 in 20 years is not one a year for a start and of the five incidents, three were incidental victims. 

It really illustrates the desperation of these types to validate gun culture. 

I seriously can't believe some still bleat the government might come and get me line. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Indeed it is. 5 in 20 years is not one a year for a start and of the five incidents, three were incidental victims. 

It really illustrates the desperation of these types to validate gun culture. 

I seriously can't believe some still bleat the government might come and get me line. 

This paper on the history of the Second Amendment is interesting.  It contends...

Quote

... that the original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect each individual's right to keep and bear arms, and to guarantee that individuals acting collectively could throw off the yokes of any oppressive government which might arise. Thus, the right envisioned was not only the right to be armed, but to be armed at a level equal to the government.

https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1956&context=vulr

Vandercoy traces this type of thinking back to Alfred the Great and through times when suffrage was available to only a small part of the population.

The takeaway is that the 2A defenders have already dropped the ball.  Surely, it's the ultimate tyranny to not make the retired Warthogs available to free citizens.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
On 8/25/2019 at 5:48 PM, psyche101 said:

Mate 

That crazy idea of your government turning on you

 

On 8/26/2019 at 7:42 PM, psyche101 said:

The paranoia that 2A breeds is unfounded. 

How many countries that have implemented gun control have been run over by dictator governments?

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It really illustrates the desperation of these types to validate gun culture. 

I seriously can't believe some still bleat the government might come and get me line. 

It's just a simple issue of distrust in governments and because of our written history, in the past they have tried to confiscate guns and ammunition from the American people, even as recently as New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. But in the beginning of our nation, it is the reason why our founding fathers put the 2A in our constitution, in case any future totalitarian tyrants try again. We tend to learn from our own past if not other nations, Psyche.

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

I don't even know if most Americans know about this or some have forgotten this little fact in our history.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
9 minutes ago, Gunn said:

It's just a simple issue of distrust in governments and because of our written history, in the past they have tried to confiscate guns and ammunition from the American people, even as recently as New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. But in the beginning of our nation, it is the reason why our founding fathers put the 2A in our constitution, in case any future totalitarian tyrants try again. We tend to learn from our own past if not other nations, Psyche.

But those totalitarian governments, would need to use a military drawn from your own population. You saw how ISIS went trying to survive with light weapons, how is an armed population going to prevail against heavy weapons, air strikes etc ? Resistance would be futile. It sounds heroic, but it is dumb chit, when you boil it down.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
6 minutes ago, Habitat said:

But those totalitarian governments, would need to use a military drawn from your own population. You saw how ISIS went trying to survive with light weapons, how is an armed population going to prevail against heavy weapons, air strikes etc ? Resistance would be futile. It sounds heroic, but it is dumb chit, when you boil it down.

Have you ever heard of guerilla warfare? Did you know, most of the time the Vietnamese brought our U.S. forces to a stand still in the jungle with the their guerilla tactics? It's one of the reasons we tried to rely on air superiority. And guns are just one fighting tool in the arsenal of a guerilla fighter, that give some advantage in small firefights.

Besides, the alternative is usually grim compared to fighting and making them work for it or until they get sick of it. Overwhelming odds are not an excuse to give up guns, history in other nations has proven otherwise, like the Afghanistans against the Soviet Union invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Gunn said:

Have you ever heard of guerilla warfare? Did you know, most of the time the Vietnamese brought our U.S. forces to a stand still in the jungle with the their guerilla tactics? It's one of the reasons we tried to rely on air superiority. And guns are just one fighting tool in the arsenal of a guerilla fighter, that give some advantage in small firefights.

Besides, the alternative is usually grim compared to fighting and making them work for it or until they get sick of it. Overwhelming odds are not an excuse to give up guns, history in other nations has proven otherwise, like the Afghanistans against the Soviet Union invasion.

In the end, it became a victory using heavy weapons, in 1975, prior to that, it was taking tremendous losses with no victory. And of course, significant supply of heavy weapons by the USSR, kept the North in the war. They didn't shoot down many jets with rifles.

Edited by Habitat
  • Like 1

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   1 member

    • Golden Duck