D
Duesenberg
Guest
First, NZ is HARDLY a safe place. As noted though, it’s a tiny country. Much smaller population that Los Angeles County alone. I can find several states in the US that are safer than NZ.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Just what is "common sense gun control?" How about a few examples?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Which are the states after than New Zealand?
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Thought so…
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
There’s a lot of myths about the wild west and the modern west in general. Both times were actually pretty safe, but have been tarnished by Hollywood films.
Anytime there is a massive movement of people for better or worse, you’re going to see an uptick in conflict. It’s unfortunate that so many deny it when it hurts their political or emotional interest.
Anytime there is a massive movement of people for better or worse, you’re going to see an uptick in conflict. It’s unfortunate that so many deny it when it hurts their political or emotional interest.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
What you wrote above quite aptly summarizes the problem with the gun control debate in this country.I don’t speak for any politicians. I know it’s easy for Democrats to score political points following a tragedy by calling for “common sense gun control” (whatever that means), just like it’s easy for Republicans to score political points by saying “Now is not the time to talk about it” or “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
…
People who “do not know” so much about firearms think that they “do know” when it comes to what makes for so-called common sense laws. No, I don’t mean you personally, but people in general.
Those who know the least about the reality of firearms are the ones who are the most vocal and forceful about imposing gun control laws. It is like someone who has never been to a farm but who wants to spend all day writing agriculture laws; or someone who’s never even seen an airplane but who wants to write laws about mandatory procedures for pilots.
Putting limits on either firearms or on ammunition is pointless. It does nothing more than cause hardship for legitimate gun owners.
For example, a typical box of 9mm ammunition contains 20 rounds. On the other hand, a typical box of .22 cal. ammunition contains 500 rounds—and is roughly the size of a pint of milk. So, when someone says “he went to the store and bought a thousand rounds of ammunition” well, if that’s 9mm it could be seen by some as “a lot” It sounds downright ominous. People say that there’s no reason for it. However if it’s .22 it just means 2 boxes (we say “2 bricks”). Maybe it was on sale? Back before His Imperious Majesty Barack the First took office it was not at all unusual for me to buy 2 or even 4 thousand rounds in a single trip. It was no big deal, because a brick cost $5. Why should someone who doesn’t know one end of a rifle from another (not you, but someone like Nancy P) get to decide for me how many rounds I can buy at one time? More than once (probably dozens of times over the years) in the summer when I volunteered as a Boy Scout Chaplain, I would stop at a store when I made my daily trip back to the parish for Mass, I would stop at the store and buy as much as 5,000 (yes, five thousand) rounds of .22 for the camp at one time. It was simply because I was already driving past the store. I truly resent the notion that someone who has never even held a .22 rifle thinks he knows more than I do whether or not I have some “need” to buy more than what he thinks should be some arbitrary limit.
And who keeps track of how much ammunition a person buys anyway? What if someone buys 100 rounds in one store, then 100 in another store down the street? A daily legal limit is pointless unless each and every sale gets reported to the government. When that happens, we have real government intrusion on people’s privacy. What comes next, we make shooters submit a form to the government every time we go to the range to report what’s been spent?
…to be continued…
F
FrDavid96
Guest
continuing…
Same with firearms. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to buy more than one firearm at a time. Some people like to have matching sets. 2 identical pistols to take to the range for practice or target. Maybe I see a pistol today in a store and they’re on sale and I’d like to buy one in a black finish and another in a tan finish. What purpose is served by preventing me from doing so?
As for background checks, most gun advocates have no objection to background checks for retail sales. No one wants criminals to be able to walk into a gun store and buy a firearm. But background checks on individual sales achieves nothing more than to harass legitimate gun owners. The bad guys are NOT (I promise you, NOT) going to comply with any laws requiring background checks for private transfers. The only people who will comply are exactly the ones who will already pass the background checks----others will ignore the law. So again, the law serves no good purpose, but only makes legitimate private transfers difficult, time-consuming, and costly. A private transfer can cost $100 or more; because the gun first gets transferred to the store (the Federal Firearms Licensee / FFL) as one transaction, then a second transaction to the buyer.
A waiting period. Why? What difference does it make? How many people actually buy a gun from a licensed dealer then use that gun the same day to commit a crime? Again, such laws only harass legitimate buyers. What about someone on vacation who finds a rare firearm but lives several days travel away? Why should he be prevented from making the purchase and taking it with him the same day? If it served any legitimate purpose it might be a legitimate law, but the plain truth of the matter is that it does not. Waiting periods accomplish no legitimate goals. They only make life difficult for the legitimate gun owner.
Same with firearms. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to buy more than one firearm at a time. Some people like to have matching sets. 2 identical pistols to take to the range for practice or target. Maybe I see a pistol today in a store and they’re on sale and I’d like to buy one in a black finish and another in a tan finish. What purpose is served by preventing me from doing so?
As for background checks, most gun advocates have no objection to background checks for retail sales. No one wants criminals to be able to walk into a gun store and buy a firearm. But background checks on individual sales achieves nothing more than to harass legitimate gun owners. The bad guys are NOT (I promise you, NOT) going to comply with any laws requiring background checks for private transfers. The only people who will comply are exactly the ones who will already pass the background checks----others will ignore the law. So again, the law serves no good purpose, but only makes legitimate private transfers difficult, time-consuming, and costly. A private transfer can cost $100 or more; because the gun first gets transferred to the store (the Federal Firearms Licensee / FFL) as one transaction, then a second transaction to the buyer.
A waiting period. Why? What difference does it make? How many people actually buy a gun from a licensed dealer then use that gun the same day to commit a crime? Again, such laws only harass legitimate buyers. What about someone on vacation who finds a rare firearm but lives several days travel away? Why should he be prevented from making the purchase and taking it with him the same day? If it served any legitimate purpose it might be a legitimate law, but the plain truth of the matter is that it does not. Waiting periods accomplish no legitimate goals. They only make life difficult for the legitimate gun owner.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
You make some good arguments, Father. I know you said you didn’t mean me personally, but I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know one end of a rifle from another. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: Your posts are a reminder to me of how much I don’t know about the topic. When tragedy strikes, people start looking to pass laws because it makes us feel like we are taking concrete steps towards solving the problem. But those steps aren’t always the right ones to take. We need a culture with better formed consciences, ultimately.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
What are you even asking?Which are the states after than New Zealand?
D
Duesenberg
Guest
So much is cultural…here’s a lot of myths about the wild west and the modern west in general. Both times were actually pretty safe, but have been tarnished by Hollywood films.
Anytime there is a massive movement of people for better or worse, you’re going to see an uptick in conflict. It’s unfortunate that so many deny it when it hurts their political or emotional interest.
Chicago has VERY tight gun control laws and the South Side is a shooting gallery. So is much of the rest of the city. Yet Houston Texas is every bit as big, it has very few gun control laws, and it has far less gun-related violent crime.
Go figure.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
What bothers me is that gun-control advocates throw around rhetorical questions like “how many guns does one person need?” or “how much ammunition does one person need?” or “what’s wrong with waiting periods?” but they don’t actually take the time to learn the answers to those questions. Frankly, they don’t care what the answers might be.
They want more gun control. Whatever they can get, they want it. They have no interest (I say none whatsoever) in discerning whether or not any particular law makes sense, whether or not it will work, whether or not it can be enforced, and whether or not it imposes a hardship on legitimate gun owners. If it’s gun control, they want it.
Take for example the waiting period. The original justification behind such laws was that a person would apply to buy a gun, and the local law enforcement (say County Sheriff) would have a week or 10 days to investigate that person to see if he was a criminal and should not be allowed to purchase. Seems to make sense, right?
But then let’s move on. For decades now (nearly 30 years actually), we’ve had the NICS system run by the FBI. The National Instant Checks System. That allows a gun dealer to know (within a few minutes) that the FBI, state and local law enforcement all agree that this person is not prohibited by law from owning a firearm.
So now, why do some jurisdictions still have waiting periods? The reason for the wait no longer exists. A check that used to take days (or at least they claimed it could take days) is now done instantly. There is no justification for these wait periods, but some states and some local jurisdictions keep them anyway. Why? Not because they do any good, but because they intimidate and harass legitimate gun owners. Their hope is that the potential gun owner will find the process so burdensome, so troubling, so intrusive, and so expensive, that he will simply give-up on owning a gun.
They want more gun control. Whatever they can get, they want it. They have no interest (I say none whatsoever) in discerning whether or not any particular law makes sense, whether or not it will work, whether or not it can be enforced, and whether or not it imposes a hardship on legitimate gun owners. If it’s gun control, they want it.
Take for example the waiting period. The original justification behind such laws was that a person would apply to buy a gun, and the local law enforcement (say County Sheriff) would have a week or 10 days to investigate that person to see if he was a criminal and should not be allowed to purchase. Seems to make sense, right?
But then let’s move on. For decades now (nearly 30 years actually), we’ve had the NICS system run by the FBI. The National Instant Checks System. That allows a gun dealer to know (within a few minutes) that the FBI, state and local law enforcement all agree that this person is not prohibited by law from owning a firearm.
So now, why do some jurisdictions still have waiting periods? The reason for the wait no longer exists. A check that used to take days (or at least they claimed it could take days) is now done instantly. There is no justification for these wait periods, but some states and some local jurisdictions keep them anyway. Why? Not because they do any good, but because they intimidate and harass legitimate gun owners. Their hope is that the potential gun owner will find the process so burdensome, so troubling, so intrusive, and so expensive, that he will simply give-up on owning a gun.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
New Zealand also recognizes the Queen of England as its monarch.I live in New Zealand. We are very safe from gun crime. Google us.
Keep your gun control laws and keep your Queen.
We have our freedom and we’re keeping it, thank you very much.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Just WHAT is “common sense gun control”?
.
"Common sense gun control" is a phony phrase (meant to fool citizens), that for all practical purposes is a politically correct description to incrementally strip free law-abiding citizens of all their gun rights.
I’ve been hearing the phrase “common sense gun control” used by liberal politicians my whole life. (And I am fairly old)
They have plastered layer after layer of new gun regulations, laws, rules, etc. my whole life.
Then after they get what they want, they immediately politically pounce upon the next societal tragedy to call yet again for . . . (you guessed it) . . . “Common sense gun control”.
Again. “Common sense gun control” = Incrementally taking away all your firearms AND your rights in that area too.
Progressives laugh and ridicule when you point this fact out. But remember, these guys and their phony assurances are nowhere to be found when gun-grabbing behavior HAS ALREADY OCCURRED.
These are not trustworthy people in this area.
(The phony assurances are meant to manipulate you, and the laughing and ridicule is meant to intimidate you. Don’t fall for these dishonest and bully tactics.)
God bless.
Cathoholic
Katrina ILLEGAL Gun Grab
.
NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina
.
"Common sense gun control" is a phony phrase (meant to fool citizens), that for all practical purposes is a politically correct description to incrementally strip free law-abiding citizens of all their gun rights.
I’ve been hearing the phrase “common sense gun control” used by liberal politicians my whole life. (And I am fairly old)
They have plastered layer after layer of new gun regulations, laws, rules, etc. my whole life.
Then after they get what they want, they immediately politically pounce upon the next societal tragedy to call yet again for . . . (you guessed it) . . . “Common sense gun control”.
Again. “Common sense gun control” = Incrementally taking away all your firearms AND your rights in that area too.
Progressives laugh and ridicule when you point this fact out. But remember, these guys and their phony assurances are nowhere to be found when gun-grabbing behavior HAS ALREADY OCCURRED.
These are not trustworthy people in this area.
(The phony assurances are meant to manipulate you, and the laughing and ridicule is meant to intimidate you. Don’t fall for these dishonest and bully tactics.)
God bless.
Cathoholic
Katrina ILLEGAL Gun Grab
.
NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina
F
FiveLinden
Guest
I meant safer. Don’t know how to edit posts.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Here’s 10:I meant safer. Don’t know how to edit posts.
Utah, Vermont, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa, Idaho, Colorado and Oregon.
All of these states (other than OR) have very little gun control yet they are all safer than NZ.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Because it’s not – your information is terribly dated. The BATFE under Eric Holder/Barack Obama was misused. The US now has a different President and Atty General. Apples and oranges.I’ve not researched it recently but quickly found this reference that supports what I said. There has also been much coverage on how prosecutors drop the gun charges in their plea bargaining.
Justice Department rarely prosecutes ‘straw buyers,’ ATF nominee Todd Jones saysCode:washingtontimes.com
U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones, President Obama’s choice to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told a Senate committee on Tuesday the arrest of “straw buyers” — those who falsely buy guns for others, mostly criminals — was a…
Why do you imagine what I said wasn’t true?
Google “fast and furious guns” if you want an eyeful of Holder and Obama and their “gun control” antics.
Last edited:
F
FiveLinden
Guest
On what basis do you say that?
T
Theo520
Guest
So you have no source that indicates we have been enforcing laws on strawman purchases. Please stop deflecting on the valid point I made. Fast and Furious was about targeting the cartels.Because it’s not – your information is terribly dated. The BATFE under Eric Holder/Barack Obama was misused. The US now has a different President and Atty General. Apples and oranges.
Google “fast and furious guns” if you want an eyeful of Holder and Obama and their “gun control” antics.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
You made no “valid point.” Please back-up your comments with facts in the future when it comes to gun control.Please stop deflecting on the valid point I made. Fast and Furious was about targeting the cartels.
T
Theo520
Guest
I provided you with an article link. STOP AVOIDING the obvious supported point I made.You made no “valid point.” Please back-up your comments with facts in the future when it comes to gun control.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Umm- in her British role she is the Queen of the United Kingdom, not England. In her New Zealand role she is the Queen of New Zealand. She has no executive power in either nation. Is there any form of firearm or explosive you feel could be restricted without infringing your freedom wrongly? A tank? An ICBM? How do you decide where to draw the line?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.