New Zealanders hand in 50,000 guns after 'assault weapon' ban

[upant]

the estimate is only 1/3 of the guns were turned in, which means, owners of the other 2/3 are non-compliant.

they really don’t know because they don’t have verifiable numbers but taking 50k guns off the street, leaves a lot of guns (125,000) in the hands of criminals.

Tentative estimates put the total number of guns in New Zealand at about 1.5 million and the number of weapons that are now banned at up to 175,000. (PBS)

New Zealanders hand in 50,000 guns after 'assault weapon' ban | WND | by Around the Web

 

[Hume]

Great step in the right direction, New Zealand!

Since the mechanization of warfare, the proliferation of personal arms just provides for criminals. After all, a few men with AR15s are no threat at all to a government with tanks, helicopters and all the other trappings of modern warfare.

To stand ANY chance, would-be rebels/freedom-fighters require foreign intervention. As the US is a nuclear state, that will never come.

Ban them all.

 

[humbleseeker]

That maybe, but I’d rather go down fighting than cower in subserviency to an oppressor.

 

[Hume]

By all means, fight. Not having a gun doesn’t make you a subservient coward.

 

[niceatheist]

And neither does a gun suddenly make you a defender of liberty

 

[humbleseeker]

Well, if I’m going to show up to a gun fight, I know what I’ll be bringing. Y’all can bring poster boards and markers if you want. As futile as the fight may be, I will not willingly turn over a means of protection to any entity that can do me, or my family, harm.

 

[niceatheist]

And how often is it that you end up in gunfights?

 

[humbleseeker]

Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

 

[niceatheist]

So you haven’t actually been in a gunfight.

 

[humbleseeker]

No. Never had a house fire either but I keep an insurance policy just the same.

 

[niceatheist]

Still seems like a bit of bravado

 

[humbleseeker]

No, I’m just a responsible gun owner and outdoorsman. I know exactly the carnage and destruction a bullet can cause so I don’t take the responsibility of using one lightly. I pray that I never have to use one for protection under any circumstances.

And I know my prayers are heard because I’m a republican. God’s on my side

 

[upant]

Great step in the right direction, New Zealand!

disarming the law-abiding is going in the right direction? I want to know how they will get the 125,000 out of the hands of the criminals.

After all, a few men with AR15s are no threat at all to a government with tanks, helicopters and all the other trappings of modern warfare.

you say this as the Taliban still exists after decades of fighting the superpowers with unequal force. can you explain to me how this is supposed to work and why it hasn’t?

Still seems like a bit of bravado

self-defense is a God-given right, learning to use the weapon your opponent will most-likely bring is just common sense. waiting for the cops to show-up after-the-fact can be fatal.

And how often is it that you end up in gunfights?

some cops never use their weapons in their entire career, what’s your point? it is a matter of luck, being lucky isn’t a reason to be unprepared.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

After all, a few men with AR15s are no threat at all to a government with tanks, helicopters and all the other trappings of modern warfare.

you say this as the Taliban still exists after decades of fighting the superpowers with unequal force. can you explain to me how this is supposed to work and why it hasn’t?

The Taliban actually proves my point.

Be perfectly clear - the Taliban does not continue to exist by force of arms. They continue to exist because they hide.

Wherever they openly sail their flag in Afghanistan they are annihilated.

Annihilated.

If someone tells me that the Russians (and the Americans, eventually) left Afghanistan because the Taliban beat them in a contest of arms, my incredulous laughter will be heard for miles.

 

[upant]

Be perfectly clear - the Taliban does not continue to exist by force of arms. They continue to exist because they hide.

it is called guerrilla warfare, it isn’t new

it is why a small group can defeat a bigger one.

it puts holes in your point.

If someone tells me that the Russians (and the Americans, eventually) left Afghanistan because the Taliban beat them in a contest of arms, my incredulous laughter will be heard for miles.

if they still control the area, they won. it doesn’t matter how they won. how do you figure differently?

 

[Hume]

it is called guerrilla warfare, it isn’t new

it is why a small group can defeat a bigger one.

it puts holes in your point.

They “defeat” the foe by outlasting it. Not by defeating it with arms.

A vital resource guerillas need in order to outlast the foe is access to food, thus they “live off the land” and any foodstuffs they obtain from sympathetic foreign powers.

As 1. the American population has grown beyond subsisting off the local land and 2. the American government is a nuclear power, these are not options for you.

if they still control the area, they won. it doesn’t matter how they won. how do you figure differently?

My point concerns what they need to win. As it’s not a contest of arms, the gun debate isn’t particularly relevant.

 

[JonNC]

And neither does a gun suddenly make you a defender of liberty

But a government that disarms its citizens by force of arms is a destroyer of liberty, as well as a stunning example of hypocrisy.

 

[JonNC]

Be perfectly clear - the Taliban does not continue to exist by force of arms. They continue to exist because they hide.

You don’t think that if they didn’t have arms they would have been hunted down and annihilated by now?

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Be perfectly clear - the Taliban does not continue to exist by force of arms. They continue to exist because they hide.

You don’t think that if they didn’t have arms they would have been hunted down and annihilated by now?

Do you think that they’ve successfully fought off Americans any time they’ve been openly found?

As in, they militarily defended territory?

 

[upant]

My point concerns what they need to win. As it’s not a contest of arms, the gun debate isn’t particularly relevant

that is the point, they won with small arms used effectively in guerrilla warfare.

They “defeat” the foe by outlasting it. Not by defeating it with arms.

they would have been stupid to try,

As 1. the American population has grown beyond subsisting off the local land and

this country has a lot of room to support a group going off-grid. there is more to the country than the cities. the borders are open and other powers would assist a real effort. the Chinese have already been caught shipping gun parts to the US for illegal purposes. why would that stop? the Chinese even sold gear to the US military through a local vendor.

1. the American government is a nuclear power, these are not options for you.

and again the taliban survived against 2 superpowers. who did the powers nuke?