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

[upant]

the real reason for gun control is control of the poor,

No, it’s to reduce gun violence.

if you take away the ability of people to properly defend themselves, you will be able to control them. when you take it from just one group you intend to control that group. it has been used this way before and is being pushed again for the same reason.

The same argument is used in limiting nuclear proliferation. The less common they are, the lower the chance of some hyper-zealous moron actually detonating one.

control the nukes, control the countries that don’t have them.

The credo of absolutely, positively ANY man or woman who has fully abandoned reason.

no, the credo of the person who is against an argument base on popularity not on truth.

Traditionally it’s the leftists who want to proliferate speech, whether you like it or not.

was is the correct word, they aren’t anymore. the majority of the leftist colleges are limiting speech for conservatives.

 

[Hume]

if you take away the ability of people to properly defend themselves…

People can defend themselves just fine with rifles whose actions are pump, lever or bolt style.

control the nukes, control the countries that don’t have them.

And improve the probability that we keeping “human-ing” for a bit longer.

The credo of absolutely, positively ANY man or woman who has fully abandoned reason.

no, the credo of the person who is against an argument base on popularity not on truth.

Q.E.D.

was is the correct word, they aren’t anymore.

I’m a leftist and I want everyone to have access to the podium. Ex-Panthers, KKK members, Liberals, Conservatives, Blues, Greens, etc.

Put down the broad brush.

 

[upant]

People can defend themselves just fine with rifles whose actions are pump, lever or bolt style.

so you are for open carry,

And improve the probability that we keeping “human-ing” for a bit longer.

suppress the little country for their own good, but don’t let them step out of line.

you forgot about china and russia, they have a different opinion, world control

Put down the broad brush.

unfortunately, the broad brush fits, most of the public colleges are liberal

I’m a leftist and I want everyone to have access to the podium. Ex-Panthers, KKK members, Liberals, Conservatives, Blues, Greens, etc.

you are in the minority among the lefist.

 

[JonNC]

That’s just a fear-fantasy surfacing.

No it isn’t. It’s just easier than going after 200 million semiautomatic firearms. I’m not “fearful” of either.

It’s taking tax dollars and helping impoverished women who are pregnant and don’t want to be

You don’t execute a child for that purpose. And you don’t make others pay for it. It is legal. Get the father to pay for it. Get wealthy people who believe it is fine to pay for it.

But let’s not get too off topic, even if only the diehard ideologues are left that this point.

 

[JonNC]

No, it’s to reduce gun violence.

If it were for this purpose, the target would be the violent, not the law abiding.

Traditionally it’s the leftists who want to proliferate speech, whether you like it or not. But as I said earlier, there are zealous idiots in all camps.

There is a significant difference between liberals who promote free speech and progressives who do not. Liberals believe in individual rights. Progressives believe in government power.

 

[Hume]

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one John. As you’ve correctly identified that the confiscation of all the firearms in the United States would be a Herculean effort that, frankly, we’re Beyond doing, I don’t think that’s quite the same for ending the vote.

There’s simply too many moving Parts involved and the executive has absolutely nothing to do with any of them.

If he were to get up and say at a moment’s notice that I’m canceling the vote, the response of every election official in the United States would be, approximately, you’re an idiot.

Again there’s simply no mechanism available for one would be despot to stop the vote in the United States. It’s just not possible.

 

[Hume]

Once again, if we can’t separate the would be criminal in the common citizen before the fact, the target must be what they used to commit these murders.

In this case that would be semi-automatic firearms. Given enough time, we would see the success with those that we see with automatics. Virtually no crime is committed with them.

It stands as an indubitable fact that the harder something is to do, the less frequently it will be done.

Apologies for my lack of direct reference. On my phone away from the house or office.

 

[JonNC]

I agree on both points. Neither confiscation of arms nor canceling elections is something that can happen.

 

[Hume]

Excellent. Glad to see we agree on something

 

[JonNC]

Once again, if we can’t separate the would be criminal in the common citizen before the fact, the target must be what they used to commit these murders.

I think, to a great degree, we can. While I believe some “red flag “ laws that confiscate arms prior to due process to be an egregious violation of the constitution, laws can be constructed to adjudicate people like the Parkland, Florida and Sulphur Springs, Texas shooters without violating due process rights.

In this case that would be semi-automatic firearms. Given enough time, we would see the success with those that we see with automatics. Virtually no crime is committed with them.

There already is very little crime with semiautomatic rifles. And the crime with semiautomatic handguns is typically with illegally acquired or possessed firearms.
Additionally, there were roughly 150,000 automatic weapons at the time of National Firearms Act. That act specifically targeted the types of arms used, not by the law abiding citizen, but organized crime and bootleggers during Prohibition. It did not affect the law abiding citizen to any great degree.
There are roughly 200,000,000 semiautomatic firearms in civilian hands today. While less than 25 AR-15s have been used in mass shooters, greater than 99.999% of the 10+ million have never been used in crimes.
So, compared to automatic weapons in the 30’s, even AR-15’s are orders of magnitude more numerous.
If the object is to raise prices through restricting supply, that is intentionally discriminatory against lower income citizens, and since a disproportionate number of this group is minority, it also is discriminatory against minorities.

It stands as an indubitable fact that the harder something is to do, the less frequently it will be done

We could eliminate libel by eliminating free press, too, but to target the law abiding citizen’s rights is not the right way to solve the problem.

 

[Hume]

Again, I just don’t see how one would separate someone with villainous intent from accessing firearms if they don’t presently have any felony convictions against them. And even then, you just drive him to the secondary market. While Bud’s Gun Shop does background checks, Steve in Lexington, KY does not. He wouldn’t know how to, most likely.

There already is very little crime with semiautomatic rifles.

Sure, and virtually no crime with automatics. But the fact that a single man can use these things to kill 60 and injure 400 (a la Vegas) is simply too much destructive capacity to keep in the hands of the common citizenry. A mad-man can simply cause too much harm to the everyday person while being unable to do virtually any harm to a mechanized government.

And now how many school districts are paying another salary and equipment fees for a man to walk around and attempt to protect kids from this kind of threat (despite obviously being unable to do so, a la Parkland)?

The cost of cheap and easily available semiautomatics outweighs the benefits, unlike, say, the cost vs. benefit of a free press.

 

[JonNC]

Again, I just don’t see how one would separate someone with villainous intent from accessing firearms if they don’t presently have any felony convictions against them. And even then, you just drive him to the secondary market. While Bud’s Gun Shop does background checks, Steve in Lexington, KY does not. He wouldn’t know how to , most likely.

If you want to make a case for expanding NICS, make the case, but if law enforcement doesn’t apply the law, like the Parkland shooter, or doesn’t report as required, as in the Sulphuric Springs case with the Air Force, that isn’t encouraging to law abiding citizens.

Sure, and virtually no crime with automatics. But the fact that a single man can use these things to kill 60 and injure 400 (a la Vegas) is simply too much destructive capacity to keep in the hands of the common citizenry. A mad-man can simply cause too much harm to the everyday person while being unable to do virtually any harm to a mechanized government.

Hen you have to include government in the ban. Their weapons are equally capable of the same carnage. And history has shown that it is governments who commit most large scale murders of civilians.

And now how many school districts are paying another salary and equipment fees for a man to walk around and attempt to protect kids from this kind of threat (despite obviously being unable to do so, a la Parkland)?

You mean unwilling to do so, in the Parkland case. There are lots of teachers and administrators willing to protect the kids.

 

[Hume]

If you want to make a case for expanding NICS…

They won’t do anything that’s not already been done.

They don’t have the ability to identify a possible would-be shooter before the fact. Moreover, in order for policing to even work, you’d have to make carrying a gun a searchable offense so law enforcement could ascertain whether a carried firearm was “illegal” or not, since you can’t tell by looking.
Something, I’m sure, we’d both resist as that would essentially be a police-state.

Using economics with a soft ban is the only real answer.

Hen you have to include government in the ban.

No I don’t. It’s already pretty hard to get a government issued firearm that you can carry domestically off-base.

You mean unwilling to do so, in the Parkland case. There are lots of teachers and administrators willing to protect the kids.

Sure. There are plenty that are willing to beat their chests toward the imaginary tiger.

The theory breaks down terribly when that tiger actually shows up, as Parkland clearly demonstrated.
The poor fool was worried about his own well-being. How unreasonable of him, right?

 

[JonNC]

They won’t do anything that’s not already been done.

What about the so-called gun-show loophole?

They don’t have the ability to identify a possible would-be shooter before the fact.

That’s not atypical of all crime. But in the two cases, and in many others, there are warning signs.

Moreover, in order for policing to even work, you’d have to make carrying a gun a searchable offense so law enforcement could ascertain whether a carried firearm was “illegal” or not, since you can’t tell by looking.

Stop, ask, frisk worked in NYC.

Using economics with a soft ban is the only real answer.

Again, discriminatory against class and minorities.

No I don’t. It’s already pretty hard to get a government issued firearm that you can carry domestically off-base.

So, it’s okay for government, but not for civilians, despite the fact that governments murder exponentially more civilians. I’m not sure I’m good with that.

Sure. There are plenty that are willing to beat their chests toward the imaginary tiger.

The theory breaks down terribly when that tiger actually shows up, as Parkland clearly demonstrated.
The poor fool was worried about his own well-being. How unreasonable of him, right?

Yes, it was unreasonable. First responders regularly run toward the problem. But again, you’re making the case for civilian self defense