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

[niceatheist]

Who knows? The Confederacy thought they’d win a few quick victories, Britain would back them and the war would come to a swift conclusion

 

[JonNC]

Who knows? The Confederacy thought they’d win a few quick victories, Britain would back them and the war would come to a swift conclusion

I’ll leave you to ponder this irrelevancy.

 

[niceatheist]

What I’m saying is the Second Amendment was rendered impotent as a defense against tyranny by the middle of the 19th century. Technology had outpaced the idea that a citizen militia could overthrow the government, and the Union proved that.

 

[JonNC]

What I’m saying is the Second Amendment was rendered impotent as a defense against tyranny by the middle of the 19th century.

I didn’t read that in the constitution. Where does it say that?

Technology had outpaced the idea that a citizen militia could overthrow the government, and the Union proved that.

It sounds like this idea is that technology outpaced individual rights.

Sorry, I’m not buying that canard.

 

[Hume]

I’m not interested in banning cars and pools because they didn’t exist and don’t continue to develop with the explicit purpose of killing people.

Every innovation in the history of firearms came about so someone could do a better job racking up a kill count.

As Homer wrote, the blade itself incites to violence.

 

[Hume]

The whole “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is an irrelevant absurdity.

In that same vein, bombs don’t kill people, chemical weapons dont kill people, anti-personnel mines don’t kill people. People kill people using those means.

The nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn’t kill anyone, the bombardiers did.

 

[Cruciferi]

the idea that a citizen militia could overthrow the government, and the Union proved that.

The Confederacy wanted to secede. I’m pretty sure they understood that it would be impossible to overthrow the entire government.

Today, we claim a Union victory. But the South got some of what they wanted too. For example, neither Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis were executed. Also, the Southern Aristocracy was able to continue slavery under the guise of sharecropping.

So, maybe you can’t overthrow the government but you can certainly bring them back to the table for negotiations. Much like the Taliban…

 

[JonNC]

m not interested in banning cars and pools because they didn’t exist and don’t continue to develop with the explicit purpose of killing people.

And neither are firearms. Firearms are, more times than not, used defensively.

Every innovation in the history of firearms came about so someone could do a better job racking up a kill count.

Or better defend themselves. Further, the vast majority of homicides using firearms are committed using illegal handguns, a technology that isn’t new or high tech.
Additionally, there are over 300 million firearms in hands of law abiding citizens. The percent of those firearms used to “rack up kill count” far less than 1%.

 

[Hume]

And neither are firearms. Firearms are, more times than not, used defensively.

You must not have read my original statement as your reply doesn’t make sense. I’ll repost;

I’m not interested in banning cars and pools because they didn’t exist and don’t continue to develop with the explicit purpose of killing people.

What this means is that cars and pools didn’t come about and continue to improve for the sake of killing people.

Not true for firearms. They continue to develop in a continual and profitable attempt to answer the perpetual, diabolical question of “how can I better and faster kill people?”

The bolt in my brother’s .270 hunting rifle is a big dual lug double action bolt pioneered by Wilhelm Mauser in the late 19th century to forward the ambition of Imperial Germany. My brother uses it to kill deer. The system was originally developed to kill people, as are practically all major developments in firearms.

Or better defend themselves.

The threat of being assaulted with a deadly weapon is in a similar probability class as being mauled by a bear, attacked by a shark or being struck by a bolt of lightening.

Have you also, then, invested in bear mace, shark repellent and some sort of lightening deterrence system?

Further, the vast majority of homicides using firearms are committed using illegal handguns, a technology that isn’t new or high tech.

Oh, I’m with you there. I’m all for the categorial ban of all handguns. Their limited effective range grants them virtually no real sporting purpose.

As far as banning rifles, I’m semi-comfortable with single-shot sporting rifles. Bolts, pumps, levers. Something that doesn’t auto-load with trigger pull.

Additionally, there are over 300 million firearms in hands of law abiding citizens. The percent of those firearms used to “rack up kill count” far less than 1%.

It’s this over-saturation that makes a firearm just so darn easy to obtain for any criminal in America that wants one.

 

[JonNC]

u must not have read my original statement as your reply doesn’t make sense. I’ll repost;

I understood. You posting it again just shows you’re mistaken again.

Not true for firearms. They continue to develop in a continual and profitable attempt to answer the perpetual, diabolical question of “how can I better and faster kill people?”

Still wrong. If this were right, the vast majority of firearms would be used to kill people. This is only true with government held arms. They’re not when held by law abiding civilians. They are used primarily defensively.

The threat of being assaulted with a deadly weapon is in a similar probability class as being mauled by a bear, attacked by a shark or being struck by a bolt of lightening.

My house is grounded, sharks don’t attack where I live, my dog would scare off a bear.

It’s this over-saturation that makes a firearm just so darn easy to obtain for any criminal in America that wants one.

How many tv networks are over saturation? How many microphones? How many places of worship? Individual rights are not measured that way.
Criminals will acquire firearms illegally. Target them.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I hear horror stories of children bringing guns to school because the parents couldn’t be bothered to safeguard the gun.

During a birthday celebration at a Chucky Cheese beside a mall this weekend a man discharged a gun at another man that was dating his ex-girlfriend. The week prior inside the mall two kids had a disagreement about shoes so one pulled out a gun and shot the other kid.

Unfortunately it feels that introducing guns to non-lethal situations is becoming more common.

 

[Hume]

I understood. You posting it again just shows you’re mistaken again.
…
Still wrong. If this were right, the vast majority of firearms would be used to kill people.

Last shot and then I’m done (no pun intended).

Every major firearms innovation was developed for military purposes. Smokeless powder so the foe could see your position less well. Manual actions with internal magazines so we could shoot the foe quicker. Semi automatics with detachable magazines so we could do the above even faster. Automatics with belt fed actions for the same reason.

These were marketed to governments for use in their armed services. For killing people.

That’s the best I can do.

How many tv networks are over saturation? How many microphones? How many places of worship? Individual rights are not measured that way.
Criminals will acquire firearms illegally. Target them.

That’s exactly what were trying to do - target the criminals. Since they don’t abide by the law (apropos, they are criminals), we must use laws they can’t dodge - the laws of economics.

Once banned and after a few buy-back cycles, your common thug simply couldn’t afford the black market price of a banned firearm. Those that could would be much more choosy about when they wanted to use them and thus risk the heat of federal law enforcement.

The end result would look something like Japan. Do the Yakuza there have all manner of illegal firearms? I’m reasonably certain they do!

But how often do they use them? Japan is one of the safest places on the planet when it comes to gun crime.

 

[JonNC]

Last shot and then I’m done (no pun intended).

Every major firearms innovation was developed for military purposes.

Then your complaint is against government arms. Are you advocating for disarming governments? If so, I’m with you. The greatest threat to civilians is always government. Governments killed tens of millions of their own civilians in the 20th century. Hitler killed about 7 million, and he was no where near Stalin and Mao.

That’s exactly what were trying to do - target the criminals.

It isn’t targeting criminals when laws are targeting the law abiding. I will agree with any law that targets criminals, doesn’t violate constitutional rights, and doesn’t interfere with the law abiding.

Once banned and after a few buy-back cycles, your common thug simply couldn’t afford the black market price of a banned firearm.

Once banned means the intended target is the law abiding. “Buy backs” are a lie in numerous ways. Here’s two.

1. government didn’t once own it in order to buy it back.
2. the buying and selling of property is only legitimate if both parties agree to the price and sale. If the government wants to buy my .22 handgun, the asking price is $23.5 million.

But how often do they use them? Japan is one of the safest places on the planet when it comes to gun crime.

When suicide is removed from the statistics, the US is very safe. When one excludes certain zip codes, it is one of the safest, and virtually all of those zip codes boats the most authoritarian gun laws.

 

[Hume]

Then your complaint is against government arms.

Nope. I’m again civilians using their substantial and militarily developed firepower to blast away kids at schools and fun-seekers at concerts and night clubs.

Now, I’m a little more comfortable with single-shot actions like pumps, levers and bolts.

It isn’t targeting criminals when laws are targeting the law abiding.

It is, though.

What you may need to accept is that there’s no way to make these tools designed for killing people readily available to you but not the would-be school shooter.

Once banned means the intended target is the law abiding. “Buy backs” are a lie in numerous ways. Here’s two.

1. government didn’t once own it in order to buy it back.
2. the buying and selling of property is only legitimate if both parties agree to the price and sale. If the government wants to buy my .22 handgun, the asking price is $23.5 million.

1. They’re just buying it back from the owner. Your objection here is purely semantics. Not particularly meaningful, in truth.
2. Then don’t turn it in. Buy backs never catch all of them - and we’re never going to. You just can’t openly leave your house with it.

When suicide is removed from the statistics, the US is very safe.

Whether you like it or not, they count. Even if you don’t believe it, the harder it is for someone to kill themselves in a moment of acute despair, the less likely they are to successfully do so.

When one excludes certain zip codes…

Sure, when we cherry pick we can make anything look like anything we want.

 

[JonNC]

Nope. I’m again civilians using their substantial and militarily developed firepower to blast away kids at schools and fun-seekers at concerts and night clubs.

So governments killing tens of millions is okay, but less than 20 out of 10 million AR-15s used illegally means all law abiding civilians should have to give up their firearms.
I’m all for targeting murderers and criminals, but government isn’t even able to keep inner city kids from getting illegal guns. To insist that law abiding citizens give up their arms is egregious.

What you may need to accept is that there’s no way to make these tools designed for killing people readily available to you but not the would-be school shooter.

I guess we’ll have to figure it out. Confiscating the rights of the law abiding is off the table.

They’re just buying it back from the owner. Your objection here is purely semantics. Not particularly meaningful, in truth.

No. My objection is to the fascistic notion that all property really belongs to the state, and the state can confiscate it by “buying it back” at the point of a gun.

Then don’t turn it in. Buy backs never catch all of them - and we’re never going to. You just can’t openly leave your house with it.

Even you use the term “turn it in”. Even you recognize that “buy back” is a euphemism for confiscation at the point of a government gun.

Sure, when we cherry pick we can make anything look like anything we want.

lol. You accuse me of cherry picking, but you think 100 million law abiding citizens should be required to give up their rights and property.

 

[Hume]

I certainly appreciate your passionate reply. I’ll try to cut to the main points as these are getting long-

I’m all for targeting murderers and criminals, but government isn’t even able to keep inner city kids from getting illegal guns. To insist that law abiding citizens give up their arms is egregious.

As the laws so far haven’t stopped the problem, we should try new ones. This is, of course, assuming that you’re like the rest of us and aren’t willing to call stacks of dead kids and festival goers a sufficient price to pay for the right to keep something that does nothing anymore to protect you from government tyranny.

No. My objection is to the fascistic notion that all property really belongs to the state, and the state can confiscate it by “buying it back” at the point of a gun.

This is a little far fetched as no one is making that argument. The state can do nothing more than ban their further sale and rely on compensating for annonimously turning in those weapons that are out there (since you don’t like the term “buy-back”).

I think a buy back center in south Chicago will fill trucks in the weeks before Christmas.

lol. You accuse me of cherry picking, but you think 100 million law abiding citizens should be required to give up their rights and property.

Buy backs are not forced programs. No frightening “jack-booted government thugs” (to quote someone I’ve read) are going to knock down anyone’s door. Buy backs are voluntary. You voluntarily go in, turn in the firearm for a fixed price and receive cash. No personal info collected.

---

I’m just not willing to passively promote the continued proliferation of designed human-death-machines (like AR15s and Glock handguns). The emotional security it grants me against vague, statistically insignificant threats isn’t worth the stacks of dead innocents produced when other ideological zealots and mentally disturbed folks get a hold of them.

Apparently, you disagree. Which is unfortunate.

For now, I surrender the floor as I don’t see much more rational discourse to be had at this time. Had fun chatting!

 

[upant]

So which is it?

both, it is not an either-or situation

Fact is, the vast majority would go hungry mere weeks after your rebellion launched and the federal government stopped interstate commerce to the Walmarts and other mass food vendors in your area.

nonsense, you think they would starve the non-combatant to stop the combatant? all this would do is increase support for the rebellion. if 13 million rebelled it would be hard for an army of 1.3 million to put down that many people. the US isn’t going to nuke its own cities or send tanks down Main Street. the thought is ludicrous. 13 million wouldn’t be foraging,

The point there was that the foreign help you desperately need much more than your own personal arms won’t show up under threat of nuclear war.

do you think the US would start a nuclear war with Russia and China? you can bet both would support the rebels. They wouldn’t do it openly but if they had a chance to diminish the power of the US they would do everything they can. China is already sending illegal gun parts and drugs to the US. the supply line already exists.

Your AR15 is no match at all for an Abrams tank, Apache gunship or F35 stealth jet fighter.

tanks, etc. are useless in a guerrilla war, too much collateral damage that would grow the rebellion.

Congratulations again to the people of New Zealand and their decision to destroy weapons that do nothing to keep them “free” but do plenty to empower those who wish to harm us. They’ve shown themselves paragons of reason and enemies of superstition on a national level.

NZ doesn’t have a second amendment, they just took tools away from the law-abiding and left 125,000 in criminal hands.

one mass killing doesn’t make a trend, they didn’t have an issue before which proves guns aren’t the issue. it is the individual and these individuals still have a lot of choices available. you can do as much damage with several revolvers. they still have almost 1.5 mil plus guns on the street. you don’t see the real picture because you don’t understand the tool.

 

[upant]

Jon, your vote and your exercised freedom of speech will do much, MUCH more to prevent government tyranny than anything you could ever stick in a gun safe.

nonsense, these can be taken away easier than 300 million guns. in fact, they will be some of the first rights removed. the left is already trying to limit free speech now, claiming certain speech isn’t protected.

Because America is the gold standard to which all other countries are compared…

it seems that way in Hong Kong, they honor our flag more than the leftist of this country.

As as an added benefit, no one can accidentally or deliberately kill themselves or innocent people with these things either - as was correctly pointed out by the other poster. Thanks leaf!

we would get rid of a lot of things if all items used to kill others were removed.

There are countries with stiffer gun laws than the US and far fewer gun related deaths which are multi party democracies governed by the rule of law.

The US is not the pinnacle of human society

I don’t see their flags being carried in Honk Kong

This is up to the people of New Zealand. It does not affect you and judging by the number of gun deaths per capita in the US I don’t think any other nation is beholden to Americans for any advice on gun laws.

yet, their people look to the US for its 2A

So New Zealand should adopt your views on firearms otherwise progressive American authorities will take a page out of their book

the people of NZ who did not comply did so on their own, they need no guidance.

It sounds very romantic though doesn’t it?

I’d bet stalin and other dictators who starved out their own people thought so too.

Very American movies.

which grossed $819 million worldwide, seems a lot of people liked the story

If the combined might of the Confederacy couldn’t topple the Union a century and a half ago, why would anyone imagine all th gun owners in America could take on the might of the armed forces of the United States.

different agenda and goals, apples to oranges. toppling the country or splitting it would not be the goal. the IRA obviously did not achieve its goal of a united reland but it survived against overwhelming odds and can claim some small victory. this is the real comparison. were they wiped out by nukes and tanks? Britain had some of the best intel and weapons and still couldn’t eliminate them.

 

[upant]

America has an obligation to defend constitutionally protected individual rights, including the right protected by 2a.

Locals will protect the constitution if the state and feds won’t. just look at VA, how many sanctuary 2A counties and cities are there now? the movement is spreading to other states.

In that same vein, bombs don’t kill people, chemical weapons dont kill people, anti-personnel mines don’t kill people. People kill people using those means.

yet, that is what is used when guns are removed. in Sweden, the bomb squad was called to deal with 97 explosions in the first nine months of this year.

Not true for firearms. They continue to develop in a continual and profitable attempt to answer the perpetual, diabolical question of “how can I better and faster kill people?”

a lot of things developed for war have found use in civilian life, the gun is your best self-defense tool.

“how can I better and faster kill people?”

weapons were improved to protect the person using it. yes, that included killing the other person before he killed you but it was improved for self-defense.

The threat of being assaulted with a deadly weapon is in a similar probability class as being mauled by a bear, attacked by a shark or being struck by a bolt of lightening.

the fallacy of total numbers, the chances for being shot in parts of Chicago are vastly different than in small town, USA.

These were marketed to governments for use in their armed services. For killing people.

for saving the person using the weapon,

Those that could would be much more choosy about when they wanted to use them and thus risk the heat of federal law enforcement.

yet, with mandatory gun sentencing, the use still continues. your laws mean nothing to the perp. the high use in crime proves this.

They’re just buying it back from the owner. Your objection here is purely semantics. Not particularly meaningful, in truth.

the truth is, it isn’t a buy-back. it is a mandatory confiscation. at least call it what it is.

Then don’t turn it in. Buy backs never catch all of them - and we’re never going to. You just can’t openly leave your house with it.

what perp openly left the house with their gun?

As the laws so far haven’t stopped the problem, we should try new ones.

what is the next great law you would impose?

 

[JonNC]

I wasn’t talking about the nation state. The paradigm I’m speaking of is individual rights. It seems to me basic inherent rights are antecedent to governments.