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

[Hume]

The benefits they provide are largely imaginary or statistically insignificant, anecdotes aside.

The costs, however, seem to be mass shootings typically using new rifles that are so frequent that they’re starting to not register in the news.

The pretend benefit isn’t worth the real cost, on a societal basis

 

[JonNC]

The fools that supported his continued rule would be the “anarchists and domestic terrorists” that any needed military response would be set against.

Whatever happened to “ Using over-broad, divisive language is forbidden”?
Oh well.

Look, tyranny will not start from the populace the American people are quite tolerant and patient. If an internal conflict happens, it will be because of an attempt by the ruling class, those already in power, to increase and extend their power in an authoritarian direction. The American people will simply respond, and the military will not turn their weapons inward to defend Tyranny.

No one’s arguing that most civilian owned firearms are used nefariously.

They’re not.

Then there is no reason to even propose confiscation except to weaken the people’s ability to defend themselves.

But the laws that allow the common citizen to own them also allow 1. Any bad guy without a felony to own them and 2. Create a substantial secondary market where even the ones with felonies can.

It is not laws that permit them. It is a right which exists antecedent to government. Government does not permit the right to keep and bear arms, it is obligated to honor and protect it.
The additional responsibility of government is to prevent those who have been adjudicated in a way that prohibits them from having firearms from getting them. And it must do so without infringing on the constitutionally protected inherent rights of the law abiding. The 100 million plus law abiding citizens that own firearms are not the problem. Their firearms are not the problem. They don’t break the law with them.
As a society, we don’t punish the innocent. We don’t take rights away from the law abiding. We don’t blame the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

As such, the only realistic course is a massive reduction in availability all across the board, which directly impacts both primary and secondary markets on a point of availability and cost

What’s interesting is the growth in the number of firearms is not resulting in a growth of gun crimes. In fact, it is the opposite.

In short, those who wish to restrict the rights of the law abiding citizen to arms have no grounds for their proposals.

 

[JonNC]

The benefits they provide are largely imaginary or statistically insignificant, anecdotes aside.

One doesn’t measure rights in this way. Rights are rights. Their existence is not subject to whether or not others value them. Some may think religious free exercise is “ largely imaginary or statistically insignificant.”
It doesn’t matter.

The costs, however, seem to be mass shootings typically using new rifles that are so frequent that they’re starting to not register in the news.

This is factually false. The rights of the law abiding citizen are not the cause of the crimes of others. I drive a car. That does not make me responsible for the person who speeds. I like beer, but that doesn’t make me responsible for drunk drivers.
The number of murders with rifles, tragic though they are, is fractional compared to those with illegal handguns. Yet here we continue to hear that the law abiding rifle owner is the real problem. There is mass murder almost every weekend in Chicago, with illegal handguns, not legally owned AR-15’s and other civilian semiautomatic rifles held by law abiding Americans.

 

[Hume]

Whatever happened to “ Using over-broad, divisive language is forbidden”?

I wasn’t using tired old tribalist labels that people identify with. I was, correctly, stating that the “fools” of the rebellion would be labelled anarchists and domestic terrorists.

You just don’t understand what both I and the form rules are referring to on the matter. Which is fine, I guess.

Look, tyranny will not start from the populace the American people are quite tolerant and patient. If an internal conflict happens, it will be because of an attempt by the ruling class, those already in power, to increase and extend their power in an authoritarian direction. The American people will simply respond, and the military will not turn their weapons inward to defend Tyranny.

The ruling class employs the majority of Americans and will have their support. Moreover, the ruling class pays the taxes that fund our brave men and women.

Like it or not, armed American rebels would not be painted in favorable light by the, also, ruling class controlled media. They would have no support from US regulars while in uniform - as is practically always the case. Moreover, those that get their pay from the ruling class would be incensed at American rebels and would provide a steady supply of non-uniformed counter-insurgents that the rebels would have to constantly worry about.

So, again; zero chance.

Then there is no reason to even propose confiscation…

For easily the third time, no one is proposing confiscation.

It is not laws that permit them.

It’s the economics of gun ownership in the light of those laws. As they have made these mass-killing machines easy to afford and readily available, the laws can be changed to do otherwise and thus make everyone safer.

In truth, any kid that’s passed econ 101 and 102 can tell you all about it.

What’s interesting is the growth in the number of firearms is not resulting in a growth of gun crimes. In fact, it is the opposite.

As the great majority of the mass shootings since the end of the federal assault weapons ban (when this growth kicked off) have occurred with new or nearly new firearms, I can only smile at your statement here; as I do with all clearly religious/ideological statements that have little root in objective reality.

In short, those who wish to restrict the rights of the law abiding citizen to arms have no grounds for their proposals.

Ok, then you’d also argue for the end of bans on automatics and the end of restrictions on how much nuclear material a common citizen can keep on hand? Among other arms-related restrictions?

Again, all I can do here is smile.

One doesn’t measure rights in this way.

Sure they can. When rights pertain to concrete objects, oh yes they do.
You just don’t like it. Which I understand. It conflicts with your ideologies.

Reference: Prohibition

 

[upant]

It’s the economics of gun ownership

control of the poor people,

are only the rich entitled to rights?

 

[JonNC]

It’s the economics of gun ownership in the light of those laws.

Again, there are no laws that permit gun ownership.

As they have made these mass-killing machines easy to afford and readily available, the laws can be changed to do otherwise and thus make everyone safer.

That would be called a constitutional amendment. Good luck.
The “mass killing machines” are human beings, not firearms. Again, 300 million legally owned firearms. The vast majority of firearms used in homicides are illegal. Let’s fix the real
Problem and leave the law abiding alone to exercise their rights.

As the great majority of the mass shootings since the end of the federal assault weapons ban (when this growth kicked off) have occurred with new or nearly new firearms, I can only smile at your statement here; as I do with all clearly religious/ideological statements that have little root in objective reality.

The obnoxious condescension aside, this statement ignores the real problem, and it is neither the availability of firearms ( if that were the issue, there would be millions of homicides), or the access to firearms (it was far easier to get a firearm when I was a kid). There are common threads in the lives of mass shooters (since the focus seems to be on this small fraction of homicides by firearms).

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/27/mass-shooters-absent-fathers-link-ignored-anti-gun/

Targeting the law abiding citizen who owns a firearm is not the solution to the real problem.

 

[Hume]

Are only the rich entitled to rights?

No. But when the “rights” in question pertains to objects initially designed to kill people, people with more to lose are much less likely to kill people.

And the current status quo of the law agrees with that as it deals with automatics. I just want to move the arbitrary line to include semi automatics as well.

 

[Hume]

The problem isn’t the law abiding citizen, it’s the gun itself. This isn’t a new position.

The blade itself incites to violence - Homer

A weapon is an enemy even unto its owner - Turkish proverb.

If someone lives in such irrational fear of government tyranny or their home being invaded by blood thirsty rapists, fine. Go buy yourself a bullet-throwing dream catcher to go catch those bad dreams.

A sporting rifle that requires you reload it manually (like bolt, pump, or levers) can kill your ghosts as well as an AR15. And for the rest of us, should you go crazy, you can’t mow down 40 people with it before someone tackles you. Or, at least, it would be much, much more difficult

 

[upant]

A sporting rifle that requires you reload it manually

a couple of revolvers with speed loaders will do just as much damage as an AR.

it is still one pull one shot. it is still the person using it.

 

[Hume]

Oh, I’m for the total ban on all handguns.

But to respond to the particulars of your post, I used to be a “gun nut”. I still have a revolver remaining from my whittled collection.

The idea that I’m as dangerous with two revolvers with speed loaders as I am with an AR15 with detachable mags is nonsense.

First, my revolver gives me 6-8 trigger pulls. An AR is limited on by the size of the mag you use. You can buy 50 round bananas or 100 round drums to swap with.

Second, the cylinder of a revolver cycles with the manual force of a trigger pull. An AR cycles from gas discharge from a fired round. Ergo, you can pull the trigger on an AR much faster than on a revolver. There are no “bump stocks” for cylinder rifles.

There are other reasons but I’ll stop here. You get the idea, I’m sure

 

[Hume]

Wanted to comment;

We can obviously do all this without a repeal of the 2nd. We would merely extend the same legalese we use to soft-ban automatics to include semi automatics.

No constitutional amendment required

 

[JonNC]

The problem isn’t the law abiding citizen, it’s the gun itself. This isn’t a new position.

If this were the case there would be millions of civilians murdered each year.

If someone lives in such irrational fear of government tyranny or their home being invaded by blood thirsty rapists, fine. Go buy yourself a bullet-throwing dream catcher to go catch those bad dreams.

And no one that I’m aware of thinks this way, but like an insurance policy, a firearm is their to allow someone to protect him/herself and their family, which is done tens of thousands of times every year. Despite what it says on the side of the car, according to the SCOTUS, police cannot be expected to protect.

A sporting rifle that requires you reload it manually (like bolt, pump, or levers) can kill your ghosts as well as an AR15. And for the rest of us, should you go crazy, you can’t mow down 40 people with it before someone tackles you. Or, at least, it would be much, much more difficult

•300 million firearms (most of them semiautomatic) in the hands of 100 law abiding Americans. They kill almost no one with their firearms
•American law enforcement and military have weapons, too, governments have killed exponential more civilians than civilians.
•The overwhelming majority of firearms homicides are by young inner city males with illegal handguns.
But you’re worried about “middle age guys” going crazy.
I don’t think I’m the one with imaginary ghosts.
I don’t think rape victims would consider rapists that way, either.

 

[JonNC]

Oh, I’m for the total ban on all handguns.

You are? Are you willing to start with illegal ones? At what point can you guarantee success in the complete eradication of them?
Then follow with law enforcement?

But to respond to the particulars of your post, I used to be a “gun nut”. I still have a revolver remaining from my whittled collection.

I would assume you’re not dangerous with either. Are you?

 

[Hume]

Complete eradication?

Automatics haven’t been completely eradicated from black markets, but they’ve become expensive enough that common criminals and those who need credit to afford them cannot obtain them.

. . . . I and folks like me would like to see the US have similar gun crime stats as virtually every other first world country where plumbing and lit parking lots are rather expected.

Even adjusted for suicide, the US is like the wild west in comparison to those nations.

 

[Hume]

If handguns were banned, I’d be happy to turn my old 357/38 in. No buy back needed.

I no longer have any delusions about the protection that it doesn’t actually afford me.

 

[JonNC]

Complete eradication?

Automatics haven’t been completely eradicated from black markets, but they’ve become expensive enough that common criminals and those who need credit to afford them cannot obtain them.

Yes complete. If you’re going to demand that the law abiding citizen who is simply exercising his inherent right give up that right and their arms, the very least they should expect is that illegal arms in the hands of criminals no longer pose a threat.

I and folks like me would like to see the US have similar gun crime stats as virtually every other first world country where plumbing and lit parking lots are rather expected.

Get rid of illegal firearms and the crimes they are used in and you would see our gun crime rate be at about that level.

If handguns were banned, I’d be happy to turn my old 357/38 in. No buy back needed.

Why the “if”? Just do it. The inherent right to keep and bare arms is not a requirement to do so. I’m not trying to take that right away from you, so leave my rights alone.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you’re going to demand that the law abiding citizen who is simply exercising his inherent right

Once again, Jon, there is no inherent right to own a gun. Just because some men said so 200 years ago does not mean it is true.

 

[Hume]

Yes complete.

Ah, then as no law has 100% compliance, let us lift all laws.

As no chemical reactions have 100% yields, lets eliminate chemical reactions too! (???)

Meanwhile - back in reality…

Get rid of illegal firearms and the crimes they are used in and you would see our gun crime rate be at about that level.

“Get rid of [easy access to] firearms and the crimes they are used in and you would see our gun crime rate be at about that level.”

Fixed that for you.

Why the “if”? Just do it.

I’m lazy. Don’t want to climb the closet to get it out. I don’t want to research exactly where I’d take it to have it destroyed (local law enforcement auctions confiscations and surrenders). I don’t want to go through the effort of buying the things and doing the work to destroy it myself.

In other words, I keep it for the same reason I/we keep any of the useless junk that clutters out closets, basements and attics. Inertia.

The inherent right to keep and bare arms…

Is not unlimited, as we clearly see with limited access to automatics, nuclear material, etc. etc. etc.

 

[JonNC]

Once again, Jon, there is no inherent right to own a gun. Just because some men said so 200 years ago does not mean it is true.

The right to self defense is inherent. The right to the tools necessary to protect themselves and their rights is inherent.
You may choose to deny individual rights. I choose to stand up for them.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Once again, Jon, there is no inherent right to own a gun. Just because some men said so 200 years ago does not mean it is true.

The right to self defense is inherent. The right to the tools necessary to protect themselves and their rights is inherent.

Correct on the first point. Incorrect on the second point.