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

[PickyPicky]

Are we talking now about accidents? I thought we were talking about drunk drivers. That isn’t an accident. That’s a choice

Having a drink is a choice. Being drunk and driving involve choices. Killing someone with a car while drunk is very seldom a choice.

 

[PickyPicky]

The majority of civilian homicides using firearms involve illegal firearms, not legal ones

I’m tempted to use your technique and say their are no illegal firearms, only people in illegal possession of them.

But start there, by all means.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Are we talking now about accidents? I thought we were talking about drunk drivers. That isn’t an accident. That’s a choice

Having a drink is a choice. Being drunk and driving involve choices. Killing someone with a car while drunk is very seldom a choice.

But it isn’t an accident. When people drive drunk, people not getting hurt it is good fortune. Luck.

I’m tempted to use your technique and say their are no illegal firearms, only people in illegal possession of them.

That’s reasonable. Most civilian firearms are, generally speaking, arms that could be owned legally. So it is reasonable to say most firearms crimes are committed by people who have or acquired firearms illegally.

But start there, by all means.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sure, but the number of cars doesn’t increase or decrease the probability of someone Being hit by a drunk driver…

Not true. If the number of cars were cut by 90%, I am quite certain it would decrease the probability of being hit by a drunk driver.

, and it certainly isn’t fault of innocent people who don’t drink and drive.

See my previous comment about it being easier to regulate cars than to regulate behavior of car owners. For example, if it becomes a rule that all new cars come equipped with breath test for alcohol impairment before the car could be driven, that rule might be seen as punishing people who don’t drink unnecessarily. Yet it still might be a valid rule, because it is easier to regulate cars than car owners.

Apply as required to the gun debate.

 

[JonNC]

Not true. If the number of cars were cut by 90%, I am quite certain it would decrease the probability of being hit by a drunk driver.

That would depend on the number of drunk drivers, not the number of cars. A 90% reduction in cars with a 0% reduction in drunk drivers would change nothing. It is the people not the cars that matter.

For example, if it becomes a rule that all new cars come equipped with breath test for alcohol impairment before the car could be driven, that rule might be seen as punishing people who don’t drink unnecessarily.

Maybe, but a person intent on drinking and driving won’t buy a new car with that on it, or they will figure out how to override it, just like they did with seatbelt interlock systems in the ‘70s.

Apply the fact that criminals don’t follow the laws to cars and firearms.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Not true. If the number of cars were cut by 90%, I am quite certain it would decrease the probability of being hit by a drunk driver.

That would depend on the number of drunk drivers, not the number of cars. A 90% reduction in cars with a 0% reduction in drunk drivers would change nothing.

It may not reduce the number of drunk people, but if a drunk person does not have easy access to a car, he does not progress to a drunk driver. Same thing for guns.

For example, if it becomes a rule that all new cars come equipped with breath test for alcohol impairment before the car could be driven, that rule might be seen as punishing people who don’t drink unnecessarily.

Maybe, but a person intent on drinking and driving won’t buy a new car with that on it, or they will figure out how to override it, just like they did with seatbelt interlock systems in the ‘70s.

Some will, perhaps, but most will not.

 

[Hume]

By constitutional amendment. If you want the right to arms to lose its protection (no law cancels the actual right), a constitutional amendment is necessary.

No need. I’m not trying to take away our right to bear arms. I’m just trying to add semiautomatics to the soft ban we already have on fully automatics. No amendment needed.

A ban on further sales of semiautomatic firearms only denies the young and economically emerging populations from exercising their rights. It is, at the least, discriminatory.

It discriminates on the basis of income, sure. But a rich kid can still pick one up just like a rich codger.

As poverty is the mother of crime, it’s a great idea to limit access of firearms to the impoverished. In stead of shootings, bar fights would just be… well… bar fights.

And again, this is irrelevant.

No, it’s precisely the reply to the question. You just don’t like it. In such cases dismissal is tactic #1. I understand.

 

[Hume]

It is far easier for government to cancel and eliminate your vote than your firearms.

Not at all. It has no mechanism for it. If a government of elected officials starts to get questionable, you vote new officials. The President has no involvement in the electoral process unless, of course, he’s a candidate.

 

[Hume]

Nonsense. They attempt to limit free exercise.

Only where exercise infringes upon other people. And it’s absolutely wonderful they do this. It’s a blow to any attempt to return yokes of ideological slavery.

but the science is a soon to be born human being is just that: a human being, with human DNA distinct to that child. It is the same DNA he/she will have the rest of their life.

Absolutely. No argument there. The issue is that the woman carrying it is a person too. And since bodily slavery is illegal now, no one can make her carry a pregnancy with her body if she doesn’t want to, thank goodness.

That’s imposing their reproductive views on others, taking taxpayer money to execute a soon to be born human being

No it’s not. They’re not forcing someone to endorse an idea personally.

As I recall, the last time the bypass on the other side of town was enlarged, I was not personally consulted despite providing funding for it…

I would suggest that many who want to confiscate civilian firearms wish to impose authoritarian rule without the threat of armed rebellion.

Sure. The nuts. They exist on all sides.

 

[JonNC]

It may not reduce the number of drunk people, but if a drunk person does not have easy access to a car, he does not progress to a drunk driver. Same thing for guns.

Sure. Someone who breaks the law driving drunk may lose their license along with money. If they kill someone, maybe prison.
Same with guns.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It may not reduce the number of drunk people, but if a drunk person does not have easy access to a car, he does not progress to a drunk driver. Same thing for guns.

Sure. Someone who breaks the law driving drunk may lose their license along with money. If they kill someone, maybe prison.
Same with guns.

The potential of losing money and going to prison may not be enough incentive for someone to avoid driving drunk. Thus restrictions on cars might be necessary. Same with guns.

 

[JonNC]

Not at all. It has no mechanism for it. If a government of elected officials starts to get questionable, you vote new officials.

Not if they cancel or not hold the election.
“Sorry, polls are closed.”

No it’s not. They’re not forcing someone to endorse an idea personally.

Yes it is. It is taking tax dollars and using them to execute innocent children.

As I recall, the last time the bypass on the other side of town was enlarged, I was not personally consulted despite providing funding for it…

How many were intentionally executed in the process?

Sure. The nuts. They exist on all sides.

The ones running for president

 

[JonNC]

The potential of losing money and going to prison may not be enough incentive for someone to avoid driving drunk. Thus restrictions on cars might be necessary. Same with guns.

Agreed. Break the law. Receive due process.
Convicted? Lose your gun rights.

 

[upant]

As poverty is the mother of crime, it’s a great idea to limit access of firearms to the impoverished. In stead of shootings, bar fights would just be… well… bar fights.

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

No, it’s precisely the reply to the question. You just don’t like it. In such cases dismissal is tactic #1. I understand.

wrong is wrong even if everybody agrees with it. no one will really know until it happens.

Not at all. It has no mechanism for it.

yet the left claims the right restricts who can vote all the time.

Only where exercise infringes upon other people. And it’s absolutely wonderful they do this.

this is why the left wants to limit free speech, they claim certain speech hurts people. so they want to limit the first.

Absolutely. No argument there. The issue is that the woman carrying it is a person too. And since bodily slavery is illegal now, no one can make her carry a pregnancy with her body if she doesn’t want to, thank goodness.

yet, it is still a baby sacrifice.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Agreed. Break the law. Receive due process.
Convicted? Lose your gun rights.

That’s the opposite of agreeing with me.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Agreed. Break the law. Receive due process.
Convicted? Lose your gun rights.

That’s the opposite of agreeing with me.

So, you don’t think one should lose their gun rights if they break the law using their gun?
Or are you saying people should lose their gun rights without due process?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I said what I said. Just read it. If you don’t agree with me, don’t say that you do.

 

[JonNC]

I said what I said. Just read it. If you don’t agree with me, don’t say that you do.

Here’s what you said:

The potential of losing money and going to prison may not be enough incentive for someone to avoid driving drunk. Thus restrictions on cars might be necessary. Same with guns.

Loss of money if one violates laws about DUI. Possible prison time if you hurt someone.
Agreed?
Restrict car privileges if that isn’t enough to convince. Right?
Same with guns. I agree.

 

[Hume]

Not if they cancel or not hold the election.
“Sorry, polls are closed.”

That’s just a fear-fantasy surfacing. What would they do, coordinate with every SOS office in all 50 states and all territories and get them to go along with it, who would then have to convince the election officers in their districts to go along with it?

In all honesty, that’s “tin-foil hat” territory.

Yes it is. It is taking tax dollars and using them to execute innocent children.

It’s taking tax dollars and helping impoverished women who are pregnant and don’t want to be. But let’s not get too off topic, even if only the diehard ideologues are left that this point.

 

[Hume]

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

No, it’s to reduce gun violence.

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.

wrong is wrong even if everybody agrees with it.

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

this is why the left wants to limit free speech, they claim certain speech hurts people. so they want to limit the first.

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.