Author Topic: New Zealand reforming gun laws/US gun debate after another shooting  (Read 15914 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2019, 06:54:03 PM »

Online Celtics4ever

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17732
  • Tommy Points: 1170
I am a veteran and I don't think civilians have any business owning assault weapons and look forward to crushing any arguments about citizens needing these in case the government goes corrupt because when last I looked tanks and heli's can beat the heck out of the Colt AR -15's in the hands of civilians.

Shotguns, hunting rifles and pistols for self defense are ok by me,  as most people can't hit the broad side of barn with a pistol.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2019, 06:59:15 PM »

Offline gift

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1992
  • Tommy Points: 182
Wanna keep your guns, can you really justify it?

I mean, are you talking to potential mass shooters or murderers? Asking them to justify owning their guns? Or are you posing the question to the millions of people owning guns that will never harm anyone? I don't think there's much justification necessary for those people.


Hehe...yeah... mass murders! Stand up! Justify yourselves!

People feel strongly about their guns and strongly about having them taken away. Maybe they are hunters or farmers or scared of other people. I’d like to hear how they justify their needs to have a gun above the needs of others needs not to get shot by a gun. Slippery slope... I know. But Just like those folks don’t wanna have to have their right to own a gun trampled, I don’t wanna have my right NOT to own gun trampled bc everyone else has one. Make sense?

I mean, I understand what you are trying to say. But I think you're conflating some completely independent things.

No one who does not use a gun to cause harm needs to justify their gun ownership against the consequence of someone using a gun to harm. I do not own a gun, but if I did, I would not be responsible for a single gun shot wound, murder, mass shooting by virtue of my gun ownership. My gun ownership is completely independent of someone else committing those acts.

I am not a gun owner and I don't feel like I need one because everyone else has one. I moved two months ago and I don't know my neighbors well yet. But in the house I lived for the previous 4 and half years, I was surrounded by houses with multiple guns in each one. I would even hear gun shots on a semi-regular basis. My right not to own a gun was still intact. So was my right to own one. There was no trampling in any direction.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2019, 07:09:52 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6778
  • Tommy Points: 89
I'm all for common-sense gun safety laws and regulations, but the only ways this type of violence will stop is 1) banning and destroying all guns, which isn't gonna happen, and 2) eliminating hatred and mental illness, which isn't gonna happen.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2019, 07:13:27 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Tommy Heinsohn
  • *************************
  • Posts: 25287
  • Tommy Points: 1163
  • What a Pub Should Be
I am a veteran and I don't think civilians have any business owning assault weapons and look forward to crushing any arguments about citizens needing these in case the government goes corrupt because when last I looked tanks and heli's can beat the heck out of the Colt AR -15's in the hands of civilians.

Shotguns, hunting rifles and pistols for self defense are ok by me,  as most people can't hit the broad side of barn with a pistol.

See, this actually seems reasonable to me.   

I don't think you can just go from 100mph to 0 on this.  Gun culture is too ingrained in American culture plus I think there are certain needs.

Anything beats the idiocy of "thoughts & prayers", though. 


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2019, 07:29:44 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 500
  • Tommy Points: 134
I apologize in advance as my knowledge is not that good, so please correct me if i said anything that is wrong

I think the two differences between the US and NZ is that this time the terrorist purchased his firearm legally, vs a lot of the cases in the US mass shootings are either guns purchased illegally or guns that were purchased for them / taken from a parent.

I think in NZ case, we cannot use "banning doesn't work because criminals will always find a way to get a gun" excuse. I do agree with what most has already said, I don't see a problem with stricter control on magazines AND universal background checks. While I don't necessarily agree (to be fair I actually don't know which way i lean atm) with a ban right out , at least the difference between FL and MA seems to be how easy some people can get their way around guns.

in NZ's case, i don't know if their ban and buyback policy now will help much as I don't think NZ has much of a mass shooting history, but in my opinion, possibly due to the policy (gun ownership per capita , as US ranks #1 vs NZ @ 20 )

I do think and have no objections if it comes to universal background checks and stricter control on magazines being implemented in the US.
There are lots of examples of American mass shooters obtaining their killing weapons legally. Lots. The easiest example the worst American mass killingin Las Vegas. The shooter had all legally obtained weapons.

The reason New Zealand is getting something done with new laws after just one mass shooting and America isn't is politics. Plain and simple politics. Much stricter gun control laws will adversely affect gun and ammunition companies and they use the NRA as a political machine to generate "take away your guns" fear and pay many, many politicians to kill any type of national gun control laws.

I will say, have said many times here, that I think the 2nd Amendment is an outdated Amendment and should be repealed. I don't think you need to completely outlaw possession of all firearms but I think gun ownership should be an absolute necessity not a right.

People in areas far from law enforcement, they should have guns. People in law enforcement, they should have guns. People who need to protect their lands from wild animals, they should have guns. People who need guns to hunt for food to survive, they should have guns.

But what I want will never happen so I would be cool with

- No assault weapons.
- No high capacity mags
- No bump stocks
- Much tougher background checks mandatory
- Allow CDC to study gun related death research
- Change laws as to how weapons are handled when someone loses their right to possess firearms
- Massive reform on hand gun possession. Hand guns are the plague that kills in America, not rifles and some hunting weapons.
- Study mental health and gun possession and create laws that would limit gun possession to those with certain mental illnesses
- National register of every gun owned legally in America
- Research technology that can be implemented on all newly manufactured guns for sale in America to have finger activated technology and then make it happen by law

Informative and obviously thought about before, thanks. ... but also depressing.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2019, 07:40:20 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 500
  • Tommy Points: 134
Quote
Shouldn’t those responsible millions be willing to sacrifice their guni ownership for the safety of children, women...everyone?

Can you give me a list of rights that you'd be willing to sacrifice in the name of safety?

Should we give up the 4th Amendment?  The 5th?  What about the 1st?  Certainly the world would be safer without habeas corpus and due process.  Those too?

I have a hard time telling people that they can't protect themselves from burglars, rapists, etc.  Self-defense is a right.  If it was feasible to disarm all of the criminals, maybe disarming law-abiding citizens would be possible.  However, that's simply not a practical solution.

But is protecting yourself justification? Maybe. People have every right to protect themselves and to be just as “armed” as the criminals. But Just like there are other ways to kill people, not just from guns, there are other ways to protect yourself. Take martial arts class, carry mace. It’s a case of of one-upism. You gotta a knife? I’m gonna get a gun! What?!? You got a gun? I’m gonna get a bigger gun! That’s not a solution, that’s adding to a problem. You want and even playing(or killing) field? Fine. Put the field at karate and knives or at the least hand guns. Why does the field have to be at autamic weapons? Maybe we should make the field be at rocket launchers.... :o


Can you reconcile the two bolded portions? If a criminal owns an illegal gun, should it be legal for other people to own that gun? If yes, that accomplishes what we have now, without the useless law. If not, than you don't really believe that people have a right to be just as armed as the criminal.

Hmmm.... if a criminal gets a gun illegally then an everyday citizen has the same “right” to get an illegal gun. Obviously, my position is to limit getting guns legally and to make getting illegal guns harder. The “right” for any person,criminal or not, would be the same, however they obtain them. Not really sure the hairs your splitting add up to much or maybe I don’t get what we are calling a right. Thanks for making me think tho, TP.

To me, It’s simple math. Less guns. Less easy killings.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2019, 07:43:29 PM »

Online Fan from VT

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4107
  • Tommy Points: 749
Quote
Shouldn’t those responsible millions be willing to sacrifice their guni ownership for the safety of children, women...everyone?

Can you give me a list of rights that you'd be willing to sacrifice in the name of safety?

Should we give up the 4th Amendment?  The 5th?  What about the 1st?  Certainly the world would be safer without habeas corpus and due process.  Those too?

I have a hard time telling people that they can't protect themselves from burglars, rapists, etc.  Self-defense is a right.  If it was feasible to disarm all of the criminals, maybe disarming law-abiding citizens would be possible.  However, that's simply not a practical solution.

I mean, im one of those people who is a pro gun control gum owner. I enjoy the privileges of and respect the bill of rights. But there is incredible amount of disparity into how broadly or narrowly each ammendment is interpreted, so the idea that we are helpless to enact gun laws without a constitutional ammendment is hogwash. To the point above, the first ammendment is currently getting a massive white/straight/christian supremicist twist such that it is currently getting twisted to basically mean it impinges on christian citizens rights to worship if christianity isnt the defacto recognized and funded religion. The second ammendment is then incredibly broadly interpreted, while the 4th is increasingly narrowly interpreted generally along racial and class lines. Same with the property forfeiture of the fifth, the “impartial jury” of the 6th (horrible history in the us of impartial juries) as well as the right to fair evidence of the 6th, and the speedy trial/due process/and absence of cruel and unusual punishment in the 8th. So basically, you have fake textualists or fake originalists espousing a broad interpretation of the 2nd ammendment and/or claiming our hands are tied by the second ammendment while simultaneously slicing and dicing the other ones in very narrow ways that all coincidentallt and very creatively favor the wealthy, police, white demographics with amazing surgical precision. I would start to buy the second ammendment BS if a critical mass of those loud 2nd ammendment people wereas staunchly advocating for broad interpretations of other ammendments. To say nothing of ammendments past 10, which, having gone through the constitutional process, are just as important and just as valid as the first 10.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2019, 07:49:43 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Shouldn’t those responsible millions be willing to sacrifice their guni ownership for the safety of children, women...everyone?

Can you give me a list of rights that you'd be willing to sacrifice in the name of safety?

Should we give up the 4th Amendment?  The 5th?  What about the 1st?  Certainly the world would be safer without habeas corpus and due process.  Those too?

I have a hard time telling people that they can't protect themselves from burglars, rapists, etc.  Self-defense is a right.  If it was feasible to disarm all of the criminals, maybe disarming law-abiding citizens would be possible.  However, that's simply not a practical solution.

I mean, im one of those people who is a pro gun control gum owner. I enjoy the privileges of and respect the bill of rights. But there is incredible amount of disparity into how broadly or narrowly each ammendment is interpreted, so the idea that we are helpless to enact gun laws without a constitutional ammendment is hogwash. To the point above, the first ammendment is currently getting a massive white/straight/christian supremicist twist such that it is currently getting twisted to basically mean it impinges on christian citizens rights to worship if christianity isnt the defacto recognized and funded religion. The second ammendment is then incredibly broadly interpreted, while the 4th is increasingly narrowly interpreted generally along racial and class lines. Same with the property forfeiture of the fifth, the “impartial jury” of the 6th (horrible history in the us of impartial juries) as well as the right to fair evidence of the 6th, and the speedy trial/due process/and absence of cruel and unusual punishment in the 8th. So basically, you have fake textualists or fake originalists espousing a broad interpretation of the 2nd ammendment and/or claiming our hands are tied by the second ammendment while simultaneously slicing and dicing the other ones in very narrow ways that all coincidentallt and very creatively favor the wealthy, police, white demographics with amazing surgical precision. I would start to buy the second ammendment BS if a critical mass of those loud 2nd ammendment people wereas staunchly advocating for broad interpretations of other ammendments. To say nothing of ammendments past 10, which, having gone through the constitutional process, are just as important and just as valid as the first 10.

I think there are a whole bunch of straw men here.

Who is advocating for an absolutist reading of the Second Amendment?

What First Amendment decisions are you talking about, and why would protecting religion be a narrow interpretation?

What disparities along racial lines are you seeing regarding interpretation of the 4th Amendment?
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #23 on: March 21, 2019, 07:56:37 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 500
  • Tommy Points: 134
Wanna keep your guns, can you really justify it?

I mean, are you talking to potential mass shooters or murderers? Asking them to justify owning their guns? Or are you posing the question to the millions of people owning guns that will never harm anyone? I don't think there's much justification necessary for those people.


Hehe...yeah... mass murders! Stand up! Justify yourselves!

People feel strongly about their guns and strongly about having them taken away. Maybe they are hunters or farmers or scared of other people. I’d like to hear how they justify their needs to have a gun above the needs of others needs not to get shot by a gun. Slippery slope... I know. But Just like those folks don’t wanna have to have their right to own a gun trampled, I don’t wanna have my right NOT to own gun trampled bc everyone else has one. Make sense?

I mean, I understand what you are trying to say. But I think you're conflating some completely independent things.

No one who does not use a gun to cause harm needs to justify their gun ownership against the consequence of someone using a gun to harm. I do not own a gun, but if I did, I would not be responsible for a single gun shot wound, murder, mass shooting by virtue of my gun ownership. My gun ownership is completely independent of someone else committing those acts.

I am not a gun owner and I don't feel like I need one because everyone else has one. I moved two months ago and I don't know my neighbors well yet. But in the house I lived for the previous 4 and half years, I was surrounded by houses with multiple guns in each one. I would even hear gun shots on a semi-regular basis. My right not to own a gun was still intact. So was my right to own one. There was no trampling in any direction.

Ok! That’s exactly what I want to hear. TP. Why did your neighbors have and want guns? Is that want important enough to offset creation of stricter gun laws?

Imagine some law comes into effect with the purpose of getting guns out of the hands of people with the intent to do harm. But it has the side effect of also limiting guns for the people with out evil intentions. Do those people have a reasonable justification to oppose such a law?

I’m sure some do, as some have stated in this thread; protecting farms, hunting, maybe self preservation(debatable in my eyes). What other justifications might someone have? What would your neighbors justifications be? I had a housemate in college 25 years ago that had a pistol of some kind, a shotgun and an AK-47. He wasn’t a farmer or a hunter. We went and blew up a TV, a vcr and some other crap at an unofficial gun range. It was a rush but I never did it again. Is that it for some people? The power trip? So for instance.... Sam, from college, if you’re on here, I’d love to hear why you feel you have the right to have a people killing machine over the idea of keeping children safe at school and people safe at their places of worship.

Edit: I want to add that I recognize “my right not to own a gun being trampled” was hyperbole on my part. I’ll own that. But are we that far off? My kids practice mass shooting drills at their school, some kids go through metal detectors to get to school and some schools have armed officers. Are we that far off? Should churches, synagogues and mosques start practicing drills or have an armed guard atop the bell tower? When does the escalation stop so people don’t have to continually protect themselves and live in fear?

And I guess I already gave you a TP so couldn’t give another... I owe u one ;)
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 08:15:26 PM by mobilija »

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #24 on: March 21, 2019, 08:03:12 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 500
  • Tommy Points: 134
Quote
Shouldn’t those responsible millions be willing to sacrifice their guni ownership for the safety of children, women...everyone?

Can you give me a list of rights that you'd be willing to sacrifice in the name of safety?

Should we give up the 4th Amendment?  The 5th?  What about the 1st?  Certainly the world would be safer without habeas corpus and due process.  Those too?

I have a hard time telling people that they can't protect themselves from burglars, rapists, etc.  Self-defense is a right.  If it was feasible to disarm all of the criminals, maybe disarming law-abiding citizens would be possible.  However, that's simply not a practical solution.

I mean, im one of those people who is a pro gun control gum owner. I enjoy the privileges of and respect the bill of rights. But there is incredible amount of disparity into how broadly or narrowly each ammendment is interpreted, so the idea that we are helpless to enact gun laws without a constitutional ammendment is hogwash. To the point above, the first ammendment is currently getting a massive white/straight/christian supremicist twist such that it is currently getting twisted to basically mean it impinges on christian citizens rights to worship if christianity isnt the defacto recognized and funded religion. The second ammendment is then incredibly broadly interpreted, while the 4th is increasingly narrowly interpreted generally along racial and class lines. Same with the property forfeiture of the fifth, the “impartial jury” of the 6th (horrible history in the us of impartial juries) as well as the right to fair evidence of the 6th, and the speedy trial/due process/and absence of cruel and unusual punishment in the 8th. So basically, you have fake textualists or fake originalists espousing a broad interpretation of the 2nd ammendment and/or claiming our hands are tied by the second ammendment while simultaneously slicing and dicing the other ones in very narrow ways that all coincidentallt and very creatively favor the wealthy, police, white demographics with amazing surgical precision. I would start to buy the second ammendment BS if a critical mass of those loud 2nd ammendment people wereas staunchly advocating for broad interpretations of other ammendments. To say nothing of ammendments past 10, which, having gone through the constitutional process, are just as important and just as valid as the first 10.

I think there are a whole bunch of straw men here.

Who is advocating for an absolutist reading of the Second Amendment?

What First Amendment decisions are you talking about, and why would protecting religion be a narrow interpretation?

What disparities along racial lines are you seeing regarding interpretation of the 4th Amendment?

Ummm... I think you’re the one that brought up all the straw men. You wanted a list of amendments and rights to change in order to cloud the discussion about gun ownership/policy change. Nice of someone to finaly take your bait tho, huh?

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2019, 08:25:27 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Shouldn’t those responsible millions be willing to sacrifice their guni ownership for the safety of children, women...everyone?

Can you give me a list of rights that you'd be willing to sacrifice in the name of safety?

Should we give up the 4th Amendment?  The 5th?  What about the 1st?  Certainly the world would be safer without habeas corpus and due process.  Those too?

I have a hard time telling people that they can't protect themselves from burglars, rapists, etc.  Self-defense is a right.  If it was feasible to disarm all of the criminals, maybe disarming law-abiding citizens would be possible.  However, that's simply not a practical solution.

I mean, im one of those people who is a pro gun control gum owner. I enjoy the privileges of and respect the bill of rights. But there is incredible amount of disparity into how broadly or narrowly each ammendment is interpreted, so the idea that we are helpless to enact gun laws without a constitutional ammendment is hogwash. To the point above, the first ammendment is currently getting a massive white/straight/christian supremicist twist such that it is currently getting twisted to basically mean it impinges on christian citizens rights to worship if christianity isnt the defacto recognized and funded religion. The second ammendment is then incredibly broadly interpreted, while the 4th is increasingly narrowly interpreted generally along racial and class lines. Same with the property forfeiture of the fifth, the “impartial jury” of the 6th (horrible history in the us of impartial juries) as well as the right to fair evidence of the 6th, and the speedy trial/due process/and absence of cruel and unusual punishment in the 8th. So basically, you have fake textualists or fake originalists espousing a broad interpretation of the 2nd ammendment and/or claiming our hands are tied by the second ammendment while simultaneously slicing and dicing the other ones in very narrow ways that all coincidentallt and very creatively favor the wealthy, police, white demographics with amazing surgical precision. I would start to buy the second ammendment BS if a critical mass of those loud 2nd ammendment people wereas staunchly advocating for broad interpretations of other ammendments. To say nothing of ammendments past 10, which, having gone through the constitutional process, are just as important and just as valid as the first 10.

I think there are a whole bunch of straw men here.

Who is advocating for an absolutist reading of the Second Amendment?

What First Amendment decisions are you talking about, and why would protecting religion be a narrow interpretation?

What disparities along racial lines are you seeing regarding interpretation of the 4th Amendment?

Ummm... I think you’re the one that brought up all the straw men. You wanted a list of amendments and rights to change in order to cloud the discussion about gun ownership/policy change. Nice of someone to finaly take your bait tho, huh?

Well, no. You made the argument that people should give up a liberty to prevent tragedies. Asking you to name other rights that should be sacrificed isn’t a straw man.

So far, you have only talked about taking other peoples rights away. Are you going to give up any of your own that you value?
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2019, 08:36:49 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37995
  • Tommy Points: 6188
Wanna keep your guns, can you really justify it?

I mean, are you talking to potential mass shooters or murderers? Asking them to justify owning their guns? Or are you posing the question to the millions of people owning guns that will never harm anyone? I don't think there's much justification necessary for those people.


Hehe...yeah... mass murders! Stand up! Justify yourselves!

People feel strongly about their guns and strongly about having them taken away. Maybe they are hunters or farmers or scared of other people. I’d like to hear how they justify their needs to have a gun above the needs of others needs not to get shot by a gun. Slippery slope... I know. But Just like those folks don’t wanna have to have their right to own a gun trampled, I don’t wanna have my right NOT to own gun trampled bc everyone else has one. Make sense?

I mean, I understand what you are trying to say. But I think you're conflating some completely independent things.

No one who does not use a gun to cause harm needs to justify their gun ownership against the consequence of someone using a gun to harm. I do not own a gun, but if I did, I would not be responsible for a single gun shot wound, murder, mass shooting by virtue of my gun ownership. My gun ownership is completely independent of someone else committing those acts.

I am not a gun owner and I don't feel like I need one because everyone else has one. I moved two months ago and I don't know my neighbors well yet. But in the house I lived for the previous 4 and half years, I was surrounded by houses with multiple guns in each one. I would even hear gun shots on a semi-regular basis. My right not to own a gun was still intact. So was my right to own one. There was no trampling in any direction.

Ok! That’s exactly what I want to hear. TP. Why did your neighbors have and want guns? Is that want important enough to offset creation of stricter gun laws?

Imagine some law comes into effect with the purpose of getting guns out of the hands of people with the intent to do harm. But it has the side effect of also limiting guns for the people with out evil intentions. Do those people have a reasonable justification to oppose such a law?

I’m sure some do, as some have stated in this thread; protecting farms, hunting, maybe self preservation(debatable in my eyes). What other justifications might someone have? What would your neighbors justifications be? I had a housemate in college 25 years ago that had a pistol of some kind, a shotgun and an AK-47. He wasn’t a farmer or a hunter. We went and blew up a TV, a vcr and some other crap at an unofficial gun range. It was a rush but I never did it again. Is that it for some people? The power trip? So for instance.... Sam, from college, if you’re on here, I’d love to hear why you feel you have the right to have a people killing machine over the idea of keeping children safe at school and people safe at their places of worship.

Edit: I want to add that I recognize “my right not to own a gun being trampled” was hyperbole on my part. I’ll own that. But are we that far off? My kids practice mass shooting drills at their school, some kids go through metal detectors to get to school and some schools have armed officers. Are we that far off? Should churches, synagogues and mosques start practicing drills or have an armed guard atop the bell tower? When does the escalation stop so people don’t have to continually protect themselves and live in fear?

And I guess I already gave you a TP so couldn’t give another... I owe u one ;)
Regarding self preservation I think there are many people in Alaska, Wyoming, Montana that do very much need guns to feed themselves. So much of America is rural after all.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2019, 09:03:16 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11535
  • Tommy Points: 1352

No one who does not use a gun to cause harm needs to justify their gun ownership against the consequence of someone using a gun to harm.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #28 on: March 21, 2019, 09:04:08 PM »

Offline Rosco917

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5298
  • Tommy Points: 445
So....
New Zealand experiences a mass killing by assault weapons, ~50 people killed by 1 terrorist with assault style automatic weapons. The worst their country has seen. Government Planning on an overhaul of their firearm policies and purchasing laws which are already more stringent the US. Should be in effect by Mid-April.

The US experiences one of these attacks every year (maybe more), not to mention the many more “minor” murders by firearms every day. What are we doing for Prevention? Should we be doing more? Can we?

Personally, I find it embarrassing and horrifying to live in a place with such little government actions to curtail these horrors. At the moment it is left to schools and private citizens to protect themselves. I can’t believe my elementary and middle school children have to live in fear during the day w the knowledge that access to a weapon designed to easily end human life is accessible to wackos that could potentially end their life.

Thoughts? Solutions? Wanna keep your guns, can you really justify it?



It may be time for your relocation. It's horrible that this stuff is happening, but our second amendment was provided for a reason. Our forefathers knew that all Governments in time eventually overreach, and arming private citizens is a sure way to control such an overreach. Stripping citizens of their firearms is strictly symbolic. Where there is a desire to randomly murder those who are sick enough will find a way. Automobiles, bombs, poison, knives, swords, planes etc.   

There are many Countries all around the World that may have firearm laws that are more desirable for some.   

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2019, 09:11:02 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22177
  • Tommy Points: 1058
Wanna keep your guns, can you really justify it?

I mean, are you talking to potential mass shooters or murderers? Asking them to justify owning their guns? Or are you posing the question to the millions of people owning guns that will never harm anyone? I don't think there's much justification necessary for those people.


Hehe...yeah... mass murders! Stand up! Justify yourselves!

People feel strongly about their guns and strongly about having them taken away. Maybe they are hunters or farmers or scared of other people. I’d like to hear how they justify their needs to have a gun above the needs of others needs not to get shot by a gun. Slippery slope... I know. But Just like those folks don’t wanna have to have their right to own a gun trampled, I don’t wanna have my right NOT to own gun trampled bc everyone else has one. Make sense?

I mean, I understand what you are trying to say. But I think you're conflating some completely independent things.

No one who does not use a gun to cause harm needs to justify their gun ownership against the consequence of someone using a gun to harm. I do not own a gun, but if I did, I would not be responsible for a single gun shot wound, murder, mass shooting by virtue of my gun ownership. My gun ownership is completely independent of someone else committing those acts.

I am not a gun owner and I don't feel like I need one because everyone else has one. I moved two months ago and I don't know my neighbors well yet. But in the house I lived for the previous 4 and half years, I was surrounded by houses with multiple guns in each one. I would even hear gun shots on a semi-regular basis. My right not to own a gun was still intact. So was my right to own one. There was no trampling in any direction.

Ok! That’s exactly what I want to hear. TP. Why did your neighbors have and want guns? Is that want important enough to offset creation of stricter gun laws?

Imagine some law comes into effect with the purpose of getting guns out of the hands of people with the intent to do harm. But it has the side effect of also limiting guns for the people with out evil intentions. Do those people have a reasonable justification to oppose such a law?

I’m sure some do, as some have stated in this thread; protecting farms, hunting, maybe self preservation(debatable in my eyes). What other justifications might someone have? What would your neighbors justifications be? I had a housemate in college 25 years ago that had a pistol of some kind, a shotgun and an AK-47. He wasn’t a farmer or a hunter. We went and blew up a TV, a vcr and some other crap at an unofficial gun range. It was a rush but I never did it again. Is that it for some people? The power trip? So for instance.... Sam, from college, if you’re on here, I’d love to hear why you feel you have the right to have a people killing machine over the idea of keeping children safe at school and people safe at their places of worship.

Edit: I want to add that I recognize “my right not to own a gun being trampled” was hyperbole on my part. I’ll own that. But are we that far off? My kids practice mass shooting drills at their school, some kids go through metal detectors to get to school and some schools have armed officers. Are we that far off? Should churches, synagogues and mosques start practicing drills or have an armed guard atop the bell tower? When does the escalation stop so people don’t have to continually protect themselves and live in fear?

And I guess I already gave you a TP so couldn’t give another... I owe u one ;)
Regarding self preservation I think there are many people in Alaska, Wyoming, Montana that do very much need guns to feed themselves. So much of America is rural after all.
You can hunt more effectively with a bow or crossbow than you can with a gun if you know what you are doing (once you fire that first shot animals for miles flee - not so much with a bow).  In other words, you don't actually need the gun to hunt.
Historical Draft - Portland Trailblazers
PG - Magic Johnson, Tony Parker
SG - Clyde Drexler, Dennis Johnson, Alvin Robertson
SF - James Worthy, Alex English
PF - Charles Barkley, Ben Wallace
C - Moses Malone, George Mikan, Brad Daugherty

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required