Author Topic: New Zealand reforming gun laws/US gun debate after another shooting  (Read 15916 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2019, 09:12:18 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 500
  • Tommy Points: 134
Quote
Shouldnít 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 ďimpartial juryĒ 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 youíre 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 isnít 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?

Willing to give up my right to own an assault rifle... hahaha!

US gun policy and living in fear is what Iím concerned about and what this thread is about. If You asking me to come up with other unspecific rights isnít an attempt to derail or cloud the discussion, then I guess....Itís called being a lawyer. I guess if you want to name a specific amendment or legal right, the reason it should be changed or abolished then I could give you my opinion on it. We can then see if it makes me hypocrit or whatever it is you are trying to prove. Then we can also watch how it derails the thread .... wait a second....


Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2019, 09:15:18 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. Iíd 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 donít wanna have to have their right to own a gun trampled, I donít 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! Thatís 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?

Iím 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 wasnít 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 youíre on here, Iíd 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 ďmy right not to own a gun being trampledĒ was hyperbole on my part. Iíll 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 donít have to continually protect themselves and live in fear?

And I guess I already gave you a TP so couldnít 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.

Sorry, I meant self preservation as in protection from evil doers. I mentioned hunting and am sympathetic to that. Many people where I live and many friends I have hunt for food.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2019, 09:19:06 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22177
  • Tommy Points: 1058
Quote
Shouldnít 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 ďimpartial juryĒ 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?
You were the one that brought up the constitutional right to owning a gun, except the amendment doesn't actually give you a right to own any type of gun or to own a gun for any reason. 

Here is the actual text again.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It isn't free reign.  Owning a gun is about participating in a WELL REGULATED Militia because that is what makes the country secure (or at least says the amendment).  So you can't infringe on the citizens rights to keep and bear arms so they can participate in a well regulated militia.  There is no right to own a gun to hunt.  There is no right to own a gun when you go shopping.  There is only the right to own a gun to participate in a well regulated militia. 

And it is clear from reading the Federalist Papers and other important documents from that time period that the amendment really was about the militia.  The founders feared a tyrannical government supported by a standing army and felt that allowing citizens to own guns would help curb a tyrannical government and stop the need for a standing army.  Of course I'm sure the founders never imagined the technological improvements that would be made which makes guns essentially useless to that purpose or that a standing army (and other military branches) would become so commonplace in the world. 
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

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2019, 09:26:26 PM »

Offline Vox_Populi

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4077
  • Tommy Points: 271
New Zealand apparently understand the simple concept that a continued lack of reform, of any kind, is either silent consent or loud indifference to the perpetuation of such events.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2019, 09:26:37 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Shouldnít 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 ďimpartial juryĒ 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 youíre 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 isnít 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?

Willing to give up my right to own an assault rifle... hahaha!

US gun policy and living in fear is what Iím concerned about and what this thread is about. If You asking me to come up with other unspecific rights isnít an attempt to derail or cloud the discussion, then I guess....Itís called being a lawyer. I guess if you want to name a specific amendment or legal right, the reason it should be changed or abolished then I could give you my opinion on it. We can then see if it makes me hypocrit or whatever it is you are trying to prove. Then we can also watch how it derails the thread .... wait a second....

I just think itís far easier to take away somebody elseís rights than to sacrifice some of your own.

Letís take away First Amendment freedom of association to police street gangs out of existence. Letís suspend the Fourth Amendment to institute stop and frisk and random searches in high risk neighborhoods.

All would have a far greater impact on safety than banning semi-automatic rifles.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #35 on: March 21, 2019, 09:27:01 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 500
  • Tommy Points: 134
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 ďminorĒ 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 canít 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.
You should read celtics4life post regarding citizens w guns vs current military might. Top of pg2, I think. I guess having my kids not living in fear out weighs the possibility of citizens needing guns for the revolution.


Me staying or leaving doesnít change the fact Deranged Americans are killing other Americans en mass. When I leave youíve still got a problem. Whatís your solution?

My eyes show me that mass killings and most murders are done w guns. Because guns kill easily. Sure, people who really want to kill will Still try to find a way but we can make it harder for them, right?so gun control of some sort is an idea. Iíll ask again, whatís your idea?

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #36 on: March 21, 2019, 09:29:05 PM »

Offline jran12

  • Brad Wanamaker
  • Posts: 7
  • Tommy Points: 0
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. Iíd 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 donít wanna have to have their right to own a gun trampled, I donít wanna have my right NOT to own gun trampled bc everyone else has one. Make sense?
No that does not make since.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #37 on: March 21, 2019, 09:33:01 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19874
  • Tommy Points: 2217
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
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 ďminorĒ 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 canít 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.

The Founders' writings about the "well-regulated militia" are about using it to defend the gov't, not overthrow it. The primary reason was to prevent us from needing a standing army.

Quote
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.   

This is 100% not true. The real world doesn't work like a Final Destination movie.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #38 on: March 21, 2019, 09:40:46 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Me staying or leaving doesnít change the fact Deranged Americans are killing other Americans en mass. When I leave youíve still got a problem. Whatís your solution?

For whatever itís worth, Americaís murder rate barely makes the top-100 world wide.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #39 on: March 21, 2019, 09:50:14 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 500
  • Tommy Points: 134
Thanks to all for discussing and contributing. A round of TPS to all.

I felt a little bad about starting this topic but itís a breath of fresh air(kinda) from the ďCeltics are doomedĒ threads. For whatever reason I got a sudden bee in my bonnet that country isnít doing anything about mass killings, not usually my style. More of a political lurker. And really, gun control is the obvious place this discussion goes but am interested, are there other solutions?

Anyways, Iíve spent way to long responding (starting a thread is hard work!) and not doing what I should be but you guys keep discussingand Iíll read later. Thanks again

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #40 on: March 21, 2019, 09:52:03 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22177
  • Tommy Points: 1058
Quote
Me staying or leaving doesnít change the fact Deranged Americans are killing other Americans en mass. When I leave youíve still got a problem. Whatís your solution?

For whatever itís worth, Americaís murder rate barely makes the top-100 world wide.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people
Sure and just about every single country ahead of the US is a 3rd world poverty stricken country.  In fact the only European countries ahead of the US are former Soviet countries and none of them are in the European Union (Latvia at 112 is the worst ranked EU country).  Canada comes in at 142 but it has less than half the rate of the US.

But hey at least we are safer than Mexico. 
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

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #41 on: March 21, 2019, 11:00:07 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11015
  • Tommy Points: 1164
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 ďminorĒ 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 canít 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?

I think they can get away with this their because of the kind of wildlife they have. It is mostly docile sheep and the like. Here large parts of the country are dealing with mountain lions and bears, some of whom, travel in packs. Is that fair?

Agree. NZ is a different place than the US. In population size and land size. They have different needs and abilities.

Itís just that they are doing something. They had a one horrible incident. Weíve had...how many? What are we doing?

We got to get rid of the wild animals then we donít need the guns

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #42 on: March 22, 2019, 02:58:28 AM »

Offline CelticsPoetry

  • Marcus Smart
  • Posts: 181
  • Tommy Points: 15
Quote
Shouldnít 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 ďarmedĒ 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. Itís a case of of one-upism. You gotta a knife? Iím gonna get a gun! What?!? You got a gun? Iím gonna get a bigger gun! Thatís not a solution, thatís 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 ďrightĒ to get an illegal gun. Obviously, my position is to limit getting guns legally and to make getting illegal guns harder. The ďrightĒ 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 donít get what we are calling a right. Thanks for making me think tho, TP.

To me, Itís simple math. Less guns. Less easy killings.
You are mistaken if you think there is a correlation between the ability to get a legal or an illegal firearm. The only thing that would happen, if you limited legal guns, is higher prices on the black market. Hell, I think the market for illegal guns would blossom. Think about it - drugs are illegal, but you can literally get any type of drug in any city in a matter of hours. You think it wouldnt be the same with guns? And that's another problem that would be solved by actually enforcing your border - less drugs and illegal guns.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #43 on: March 22, 2019, 06:06:48 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22177
  • Tommy Points: 1058
Quote
Shouldnít 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 ďarmedĒ 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. Itís a case of of one-upism. You gotta a knife? Iím gonna get a gun! What?!? You got a gun? Iím gonna get a bigger gun! Thatís not a solution, thatís 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 ďrightĒ to get an illegal gun. Obviously, my position is to limit getting guns legally and to make getting illegal guns harder. The ďrightĒ 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 donít get what we are calling a right. Thanks for making me think tho, TP.

To me, Itís simple math. Less guns. Less easy killings.
You are mistaken if you think there is a correlation between the ability to get a legal or an illegal firearm. The only thing that would happen, if you limited legal guns, is higher prices on the black market. Hell, I think the market for illegal guns would blossom. Think about it - drugs are illegal, but you can literally get any type of drug in any city in a matter of hours. You think it wouldnt be the same with guns? And that's another problem that would be solved by actually enforcing your border - less drugs and illegal guns.
You could get them but if you just put an automatic 10 year jail sentence for owning a gun, no one would want to own one.  Seen with a gun lose freedom for 10 years even if you commit no other crime and the desire to own a gun is just about zero.
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

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #44 on: March 22, 2019, 06:18:12 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Shouldnít 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 ďarmedĒ 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. Itís a case of of one-upism. You gotta a knife? Iím gonna get a gun! What?!? You got a gun? Iím gonna get a bigger gun! Thatís not a solution, thatís 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 ďrightĒ to get an illegal gun. Obviously, my position is to limit getting guns legally and to make getting illegal guns harder. The ďrightĒ 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 donít get what we are calling a right. Thanks for making me think tho, TP.

To me, Itís simple math. Less guns. Less easy killings.
You are mistaken if you think there is a correlation between the ability to get a legal or an illegal firearm. The only thing that would happen, if you limited legal guns, is higher prices on the black market. Hell, I think the market for illegal guns would blossom. Think about it - drugs are illegal, but you can literally get any type of drug in any city in a matter of hours. You think it wouldnt be the same with guns? And that's another problem that would be solved by actually enforcing your border - less drugs and illegal guns.
You could get them but if you just put an automatic 10 year jail sentence for owning a gun, no one would want to own one.  Seen with a gun lose freedom for 10 years even if you commit no other crime and the desire to own a gun is just about zero.

And yet there are thousands of murders every year, where the punishment is much higher than ten years.  I think many criminals ignore the consequences of being a criminal.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2019, 06:36:22 AM by Roy H. »
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required