Author Topic: New Zealand reforming gun laws/US gun debate after another shooting  (Read 15922 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #60 on: March 22, 2019, 03:48:39 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4562
  • Tommy Points: 386
We allow firearms for 2 reasons, defense and to give us a chance to revolt if need be. I know many will say the military would crush us, but that's assuming the entire military would fire on citizens. History has shown it could be done.

If the media would talk about how guns have saved women from assaults etc, there might be less of a call to axe the 2A.


Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #61 on: March 22, 2019, 05:28:12 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 ;)

Some of my old neighbors owned livestock and some did target shooting. However, I suspect they would tend to have guns in any case. It's really a culture thing. Just like having a patio outside your house or a fishing pole in your garage. I do think some people like to own guns just because they can.

The problem I have with issuing justification, is that there is no justification needed for those people. They are doing something that is harming no one. When you are asking them to justify their weapons in light of someone else's actions, you are asking them to justify their choices given the very different choices of another person. It's not for them to justify.

Rather it is for someone else to justify the connection between one person's rights and another person's actions.

You have a very valid point. someone who isnít causing any direct harm shouldnít need to justify gun ownership or anything for that matter. If people are doing nothing wrong they should be able to keep their lives private.

Just to be clear, my justification statement wasnít about forcing anyone to tell why they have a gun. But more of moral question that an individual needs to answer for themselves (and yeah...I would like to hear and understand the reasoning too). The moral question or justification to me is, if an individual doesnít want a ban on guns or a stricter policy because it limits your gun use, then what is so important about you having a gun? Why does having a gun trump trying to save lives? How come the sacrifice isnít worth it?

I worked with a guy who owns several guns, likes to shoot for fun doesnít farm, doesnít hunt, has told me a story about having his shotgun out for protection when someone shady approached his property at night.  If this topic is brought up to him he gets all fired up because ďthey sure as hell ainít taking his home away!Ē I guess itís just this culture I donít understand. So.... justify your needs to yourself. Ask yourself the moral question of what makes society better. And if you wanna... share it. Increase understanding in whichever direction you take from that moral question.

Maybe thatís high handed of me to assume that of anyone. Or to even assume their is a moral question. And like Roy said, Iím not sacrificing anything in this issue, so maybe I dont get a say Let me know what I can do, how can I sacrifice for this cause? Iím in.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #62 on: March 22, 2019, 05:46:30 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.

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.

There's a lot going on here. First, I would pose that fewer guns do not equal fewer killings. There have been debates on here in the past about that. I'll be generous and say there's no conclusive evidence in either direction.

As to the statements I asked you to reconcile, I believe it is more than splitting hairs. But we might need to clarify terms further. When you say criminal, do you mean "bad guy" generally, or just anyone who owns an illegal firearm? Because anyone who owns an illegal firearm would be a criminal technically.

I assumed you meant "bad guy" (someone who shouldn't have a gun). So let's say we have laws to keep the bad guy from having a gun. But being a bad guy, he finds a way to have a gun anyway (easy crime, prohibition tends not to eliminate the prohibited items, see history). So according to you, the regular citizen should have a right to be just as armed as the bad guy who has illegally obtained a weapon. But if the regular citizen obtains an illegal weapon to be equally armed, they are now a criminal and "part of the problem".

So if the regular citizen has that right, to be equally armed, that very right is part of the problem. So either the prohibition of the firearm is wrong for infringing the right, or the right to be equally armed is not actually a right you believe in.
Yes, I meant bad guys. Someone intending harm.

I made two statements in the bolded sentence, prefaced with maybe. An individual  has the right to protect themselves and be just as armed as a criminal. I agree the second half is inaccurate. You canít have the legal right to be just as armed as someone who obtains a bigger gun that could only be obtained illegally. Makes sense, an error in my part and adds confusion to my position. But I stand by my belief that someone has the right to protect themselves. And can understand that a persons ability to protect themselves is diminished if they arenít legally allowed to equalize the playing field. Hence, the two sides of the argument.

I started this thread in a heated moment and tried hard to keep up with it and respond to people as they posted. Itís the internet, Iím not writing a thesis but I am trying to be a responsive sounding board bc I started this. Tho Iím sure there are other threads on this.

Thanks for pointing out the lack of logic in the statement. Donít think it changes my position, but does help clarify it.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #63 on: March 22, 2019, 05:47:23 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 500
  • Tommy Points: 134
I don't want to debate but just state my views.

I think gun ownership is important to society in America. There are so many more responsible people than criminals that use guns I feel it's not right to take them away. I do think ownership does benefit the people far more than it hurts the people. I feel the amendment does imply everyone not just an active militia because a door to door militia can be formed in an emergency. I do think sales of guns and gun related items do help the economy.

-I am not for gun ban but for gun ownership restrictions.
-I am for gun permits and licensing following safety course and gun law review completions. Permits being automatic renewal unless a person is flagged for a criminal act.
-I am for gun registration.
-I would be for a law that asked every 5 years (from date of permit or license issued) proof of ownership of any gun be made by a registered owner. Failure to do so being subject to penalty. Goal being to reduce illegal sales.
-I am for background checks.
-I am for 2 week waiting periods for assault weapons.
-I am for mandatory investment into better gun safety features development by gun makers.
-I am for proven effective safety features for guns be mandatory if cost is within 25% of the guns cost to make and doesn't compromise the guns design.

Just some of my views on gun ownership. Understand if not yours.

TP for making yourself heard

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #64 on: March 22, 2019, 07:26:48 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22177
  • Tommy Points: 1058
Quote
I mean most murders are committed by people that know each other.  Whether it is a spouse, neighbor, etc.  In many instances, banning guns won't prevent that type of murder, so that shouldn't be the focus. 

The majority of gun murders aren't of spouses or neighbors, except in perhaps a very broad sense of "neighbor".  They're gang-related, and that type of violence can be addressed.  Nobody really wants to, though.
I should have been more clear, I meant most murders where the relationship of both the victim and the offender were known were committed by someone they knew.

So says the FBI Crime Report anyway.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data

Quote
In 2011, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 54.3 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members.  The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 44.1 percent of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents in 2011.  (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 10.)

Some more stats

Quote
Of the murders for which the circumstance surrounding the murder was known, 42.9 percent of victims were murdered during arguments (including romantic triangles) in 2011.  Felony circumstances (rape, robbery, burglary, etc.) accounted for 23.1 percent of murders.  Circumstances were unknown for 38.0 percent of reported homicides.  (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 11.)

Quote
Of the homicides for which the FBI received weapons data, most (67.8 percent) involved the use of firearms.  Handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents in 2011.  (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 8.)   
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 #65 on: March 22, 2019, 07:29:37 PM »

Online Celtics4ever

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17732
  • Tommy Points: 1170
Quote

We allow firearms for 2 reasons, defense and to give us a chance to revolt if need be

You would not stand a chance against modern military and would die via drone before you had a chance to revolt. 

This is not 1776, I doubt you have the evasion skills necessary to do this or the skill.   This is a myth perpetuated by the NRA, what is scary is that some people believe this crap.    The anti-vaccers of the gun world I suppose.


Quote
You can hunt more effectively with a bow or crossbow than you can with a gun if you know what you are doing

This is an absurd comment.  In every case a gun is better and what killed all the buffalo's it was not bow and arrows or crossbow.   Quit, watching Walking Dead, look at history, guns quickly ended crossbows and bows.   Most people lack skill with these weapons, and skill takes years to hone, with a gun you can be reasonably proficient in a month.   It takes years to be a good archer.    I was county champ for years in a row  and generally I can get all my arrows when I shoot in the gold ring.   And I will be the first to tell you, that a gun is still better and I can get more with gun than with a bow.  I also do not need a tree blind with a gun, but do with a bow,  so how is that more effective?

I think we are on the same side of this issue.   But statements like the above don't help us.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2019, 07:36:08 PM by Celtics4ever »

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #66 on: March 22, 2019, 07:38:07 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

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

We allow firearms for 2 reasons, defense and to give us a chance to revolt if need be

You would not stand a chance against modern military and would die via drone before you had a chance to revolt. 

This is not 1776, I doubt you have the evasion skills necessary to do this or the skill.   This is a myth perpetuated by the NRA, what is scary is that some people believe this crap.    The anti-vaccers of the gun world I suppose.

You make a good point for citizens to be able to legally own anything the military does.

Constitutionally, I'm afforded to the right to raise a militia.  So it stands to reason I should also be afforded the right to raise a militia capable of defending itself.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #67 on: March 22, 2019, 08:01:15 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 500
  • Tommy Points: 134
Quote

We allow firearms for 2 reasons, defense and to give us a chance to revolt if need be

You would not stand a chance against modern military and would die via drone before you had a chance to revolt. 

This is not 1776, I doubt you have the evasion skills necessary to do this or the skill.   This is a myth perpetuated by the NRA, what is scary is that some people believe this crap.    The anti-vaccers of the gun world I suppose.

You make a good point for citizens to be able to legally own anything the military does.

Constitutionally, I'm afforded to the right to raise a militia.  So it stands to reason I should also be afforded the right to raise a militia capable of defending itself.

Scary dude. Iím not sure if youíre serious or saying this tongue n cheek.


Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #68 on: March 22, 2019, 08:26:17 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

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

We allow firearms for 2 reasons, defense and to give us a chance to revolt if need be

You would not stand a chance against modern military and would die via drone before you had a chance to revolt. 

This is not 1776, I doubt you have the evasion skills necessary to do this or the skill.   This is a myth perpetuated by the NRA, what is scary is that some people believe this crap.    The anti-vaccers of the gun world I suppose.

You make a good point for citizens to be able to legally own anything the military does.

Constitutionally, I'm afforded to the right to raise a militia.  So it stands to reason I should also be afforded the right to raise a militia capable of defending itself.

Scary dude. Iím not sure if youíre serious or saying this tongue n cheek.



It was tongue in cheek.  I'm not advocating for being able to own a nuclear bomb, a submarine, a tank, a fighter jet, missiles, or anything of the sort. Personally, I'd rather no country have such weapons, I'm actually anti-war.

A few serious questions, though:

Why shouldn't I be able to protect myself from all potential enemies, both foreign and domestic, including my own government?

Why should I have to face 'consequences', in the form of a loss of rights, for actions that are not mine?

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #69 on: March 22, 2019, 11:53:24 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 500
  • Tommy Points: 134
Quote


We allow firearms for 2 reasons, defense and to give us a chance to revolt if need be

You would not stand a chance against modern military and would die via drone before you had a chance to revolt. 

This is not 1776, I doubt you have the evasion skills necessary to do this or the skill.   This is a myth perpetuated by the NRA, what is scary is that some people believe this crap.    The anti-vaccers of the gun world I suppose.

You make a good point for citizens to be able to legally own anything the military does.

Constitutionally, I'm afforded to the right to raise a militia.  So it stands to reason I should also be afforded the right to raise a militia capable of defending itself.

Scary dude. Iím not sure if youíre serious or saying this tongue n cheek.



It was tongue in cheek.  I'm not advocating for being able to own a nuclear bomb, a submarine, a tank, a fighter jet, missiles, or anything of the sort. Personally, I'd rather no country have such weapons, I'm actually anti-war.

A few serious questions, though:

Why shouldn't I be able to protect myself from all potential enemies, both foreign and domestic, including my own government?

Why should I have to face 'consequences', in the form of a loss of rights, for actions that are not mine?

Fair questions.

My basic answer, for the betterment of society. Sacrifice the right to a possesion for the lives of others. 

Do you need immediate protection from enemies and your government?

Arenít we already facing consequences for the actions of others in the form of mass killing and death?

If giving up a firearm, or losing a current legal right, is too much to ask for some people then the onus is on them to find a better solution. Currently, we have a problem. One potential solution is gun reform. If that solution is too much to ask, present another. Iím all ears.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #70 on: March 23, 2019, 12:49:31 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

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


We allow firearms for 2 reasons, defense and to give us a chance to revolt if need be

You would not stand a chance against modern military and would die via drone before you had a chance to revolt. 

This is not 1776, I doubt you have the evasion skills necessary to do this or the skill.   This is a myth perpetuated by the NRA, what is scary is that some people believe this crap.    The anti-vaccers of the gun world I suppose.

You make a good point for citizens to be able to legally own anything the military does.

Constitutionally, I'm afforded to the right to raise a militia.  So it stands to reason I should also be afforded the right to raise a militia capable of defending itself.

Scary dude. Iím not sure if youíre serious or saying this tongue n cheek.



It was tongue in cheek.  I'm not advocating for being able to own a nuclear bomb, a submarine, a tank, a fighter jet, missiles, or anything of the sort. Personally, I'd rather no country have such weapons, I'm actually anti-war.

A few serious questions, though:

Why shouldn't I be able to protect myself from all potential enemies, both foreign and domestic, including my own government?

Why should I have to face 'consequences', in the form of a loss of rights, for actions that are not mine?

Fair questions.

My basic answer, for the betterment of society. Sacrifice the right to a possesion for the lives of others. 

Do you need immediate protection from enemies and your government?

Arenít we already facing consequences for the actions of others in the form of mass killing and death?

If giving up a firearm, or losing a current legal right, is too much to ask for some people then the onus is on them to find a better solution. Currently, we have a problem. One potential solution is gun reform. If that solution is too much to ask, present another. Iím all ears.


Taking my guns away doesn't make society any better, nor safer.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #71 on: March 23, 2019, 03:22:05 AM »

Offline kiwiceltic

  • Aron Baynes
  • Posts: 129
  • Tommy Points: 14
As a NZer, these law changes were the only option. Weíre lucky that our politics is not tainted by lobby groups and corporations, both our major political parties agreed this had to happen.

A little perspective... taking population into account the terrorist attack in Christchurch was the equivalent of 3630 Americans being killed.

Weíre lucky we have a compassionate leader that knew what needed to be done and made it happen. Believe it or not, the farming and hunting communities were all for change.

The reforms being put in place now, will only be the first step, I imagine owning a gun in NZ will only get tougher.

While I understand the USA is a different beast altogether, surely at least a tightening of laws/requirements to own a firearm is relatively simple to achieve? Especially considering the frequency these types of attacks happen there.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #72 on: March 23, 2019, 06:27:39 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14723
  • Tommy Points: 1598
Quote


We allow firearms for 2 reasons, defense and to give us a chance to revolt if need be

You would not stand a chance against modern military and would die via drone before you had a chance to revolt. 

This is not 1776, I doubt you have the evasion skills necessary to do this or the skill.   This is a myth perpetuated by the NRA, what is scary is that some people believe this crap.    The anti-vaccers of the gun world I suppose.

You make a good point for citizens to be able to legally own anything the military does.

Constitutionally, I'm afforded to the right to raise a militia.  So it stands to reason I should also be afforded the right to raise a militia capable of defending itself.

Scary dude. Iím not sure if youíre serious or saying this tongue n cheek.



It was tongue in cheek.  I'm not advocating for being able to own a nuclear bomb, a submarine, a tank, a fighter jet, missiles, or anything of the sort. Personally, I'd rather no country have such weapons, I'm actually anti-war.

A few serious questions, though:

Why shouldn't I be able to protect myself from all potential enemies, both foreign and domestic, including my own government?

Why should I have to face 'consequences', in the form of a loss of rights, for actions that are not mine?

Fair questions.

My basic answer, for the betterment of society. Sacrifice the right to a possesion for the lives of others. 

Do you need immediate protection from enemies and your government?

Arenít we already facing consequences for the actions of others in the form of mass killing and death?

If giving up a firearm, or losing a current legal right, is too much to ask for some people then the onus is on them to find a better solution. Currently, we have a problem. One potential solution is gun reform. If that solution is too much to ask, present another. Iím all ears.


Taking my guns away doesn't make society any better, nor safer.

Itís not your guns that Iím worried about. All sweeping decisions aimed at protecting the Greater Good regulate freedom and have cost to some law-abiding citizens. This is why these issues are difficult. In addressing any ďgreater goodĒ we sacrifice some measure of freedom (military draft, social security, public education, speed limits, drug/alcohol restrictions, consumer protections, environmental protections).

If your neighbors legally owned guns and you knew they had a screw loose, the question is whether you would sacrifice added scrutiny for your own gun ownership to know that such scrutiny would limit their access.  Thus far, organizations like the NRA wonít consider major law changes in favor of what most of us (maybe not you) would consider the greater good.  And the Gun Lobby has been inordinately powerful and influential when it comes to preserving their own right to sell arms without restriction. .

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #73 on: March 23, 2019, 07:50:43 AM »

Offline mobilija

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 500
  • Tommy Points: 134
Quote


We allow firearms for 2 reasons, defense and to give us a chance to revolt if need be

You would not stand a chance against modern military and would die via drone before you had a chance to revolt. 

This is not 1776, I doubt you have the evasion skills necessary to do this or the skill.   This is a myth perpetuated by the NRA, what is scary is that some people believe this crap.    The anti-vaccers of the gun world I suppose.

You make a good point for citizens to be able to legally own anything the military does.

Constitutionally, I'm afforded to the right to raise a militia.  So it stands to reason I should also be afforded the right to raise a militia capable of defending itself.

Scary dude. Iím not sure if youíre serious or saying this tongue n cheek.



It was tongue in cheek.  I'm not advocating for being able to own a nuclear bomb, a submarine, a tank, a fighter jet, missiles, or anything of the sort. Personally, I'd rather no country have such weapons, I'm actually anti-war.

A few serious questions, though:

Why shouldn't I be able to protect myself from all potential enemies, both foreign and domestic, including my own government?

Why should I have to face 'consequences', in the form of a loss of rights, for actions that are not mine?

Fair questions.

My basic answer, for the betterment of society. Sacrifice the right to a possesion for the lives of others. 

Do you need immediate protection from enemies and your government?

Arenít we already facing consequences for the actions of others in the form of mass killing and death?

If giving up a firearm, or losing a current legal right, is too much to ask for some people then the onus is on them to find a better solution. Currently, we have a problem. One potential solution is gun reform. If that solution is too much to ask, present another. Iím all ears.


Taking my guns away doesn't make society any better, nor safer.

Sounds selfish. Present a solution.
 

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #74 on: March 23, 2019, 07:51:20 AM »

Offline mobilija

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 500
  • Tommy Points: 134
As a NZer, these law changes were the only option. Weíre lucky that our politics is not tainted by lobby groups and corporations, both our major political parties agreed this had to happen.

A little perspective... taking population into account the terrorist attack in Christchurch was the equivalent of 3630 Americans being killed.

Weíre lucky we have a compassionate leader that knew what needed to be done and made it happen. Believe it or not, the farming and hunting communities were all for change.

The reforms being put in place now, will only be the first step, I imagine owning a gun in NZ will only get tougher.

While I understand the USA is a different beast altogether, surely at least a tightening of laws/requirements to own a firearm is relatively simple to achieve? Especially considering the frequency these types of attacks happen there.

Thanks for perspective. TP

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required