The firearm thread

[husaberg]

You misunderstand, I agree with changing the gun laws, but I don't agree that it will solve the root of the problem (much the same way a massive sugar tax would reduce diabetic related illness and deaths, or banning even alcohol).
Well, hopefully only 1 knee jerk reaction........ Is that what you wanted to hear?
I am like you, for the greater good, go ahead ban them, but as I said, it will not solve the issue.
Ask yourself the question, why did this only just happen now?
Why not last year? Why not 5 years ago? Why not 10 years ago?
Why did he do it?
1 word...... Religion.
ALL RELIGIONS MUST GO...
As I said, a completely different discussion all together....

Well i dont, As limiting further access to high powered firearms cant do anything but lessen chances of the resultant carnage caused occurring again, when a idiot has free and easy access to and uses a AR15 for its intended use, ie killing and maiming others.
I asked how many massacres does it take for you to say changing the law is not a knee jerk reaction, you never answered. You changed the subject.
You claim to support the ban, but seek to have a dollar both ways by calling it a Knee-jerk reaction that will not help. If you believe it will not help why support it?
He didn't do it because religion exists, No he did it because he was f-ed in the head. He could have just as easily been radicalized on race or financial status or gender as religious grounds.
THE ISSUE HERE IS ,HE WAS NOT BORN WITH THIS HATE, HE WAS TAUGHT IT.
He was radicalized by an agenda of spreading hate messages. Something a few on here do, very often right up until this event occurred. I predict that They will be back doing it again within a few months from now again.
I personally dislike all religions but i don't treat any member of those religions or race as anything but individuals. The ones spreading hates treat and blame all member of a certain religion or races for the deeds of a few, mostly while overlooking their own religions or races misdeeds.
He carried it out in NZ as it was far easier to do it here than in Aussie as we had the lax gun laws that allowed him to easily and legally obtain AR15's big mags and semi auto shotguns. With Little or no background checks.

Indeed, I am finally starting to realize that he simply argues to suit his agenda.....

Sure, I love a good argument as much as the next guy, but I swear, some people just seem to want to be contentious.....

Really why not go back and read this thread and see what this same open minded group of individuals were saying about islam.
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...Robinson/page5

Haven't you figured it out yet? That twat argues for the sake of arguing.

You make a whole series of statement then fail to back them up with any evidence at all when asked, whilst all the while calling all the obvious contrary evidence fake. Are you Donald Trump?

Arguing for the sake of arguing would be for a guy that lives in the USA arguing a NZ law change that has already occurred was wrong,when it was what the vast majority of people who actually live in NZ wanted.
Arguing for the sake of arguing would also be suggesting only people that agree with your view should be able to vote or express an opinion that differs from yours.

[Kickaha]

as we had the lax gun laws that allowed him to easily and legally obtain AR15's big mags and semi auto shotguns. With Little or no background checks.

Nothing wrong with the gun laws, it was the lax police vetting that wasn't carried out properly that lead to him obtaining them

[husaberg]

Nothing wrong with the gun laws, it was the lax police vetting that wasn't carried out properly that lead to him obtaining them

So there was nothing wrong with a gun laws that allowed a dude with a A class legally buying all the parts to convert a What was incorrectly deemed as A class by greedy firearms dealers to a MSSA. But he was not breaking any rules until he pushed the larger mag into the rifle, Nice one..............
Nothing wrong with a set of rules that was created in the 1990's to prevent A cass licence holders buying AR15's and similar weapons, that due to a tiny modification failed to stop the gun dealers selling AR15's to A class licence holders.......
The Gun lobby previously called the firearms laws prior the best in the world and fought tooth and nail to prevent any changes at all...........

[Kickaha]

So there was nothing wrong with a gun laws that allowed a dude with a A class legally buying all the parts to convert a What was incorrectly deemed as A class by greedy firearms dealers to a MSSA. But he was not breaking any rules until he pushed the larger mag into the rifle, Nice one..............
Nothing wrong with a set of rules that was created in the 1990's to prevent A cass licence holders buying AR15's and similar weapons, that due to a tiny modification failed to stop the gun dealers selling AR15's to A class licence holders.......
The Gun lobby previously called the firearms laws prior the best in the world and fought tooth and nail to prevent any changes at all...........

Omigod yes I see your point because if there had a been a law in place he obviously would have obeyed it

[husaberg]

Omigod yes I see your point because if there had a been a law in place he obviously would have obeyed it

Funny why then did he not do it in Aussie or was it just far harder to obtain the weapons there.
From what has been written that could be where he got his licence also we dont know for sure so its just conjecture.
Not that it maters as 99.6 percent of applicants obtain an A class licence here.
Maybe you should read up on the Norwegian guys attempts to buy weapons before making off the cuff remarks
If gun-laws play no place Why is it the UK has so few gun massacres and the US so many?
Why is it on average the lazier the laws the more people that are killed by guns, is it just a massive co-incidence.........

[TheDemonLord]

THE ISSUE HERE IS ,HE WAS NOT BORN WITH THIS HATE, HE WAS TAUGHT IT.

Except he wasn't Taught it....

[TheDemonLord]

Right, so I missed the point about home made bombs, considering you did not mention them, perhaps you missed making it?

Well, for a start Explosives are already regulated in NZ. I don't know off hand what the laws specifically are for Home-Made Bombs are, but I'd hazard a guess that since a home-made bomb does not have a lawful purpose (as opposed to Trucks and Firearms) that they wouldn't be legal.

The point (which you still miss) is to compare 2 Items, legal to own and operate in a lawful manner, that can be used as part of a Terrorist attack to kill multiple people in a short space of time.

You tried to infer that Firearms caused more deaths in Terrorist attacks - to which the obvious rebuttal is to show that in recent times, Firearms aren't the common method used by Terrorists. You accused me of living in Fairyland, yet your rhetorical point actually disproves what you are trying to infer, so on that basis - just WHO is living in Fairyland?

The time period your examples spanned is 2016 through 2018, which were the more and less popular methods of terrorist attack over that time? I mean, with such a keen interest in reality, surely this should be important to you...

Suicide Bombs would be the highest, second would be general Bombs, then Trucks, then Knives, Then Firearms.

Although we could also say that Islam is the most popular Method...

My questions were to give context to your comparison re trucks/guns for terrorist use. Your evasion and misleading answer suggest you know the answer will not support your agenda, and shows you still cannot cope with an honest and open discussion. It is that which renders the rest of your post not worth replying to.

And yet, you reply...

I've given you the Comparison, you've tried to move the goalposts by including Explosives - You cannot bring yourself to admit that if the chain of logic asserted by those that have promoted the Ban is applied equally - then Trucks should be banned as well. The fact they are not shows that there is a bias against Firearms (and Firearm Owners).

[Graystone]

Suicide Bombs would be the highest, second would be general Bombs, then Trucks, then Knives, Then Firearms.

And do you have any facts to back up the implication that Trucks have killed more in terrorist attacks than Firearms over the 2016 through 2018 period?

I've given you the Comparison, you've tried to move the goalposts by including Explosives - You cannot bring yourself to admit that if the chain of logic asserted by those that have promoted the Ban is applied equally - then Trucks should be banned as well. The fact they are not shows that there is a bias against Firearms (and Firearm Owners).

You brought up bombs, how is that me moving the goalposts? And firearms are not banned. Have you completely lost the plot? As for your 'chain of logic' see above for a weak link you need to prove...

[husaberg]

And do you have any facts to back up the implication that Trucks have killed more in terrorist attacks than Firearms over the 2016 through 2018 period?
.

Why start using facts to back up his statements it could set a dangerous precedence for the others.

[pritch]

Motor vehicles ranging from cars to heavy trucks have been used for terrorist attacks in: London, Stockholm, Barcelona, New Orleans, Berlin, New York, Charlottesville, and closer to home, in Melbourne.

That's not an exhaustive list, that's just the result of a quick search.

[TheDemonLord]

And do you have any facts to back up the implication that Trucks have killed more in terrorist attacks than Firearms over the 2016 through 2018 period?

Well, I listed the notable Truck attacks, I also listed that 87 is a bigger number than 51.

On that face value (unless you want to, you know, submit something of your own to counter it) shows Trucks to be the more deadly weapon.

You brought up bombs, how is that me moving the goalposts? And firearms are not banned. Have you completely lost the plot? As for your 'chain of logic' see above for a weak link you need to prove...

All Firearms haven't been banned, but an entire class of Firearms has been. A class that was legally owned, lawfully purchased and Vetted by the Police for ownership.

The goal-post move is to include Bombs in the Comparison. I brought them up on a factual basis, but I did not include them in the Comparison, you are trying to include them so as to commit a sleight of hand.

I'll simply repeat the point that you refuse to address: If we treated all things equally, Trucks would be Banned:

They have been used to kill people en masse by Terrorists, with a higher deathtoll than Firearms.
They kill more people annually in NZ, despite there being fewer trucks than Firearms.
Both Trucks and Firearms have a lawful reason for ownership and are necessary in our Society.

Just like Husa said "If some idiot on a Bike killed lots of people, we'd ban that too" - Except we have proof, solid and incontrovertible, that we don't. We only do this for Firearms.

And that, is a Double Standard.

[Graystone]

Well, I listed the notable Truck attacks, I also listed that 87 is a bigger number than 51.

On that face value (unless you want to, you know, submit something of your own to counter it) shows Trucks to be the more deadly weapon.



All Firearms haven't been banned, but an entire class of Firearms has been. A class that was legally owned, lawfully purchased and Vetted by the Police for ownership.

The goal-post move is to include Bombs in the Comparison. I brought them up on a factual basis, but I did not include them in the Comparison, you are trying to include them so as to commit a sleight of hand.

I'll simply repeat the point that you refuse to address: If we treated all things equally, Trucks would be Banned:

They have been used to kill people en masse by Terrorists, with a higher deathtoll than Firearms.
They kill more people annually in NZ, despite there being fewer trucks than Firearms.
Both Trucks and Firearms have a lawful reason for ownership and are necessary in our Society.

Just like Husa said "If some idiot on a Bike killed lots of people, we'd ban that too" - Except we have proof, solid and incontrovertible, that we don't. We only do this for Firearms.

And that, is a Double Standard.

And you consider that conclusive? Remember, the point is one you made, so the onus lies on you.

2016 Mosul Massacre, 300 deaths by firing squad. As callous as it may be to be playing some sort of top trumps with these horrific events, let's pay attention to reality...

Yup, which is yet another area where your 'chain of logic' falls over, all firearms have not been banned, yet you are blithering on about banning all trucks being the same?

[Pound]

I'll just add this article into the mix.......... Just to stir the pot even more.....


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...in-new-zealand

[pritch]

I'll just add this article into the mix.......... Just to stir the pot even more.....


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...in-new-zealand

That was interesting - and just a bit concerning. The proposed registry might be a huge waste of resources. We had one before but nobody could ever point to it having been used to solve a crime.

[jasonu]

I'll just add this article into the mix.......... Just to stir the pot even more.....


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...in-new-zealand

How dare you introduce cold hard facts that are not in line with the knee jerk rash policy makers agenda.