The firearm thread

[TheDemonLord]

Is the goal to stop shooting incidents, or save lives? Measure what you want to improve...

The justification is to make NZ Safer - the data shows quite conclusively - that it will do no such thing.

[Pound]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...n-register-now

Now you see this sort of thing wont change anything, because these sorts of people do not abide by ANY gun laws in the first place...

[Graystone]

I know.

That's entirely the point.

Thank you for proving it.



Execution by Firing squad, regardless of how Barbaric and unjust is not a Terrorist attack.

The whole 'indiscriminate vs discriminate' thing.

Not to mention other factors - such as it being part of an ongoing civil war (or Insurgency) and primarily Directed towards enemy Combatants (Police and Army Personnel).

If you knew that, why did you make the comparison in the first place?

Yet it is listed as one by some sources. No matter though, unfortunately there are plenty of other instances, like the Orlando Nightclub shooting in which 49 were shot dead.

[Graystone]

The justification is to make NZ Safer - the data shows quite conclusively - that it will do no such thing.

It shows no such thing 'conclusively' at best it suggests the number of gun homicide instances will not be affected by making one class illegal. However, by not listing the lives lost in each, we couldn't see how many that class of gun kills, vs the others. And to me, a comparison of people's safety would cover the number of people hurt/killed by each, not just the incident count. Otherwise, you'd end up with silliness like bombs being far, far safer than trucks

[TheDemonLord]

If you knew that, why did you make the comparison in the first place?

If you have to ask that, then you really have missed the point...

I'll spell it out for you:

You've confirmed you have an a priori bias against Firearms.

Now, I should clarify, it's absolutely fine that you have that Bias. Just be honest about it.

Yet it is listed as one by some sources. No matter though, unfortunately there are plenty of other instances, like the Orlando Nightclub shooting in which 49 were shot dead.

By Some sources?!?

If someone says it on the internet, anywhere, it must be true?!? What a stringent standard of Evidence you have there.

And bringing up Orlando - I've never said they didn't exist, just pointing out the rate is not commensurate with the perceived rate.

[TheDemonLord]

It shows no such thing 'conclusively' at best it suggests the number of gun homicide instances will not be affected by making one class illegal. However, by not listing the lives lost in each, we couldn't see how many that class of gun kills, vs the others. And to me, a comparison of people's safety would cover the number of people hurt/killed by each, not just the incident count. Otherwise, you'd end up with silliness like bombs being far, far safer than trucks

Well, do the Maths - It's quite easy to do.

The point is - in NZ - to my knowledge there has been no Homicides committed with legally owned and registered Cat-E rifles in 30 years (which are now illegal). Murders committed by Lawfully owned A-Cat Semi Autos, even IF Christchurch is included, is also relatively small.

The justification for the Ban is that the Lawful ownership of these Firearms is a Threat to public Safety.

The data does not support that conclusion. The data shows that the biggest threat to public safety is unlawfully held Firearms.

[Graystone]

If you have to ask that, then you really have missed the point...

I'll spell it out for you:

You've confirmed you have an a priori bias against Firearms.

Now, I should clarify, it's absolutely fine that you have that Bias. Just be honest about it.



By Some sources?!?

If someone says it on the internet, anywhere, it must be true?!? What a stringent standard of Evidence you have there.

And bringing up Orlando - I've never said they didn't exist, just pointing out the rate is not commensurate with the perceived rate.

And I'd contend that once again, you failed to make it. It's amusing to watch you play slippery with all these inferences and never clearly making a point, just as it is obvious why you do so...

I do not have such a bias, nor have I confirmed one. People are allowed to disagree with you based on their interpretation of the facts; it doesn't mean they are biased.

You were pointing out that trucks were favored over firearms by terrorists, the facts show otherwise, are you changing the goalposts to some perceived rate bullshit now?

[Graystone]

Well, do the Maths - It's quite easy to do.

The point is - in NZ - to my knowledge there has been no Homicides committed with legally owned and registered Cat-E rifles in 30 years (which are now illegal). Murders committed by Lawfully owned A-Cat Semi Autos, even IF Christchurch is included, is also relatively small.

The justification for the Ban is that the Lawful ownership of these Firearms is a Threat to public Safety.

The data does not support that conclusion. The data shows that the biggest threat to public safety is unlawfully held Firearms.

Is that the justification? Do you have source for that? I had thought it was by removing them from circulation, they would become less of a threat to public safety, by lawful or unlawful owners.

[Pound]

The data does not support that conclusion. The data shows that the biggest threat to public safety is unlawfully held Firearms.

Which is exactly why the gun reform law change will do absolutely nothing.....

[TheDemonLord]

And I'd contend that once again, you failed to make it. It's amusing to watch you play slippery with all these inferences and never clearly making a point, just as it is obvious why you do so...

No, you made it.

The admittance that you treat Firearms differently from another tool "in the first instance" was the point.

I do not have such a bias, nor have I confirmed one. People are allowed to disagree with you based on their interpretation of the facts; it doesn't mean they are biased.

Yes, you do.

This is not due to your disagreement of facts.

You were pointing out that trucks were favored over firearms by terrorists, the facts show otherwise, are you changing the goalposts to some perceived rate bullshit now?

I did, And the facts do support that Firearm usage in Terrorist attacks is quite small and rare, typically only used by 'lone-wolf' style of terrorists and infrequently - The point of the comparison to Trucks was to get you to admit your Bias, which you did and are hilariously trying to backtrack.

I'll repeat - I'm fine with you not liking Firearms. I'm fine with you holding the opinion that "Guns are bad because they are designed to kill people" - but be honest about it.

[TheDemonLord]

Is that the justification? Do you have source for that? I had thought it was by removing them from circulation, they would become less of a threat to public safety, by lawful or unlawful owners.

Well, it's the Justification you've just repeated whilst disputing that it's the Justification, so, how about you make up your mind and get back to me.

But we both know you'll backtrack out of it.

[Graystone]

No, you made it.

The admittance that you treat Firearms differently from another tool "in the first instance" was the point.



Yes, you do.

This is not due to your disagreement of facts.



I did, And the facts do support that Firearm usage in Terrorist attacks is quite small and rare, typically only used by 'lone-wolf' style of terrorists and infrequently - The point of the comparison to Trucks was to get you to admit your Bias, which you did and are hilariously trying to backtrack.

I'll repeat - I'm fine with you not liking Firearms. I'm fine with you holding the opinion that "Guns are bad because they are designed to kill people" - but be honest about it.

Well, it's the Justification you've just repeated whilst disputing that it's the Justification, so, how about you make up your mind and get back to me.

But we both know you'll backtrack out of it.

You've completely lost the plot, your blither has surpassed Katman's level of irrational and now sits alongside Masman's.

I'll reiterate my points clearly, since you are unable to make your own. Whether these debunk your 'points' I cannot say, perhaps if you have a rational counterpoint to offer, you might do so; but I shall not hold my breath.

Terrorists use firearms in more attacks, and kill more people with them than they do trucks. Thus it makes no sense to say if firearms are banned, trucks (class 2 and above) should be too, based on numbers or popularity of the weapon.

Not all firearms are banned, in fact the recent 'ban' could more accurately be described as a tightening of regulations, as (and correct me if I'm wrong) such 'banned' firearms (a small percentage of all firearms) can still be owned with an e-cat endorsement. So again, it makes very little sense to say trucks (class 2 and above) should be banned if the same logic was applied, if anything it support the 'ban' since Trucks already have multiple license classes and endorsements based on the vehicle's characteristics.

My interpretation of the justification for the ban, is by removing such firearms from circulation, they become harder to procure, for lawful or unlawful use. Thus it is illogical to say removing firearms from lawful owners will not have any affect on who owns them unlawfully. Obviously an assumption here is that the black market for firearms in NZ comes from the firearms once being purchased through lawful channels.

[aNZBloke]

You've completely lost the plot, your blither has surpassed Katman's level of irrational and now sits alongside Masman's.
.

You've completely lost the plot, your blither has surpassed Katman's level of irrational and now sits alongside Masman's......

Hmmm... Graystone, it seems to me that you are not grasping relativity here. Be honest, objective and not too proud to admit that there is another side to the coin and please don't be a last worder.

The statistics show that more people get killed by illegal owned firearms than by legally owned firearms. As such this whole buy-back is going to achieve exactly zilch since the criminals are not going to give up their firearms (as reported in the news)

This buy back is just throwing your and my tax money away with a nil result in respect of saving lives. It is done just because "it feels good" and gets votes from the anti-gun lobby.

The anti-gun lobby cannot seem to understand the hunters putting the firearms to excellent use in controlling pests in our forests. They have never seen a whole paddock suddenly come alive with thousands of rabbits eating a farmers' crop that you will need for food. They have not seen the devastation that goats can do in the forests. Uncontrolled pests will only result in astronomical food prices and you want to stop this control of pests.

The anti-gun lobby is driven by those who live in the city.

The reality is that the city dwellers are just miles apart in perception in regards to firearms than those who live in the countryside.

As I pointed out earlier - I rather see the money spend on this to improve our road system and/or compliance with road rules (I see drivers overtaking in a blind corner or over the double yellow lines) and/or our health system. Just ask yourself: how many people die each year by legally owned firearms and how many people get killed by road accidents? So where would the money be better spend? There is no bottomless pit of tax income! You want that the government wisely spends your tax money that you and I worked so hard for.

[husaberg]

Hmmm... Graystone, it seems to me that you are not grasping relativity here. Be honest, objective and not too proud to admit that there is another side to the coin and please don't be a last worder.

The statistics show that more people get killed by illegal owned firearms than by legally owned firearms. As such this whole buy-back is going to achieve exactly zilch since the criminals are not going to give up their firearms (as reported in the news)

This buy back is just throwing your and my tax money away with a nil result in respect of saving lives. It is done just because "it feels good" and gets votes from the anti-gun lobby.

The anti-gun lobby cannot seem to understand the hunters putting the firearms to excellent use in controlling pests in our forests. They have never seen a whole paddock suddenly come alive with thousands of rabbits eating a farmers' crop that you will need for food. They have not seen the devastation that goats can do in the forests. Uncontrolled pests will only result in astronomical food prices and you want to stop this control of pests.

The anti-gun lobby is driven by those who live in the city.

The reality is that the city dwellers are just miles apart in perception in regards to firearms than those who live in the countryside.

As I pointed out earlier - I rather see the money spend on this to improve our road system and/or compliance with road rules (I see drivers overtaking in a blind corner or over the double yellow lines) and/or our health system. Just ask yourself: how many people die each year by legally owned firearms and how many people get killed by road accidents? So where would the money be better spend? There is no bottomless pit of tax income! You want that the government wisely spends your tax money that you and I worked so hard for.

Epic "as you pointed out earlier" but dude you only have one post, and this is it, So if you said anything earlier it was on your other log in.
PS rabbits aren't eating crops , the areas with rabbit issues, are not cropping areas, It is the dryland extensive pastoral areas, that have Rabbit issues.
No one shoots rabbits with a AR15 unless they are an idiot.Nor does the statistics or the outcomes you suggest exist in anywhere but your mind.

PS since when has Tauraunga been a rural area.

[Graystone]

Hmmm... Graystone, it seems to me that you are not grasping relativity here. Be honest, objective and not too proud to admit that there is another side to the coin and please don't be a last worder.

The statistics show that more people get killed by illegal owned firearms than by legally owned firearms. As such this whole buy-back is going to achieve exactly zilch since the criminals are not going to give up their firearms (as reported in the news)

This buy back is just throwing your and my tax money away with a nil result in respect of saving lives. It is done just because "it feels good" and gets votes from the anti-gun lobby.

The anti-gun lobby cannot seem to understand the hunters putting the firearms to excellent use in controlling pests in our forests. They have never seen a whole paddock suddenly come alive with thousands of rabbits eating a farmers' crop that you will need for food. They have not seen the devastation that goats can do in the forests. Uncontrolled pests will only result in astronomical food prices and you want to stop this control of pests.

The anti-gun lobby is driven by those who live in the city.

The reality is that the city dwellers are just miles apart in perception in regards to firearms than those who live in the countryside.

As I pointed out earlier - I rather see the money spend on this to improve our road system and/or compliance with road rules (I see drivers overtaking in a blind corner or over the double yellow lines) and/or our health system. Just ask yourself: how many people die each year by legally owned firearms and how many people get killed by road accidents? So where would the money be better spend? There is no bottomless pit of tax income! You want that the government wisely spends your tax money that you and I worked so hard for.

Where do the illegally owned firearms come from?

While I live in the city now, I lived in the countryside for over a decade and am quite familiar with pest control, in my experience guns are far less effective than bait or even trapping. Nor do the proposed laws significantly reduce the access to guns effective in that purpose

In fact, I think it is you who should be honest, objective, and not too proud to admit there are more than two sides to this coin...