Gun Poll

[Timber020]

In the states a couple times when mates were heading into new york where they didnt have a permit to carry they would ask me to take there sidearm home.
Another time a mate got me to pick up a package from the local sporting goods store. Goods in question was an MP5 (lovely weopon) which I had to fit into my rucksack along with spare mags and ammo. It stuck out everywhere as it had a full stock and because I couldnt find my other workmates I had to walk home, only to be given a long and nervours ride home by a LEO.

Im quite comfortable around guns, been around them my whole life. I think on your own propetry line you should be able to use lethal force to defend your family. Everyone should own a trenchgun. But having a concealed weopon makes people act and think different, and often its a certain personality of person that likes to carry, and thats not a good thing.


Me, No thanks, im not scared enough of the world yet, Ive been in far more situations where guns would have made a situation into a slaughter rather than just an ugly moment in time.

[Big Dave]

Absolutely not.
I am so glad we are not like the States.
What was the 'right to bear arms' a few centuries ago has become the right for Bubba to have an arsenal suitable for a small army in his cupboard.

[sAsLEX]

But having a concealed weopon makes people act and think different.

ummm no it doesn't. The weapon is concealed, for use when required, not as a little masculine badge that criminals would use it as, having it out on show to prove how tough they are.

[Big Dave]

http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/...62441521.shtml

[Shadows]

ummm no it doesn't. The weapon is concealed, for use when required, not as a little masculine badge that criminals would use it as, having it out on show to prove how tough they are.

Concealed or not, it doesn't matter. It is the fact one is armed that makes all the difference. It gives one the confidence to get into situations where the use of deadly force may end up being necessary, when ordinarily that person would never get himself into that situation in the first place.

[jrandom]

It is the fact one is armed that makes all the difference. It gives one the confidence to get into situations where the use of deadly force may end up being necessary, when ordinarily that person would never get himself into that situation in the first place.

Your basic argument there is the same one used by people who don't want motorcyclists to get advanced rider training because it makes them 'over-confident'.

[jrandom]

You only have to look at the level of intelligence/caliber (excuse the pun) of respondents who would like to arm themselves...

You're too kind.

A handgun is the most difficult firearm of all to use effectively and safely. The short sight radius predisposes the bullets to wide dispersion. As in, they are likely to hit anything except what was actually aimed at...

What he said.

The thought of civilians wandering about with handguns would worry the Hell outa me. Imagine a group of pistoleeros with all of the misplaced confidence and inflated egos of the mormon few. How's that for scary?

I concur.

We have good legal pistol-ownership restrictions at the moment, though. I'd be in favour of keeping those restrictions, and rather than getting specific about gun ownership, just amending the law to allow the carrying of legally-owned weapons for self-defence.

[Indiana_Jones]

I'm thankful the law does not permit such a thing. Proliferation =/= safety.

Homo.

-Indy

[scumdog]

AK47 for me please!

You, Dagor and shadows have obviously not had to hump around an ungainly lump of firearm while doing day to day chores and living....or you would not be choosing THOSE weapons.

[portokiwi]

M4 and M9 and I am happy.

[short-circuit]

You're too kind.

Please don't chop my statements in half and don't flatter yourself. What I said was (and as this thread has expanded I think this is becoming more and more apparent):

You only have to look at the level of intelligence/caliber (excuse the pun) of respondents who would like to arm themselves to understand why, as Magua says, proliferation does not equate to safety.

No offence but...people wanting to walk around with guns down their pants or sleep with them under their pillow either need their heads tested or need to grow up.

People's rights to bare arms (U.S) or defend their property? What about children's rights not to blow their faces off or student's rights to go to school without being gunned down.

[short-circuit]

Homo.

-Indy

Are you old enough to be on the internet by yourself?

[Usarka]

You only have to look at the level of intelligence/caliber (excuse the pun) of respondents who would like to arm themselves to understand why, as Magua says, proliferation does not equate to safety.
........

People's rights to bare arms (U.S) or defend their property?

bear

people in glass houses and all that.....

[short-circuit]

bear

people in glass houses and all that.....

No, no you misunderstand. That was another cleverly disguised pun. Honest.

[jrandom]

What I said was...

You are familiar with the fact that arguments ad hominem are fallacious, right?

Anyhow, this is an ancient, well-worn topic.

What I think many people fail to do is distinguish between the topics of weapons proliferation and the right to arm oneself for the purpose of self-defence.

A right to armed self-defence (which NZ does not currently have in any realistic sense) does not have to imply that everyone can go buy a pistol on a whim.

Right now, a shopkeeper can (in theory) be prosecuted for possession of an offensive weapon if they keep a crowbar behind the counter, and someone committing otherwise mild transgressions against the law (20kph over the speed limit, or a tinny of cannabis in their wallet) can be hammered much harder if the Police find, say, a folding utility knife in their car's glovebox.

I'd advocate the following:

1. Arming oneself for the purpose of self-defence should be legal.

2. NZ's firearms laws, including those relating to pistol ownership, should stay as they are, with minor changes to storage and handling requirements to permit point 3:

3. 'Concealed carry' should remain illegal, as should open carry, leaving legal self-defence with firearms restricted to applications of the 'castle' doctrine.

Clear as mud?