Gun Poll

[short-circuit]

In that case either your argument now is misguided, disingenuous or both, or you misunderstood both the thread title and the subject of the poll:

"Would you carry a handgun if the law allowed you to”

[Brett]

If they were available to the general public for personal protection, I would own one. Wouldn't carry it everywhere, but it would certainly be carried when I felt I needed it, and more importantly, my wife works at Middlemore hospital and often works late into the night, I would really want her to learn to shoot a pistol or revolver and carry it on her...they have quite a few assualts on staff including rape over the course of the year (in the carparking lot...sometimes even in broad daylight.

I would either carry a .357magnum revolver or something like a sig p228. Spend a day playing with a Ruger KP (28????) last christmas as well as a .357 revolver, and I found both to be very accurate over about 20m. I would feel very confident about hitting what I want to hit over that sort of distance.

That and a well trained guard dog (we live in semi rural Auckland) as we have a large number of break and enters out here...

[Skyryder]

The question was handguns, nothing else. For those that have answered yes to the poll and posted a preference for something else (ak47etc) all I can say is thank god we do not have the right to carry firearms as you do not seem to understand the question.

Incidentally the poll was more in a response to the H & K poster and the mag loaded incorrectly.
Still an interesting result to date.

For the record I'm in the no camp but if I did this is what I would carry.


Sorta county co-oridinated

Skyryder

[jrandom]

In that case...

Yes, I'm heading off at a tangent, that's correct. But I don't really see the need to artifically restrict the discussion.

As you'll see from the poll, if CCW was legal in NZ, I'd carry. But, given the choice, I'd go for a more nuanced legal position.

Given your lack of argument against it, I take it you don't actually disagree with what I said?

[jrandom]

I would either carry a .357magnum revolver...

Six For Sure! (tm)

Good man.

[short-circuit]

Yes, I'm heading off at a tangent, that's correct. But I don't really see the need to artifically restrict the discussion.

As you'll see from the poll, if CCW was legal in NZ, I'd carry. But, given the choice, I'd go for a more nuanced legal position.

Given your lack of argument against it, I take it you don't actually disagree with what I said?

No I don't agree - I believe the argument for carrying on the basis of self defence including using deadly force to defend from intruders (castle doctrine) is a very slippery slope.

As for defending property rights. Shouldn't shop owners and farmers guarding against theft simply be insured rather than acting like vigilantes?

What about when the lines are blurred - e.g. the farmer (pissed off that someone is nicking his stock) uses "castle doctrine" (since his business is also his home) as a defence for trying to kill a person who he believes to be responsible for stealing animals?


My main argument against is real simple: guns are dangerous in the wrong hands (which might constitute 90% of any given population). This may not necessarily on the basis of a lack of skill or aptitude either. If gun laws are relaxed – more pillocks have access.

Christ, some of the respondents to this thread I wouldn't trust with a box of matches let alone a gun.

[jrandom]

As for defending property rights. Shouldn't shop owners and farmers guarding against theft simply be insured rather than acting like vigilantes?

What about when the lines are blurred - e.g. the farmer (pissed off that someone is nicking his stock) uses "castle doctrine" (since his business is also his home) as a defence for trying to kill a person who he believes to be responsible for stealing animals?

It should go without saying that people who lack the intelligence and self-control to exercise appropriate judgment with lethal weapons should be swiftly dealt to. Shooting someone who's running away with stolen property, for example, isn't justifiable in any of the current 'castle doctrine' jurisdictions.

My main argument again though would be simply that guns are dangerous in the wrong hands (which might constitute 90% of any given population).

And the point I'm trying to bring out is that we already have a pretty good system for controlling that. The Police do a decent job of vetting firearms licence applicants and, most particularly, anyone who wants to join a pistol club, etc.

I think it'd be the height of foolishness to relax our current restrictions on legal gun ownership. They work pretty well, all things considered.

If gun laws are relaxed – more pillocks have access.

Once again. Not what I'd argue for.

The current demographics of firearms licence holders are pretty good. No reason to change that. In fact, if self-defence under the castle doctrine (you'll recall I'm not overly keen on CCW) became a valid reason for owning a firearm, I'd expect more resources to be used and attention paid to the suitability of FL holders.

[short-circuit]

It should go without saying that people who lack the intelligence and self-control to exercise appropriate judgment with lethal weapons should be swiftly dealt to. Shooting someone who's running away with stolen property, for example, isn't justifiable in any of the current 'castle doctrine' jurisdictions.



And the point I'm trying to bring out is that we already have a pretty good system for controlling that. The Police do a decent job of vetting firearms licence applicants and, most particularly, anyone who wants to join a pistol club, etc.

I think it'd be the height of foolishness to relax our current restrictions on legal gun ownership. They work pretty well, all things considered.



Once again. Not what I'd argue for.

The current demographics of firearms licence holders are pretty good. No reason to change that. In fact, if self-defence under the castle doctrine (you'll recall I'm not overly keen on CCW) became a valid reason for owning a firearm, I'd expect more resources to be used and attention paid to the suitability of FL holders.

Ok, that clarifies things, so did you just misunderstand the poll?

[jrandom]

Ok, that clarifies things, so did you just misunderstand the poll?

Not at all. I just thought that the discussion should be extended beyond the simple question of carry / no carry. It's silly to restrict oneself to debating the merits of extreme positions.

I don't think NZ would benefit from a pistol in the pants of every second person on the street. (Although, faced with a fait accompli in that regard, I'd feel compelled to go forth armed rather than unarmed, hence my 'yes' vote in the poll.)

But I do think that we would benefit from adjusting the legal position on self-defence and the use of weapons, without any associated easier access to or concomitant proliferation of firearms.

[short-circuit]

But I do think that we would benefit from adjusting the legal position on self-defence and the use of weapons, without any associated easier access to or concomitant proliferation of firearms.

As I said earlier that is a slippery slope

[jrandom]

As I said earlier that is a slippery slope

Nobody's forced to slide down it. The legal position can be made clear at any point along the continuum.

I would suggest that if you consider yourself to be in favour of the precise status quo, you might want to look deeper into its ramifications. There are a number of illogicalities in the law as it stands on the topic of self-defence.

[Usarka]

I find it odd that so many people would not carry a gun if the law allowed.

Too many nutters with guns around to be going out unarmed IMHO.

[short-circuit]

Nobody's forced to slide down it. The legal position can be made clear at any point along the continuum.

I would suggest that if you consider yourself to be in favour of the precise status quo, you might want to look deeper into its ramifications. There are a number of illogicalities in the law as it stands on the topic of self-defence.

There are illogicalities, loopholes and contradictions in many areas of law at any given time. Becoming more liberal or prohibitive along the continuum just creates different illogicalities.

In what way are you presently restricted in terms of firearm ownership or use?

[jrandom]

There are illogicalities, loopholes and contradictions in many areas of law at any given time.

That's a specious argument against fixing them, however.

In what way are you presently restricted in terms of firearm ownership or use?

Have a read of the Arms Code; all the relevant info's within.

[short-circuit]

I find it odd that so many people would not carry a gun if the law allowed.

Too many nutters with guns around to be going out unarmed IMHO.

Like whom exactly?


And even if this were the case, are you suggesting the answer is in increasing the amount of nutters going around with guns?

Have you not heard of a little place called the united states?