define "assault weapons"
pro-tip, try to do better than the nz stasi.
interesting choice.
unwieldly.
in many cases presenting a firearm (personally I find the business end of a .4x calibre pistol scary as shit) will de-escalate the situation, without even the need for shots fired.
hollywood has a lot to answer for. if you don't shoot, or don't get shot at, it's all hyperbole.
the average bobby (with access to firearms) has to shoot LESS than is even required for a B cat (pistol) license (by about 10 fold)
just goes to show, sign up with the right gang and they'll look after you, legislature or no,
there are many and varied reasons why (particularly NZ) police should not be routinely armed. not least of which is their inability to de-escalate situations. (let alone actually shoot the people who should be shot)
crown legislature is a fucking laugh, all the way through. but oldie hit it. legislation only affects the X% who choose to abide by any part of it at any time, and those who get caught infringing it.NZ had no firearms licencing prior to 1918 and that year is not a coincidence. The then new law was not to protect the public, the politicians had noticed what had taken place in Russia in 1917 and didn't want that to happen here. Then as now, they were motivated soley by the desire to save their own arses.
i've seen police amouries. i've seen gang amouries.
i know which side i'll be on when the SHTF.
to kill lots of shit quickly.
are you sugesting my 90y/o grandfather (who can crank 30rds through an enfield over irons faster and more accurately than most goons with a modern semis) should be limited to a single shot?
your argument is stupid.
Bookmarks