Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[husaberg]

E

Then again that was a buy back not a gun grab that cost the country a shit ton and didn't really achieve anything and definitely didn't achieve the Labour government's goal of making the country safer.

That's a bold statement do you have any actual evidence to support it...
lets look at aussies example

From 1979 to 1996, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths was rising at 2.1% per year. Since then, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths has been declining by 1.4%, with the researchers concluding there was no evidence of murderers moving to other methods, and that the same was true for suicide.

In the 18 years to 1996, Australia experienced 13 fatal mass shootings in which 104 victims were killed and at least another 52 were wounded. There have been no fatal mass shootings since that time, with the study defining a mass shooting as having at least five victims.

The lead author of the study, Professor Simon Chapman, said a similar study had been conducted 10 years ago, and that the researchers had repeated it to see if gun-related deaths were continuing to decline, finding that they had.
“I’ve calculated that for every person in Australia shot in a massacre, 139 [people] are shot through firearm-related suicide or homicides, so they are much more common,” Chapman said.
“We found that homicide and suicide firearms deaths had been falling before the reforms, but the rate of the fall accelerated for both of them after the reforms. We’ve shown that a major policy intervention designed to stop mass shootings has had an effect on other gun-related deaths as well.”

The average decline in total firearm deaths accelerated significantly, from a 3% decline annually before the reforms to a 5% decline afterwards,
but shit the USA is all okay they top all the charts

Chapman said more than half of those who had conducted mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand had been licensed gun holders.

Merica
but don't worry Jason and TDL have a feeling they know better they have no evidence mind you........

[TheDemonLord]

That's a bold statement do you have any actual evidence to support it...
lets look at aussies example
Merica

So, an already decreasing Murder rate, linked mainly to the crack-down on gang violence that the Ban didn't have any effect on?

NZ despite having Semi-Autos during all of the 90s, 2000s, 2010s not having a significantly different rate than Australia, despite your claim that they are 'sooooo much more dangerous'

And the best bit - using the data that is most in favour of the NZ Government - less than 30% were handed in.

[pritch]

That's a bold statement do you have any actual evidence to support it...
lets look at aussies example

That was interesting. As I looked at it I wondered how Switzerland were doing, 'cause they may have more guns per head than anybody. They do feature quite high.

Switzerland is God's country to buy shooting glasses. In this country not many opticians understand the requirements of prescribing shooting glasses. In Switzerland thay all do.

[jasonu]

Wank wank wank.......

The NZ gun buy back was a total and expensive failure. It didn't remove guns from gangs or those that are likely to do bad things with them and hasn't made NZ any safer, just a little poorer.

[onearmedbandit]

People, this is not the Firearms thread, this is a thread about Trump. If you want to debate gun law here in NZ or anywhere else in the world then there is already a thread on this subject.

[husaberg]

The NZ gun buy back was a total and expensive failure. It didn't remove guns from gangs or those that are likely to do bad things with them and hasn't made NZ any safer, just a little poorer.

So you actually have nothing just your opinion, yet refuse to accept facts.
Yet also live in a country that has some of the laxest gun laws and also some of the highest numbers of multiple murder and gun violence yet cant quite figure out there might be a connection. Classic.
why is it in your opinion that the USA has so higher number of mass killings and gun deaths per head of population, yet other countries have tight gun laws and far lower gun related deaths.....

[FJRider]

Except gang guns of course because they are only used in gang business, no threat to the ordinary man.

Then again that was a buy back not a gun grab that cost the country a shit ton and didn't really achieve anything and definitely didn't achieve the Labour government's goal of making the country safer.

The guns NOT sold to the Government in that operation ... were not the total number of guns of the type that were owned legally prior to the scheme. I know of a few gun owners myself ... that I know have still got some of that class of weapon. The mind boggles on the number still out there in private (and previously legal) hands.

ALL upstanding members of our communities ... and responsible gun owners.

So ... can they in all fairness ... continue to point their finger at the gangs ... saying ... take THEIR guns off them .. ??




And they do.

[Stylo]

People, this is not the Firearms thread, this is a thread about Trump. If you want to debate gun law here in NZ or anywhere else in the world then there is already a thread on this subject.

Only confirms to me OAB, there is a link here and, an obvious one.

Houston, we have a problem . Join the dots.

[husaberg]

Only confirms to me OAB, there is a link here and, an obvious one.

Houston, we have a problem . Join the dots.

In 2016, the NRA spent more than $30 million on behalf of the Trump campaign, according to Federal Election Commission data. It was a staggering number compared to 2012, when the group spent about $13 million to try to unseat President Barack Obama and elect Mitt Romney. The Trump campaign represented the lion's share of the group's spending—the NRA spent $54 million on the 2016 elections in total.

According to the IRS they spent 54 million dollars at the last election
But it's been reported that the NRA lost 64 million dollars last year, so maybe trumps running it as well.........

[onearmedbandit]

Only confirms to me OAB, there is a link here and, an obvious one.

Houston, we have a problem . Join the dots.

The dots are too far apart.

[Stylo]

According to the IRS they spent 54 million dollars at the last election
But it's been reported that the NRA lost 64 million dollars last year, so maybe trumps running it as well.........

If Trumps not running it, the herd mentality that looks up to Donald, certainly are.

It's a culture over there that, while I can appreciate it's presence. I cannot understand .

Educate me.

[husaberg]

[Dean]

Well done Husaberg 👍

You have completely schooled those two with hard facts (little talk, a lot of action).

Sad thing is we are now witnessing the difference between misinformed and delusional people.

They won’t concede or acknowledge any of the statistics you mentioned.
Just run off on tangents, minimise and pick apart the edges of the data.

Take this as a social experiment - let’s see what they reply with.
Watch and observe folks.

[FJRider]

My understanding is there is no requirement to have it be amended, only that it cannot be enforced

If it is still in Legislation ... you can be still charged with it. Circumstances in each case may vary enough to prove some laws were broken.

Well, we already do in a way - consider Commercial Fishing quotas granted by the Treaty or the allocation of frequencies for Mobile phone use.

Personally, I believe that the buyback breached the Treaty, so I'd be tempted to advocate an originalist reading of the Treater.

What's a Treater ... ?? Is that a Trick or Treater ... as on Halloween ... ??

What part of the treaty was possibly breached ... ??? The various classes of guns did not exist when it was written. At the time the treaty was written ... they were simply confiscated. With NO payment. And the Government DID have THAT option instead of the buy-back. And we STILL have people that still have weapons of that class in their possession ... because they did not sell back ALL the (now illegal class of guns) they had.

I really can, because I'm citing Supreme Courts Justices in both instances. Some of whom are Originalist (Justice Scalia types) who take the 'as intended' view, others like Justice Ginsberg took the opposite view.

I tend to lean more on the Originalist view, but with a caveat that there comes a point where times have changed to the point that an amending of an amendment may be needed.

Can you seriously take the "As originally written/intended" ... AND still agree with the modern "Times have changed" principles ... then still claim to be consistent with your policies ... ?? A finger in both pies wont work.

So then the solution is simple, Amend the Amendment. Except to outright state that, especially if it was to amend anything in the Bill of Rights, would be political Suicide in the US, hence why no one has the balls to outright state it.

A specific clarification of the 2nd amendment is required. Any legal phrase or term ... that open to speculation on it's actual (and legal) meaning and/or interpretation ... must be clarified.

Amendments to the Bill of rights have been made before ... and can be be still done again. If due process is followed ... and seen to be fair to the MAJORITY of the citizens and ensuring peace and harmony in the community ... it would be the biggest political coup in US political history.

But it probably wont be Trump pushing for the amendment.

And that is simply not true. We know this because when writing their opinion, Supreme Court Justices frequently cite other works from which either the item being debated is derived from or is relevant to. If Memory serves, the Magna Carta has been frequently cited in Legal Opinion, despite it not being part of any Law or Constitution in the US but specifically because the US Constitution was derived from it.

Same too with the Federalist Papers, they expand upon the ideas that were codified into the Constitution, so when there is a question that the letter of the Constitution does not directly address, we can look to the intent that is rather clearly spelled out.

At best you can only guess as to what intent they had over 200 years ago. Those that cite anything will do so ... if it favor's the point they're trying to make ... or their intentions ... and their beliefs.

We can also look to legal precedent and opinion - namely that if previously, the consensus as to what the meaning was, was X, then it should hold true that for future decisions, an interpretation of X should be used and not Y.

So ... you can't quote a specific case ... but still feel you've made a valid point. Even in a court of law ... more than that is required.

The words you seem to like using ... is might ... should ... could ... which also seldom stand up (or out) in a Court of law.

There are things in the Constitution that I personally don't entirely agree with. However, those disagreements are trumped by what the interpretation of the Supreme court is. I keep coming back to this point because all of your post is attributing to me what I'm deferring to the actual authority and arbiters of the Constitution.

Don't bring Trump into the conversation. I did ... but it's my post and I'm allowed.


I personally don't actually give a flying fuck about the US constitution. It affects me as little ... as someone taking a piss in the Nevada desert.

Good on you for coming back though ... even with your piss (see what I did there) poor arguments ...

[husaberg]

.........................
population Canada vs US
34.57 million vs 316.67 million
or about 9 times more than Canada