(I wonder if this will push New Zealand on to Trumpies’ “shi t hole” list?)

Quote

New Zealand has banned military-style semiautomatic weapons and assault rifles, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced Thursday, just six days after attacks on two mosques in Christchurch that left 50 people dead.

“On 15 March our history changed forever. Now, our laws will, too,” Ardern said. “We are announcing action today on behalf of all New Zealanders to strengthen our gun laws and make our country a safer place.”

Wait! Where are the requisite, be-all-and-end-all Thought and Prayers?

Quote

New Zealand has a tradition of hunting and shooting as sport, but....Ardern has said there is no reason for New Zealanders to own these kinds of weapons, and there is broad general consensus on this.

...The changes mean that the assault weapons will now be removed from circulation.

After the return period has passed, those who continue to own these weapons will be liable for a $2,700 fine or up to three years imprisonment.

OMG! Not a chance in hell of passing, right?

Quote

The center-right opposition National Party supported the ban, with its leader, Simon Bridges, saying it was “imperative in the national interest to keep New Zealanders safe.”

Well, that was...um, easy. Surprisingly so.

Australia did much the same thing years ago after a mass shooting, and honestly, I think there is broad general consensus on this in this country too (apart from a tiny vocal minority with overestimated political clout).

We don’t have to accept the status quo.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2019 11:49PM by pdq.

Yes, but the president wants to keep our military, police and biker gangs heavily armed in case he doesn’t get re-elected in 2024. Plus, of course, the Russian funded NRA must keep its members armed to the teeth to aid our military in defense of Pres. Trump.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

My issue with this, the reason I think this is stupid, is that these "so-called" assault weapons are nothing of the sort. The popular AR-15 is nothing special. It's not even a very powerful weapon. It's a .223 caliber semi auto rifle. Most hunting rifles are far more powerful, more deadly. The only thing about the AR-15 is it's cosmetic design. The Ruger Mini 14 looks like a typical wood stocked hunting rifle, but guess what? Same ammo, same shooting rate, same magazine capacity. Just looks "friendly". Popular hunting style rifles like a Remington 750 are far more deadly, far more powerful, larger caliber. How about a semi auto shotgun like the Mossberg 930? Talk about massive killing power in close quarters.

And then comes the fact that for every mass shooting done using a semi auto rifle (Not just AR style), there are 3 mass shootings done using handguns. The media has twisted this as a gun issue. But as long as humans have the desire to kill other humans, it will keep happening. Hand guns, trucks, knives, bombs, planes. But the weapon of choice is the handgun

Fewer guns means fewer deaths. Pretty simple math.

Quote
Mr645
The popular AR-15 is nothing special.

That speaks to the problem in itself.

special - adjective
better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual

Plane? Heavy security. Years of planning to circumvent security. A thousand eyes watch your every move in an airport.
Knife? Hammer? Slingshot? All deadly, but too inefficient to kill more than a dozen before someone fights back or authorities arrive.
Bomb? Non-trivial technical expertise, accomplices and access to significant amounts of material to hurt more than a few.
Truck? You can kill a lot of people, but only momentarily, and limited to certain venues. Can't drive one through a building or onto a plane. Preventable with concrete.

Gun? With one paycheck you can buy enough hardware and ammunition at Walmart to kill dozens in minutes at any local gathering place with or without a door--school, church, supermarket, nightclub, street festival. If one is guarded, just go on to the next. No expertise, no accomplices, no planning required, though planning and practice at the shooting range may increase your yield.

Quote
Acer
Plane? Heavy security. Years of planning to circumvent security. A thousand eyes watch your every move in an airport.
Knife? Hammer? Slingshot? All deadly, but too inefficient to kill more than a dozen before someone fights back or authorities arrive.
Bomb? Non-trivial technical expertise, accomplices and access to significant amounts of material to hurt more than a few.
Truck? You can kill a lot of people, but only momentarily, and limited to certain venues. Can't drive one through a building or onto a plane. Preventable with concrete.

Gun? With one paycheck you can buy enough hardware and ammunition at Walmart to kill dozens in minutes at any local gathering place with or without a door--school, church, supermarket, nightclub, street festival. If one is guarded, just go on to the next. No expertise, no accomplices, no planning required, though planning and practice at the shooting range may increase your yield.

See, I can understand this argument. If your against the public owning guns, that's fine. Guns are an easy way to kill living things. Human, animal, does not matter, a gun is an efficient way to kill it. But pretending that a specific model should be banned based on how it looks seems stupid to me and draws attention away from real solutions.

It’s about convenience and opportunity. Ya wanna pick the best tool for the job, right? It’s no fun toting hunting rifles around town. Which is why they are not really chosen for that. More to the point, their greater power makes them LESS effective for mass shootings.

Any gun ban is about making it harder to kill people with ease. When mass shootings become the norm with hunting rifles, knives, planes, ball point pens, broken glass, and cold stares, those all might face scrutiny.

Until then, STOP pretending any of that is a serious threat. It’s fantasy whataboutism to pretend any random toaster ... completely able to electrocute anyone ... is a REASONABLE tool for the job.

And when Austrialians and New Zealanders get mowed down with knives and planes, we can talk.

But pretending that a specific model should be banned based on how it looks seems stupid to me and draws attention away from real solutions.

It helps to start somewhere, and a hugely popular gun that flat out sucks for hunting is a reasonable start. Or, we can wait for a perfect solution to magically appear on its own.

But,,, but... guns and familiarity with them is so... so MANLY!!

You can't risk having anyone think you might be a timid girlie-man can you?

I'm comfortable with a general ban on weapons capable of rapidly loading and firing more than 5 rounds. I find the comparison with hunting weapons to be uninformed. You see. hunting weapons are legally restricted from loading and firing more than a specific number of rounds. Laws vary on a state by state basis. That's right. You can't load more than 3-5 rounds to hunt animals. Hunting humans ? No limit.

People running around in with tricked out semi automatic rifles with huge magazines are not hunters. They are wannabe murderers.

And FWIW- I own guns. Only one semi-automatic, and that's a target pistol. Magazine capacity is 10 rounds. Of .22. And when I used to hunt the rule was one bullet, one kill. Blazing away like a maniac is for amateurs.

I’d be interested to know what these real solutions are that do not include removing the weapons chosen for their intended purpose.

Anyone?

Quote
Speedy
Yes, but the president wants to keep our military, police and biker gangs heavily armed in case he doesn’t get re-elected in 2024. Plus, of course, the Russian funded NRA must keep its members armed to the teeth to aid our military in defense of Pres. Trump.

I'm confused - I thought that you were not at all concerned about "our military, police":

Quote
Speedy

Quote
cbelt3
Panic merged with insanity.

Remember who actually 'owns' the most powerful weapons in the country ? The DOD.
Remember who has decided that King Cheeto is not someone they want to work for ? The DOD.
Remember who will refuse an unlawful order ? The DOD.

Yup.

Or "biker gangs":

Quote
Speedy
The right wing-nuts are mostly cowards. Lots of light weapons but they will turn tail when confronted by the local constabulary. They were all up in arms during the teabagger movement which the Republican Party crushed without firing a shot.

Do the president and his armed supporters pose a threat, or not?

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

But several small caliber (.223) hunting rifles use the same exact magazines as the AR-15. There is a limit on magazine capacity for semi auto shotguns, but not rifles. You can buy 30, 50 or even 100 round magazines for many semi auto rifles. But these are never used in these mass murder events

I haven't seen the details of New Zealand's proposal, but if we're comparing it to what Australia did in 1996 in response to the Port Arthur massacre, it's important to note that they did much more than ban military assault-type rifles.

Australia raised taxes in order to:
Buy-back over 600,000 guns from the civilian population
Create a national registry of gun-owners
Enact a 28 day waiting period for gun purchases
Adopt strict new licensing requirements

Gun crime in Australia dropped dramatically in the following decades and they have not had another massacre. Responsible, common sense gun laws do work nearly everywhere in the world, but banning one type of gun is not enough. The US is unique in that we have so many guns out there in circulation, and we have a 2nd amendment. NZ won't be dealing with either of those factors.


As for why the assault rifle (AR-15 type) is the gun of choice for mass murders in the US, gun experts say it's simply because they are easy to use and accurate, and there is a copy cat factor going on. These weapons are closely aligned with violent fantasies in ways that other weapons are not. No they are not the most powerful rifles out there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2019 10:02AM by Lemon Drop.

Quote
cbelt3
I'm comfortable with a general ban on weapons capable of rapidly loading and firing more than 5 rounds. I find the comparison with hunting weapons to be uninformed. You see. hunting weapons are legally restricted from loading and firing more than a specific number of rounds. Laws vary on a state by state basis. That's right. You can't load more than 3-5 rounds to hunt animals. Hunting humans ? No limit.

People running around in with tricked out semi automatic rifles with huge magazines are not hunters. They are wannabe murderers.

And FWIW- I own guns. Only one semi-automatic, and that's a target pistol. Magazine capacity is 10 rounds. Of .22. And when I used to hunt the rule was one bullet, one kill. Blazing away like a maniac is for amateurs.

I think we should ban not only all automatic but also all semi-automatic guns - rifles and hand guns. I would allow hand guns that are revolvers, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns (with a limit of five or six shells - limited to two or three would be better).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2019 10:37AM by Ted King.

Quote
Mr645
I didn’t read or reflect on the above replies, but want to post something irrelevant instead.

Ted- I like it.
OOh... you need weapons for hunting ? OK... all weapons that can NOT be used for hunting are now banned. Of course these laws are at a state level.

And.. anyone that is using a rifle for 'home defense' is a complete and utter maniac. Rifle rounds will go right through your walls and kill your family. Shotgun with bird shot is best, handgun with fragmentation safety slugs is next. And... if you expect to be attacked by the Mexican Cartels, maybe you should a) move. b) stop dealing drugs.

..".as long as humans have the desire to kill other humans, it will keep happening"



Until society is willing to act CORRECTLY as opposed to focusing on looking POLITICALLY CORRECT, the carnage WILL continue. Removing one tool will simply cause evildoers to switch to another tool (which could be even worse).


The two WORST mass homicides in NY were done using PETROLEUM products, NOT firearms. The Happyland Social Club, Bronx, NY in 1990 (an illegal alien + gasoline; 87 dead + more injured) & the 9/11 attacks (illegal aliens +jet fuel; thousands dead + more injured). I expect just about ALL forum members have, at some time in their lives purchased gasoline.

In Oklahoma City, OK 1995. Almost 1000 dead & injured (Fuel oil + fertilizer)

I find it strange that people want to ban firearms to "save lives" are silent re carnage on roadways that kill FAR more people every year. Oh wait, they drive and don't want to be hassled with silly laws and restrictions that could surely reduce that carnage.

Quote
testcase
More whataboutism on two exceptional cases in a period of over two decades

More people have been killed in a year in mass shootings using guns than the total victims injured or killed by those two attacks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2019 11:34AM by JoeH.

So, if all those other tools are available, why do they for guns the vast majority of the time? Why isn't Australia a wasteland of crashed planes and nightclub arson?

Quote
testcase

I find it strange that people want to ban firearms to "save lives" are silent re carnage on roadways that kill FAR more people every year. Oh wait, they drive and don't want to be hassled with silly laws and restrictions that could surely reduce that carnage.

That's a ridiculous argument for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that driving is a highly regulated privilege and safety in the auto industry is also heavily regulated. Guns, not so much. Given the number of miles driven on US highways every year, anyone is far safer out driving than they are having a gun in their house.

It should be mentioned that more Americans are killed in gun violence than in car accidents:
2017 CDC data:
Gun deaths per 100,000 people: 12.2
Car accident deaths per 100,000 people: 11.9

"ban firearms" lol.

That will never happen. Dozens of dead children have proved that.

Maybe make it much harder to get one. There's a start.

And if you bring up "XXX has the strictest gun laws blah blah blah" then show me were the checkpoints are to prevent bringing in guns from "XXX with the most lax gun laws."

[apnews.com]
The ban includes any “military-style” semi-automatic guns or shotguns that are capable of being used with a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds. It also extends to accessories, such as bump stocks, used to convert guns into what the government called “military-style” weapons.

Military-style semi-automatics have been defined under New Zealand law as rifles with magazines exceeding seven shots, or with pistol grips, folding or telescopic butts, bayonet attachments or flash suppressors at the end of the barrel.

Many different types of firearms, from pistols to rifles and shotguns, can be semi-automatic. Semi-automatic refers to a firearm’s ability to self-load, not only firing a bullet with each trigger pull, but also reloading and making the firearm capable of firing again.

___

WHAT’S NOT BEING BANNED?

The ban does not include semi-automatic .22 caliber or smaller guns that hold up to 10 rounds or semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns with non-detachable magazines that hold up to five rounds. The guns not banned are commonly used by farmers and hunters.
-
The government said the police and military would be exempt, as would businesses carrying out professional pest control. Access for international shooting competitions would also be considered.

Guns are far less regulated than cars. Imagine needing to have a license and insurance to own/buy a gun.

---

In tha 360. MRF User Map

Quote
deckeda
It’s about convenience and opportunity. Ya wanna pick the best tool for the job, right? It’s no fun toting hunting rifles around town. Which is why they are not really chosen for that. More to the point, their greater power makes them LESS effective for mass shootings.

Any gun ban is about making it harder to kill people with ease. When mass shootings become the norm with hunting rifles, knives, planes, ball point pens, broken glass, and cold stares, those all might face scrutiny.

Until then, STOP pretending any of that is a serious threat. It’s fantasy whataboutism to pretend any random toaster ... completely able to electrocute anyone ... is a REASONABLE tool for the job.

And when Austrialians and New Zealanders get mowed down with knives and planes, we can talk.

The arguments against banning particular weapons are always ALWAYS specious. Thank you for pointing this out.

---

Quote
Acer
... Why isn't Australia a wasteland of crashed planes and nightclub arson?

<crickets>

Using testcase's and Mr645's argument, Australia would have already suffered tremendous carnage.

Except, reality.

But hey, all it takes is one bomb or whatever every so many decades, to "count" as a relative comparator to gun violence. Statistics and facts be damned when there's an unsaid agenda on the line, of course.

Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Guns are far less regulated than cars. Imagine needing to have a license and insurance to own/buy a gun.

This wouldn’t even be against the second amendment. But would it block the crazies? I don’t know.

Quote
Speedy
Yes, but the president wants to keep our military, police and biker gangs heavily armed in case he doesn’t get re-elected in 2024. Plus, of course, the Russian funded NRA must keep its members armed to the teeth to aid our military in defense of Pres. Trump.

Our former president ran a very poor operation that put weapons FAR more dangerous in the hands of Mexican criminals.

Quote
deckeda
But pretending that a specific model should be banned based on how it looks seems stupid to me and draws attention away from real solutions.

It helps to start somewhere, and a hugely popular gun that flat out sucks for hunting is a reasonable start. Or, we can wait for a perfect solution to magically appear on its own.

The AR platform is effectively used for hunting, especially feral hogs.

Quote
Mr645
But several small caliber (.223) hunting rifles use the same exact magazines as the AR-15. There is a limit on magazine capacity for semi auto shotguns, but not rifles. You can buy 30, 50 or even 100 round magazines for many semi auto rifles. But these are never used in these mass murder events

There is no limit on shotgun capacity. States may implement magazine capacity limits for shotguns or rifles for hunting purposes. You can buy shotguns that have capacities of greater than 10 rounds.

Quote
cbelt3
Ted- I like it.
OOh... you need weapons for hunting ? OK... all weapons that can NOT be used for hunting are now banned. Of course these laws are at a state level.

And.. anyone that is using a rifle for 'home defense' is a complete and utter maniac. Rifle rounds will go right through your walls and kill your family. Shotgun with bird shot is best, handgun with fragmentation safety slugs is next. And... if you expect to be attacked by the Mexican Cartels, maybe you should a) move. b) stop dealing drugs.

Birdshot would only piss most intruders off. Unless you were to shoot them in the face.

The real issue is that we are unwilling to hold people accountable for their actions. Events like Parkland should have never happened. LE and the school district knew that kid was trouble and didn't act accordingly.

In NYC within the last month a 17 year old gang member opened fire on someone with a handgun. Freaking city let the kid out on bail. This kid committed a federal felony by possessing a firearm and is a known gang member. Someone like this should be locked up forever.

Whatabout Obama (took a while to get that added here, but “thanks”)

Conclusion: Don’t make humans safe when feral hogs remain an issue.

And finally, the solution is to lock people up, longer, prior to killing.

Don’t quit your day job.

"As for why the assault rifle (AR-15 type) is the gun of choice for mass murders in the US, gun experts say it's simply because they are easy to use and accurate, and there is a copy cat factor going on. These weapons are closely aligned with violent fantasies in ways that other weapons are not. No they are not the most powerful rifles out there."

Actually hand guns are the choice for mass shootings. Hand guns are used 3 times more often than Semi auto rifles, including the AR-15 style rifles.

Mr645
But several small caliber (.223) hunting rifles use the same exact magazines as the AR-15. There is a limit on magazine capacity for semi auto shotguns, but not rifles. You can buy 30, 50 or even 100 round magazines for many semi auto rifles. But these are never used in these mass murder events

There is no limit on shotgun capacity. States may implement magazine capacity limits for shotguns or rifles for hunting purposes. You can buy shotguns that have capacities of greater than 10 rounds.


Semi automatic shotguns are limited to 4 rounds, plus 1 in the chamber.

Quote
Mr645
"As for why the assault rifle (AR-15 type) is the gun of choice for mass murders in the US, gun experts say it's simply because they are easy to use and accurate, and there is a copy cat factor going on. These weapons are closely aligned with violent fantasies in ways that other weapons are not. No they are not the most powerful rifles out there."

Actually hand guns are the choice for mass shootings. Hand guns are used 3 times more often than Semi auto rifles, including the AR-15 style rifles.

Yes that's true if you go back 40-50 years in data.

In more recent years, particularly in the era of American school shootings (a cultural and social phenomenon unique to our country in its staying power) the semi-automatic rifle took on new symbolism in mass killings and it has been highly promoted by the NRA as exactly that. Rifles are less regulated than handguns in most states. They are easy to get, easy to use, easy to modify, and super, super efficient killing machines.

Today, the AR-15 has soared in popularity amongst gun owners, due to a wide-range of factors. It is customizable, adaptable, reliable and accurate that can be used in sport shooting, hunting and self-defense situations they forgot mass murders . Civilians can also modify and personalize their AR-15 from carbine-length, stocks, optics, barrels, etc. The AR-15s ability to be modified to your own personal taste is one of the things that makes it so unique.

Check out the AR-15s below, and spread the word on what AR really stands for, America’s Rifle

[www.nrablog.com]


I'm not a proponent of singling out any type of rifle but there are quite a few types of weapons that are functionally similar to what is called the "AR-15" and I believe that NONE of them serve any valid use in the civilian population and we'd be safer if they were not so widely available. More importantly, we just need better, common sense gun responsibility laws.

As for the Second Amendment argument, it's only been in recent years that judges and politicians, under pressure from a very powerful lobbying group, reframed what "well-regulated militia" means.

Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative judge appointed by Richard Nixon, said that Second Amendment absolutism was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, and I repeat the word fraud, by special interest groups” in modern history.

And we've paid for that absolutism with the blood of our people. I've had enough, so have lots of other people. The tide is turning. Gun responsibility advocates are winning, the NRA is losing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2019 09:12AM by Lemon Drop.

Where is my full machine gun? Jesus and George Washington both promised me one!

Oh, what? It’s illegal extremely difficult to get one? How ever can that be legal? We’ve done it before. The template is there.

Quote
Mr645
Actually hand guns are the choice for mass shootings. Hand guns are used 3 times more often than Semi auto rifles, including the AR-15 style rifles.

You keep saying this, where do you get this statistic from? Stats from the last decade or so don't appear to support your statement.

There's no established definition of "mass shooting." I will wager that the lower you make the threshold the more handguns you get in the stats.

Quote
Acer
There's no established definition of "mass shooting." I will wager that the lower you make the threshold the more handguns you get in the stats.

Oh, without a valid self-defense scenario, all it really takes is one death for it to be mass murder. Of course, conservatives would rather no one adds up the numbers in aggregate.

Quote
Mr645
Actually hand guns are the choice for mass shootings.

"are" - present tense, as opposed to were or will be; denoting that this statement is declaring circumstances as they are at this present time.

This claim has absolutely not been true for the last 20 years, or longer.

[en.wikipedia.org]

And pistols which are also "semi-automatic" should be included in this analysis.

As someone who has been working on gun responsibility advocacy for 25 years, Americans do tend to fixate on mass murders, terrorism, shootings of law enforcement personnel, shootings of civilians by police, and accidental deaths of children. While very tragic and often preventable, these make up a very small fraction of total gun death in the US; mass murders are fewer than 2% of all gun deaths. (This is CDC data)

Two-thirds of gun deaths in the US each year are suicides. The victim is usually a middle-aged male who has easy access to a gun. The other third are homicides or accidents, most of them are committed with handguns, most of the shooters and victims are male, and a disproportionate number of victims are black males. Women are rarely shooting victims but when they are it's nearly always domestic violence.

A combination of gun responsibility measures have been proven to reduce gun deaths while still preserving the right to own a gun if you want to. Just need lawmakers with the smarts, courage and compassion to get it done.

Quote
Lemon Drop
A combination of gun responsibility measures have been proven to reduce gun deaths while still preserving the right to own a gun if you want to. Just need lawmakers with the smarts, courage and compassion to get it done.

(...or, more accurately, we need certain lawmakers to stop blocking those with smarts, courage, and compassion from getting the job done.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2019 01:45PM by pdq.

This is why we need automatic weapons
the rampage must be stopped

Quote
JoeH

Quote
Mr645
Actually hand guns are the choice for mass shootings. Hand guns are used 3 times more often than Semi auto rifles, including the AR-15 style rifles.

You keep saying this, where do you get this statistic from? Stats from the last decade or so don't appear to support your statement.

[www.statista.com]

Quote
Acer
There's no established definition of "mass shooting." I will wager that the lower you make the threshold the more handguns you get in the stats.

There is no real definition of a mass murder, but a mass shooting is a term used when 5 or more people are shot. If they live of die does not matter when defining a mass shooting

UPDATE:
Upon further reading, seems a mass shooting can be defined as a single incident where 3, or 4 or 5 or more people are shot. The 3 to 5 value varies depending on who makes the definition. There is no standard.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2019 07:08AM by Mr645.

Quote
Mr645

Quote
JoeH

Quote
Mr645
Actually hand guns are the choice for mass shootings. Hand guns are used 3 times more often than Semi auto rifles, including the AR-15 style rifles.

You keep saying this, where do you get this statistic from? Stats from the last decade or so don't appear to support your statement.

[www.statista.com]

And what was their source? That information is hidden behind a paywall, so what you have provided is not able to be checked for what definitions and methodologies were used.

As pointed out to you, and which you initially got wrong, there is no standard definition of a mass shooting. But unlike your claim, yes there is an accepted standard set for "mass murder". The FBI defines a mass murder as 4 or more killed in a single event with no "cooling off period" between the murders. That has been accepted and used by other researchers. There is some discussion over what constitutes a "single event" and whether or not a "cooling off period" might have occurred between some connected murders.