Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

lionking said:
Oh come off it. My main point is and always has been that NZ should change firearm laws.
Click to expand...

..."main" is subjective. Your main point appears to be that "you know best, and if you don't agree with me you are uncivilised." But as always YMMV.

I can’t help it if you fixate on my other (quite sensible) opinion that NZ should join the rest of the world on airport security.
Click to expand...

If it was "sensible" then you would have no problem answering the questions I gave you earlier in the thread. I'll post them again for you in case you had forgotten what they were:

banquetbear said:
...can you be a bit more specific?

How many domestic terminals are we talking about here?

What would the cost be to both build screening facilities and to staff those facilities?

And how many extra dollars would be added to each and every ticket?
Click to expand...
 
lionking said:
Martin Bryant obtained his guns legally. So too did Tarrant, or so says the PM.

Australia banned semi-automatics and brought in other restrictions. Over to you NZ.
Click to expand...

You are deliberately cherry picking, the PM stated that the guns were modified to be made semi-autos and that he could not have legally obtained them as semi-auto with the A grade licence he held. If you want to be taken seriously, stop doing a Trump. You are already spouting off ignorantly about airport security here, don't keep on making yourself look foolish,
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
NZ has stricter gun laws than the US. I guess it's a matter of opinion but here in the US it already seems rather strict to most gun owners. Of course criminals don't mind since they never abide by those laws anyway.

Chris B.
Click to expand...

...and Australia has even stricter firearms laws; they learned their lesson after Port Arthur.... we've just learned our lesson. America has had several lessons, and hasn't learned anything,

Also, you need to keep in mind that owning a firearm in New Zealand is a privelige, not a right, and its a privilege that can be taken away from you at any time.... and when it is, your guns are usually confiscated as well.

I am a shooter, and a firearms owner... I own three firearms (two bolt action rifles and a shotgun). Nonetheless, I would unreservedly support NZ firearms regulations being brought into line with those of Australia where semi-automatic weapons are outright banned. IMO, there is NO GOOD REASON for any citizen to own a semi-automatic weapon of any kind. They are designed for one purpose and one purpose only... to kill people; as many as possible, as quickly is possible.

Nobody seems to be stating the obvious here, that the most likely reason this Australian came to New Zealand to commit this obscenity is because he could not get the weapons he needed in his native country.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
You are deliberately cherry picking, the PM stated that the guns were modified to be made semi-autos and that he could not have legally obtained them as semi-auto with the A grade licence he held. If you want to be taken seriously, stop doing a Trump. You are already spouting off ignorantly about airport security here, don't keep on making yourself look foolish,
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
Click to expand...

This is why the government needs to stop pursuing taking down the livestreamed video. I would like to assess the claim that the weapons we're modified to semi automatic myself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PhantomWolf said:
You are deliberately cherry picking, the PM stated that the guns were modified to be made semi-autos and that he could not have legally obtained them as semi-auto with the A grade licence he held. If you want to be taken seriously, stop doing a Trump. You are already spouting off ignorantly about airport security here, don't keep on making yourself look foolish,
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
Click to expand...

Why do you not want semi-automatics banned (apart from the few legitimate users like police and the military)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
smartcooky said:
...and Australia has even stricter firearms laws; they learned their lesson after Port Arthur.... we've just learned our lesson. America has had several lessons, and hasn't learned anything,

Also, you need to keep in mind that owning a firearm in New Zealand is a privelige, not a right, and its a privilege that can be taken away from you at any time.... and when it is, your guns are usually confiscated as well.

I am a shooter, and a firearms owner... I own three firearms (two bolt action rifles and a shotgun). Nonetheless, I would unreservedly support NZ firearms regulations being brought into line with those of Australia where semi-automatic weapons are outright banned. IMO, there is NO GOOD REASON for any citizen to own a semi-automatic weapon of any kind. They are designed for one purpose and one purpose only... to kill people; as many as possible, as quickly is possible.

Nobody seems to be stating the obvious here, that the most likely reason this Australian came to New Zealand to commit this obscenity is because he could not get the weapons he needed in his native country.
Click to expand...

Correct on every point.
 
banquetbear said:
..."main" is subjective. Your main point appears to be that "you know best, and if you don't agree with me you are uncivilised." But as always YMMV.



If it was "sensible" then you would have no problem answering the questions I gave you earlier in the thread. I'll post them again for you in case you had forgotten what they were:
Click to expand...

Along with, if everyone else in the world jumped off a cliff, would you?

lionking is using the ad populum fallacy, that because everyone else uses security theatre that we should too, regardless of the costs to taxpayers and ratepayers who have to foot the bill with a pointless and useless waste of time and money.
 
smartcooky said:
...and Australia has even stricter firearms laws; they learned their lesson after Port Arthur.... we've just learned our lesson. America has had several lessons, and hasn't learned anything,

Also, you need to keep in mind that owning a firearm in New Zealand is a privelige, not a right, and its a privilege that can be taken away from you at any time.... and when it is, your guns are usually confiscated as well.

I am a shooter, and a firearms owner... I own three firearms (two bolt action rifles and a shotgun). Nonetheless, I would unreservedly support NZ firearms regulations being brought into line with those of Australia where semi-automatic weapons are outright banned. IMO, there is NO GOOD REASON for any citizen to own a semi-automatic weapon of any kind. They are designed for one purpose and one purpose only... to kill people; as many as possible, as quickly is possible.

Nobody seems to be stating the obvious here, that the most likely reason this Australian came to New Zealand to commit this obscenity is because he could not get the weapons he needed in his native country.
Click to expand...


Probably the most eye opening, blindingly obvious, when I actually think about it sentence on the whole thread.
 
smartcooky said:
I am a shooter, and a firearms owner... I own three firearms (two bolt action rifles and a shotgun). Nonetheless, I would unreservedly support NZ firearms regulations being brought into line with those of Australia where semi-automatic weapons are outright banned. IMO, there is NO GOOD REASON for any citizen to own a semi-automatic weapon of any kind. They are designed for one purpose and one purpose only... to kill people; as many as possible, as quickly is possible.
Click to expand...

You stated the good reason to own one. Under certain circumstances, it is almost universally accepted that a person has a right to kill someone as quickly as possible.

Now, you may think that reason isn't outweighed by the amount of senseless death caused by these reasons. But that is different than saying there is no good reason.
 
smartcooky said:
I am a shooter, and a firearms owner... I own three firearms (two bolt action rifles and a shotgun). Nonetheless, I would unreservedly support NZ firearms regulations being brought into line with those of Australia where semi-automatic weapons are outright banned. IMO, there is NO GOOD REASON for any citizen to own a semi-automatic weapon of any kind. They are designed for one purpose and one purpose only... to kill people; as many as possible, as quickly is possible.
Click to expand...

This always bears repeating. However, cue the poster who reckons that hunters sometimes need to get off multiple shots quickly .... No hunter me, but I'd say that that hunter needs to be a better shot rather than rely on semi-auto capability.
 
smartcooky said:
...and Australia has even stricter firearms laws; they learned their lesson after Port Arthur....
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess it's easy to forget the massacre in Perth last year where seven people were shot dead....

we've just learned our lesson.
Click to expand...

We learned out lesson at Aramoana. Yesterday's event was an aberration that even Australia's laws could not have prevented.

Also, you need to keep in mind that owning a firearm in New Zealand is a privelige, not a right, and its a privilege that can be taken away from you at any time.... and when it is, your guns are usually confiscated as well.
Click to expand...

True, though really the person needs to have done something to have them taken.

I am a shooter, and a firearms owner... I own three firearms (two bolt action rifles and a shotgun). Nonetheless, I would unreservedly support NZ firearms regulations being brought into line with those of Australia where semi-automatic weapons are outright banned. IMO, there is NO GOOD REASON for any citizen to own a semi-automatic weapon of any kind. They are designed for one purpose and one purpose only... to kill people; as many as possible, as quickly is possible.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. Semi-automatics merely reload for you, that is it. There are a lot of semi-automatic hunting rifles, which means that if you miss you can quickly fire again without having to take your eyes off your target to reload. Considering that in NZ all semi-automatics have very restricted magazines, they are not for the purpose of killing people, nor killing them quickly. Not all semi-automatics are AR-15s or AK-47s.

Nobody seems to be stating the obvious here, that the most likely reason this Australian came to New Zealand to commit this obscenity is because he could not get the weapons he needed in his native country.
Click to expand...

Again you are either misrepresenting the facts or you don't know them, but he stated in his many page diatribe that he didn't come to NZ to do the attack, but to train, and it was only when he realised that NZ was "not safe from the invaders" and "filled with targets" that he decided to do the attack here.

As to the guns, assuming the PM was correct as well as experts who have discussed it, the guns were A class ones that had been modified to be E class, so it's quite possible he might have been about to get and modify them in Australia too. The Magazines are totally illegal here, so here or Australia doesn't matter.
 
BobTheCoward said:
You stated the good reason to own one. Under certain circumstances, it is almost universally accepted that a person has a right to kill someone as quickly as possible.

Now, you may think that reason isn't outweighed by the amount of senseless death caused by these reasons. But that is different than saying there is no good reason.
Click to expand...

Using a gun in self defense is not am acceptable reason to have one here, and no it's not "universally accepted that a person has a right to kill someone as quickly as possible." Not even "Almost".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom