New Zealanders are refusing to turn over guns under new law

[P.J. Denyer]

Because the French played no part in the final victory. Oh, no, hang on...they were pivotal in defeating the Royal navy at Chesapeake, landing the siege equipment (all French), thus allowing the American/French army to force Cornwallis to surrender.

Without the French navy and the siege train that would not have happened.

And that's just the events near the end of the war.

If it wasn't them that took the airports, it doesn't count.

 

[Ranb]

These restrictions aren't intended to address criminal use of firearms in general, and don't pretend to. Use of firearms in crime is rare in New Zealand.

Then why did they wait until a mass shooting was committed and why restrict those guns at all?

 

[theprestige]

Then why did they wait until a mass shooting was committed and why restrict those guns at all?

"We must do something! This is something! We must do this!"

 

[The Atheist]

I wonder how they convinced all the criminals to hand in their guns also

I love this.

When your feeble attempts to project US gun attitudes have been so destructicated* you ask a really stupid question to keep trying.

Las Vegas - 58 dead. Shooter with no criminal record.
Christchurch - 51 dead. Shooter with no criminal record.
Port Arthur - 35 dead. Shooter with no criminal record.
Orlando - 49 dead. Shooter with no criminal record.

Please do keep going; I find it highly amusing.

*New word my 10-year-old son invented, to cover all of: destroyed, annihilated & vaporised, in one word.

 

[The Atheist]

"We must do something! This is something! We must do this!"

Gosh, imagine that - places where **** happens and people decide we should try to prevent it in the future.

Really stupid, we should have sent thoughts & prayers; they're so much stronger than laws.

 

[theprestige]

Gosh, imagine that - places where **** happens and people decide we should try to prevent it in the future.



Really stupid, we should have sent thoughts & prayers; they're so much stronger than laws.

I imagine people determinimg root cause and taking informed action to address the root cause itself, not latching on to whatever retarded placebo that happens to penetrate their thick skulls.

 

[jimbob]

Then why did they wait until a mass shooting was committed and why restrict those guns at all?

Because there wasn't the political will beforehand.

Now the problem has been highlighted, and the solution is clear.

"We must do something! This is something! We must do this!"

Gosh, imagine that - places where **** happens and people decide we should try to prevent it in the future.

Really stupid, we should have sent thoughts & prayers; they're so much stronger than laws.

"Something must be done, and this worked in Australia, and there's no reason for it not to work in NZ, and there's the political will, so this seems reasonable" doesn't quite have the same ring.

 

[Cainkane1]

Good, it's about time law-abiding citizens started standing up for their right to keep and bear a firearm.

 

[jimbob]

Good, it's about time law-abiding citizens started standing up for their right to keep and bear a firearm.

Have you read the thread?

The thread title would have been more accurate to read - "New Zealanders don't hand guns in before gun buyback starts"

 

[Cainkane1]

Have you read the thread?

The thread title would have been more accurate to read - "New Zealanders don't hand guns in before gun buyback starts"

Guilty as charged. I just assumed the NZ's refused to turn their weapons in.

 

[jimbob]

Guilty as charged. I just assumed the NZ's refused to turn their weapons in.

Nope, and there are still plenty of guns legally available in New Zealand, but now, most semiautomatic rifles are banned, and some will have magazine limitations.

 

[The Atheist]

I imagine people determinimg root cause and taking informed action to address the root cause itself, not latching on to whatever retarded placebo that happens to penetrate their thick skulls.

What a load of utter nonsense.

The root cause is less relevant for immediate action than guns, which cause the deaths. Those, we can remove.

Waiting generations to educate kids and wait until they grow up might be an excellent long-term strategy, but taking action now is prudent.

Lowering the number of guns is unsurprisingly a good way of reducing gun murder rates. Maybe you could compare countries with strong gun law murder rates to USA one day when you're bored.

Guilty as charged. I just assumed the NZ's refused to turn their weapons in.

No, that was just a fantasy of an American gun enthusiast wanting to project something that doesn't exist. I'd say the number of [now] illegal guns in the country will be reduced by over 90%. Kiwis don't have the same quasi-religious attitude to guns that some nations have.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I imagine people determinimg root cause and taking informed action to address the root cause itself, not latching on to whatever retarded placebo that happens to penetrate their thick skulls.

Is it time to roll back the clock to when that word wasn't offensive?

The problem is that we would then predate the Onion article that addresses your point. Them placebos seem to work pretty well everywhere they are implemented. At some point maybe we have to wonder if they are actually placebos.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Good, it's about time law-abiding citizens started standing up for their right to keep and bear a firearm.

Yeah, NZ doesn’t abide by the American Constitution. There are no rights to keep and bear a firearm. Thanks for playing.

 

[smartcooky]

Good, it's about time law-abiding citizens started standing up for their right to keep and bear a firearm.

Owning and using firearms in this country is a privilege, one that can be taken away from you at any time.

There is no "right to bear arms" in the country.

Please try to keep up

 

[smartcooky]

Have you read the thread?

The thread title would have been more accurate to read - "New Zealanders don't hand guns in before gun buyback starts"

Except that would not be accurate either, because they did. 840 were taken to police stations before the first gun buyback event.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12246561

 

[smartcooky]

Then why did they wait until a mass shooting was committed and why restrict those guns at all?

Because we thought our gun laws were sufficiently strict to prevent this kind of thing happening here. We were wrong, they weren't, so we are trying to address that.

Unlike the US, who operate by what I like to call the "All or Nothing Rule", we are prepared to put in place a partial solution to reduce the risk of it happening agian, rather than throwing our hands in the air and saying we cannot fix it 100% so do nothing.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah, NZ doesn’t abide by the American Constitution. There are no rights to keep and bear a firearm. Thanks for playing.

Does a right cease to exist because a particular government doesn't recognize it?

One of the major topics in international affairs seems to be how some countries don't recognize certain rights. The conversation never seems to be about how those rights just don't exist in those countries. Instead, the conversation always seems to be about how those rights totally exist, and the country in question is totally wrong for not recognizing them.

 

[smartcooky]

Does a right cease to exist because a particular government doesn't recognize it?

The right never existed in the first place.

However, I can easily understand why you think gun ownership is a universal right. You were brought up in a country where the right to own a gun is a thing - you have been conditioned to think that way from the moment you could understand what it meant.

You were also brought up in a country that teaches you America is the greatest country on earth, and that your laws and rights and beliefs should apply everywhere else in the world, and that anyone who disagrees with America is automatically wrong by default.

One of the major topics in international affairs seems to be how some countries don't recognize certain rights. The conversation never seems to be about how those rights just don't exist in those countries. Instead, the conversation always seems to be about how those rights totally exist, and the country in question is totally wrong for not recognizing them.

You're taking about internationally recognised "human rights". Guns are not included.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Does a right cease to exist because a particular government doesn't recognize it?

One of the major topics in international affairs seems to be how some countries don't recognize certain rights. The conversation never seems to be about how those rights just don't exist in those countries. Instead, the conversation always seems to be about how those rights totally exist, and the country in question is totally wrong for not recognizing them.

Rights are not some inherent property of the universe, of being human, or of divine fiat. They are socially negotiated. To state the obvious.