New Zealand to Ban All Semiautomatic Guns, Jacinda Ardern Announces

ashurbanipal said:

All you're doing is repeating the same claim over and over, without any attempt to engage my points.

Click to expand...

I engaged on your points showing there was no basis to them.

What point of yours do you think has been neglected?

HumblePi said:

New Zealand to Ban Military-Style Semiautomatic Guns, Jacinda Ardern Says - The New York Times[h=1]

New Zealand to Ban All Semiautomatic Guns, Jacinda Ardern Announces[/h]

CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand — Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on Thursday announced a national ban on all military-style semiautomatic weapons, all high-capacity ammunition magazines and all parts that allow weapons to be modified into the kinds of guns used to kill 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, last week.

“What we’re banning today are the things used in last Friday’s attack,” she said, adding: “It’s about all of us, it’s in the national interest and it’s about safety.”Ms. Ardern is expected to encounter little resistance in Parliament to the weapons ban.

Ms. Ardern said her goal was to eliminate from New Zealand the weapons that the killer used in Christchurch. She emphasized that it will require a mix of regulation around both firearms and ammunition.

(mine)

I knew that woman had guts. Thank God some country leaders still do! So expect tomorrow a BURST of sales in weapons here in the US because rednecks always get nervous and buy more weapons and ammo when there's a ban of any weapons anywhere. The NRA and gun shops will use their normal scare tactics and NZ propaganda on US gun lovers and do some marketing, maybe even offer discounts.

Click to expand...

So, they are going to do what Australia did a couple of decades ago.

What they fail to notice is that during the same time the US went in the opposite direction, instead of major gun restrictions gun ownership almost doubled.

Although both countries saw reduced violent crime and murder rates, Australia declined at about the same rate as before and the US reduction sped up to a much higher decline than Australia’s.

haymarket said:

I engaged on your points showing there was no basis to them.

Click to expand...

No, you have not. You haven't shown anything at all. To do that, you'd have to provide some evidence that is conclusive. All you've done the last four or so posts is assert over and over that a tyrannical government could "squash" citizens, howsoever the latter may be armed. I've disagreed, and said why. And you've come back and said the same thing again. It's as if you think argument is a process of who can keep saying the same thing the longest or something.

haymarket said:

What point of yours do you think has been neglected?

Click to expand...

Well, all of them. Here they are again:

1. History shows you are wrong. Small groups armed with small arms have overcome much larger and more well-armed groups by practicing asymmetric warfare. That's been the case frequently enough to call into question your assertion. At the very least, there's no good reason to believe it.

2. The question of pure force is not the only relevant question. Sure, would-be tyrannical governments have lots of force, and usually seemingly more than their would-be slaves. However, questions about how citizens can use the force they do have also come into a calculation about whether a would-be tyrant tries to become an actual tyrant. And in that case, that means the more force citizens can bring to bear, the better a deterrent that force becomes. If I were thinking of becoming a tyrannt, I'd much rather face a citizenry armed with single-shot rifles than semi-auto rifles.

3. Your line of argument implicitly acknowledges my main point as correct--history does show that populations who give up their weapons regret it down the line.

4. And, even if you're right, you're arguing my case for me. If force is as unbalanced as you say, that's a good reason that citizens ought to be allowed to be, and enabled to be, more well armed, with access to heavier weapons, than they currently are. It cannot be an argument for further exacerbating that imbalance of force. Your argument is akin to saying that because the wealthy in this country already have 70% of the wealth, that's a good reason they should get the other 30%. Pointing out a massive imbalance is an argument for restoring balance, not further exacerbating the imbalance.

ashurbanipal said:

Well, all of them. Here they are again:

1. History shows you are wrong. Small groups armed with small arms have overcome much larger and more well-armed groups by practicing asymmetric warfare. That's been the case frequently enough to call into question your assertion. At the very least, there's no good reason to believe it.

Click to expand...

I will discuss your points individually, one at a time until the topic exhausted.

Provide me with the verifiable evidence of your claim as practiced in the modern USA.

haymarket said:

There are certain objects that have no reason to be owned in society.

Click to expand...

There are those that are very much in need. Arms being amongst those tools that are very much needed in todays society as demonstrated quite graphically and convincingly by the NZ terrorist.

PirateMk1 said:

There are those that are very much in need. Arms being amongst those tools that are very much needed in todays society as demonstrated quite graphically and convincingly by the NZ terrorist.

Click to expand...

How so?

haymarket said:

This is not Viet Nam.

This is not Iraq.

This is not Afghanistan.

I live in the United States of America. What about you?

In the USA, there are lots and lots of ways the government can squash you like a bug if they decide to. Your little stash of private guns will mean little in stopping that. It is a myth, a fiction, a belief that you cling to in order to make yourself feel better about your political choices.

There will be no "pitched battle".

You have no buddies. You have no chances. There are no odds.

You are willfully deceiving both yourself and others with this myth.

Click to expand...

The only ones deceiving themselves are the shills for the government. But then people don't need guns to take down governments, the guns just make it slightly easier. The most dangerous weapon on the face of the planet is the pissed off motivated hairless monkey. Its not the tool that makes a man dangerous, its the mind in the man.

PirateMk1 said:

There are those that are very much in need. Arms being amongst those tools that are very much needed in todays society as demonstrated quite graphically and convincingly by the NZ terrorist.

Click to expand...

That is a decision society makes through government.

Infinite Chaos said:

Didn't take long for a thread about a ban on guns in New Zealand becoming a broadcast for the NRA did it? NZ cops don't shoot kids in the back - American cops do. NZ doesn't have anywhere near the same record as US cops.

The rest of the Western World should allow guns (within limits) but don't foist your Wild West politics and anarchic gun lifestyle on the rest of us.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the NRA was the first scapegoat attacked by the usual suspects, like AOC. Our right to bear arms is always a high priority for socialists to attack.They're chipping away.

"Ocasio-Cortez then attempted to clarify that she wasn’t attacking the New Zealand prime minister, but was instead identifying the tactics she believes the NRA uses to avoid discussing gun control in the wake of mass shootings."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...2tOOa1vhXkZ8WQujTHvbv4&cshid=1553200469496894

PirateMk1 said:

The only ones deceiving themselves are the shills for the government. But then people don't need guns to take down governments, the guns just make it slightly easier. The most dangerous weapon on the face of the planet is the pissed off motivated hairless monkey. Its not the tool that makes a man dangerous, its the mind in the man.

Click to expand...

Private guns are useless in the modern USA against the will and power of the government. If they decide to squash a person, they will do just that, and no private firearm held by a citizen is going to make any difference.

HumblePi said:

New Zealand to Ban Military-Style Semiautomatic Guns, Jacinda Ardern Says - The New York Times[h=1]

New Zealand to Ban All Semiautomatic Guns, Jacinda Ardern Announces[/h]

CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand — Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on Thursday announced a national ban on all military-style semiautomatic weapons, all high-capacity ammunition magazines and all parts that allow weapons to be modified into the kinds of guns used to kill 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, last week.

“What we’re banning today are the things used in last Friday’s attack,” she said, adding: “It’s about all of us, it’s in the national interest and it’s about safety.”Ms. Ardern is expected to encounter little resistance in Parliament to the weapons ban.

Ms. Ardern said her goal was to eliminate from New Zealand the weapons that the killer used in Christchurch. She emphasized that it will require a mix of regulation around both firearms and ammunition.

(mine)

I knew that woman had guts. Thank God some country leaders still do! So expect tomorrow a BURST of sales in weapons here in the US because rednecks always get nervous and buy more weapons and ammo when there's a ban of any weapons anywhere. The NRA and gun shops will use their normal scare tactics and NZ propaganda on US gun lovers and do some marketing, maybe even offer discounts.

Click to expand...

Wouldn’t that be nice here? Much better than “thoughts and prayers” after each massacre in the US.

SCrider said:

How so?

Click to expand...

Arms are convenient tools of defense that one can practice with and be competent in its use. This improves ones odds of success in their own defense rather than having to improvise against an attacker.

MauiMan said:

Wouldn’t that be nice here? Much better than “thoughts and prayers” after each massacre in the US.

Click to expand...

"thoughts and prayers" require nothing. And that is what the right offers.

haymarket said:

That is a decision society makes through government.

Click to expand...

No actually its not. Never has been really. The decision to be able to defend oneself has always been a personal one.

haymarket said:

Private guns are useless in the modern USA against the will and power of the government. If they decide to squash a person, they will do just that, and no private firearm held by a citizen is going to make any difference.

Click to expand...

Your a fool to think that. No government is all powerful or invulnerable. Like I said its the mind that makes a man dangerous. Its why we are the top of the food chain.

haymarket said:

I will discuss your points individually, one at a time until the topic exhausted.

Click to expand...

I think that would be better than what you've been doing so far.

haymarket said:

Provide me with the verifiable evidence of your claim as practiced in the modern USA.

Click to expand...

There are no examples in contemporary USA that I can think of. But why do I need to provide one? You're the one making the positive claim--specifically that a tyrannical government here could squash citizens if they wanted to, howsoever those citizens are armed. All I've said is that there's no good reason to believe you, given that asymmetric warfare has worked rather often in other times and places. Is there anything relevantly special about contemporary USA, such that there's a reason to believe other examples wouldn't apply here?

PirateMk1 said:

No actually its not. Never has been really. The decision to be able to defend oneself has always been a personal one.

Click to expand...

And the law must support your ability to keep and bear arms allowing a citizen to defend themselves. That is not a personal decision but one written in law.

ashurbanipal said:

I think that would be better than what you've been doing so far.



There are no examples in contemporary USA that I can think of. But why do I need to provide one? You're the one making the positive claim. All I've said is that there's no good reason to believe you, given that asymmetric warfare has worked rather often in other times and places. Is there anything relevantly special about contemporary USA, such that there's a reason to believe other examples wouldn't apply here?

Click to expand...

You need to provide one to test the validity of your claim.

You have admitted you cannot provide one.

Thus your claim labeled as #1 has no validity beyond your personal opinion.

haymarket said:

And the law must support your ability to keep and bear arms allowing a citizen to defend themselves. That is not a personal decision but one written in law.

Click to expand...

The presumes one is inclined to follow the law, or is even in fact limited by law. A man is dangerous not by the tools they use but by how deftly they use their mind. The "law" is a mental tool, a construct of the mind if you will, to be manipulated to ones own ends. Law itself is a weapon, when looked on in that light.

haymarket said:

You need to provide one to test the validity of your claim.

You have admitted you cannot provide one.

Thus your claim labeled as #1 has no validity beyond your personal opinion.

Click to expand...

No, this is obviously false. It would be like claiming that because I have never smoked cigarettes, we should assume I'm immune to their cancer-causing effects, since all the evidence that cigarettes cause cancer has been gathered from other people.

That would be an absurd claim...and your claim, though not quite as absurd, is shaky for the same reasons. Just as we should assume that if I were to start smoking, I'd be at increased risk of getting lung cancer because of how other people have reacted, so we ought to assume that asymmetric warfare has at least some chance of success here against a tyrannical power, since it has worked elsewhere often enough.

PirateMk1 said:

The presumes one is inclined to follow the law, or is even in fact limited by law. A man is dangerous not by the tools they use but by how deftly they use their mind. The "law" is a mental tool, a construct of the mind if you will, to be manipulated to ones own ends. Law itself is a weapon, when looked on in that light.

Click to expand...

One who by definition breaks the law, breaks the law and will be dealt with. I do not know what to say beyond that.

ashurbanipal said:

No, this is obviously false. It would be like claiming that because I have never smoked cigarettes, we should assume I'm immune to their cancer-causing effects, since all the evidence that cigarettes cause cancer has been gathered from other people.

That would be an absurd claim...and your claim, though not quite as absurd, is shaky for the same reasons. Just as we should assume that if I were to start smoking, I'd be at increased risk of getting lung cancer because of how other people have reacted, so we ought to assume that asymmetric warfare has at least some chance of success here against a tyrannical power, since it has worked elsewhere often enough.

Click to expand...

It is not like anything. It is what it is and what it is shines the spotlight upon your claims which you cannot support with anything but opinion.

haymarket said:

One who by definition breaks the law, breaks the law and will be dealt with. I do not know what to say beyond that.

Click to expand...

Really? Hmm. One would think that, initially at least. Initially.

PirateMk1 said:

Your a fool to think that. No government is all powerful or invulnerable. Like I said its the mind that makes a man dangerous. Its why we are the top of the food chain.

Click to expand...

That is your personal opinion and you offer nothing to support your theory.

haymarket said:

That is your personal opinion and you offer nothing to support your theory.

Click to expand...

What have you offered? Oh yes personal opinion. Shall I quote all your previous quotes?