• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Zealand Bans Assault Weapons

I have no interest in the question. Not sure why you think I do.

But you apparently have no interest in the outcome, which sure seems like an Achilles Heel in your posturing.


Of course you don't-it proves that democrats want to ban guns for reasons that have no valid relationship to preventing criminal violence. The ban was a spiteful action by a couple assholes who were upset that the McClure-Volker Firearms owners protection act was going to pass a House where the dems had a majority, then pass the GOP senate and Reagan had already said he would sign it. Scumbag William Hughes with the connivance of ASOTH Rangel, "passed" a bogus amendment designed to derail the bill or harass gun owners because Hughes was upset that sportsmen, traveling through NJ or flying through Newark, could not be harassed or arrested for having firearms in their check luggage or locked in the trunk of their cars.
 
On the type is a good question. I think she said 2 seemmi automatic rifles and 2 shotguns and a leeever action rifle. Wonder if they or she is going to ban shotguns and leeever actions?

What we Americans should be doing-is banning anti gun idiots from holding public office.
 
What we Americans should be doing-is banning anti gun idiots from holding public office.

Then we should kick out Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

And we should not let former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg get involved in politics.
 
Punish all the good guys for the actions of one bad guy.
They still haven't figured out that bad guys don't obey gun laws.

Could they be any dumber?
Any dumber then our politicians? I think a good lot of ours are dumber. Kinda like dumb and dumber, just depends on who opens their mouth first.
 
Sure it is, its shown that when a shooter targets a place where people are armed they don't last long, and there are usually no casualties other than the shooter.

What about Parkland?
 
What about Parkland?

you mean an area where no one armed was present to deal with the shooter and a deputy was too yellow to engage the shooter? what of it?
 
you mean an area where no one armed was present to deal with the shooter and a deputy was too yellow to engage the shooter? what of it?

I thought there were 2 armed security guards at Stoneman Douglass. If there were that makes your positions look quite silly. Keeping guns out of the hands of the likes of the shooter is far easier than depending on "yellow" security guards.
 
there are thousands of legally owned autos and there is about zero cases of those being missed.

You labor under the delusion that "sacrifices" that you want to impose on gun owners will save lives.

You also spew idiocy-your view is that anything that can be used to harm others, should be banned to prevent criminals from using it. Nice Fascist attitude in that sentiment.

No, I don't spew idiocy. Idiocy is thinking that access to guns keeps the murder rate down.
 
I thought there were 2 armed security guards at Stoneman Douglass. If there were that makes your positions look quite silly. Keeping guns out of the hands of the likes of the shooter is far easier than depending on "yellow" security guards.

They weren't in the vicinity. It is like saying that four people had fatal heart attacks in Disney land despite the fact there were several first aid stations.
 
No, I don't spew idiocy. Idiocy is thinking that access to guns keeps the murder rate down.

People like you seem unable to comprehend that guns in the hands of honest people are a benefit in crime control, while guns in the hands of criminals are deleterious. It is mainly because you see gun owners as the enemy and you are unable to distinguish between legal gun owners and criminals. So you tend to lump them into the same category.
 
Of course they do ... because they wish they had one here. (grin)
Don't grin to much because that's exactly it. Do away with the electoral(CA , NY and other large dem. cities choose the POTUS.) Extended Supreme Court, 16 year olds voting.
Yup you could kiss it goodby.:(
 
They weren't in the vicinity. It is like saying that four people had fatal heart attacks in Disney land despite the fact there were several first aid stations.

Regardless you had two armed guards. And they didn't stop the shooter. Our schools shouldn't need to be manned like Fort Knox.
 
People like you seem unable to comprehend that guns in the hands of honest people are a benefit in crime control, while guns in the hands of criminals are deleterious. It is mainly because you see gun owners as the enemy and you are unable to distinguish between legal gun owners and criminals. So you tend to lump them into the same category.

Not really, I don't think we have a crime problem, relative to history. We have a crazy and racist guy going on a rampage problem.

I already said, my thinking isn't in crime prevention, rather in crazy fantasy prevention.
 
Regardless you had two armed guards. And they didn't stop the shooter. Our schools shouldn't need to be manned like Fort Knox.

Seat belts don't save everyone who crashes

Fire extinguishers do not stop all house fires

Alarm systems do not stop all burglaries

Vaccines don't prevent all those vaccinated from getting the flu

Antibiotics do not resolve favorably, all bacterial infections

but if you don't want to die in a car crash-you wear a seat belt

if you don't want to get the flu-you get a vaccine

if you don't want a stove fire burning down your home-you have a fire extinguisher handy

and if you are sick from a bacterial infection, you use antibiotics.
 
How many people have been killed with assault rifles in the US?

I doubt he can answer that but since I know the answer-here it is

NO US citizen in the United states, has EVER been murdered by a private citizen using a legally owned assault rifle.
 
Not really, I don't think we have a crime problem, relative to history. We have a crazy and racist guy going on a rampage problem.

I already said, my thinking isn't in crime prevention, rather in crazy fantasy prevention.

In 80 years, there was not a single case of a private citizen ever using a full auto firearm that was legally owned to kill anyone. Saying they needed to be banned to prevent something that had not happened in 80 years is moronic for two reasons

1) it is paranoid beyond imagination

2) and using that stupid logic-almost every other gun should be banned before autos.
 
Seat belts don't save everyone who crashes

Fire extinguishers do not stop all house fires

Alarm systems do not stop all burglaries

Vaccines don't prevent all those vaccinated from getting the flu

Antibiotics do not resolve favorably, all bacterial infections

but if you don't want to die in a car crash-you wear a seat belt

if you don't want to get the flu-you get a vaccine

if you don't want a stove fire burning down your home-you have a fire extinguisher handy

and if you are sick from a bacterial infection, you use antibiotics.

And if you have a mass shooting problem, you ban some guns.
 
In 80 years, there was not a single case of a private citizen ever using a full auto firearm that was legally owned to kill anyone. Saying they needed to be banned to prevent something that had not happened in 80 years is moronic for two reasons

1) it is paranoid beyond imagination

2) and using that stupid logic-almost every other gun should be banned before autos.

But, repealing the fully auto ban would lead to them being used in mass shootings, of that we can be sure.
 
I bet if we made it easier for people to buy assault rifles our murder rate would go down :thumbs:
If you could walk in pass a BGC and pay between $800-$1200 instead of thousands 15-25 But I guess first the NFA would need repealed.
How about just make it easier to buy a firearm period.
 
How many people have been killed with assault rifles in the US?

Here's More Evidence That an Assault Weapons Ban Would Decrease School-Shooting Deaths - Pacific Standard

"Assault weapons bans reduced the number of school shooting victims by 54.4 percent," Mark Gius of Quinnipiac University writes in the journal Applied Economics Letters. "All other gun-control laws—concealed-carry laws, private-sale background checks, and federal dealer background checks—had no statistically significant effect on school shootings."
 
Back
Top Bottom