• 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

SCrider said:
There are plenty of other options for self defense. Guns are just one option and often not the most practical option for that purpose.
Click to expand...

That's a really stupid argument for two reasons

1) in many cases GUNS are the best option and limiting honest people to other options is idiotic

2) when cops and politicians' bodyguards are limited to those other options, we might listen to you
 
SCrider said:
How many of those heroin OD's were homicide?
Click to expand...

No idea but I know the majority of gunshot deaths are suicides. and the point is-we completely ban heroin and yet it kills more people in a week than legal assault rifles have in the USA-EVER
 
Winston said:
Yes, I support it. I applaud NZ for doing what America doesn't have the courage to do.

Assault weapons ban: 70% of US wants stricter assault weapon laws - Business Insider

and 70% of Americans want "stricter" gun laws too.
Click to expand...

The bleatings of the ignorant mean nothing.

I saw a bumper sticker that I ask people like you about

it says this

I would die to protect my constitutional rights-are you willing to die to take them away?

we know that when bannerrhoid state governments have banned guns and required people to register currently owned guns in order to keep them, compliance is less than 15%
 
TurtleDude said:
I have issues with misdemeanors being sufficient to deprive someone of their constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I think this is one of those cases where a major exception needs to be made. Most mass-shootings as we see are not school shootings or mall shootings, but rather domestic violence mass shootings, often murder-suicides in which the wife/girlfriends and the kids are murdered then the man takes his own life. And whether we are talking about domestic violence, or violence against strangers, most mass shooters have histories of domestic violence that just spiraled out of control. The problem with domestic violence cases is that I often see horrific acts of violence originally charged as felonies being pled down to misdemeanors or infractions in my neck of the woods. There aren't enough corroborating witnesses (because it took place in the home), the woman is emotionally manipulated or intimidated and makes a poor witness unable to stand against cross examination, etc.

If perpetrators of domestic violence were effectively barred from obtaining firearms (and additional felony charges were pressed against those attempting to illegally obtain firearms), I think the drop off of mass shootings would be so precipitous that mass shootings would be practically as rare in the United States overall as they were in New Zealand before the Mosque Shooting.
 
Felis Leo said:
Perhaps, but I think this is one of those cases where a major exception needs to be made. Most mass-shootings as we see are not school shootings or mall shootings, but rather domestic violence mass shootings, often murder-suicides in which the wife/girlfriends and the kids are murdered then the man takes his own life. And whether we are talking about domestic violence, or violence against strangers, most mass shooters have histories of domestic violence that just spiraled out of control. The problem with domestic violence cases is that I often see horrific acts of violence originally charged as felonies being pled down to misdemeanors or infractions in my neck of the woods. There aren't enough corroborating witnesses (because it took place in the home), the woman is emotionally manipulated or intimidated and makes a poor witness unable to stand against cross examination, etc.

If perpetrators of domestic violence were effectively barred from obtaining firearms (and additional felony charges were pressed against those attempting to illegally obtain firearms), I think the drop off of mass shootings would be so precipitous that mass shootings would be practically as rare in the United States overall as they were in New Zealand before the Mosque Shooting.
Click to expand...

I think a husband slapping his wife once because she just ran up a big credit card debt or smacking his son for wrecking the family car is not felony level stuff but in some states that is sufficient to cause you to be banned forever.

and many men pled out such cases before the Lautenberg amendment because it was less costly than fighting it in court-only to find out -ten years later or so that they now could not own guns (or be cops or soldiers or guards) because the retroactive application was upheld by the courts.
 
Winston said:
Yes, I support it. I applaud NZ for doing what America doesn't have the courage to do.

Assault weapons ban: 70% of US wants stricter assault weapon laws - Business Insider

and 70% of Americans want "stricter" gun laws too.
Click to expand...

I suspect liberals don't like it when citizens in some states pass abortion bans or restrictions on homosexuals. That sort of "democracy" is bad but leftwing attacks on rights liberals don't have much use for is "OK"

btw you missed some of the comments on the article you quoted

this one


He estimate that the average reduction in such fatalities produced by a federal assault weapons ban "may be less than 10 per year."'

I mean, yeah dude... Since 2000 the avg deaths/yr from school shootings is less than 15, so it would most definitely be less than 10 per year.

This hints at a deeper truth: school shootings aren't that important. They account for so few deaths that any significant expense to prevent them is unjustifiable given the myriad easily-remedied causes of death we could be throwing that money at if the goal were to save lives.

Accidental non-fire-related CO poisoning alone causes about 450 deaths per year and each case could be prevented by $25 in gadgetry. Meanwhile, our elementary school is paying 3x that each hour in a state that's never even hosted a school shooting.
 
TurtleDude said:
I think a husband slapping his wife once because she just ran up a big credit card debt or smacking his son for wrecking the family car is not felony level stuff but in some states that is sufficient to cause you to be banned forever.

and many men pled out such cases before the Lautenberg amendment because it was less costly than fighting it in court-only to find out -ten years later or so that they now could not own guns (or be cops or soldiers or guards) because the retroactive application was upheld by the courts.
Click to expand...

It is very unfortunate, I must say, TurtleDude. And I do not think people should be retroactively given additional punishments retroactively for prior offenses because it does indeed raise major due process concerns. But if I am to propose legislation that were to actually be effective in curbing the rate of mass shootings overall (if actually enforced), that did not involve banning entire classes of semiautomatic firearms or an outright ban of all semi-automatic firearms from being owned by law-abiding citizens, I would look zeroing in on the chief perpetrators of mass-shootings. And the one thing that unites the vast majority of mass-shooters are that they are men who have engaged in acts of domestic violence. If we can effectively clamp down on them, the rate of mass shootings will almost certainly fall through the floor.
 
jet57 said:
Prime Minister Says New Zealand Will Ban Semiautomatic Weapons After Mosque Shootings | HuffPost

This how a responsible country deals with an irresponsible mentality.
Click to expand...

Responsible countries don't spook into a stampede of irrational and thoughtless action against a "profane" object, they face their responsibility for letting in an unvetted profane immigrant who bought, constructed, and used it for a very rare event.

Responsible countries don't exploit public hysteria and blindly over-react to events without facing the several causes for this tragedy; including the well-meaning but predictable risk of social mistrust and conflict; i.e. that of immigration of those particularly alien in culture and conduct.

Responsible countries understand that to deprive millions of native NZ's the opportunity to own standard semi-automatic firearms in perpetuity, because of one immigrants conspiratorial actions is neither fair nor just, and every possible other cause and remedy must be explored first.

And finally, responsible politicians and journalists ought to have the decency to know their subject, and to cease making a mockery of their own intelligence by using 'military style' and 'semi-automatic' as if they are interchangeable and identical. One cannot read an entire article on the event, or the gun laws, without "the ban" sending mixed messages as to what is going to be banned.
 
Winston said:
It's not really about stopping criminals, rather, stopping Uncle Jim from going off his meds and murdering some kids in the park.
Click to expand...

I don't think you've thought this through. What's to prevent Uncle Jim from just stealing a truck and running over the kids in the park? He could kill scores of kids in less than a minute.
 
Felis Leo said:
It is very unfortunate, I must say, TurtleDude. And I do not think people should be retroactively given additional punishments retroactively for prior offenses because it does indeed raise major due process concerns. But if I am to propose legislation that were to actually be effective in curbing the rate of mass shootings overall (if actually enforced), that did not involve banning entire classes of semiautomatic firearms or an outright ban of all semi-automatic firearms, I would look zeroing in on the chief perpetrators of mass-shootings. And the one thing that unites the vast majority of mass-shooters are that they are men who have engaged in acts of domestic violence. If we can effectively clamp down on them, the rate of mass shootings will fall through the floor.
Click to expand...

Did Paddock have any history of DV?
How about Orlando gay nightclub murderer?
Or the racist punk who shot up a black church
or Parkland

I am not seeing that
 
TurtleDude said:
I suspect liberals don't like it when citizens in some states pass abortion bans or restrictions on homosexuals. That sort of "democracy" is bad but leftwing attacks on rights liberals don't have much use for is "OK"
Click to expand...
You certainly don't mind the idea of those rights being infringed upon. As a matter of fact, you've made it clear in no uncertain terms that you'd sacrifice Roe, and let the states draft whatever crazy social laws they want, before you'd allow any kind of firearm regulations.
 
Casca XV said:
Winston, why do you constantly post stats where they don't list their methodology?
Click to expand...

Because its psychobabble. We have not idea what it means that people want stricter laws on "assault weapons" since that term is essentially worthless.
 
MovingPictures said:
You certainly don't mind the idea of those rights being infringed upon. As a matter of fact, you've made it clear in no uncertain terms that you'd sacrifice Roe, and let the states draft whatever crazy social laws they want, before you'd allow any kind of firearm regulations.
Click to expand...


YOu're wrong as usual. What I have said is I choose pro gun politicians over pro choice politicians because gun rights are more important to me. Just as you would choose a gun banner if that gun banner supported stuff you liked.
 
TurtleDude said:
Because its psychobabble. We have not idea what it means that people want stricter laws on "assault weapons" since that term is essentially worthless.
Click to expand...

I have been checking these stats every chance I get, and 9 times out of 10 I find that they don't say what the click bait title claims.
 
Felis Leo said:
Perhaps, but I think this is one of those cases where a major exception needs to be made. Most mass-shootings as we see are not school shootings or mall shootings, but rather domestic violence mass shootings, often murder-suicides in which the wife/girlfriends and the kids are murdered then the man takes his own life. And whether we are talking about domestic violence, or violence against strangers, most mass shooters have histories of domestic violence that just spiraled out of control. The problem with domestic violence cases is that I often see horrific acts of violence originally charged as felonies being pled down to misdemeanors or infractions in my neck of the woods. There aren't enough corroborating witnesses (because it took place in the home), the woman is emotionally manipulated or intimidated and makes a poor witness unable to stand against cross examination, etc.

If perpetrators of domestic violence were effectively barred from obtaining firearms (and additional felony charges were pressed against those attempting to illegally obtain firearms), I think the drop off of mass shootings would be so precipitous that mass shootings would be practically as rare in the United States overall as they were in New Zealand before the Mosque Shooting.
Click to expand...
I agree with what is the spirit of this idea.

To me, firearms are both a right as well as a responsibility. People who show serious irresponsibility and who routinely break the law, should have their 2A rights revoked.

It's already the case that this happens in America in felons being prohibited from ownership of firearms, but I think it needs to be extended more broadly to other things, like multiple DUI's and habitual misdemeanors.

OTOH, I'm fine with some citizens being able to earn their 2A rights back, and that includes nonviolent felons.
 
TurtleDude said:
Did Paddock have any history of DV?
Click to expand...

Not to my knowledge no.

TurtleDude said:
How about Orlando gay nightclub murderer?
Click to expand...

Omar Mateen apparently did have a history of domestic violence actually, towards his former wife .

TurtleDude said:
Or the racist punk who shot up a black church
Click to expand...

Not to my knowledge.

TurtleDude said:
or Parkland
Click to expand...

Nikolas Cruz did. He was apparently abusive towards his former girlfriend and engaged in stalking behavior.

TurtleDude said:
I am not seeing that
Click to expand...

While it certainly is not present in all mass-shooting cases, it is so extraordinarily common that I argue the correlation should not be ignored.

Not all people who engage in domestic violence will become mass shooters of course. But a rather unhealthy majority of mass-shooters are perpetrators of domestic violence.
 
TurtleDude said:
YOu're wrong as usual. What I have said is I choose pro gun politicians over pro choice politicians because gun rights are more important to me. Just as you would choose a gun banner if that gun banner supported stuff you liked.
Click to expand...
You literally just stated what I claimed you said. :lol:
 
Felis Leo said:
Not to my knowledge no.



Omar Mateen apparently did have a history of domestic violence actually, towards his former wife .



Not to my knowledge.



Nikolas Cruz did. He was apparently abusive towards his former girlfriend and engaged in stalking behavior.



While it certainly is not present in all mass-shooting cases, it is so extraordinarily common that I argue the correlation should not be ignored.

Not all people who engage in domestic violence will become mass shooters of course. But a rather unhealthy majority of mass-shooters are perpetrators of domestic violence.
Click to expand...
I think what gets lost in this conversation is that we're not just trying to prevent mass shootings, but general gun violence.
 
TurtleDude said:
Knee jerk idiocy is hilarious. Jet cannot legally own some guns that his Democrat masters call assault weapons, and he doesn't want anyone else to be able to own them either. Fortunately, Democrat scum cannot nationally ban common semi auto firearms in this country. It would violate the constitution, and most likely cause a civil war if the scum actually tried to confiscate such weapons. Do we even know what firearms the killer(s) in NZ used? Only freedom haters support punish hundreds or thousands of people because one scum bag uses an item illegally.
Click to expand...

Here's the notice from the NZ police - Police announce process to hand over reclassified MSSAs | New Zealand Police

No compensation. No option to dispose of on your own. The weapons are now prohibited and you have to turn them in. We're gracious enough to give you a bit of amnesty to get the turn in accomplished but, as of now, you are in criminal possession of the firearm.

At 3pm today, changes have been by an Order in Council under section 74A(c) of the Arms Act came into force adding two more groups of semi-automatics under the MSSA definition:

• a semi-automatic firearm that is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch or less rimfire cartridges) that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges; and

• a semi-automatic firearm that is a shotgun and is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges.

As a result of these changes many people who, up until now have owned these firearms legally, will no longer be able to possess them on their current licence conditions.

This means for many people, you will now be in unlawful possession of your firearm.

Given this is an immediate change, there is an amnesty to allow the notification and hand in their firearms to Police.

To organise the hand in of your firearm, you will need to complete a form on the Police website. Those who are unable to do so can call Police on 0800 311 311.
Click to expand...

That's some common sense gun control for you!
 
Lutherf said:
Here's the notice from the NZ police - Police announce process to hand over reclassified MSSAs | New Zealand Police

No compensation. No option to dispose of on your own. The weapons are now prohibited and you have to turn them in. We're gracious enough to give you a bit of amnesty to get the turn in accomplished but, as of now, you are in criminal possession of the firearm.



That's some common sense gun control for you!
Click to expand...

Well, this seems rather common for nations in which rights are not treated as something you possess by virtue of being an individual citizen, but are granted to you by the government as a gift which can be withdrawn from you at any time.
 
MovingPictures said:
I think what gets lost in this conversation is that we're not just trying to prevent mass shootings, but general gun violence.
Click to expand...

True, MovingPictures. And I think my solution would help prevent a huge amount of gun violence overall, as most forms of intentional gun violence are an outgrowth of escalating domestic violence. If we take guns out of the hands of the irresponsibly and irrepressibly violent in the domestic context, gun violence will drop precipitously. Now, of course, there are two other major areas of gun violence that domestic violence is not necessarily a factor (though it can be): (1) Gun violence as a result of mental illness, and (2) Gang-related gun violence. Those would require very particular means of combatting, especially since in the case of gangland gun violence, the guns are often illegally-possessed anyway.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... I guess it's a good thing that the latest NZ terrorist did not elect to use a motor vehicle or gasoline to kill folks.
Click to expand...

so much easier and far higher count with an automatic weapon. No real planning needed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom