NZ to ban all semi automatic firearms

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, Sako7mm said:

To be fair, you live in Shottingham, so you’re not far off!

To be fair Shottingham isnt what it used to be , we havent had a random street shooting  for at least 4 months now 😃

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-shooting-woman-not-target-2181454

[Mice!]

51 minutes ago, Scully said:

But this isn't an American issue! There would be no point banning firearms in a nation which is awash with them. Bans only effect the law abiding. 

Ok one last try, I'm not concerned with America I'm just using it as an example, the fact the American has just "found" 9 rifles wrapped in a blanket the way we might find a pair of gloves or knife we put down shows the place is a mess, only one person i know but well.

The point I'm trying to making is certain guns were banned in our country after shootings and thankfully there have been very few other shootings, now New Zealand have banned semi automatic guns and I'm saying well done.

I agree with what rewulf says its the nutter that's the problem not the gun, but if the nutter can get hold of an automatic weapon or five he's a lot more dangerous than with a couple of pistols or shotguns.

Apparently while the sicko was live streaming what he was doing someone tried to take him down, incredibly brave and might have happened while he was fumbling trying to reload.

[Breastman]

This forum never disappoints doing the anti's job for them, the amount of people who think themselves part of the shooting community but are willing to chuck anyone and everyone under the bus as long as the rabid anti-gunner wolves are at their door YET is amazing. No wonder we're in the state we are now. SMH.

[NoBodyImportant]

On 21/03/2019 at 05:32, Mice! said:

 

You average Joe has no need for an automatic rifle.

 

[NoBodyImportant]

So apparently you can feel out a form to have the NZ police come to your house to collect your gun. Just need a time and address.  Americans spent last night filling them out to the point it crashed the system.  Not that I condone it but it does so some support world wide. 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Mice! said:

Ok one last try, I'm not concerned with America I'm just using it as an example, the fact the American has just "found" 9 rifles wrapped in a blanket the way we might find a pair of gloves or knife we put down shows the place is a mess, only one person i know but well.

No , it just means they live in a place where the state doesnt have to go around wiping law abiding citizens back ends.

What did we had the other day, an MP suggesting ALL knives should have GPS trackers in them to combat knife crime ?

1 hour ago, Mice! said:

I agree with what rewulf says its the nutter that's the problem not the gun, but if the nutter can get hold of an automatic weapon or five he's a lot more dangerous than with a couple of pistols or shotguns.

Then the SYSTEM at fault , not the fact that guns like that exist.
You ban them, they still EXIST ,and nutters can still get hold of them.
Ban guns , knives, drugs, ban what you like, banning things doesnt stop people using them.

[Raja Clavata]

48 minutes ago, Breastman said:

This forum never disappoints doing the anti's job for them, the amount of people who think themselves part of the shooting community but are willing to chuck anyone and everyone under the bus as long as the rabid anti-gunner wolves are at their door YET is amazing. No wonder we're in the state we are now. SMH.

This.

Rewulf has it right in my book and there is really not much else to say on this topic.

[Scully]

2 hours ago, Mice! said:

Ok one last try, I'm not concerned with America I'm just using it as an example, the fact the American has just "found" 9 rifles wrapped in a blanket the way we might find a pair of gloves or knife we put down shows the place is a mess, only one person i know but well.

The point I'm trying to making is certain guns were banned in our country after shootings and thankfully there have been very few other shootings, now New Zealand have banned semi automatic guns and I'm saying well done.

I agree with what rewulf says its the nutter that's the problem not the gun, but if the nutter can get hold of an automatic weapon or five he's a lot more dangerous than with a couple of pistols or shotguns.

Apparently while the sicko was live streaming what he was doing someone tried to take him down, incredibly brave and might have happened while he was fumbling trying to reload.

But the banning of handguns hasn’t banned their use in killing people in the UK; only their use by law abiding people. 

How many people have been killed by people with handguns in the UK, since the ban? I can’t look it up at the moment, but I can tell you it isn’t zero! 

[henry d]

5 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

By your definition any rifle can be an assault rifle.

But that is NOT the definition of 'Assault Rifle' and you know it.

 

 

Doesn`t really matter, they are banned as of yesterday afternoon.

1 hour ago, Scully said:

But the banning of handguns hasn’t banned their use in killing people in the UK; only their use by law abiding people. 

How many people have been killed by people with handguns in the UK, since the ban? I can’t look it up at the moment, but I can tell you it isn’t zero! 

How many legally held handguns have been used to kill people since the ban here? I don`t have a scooby but it is probably zero.

[Rewulf]

52 minutes ago, henry d said:

Doesn`t really matter, they are banned as of yesterday afternoon.

What about assault books, very dangerous in the wrong hands, especially if youre already a deranged psyco.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/whitcoulls-pulls-jordan-petersons-12-rules-for-life-following-christchurch-attacks/news-story/44479280c616409d61042ccb148e4574

Controversial in some ways, but I dont remember any Islamophobic content in it, never mind, better to be safe than sorry...

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

How many legally held handguns have been used to kill people since the ban here? I don`t have a scooby but it is probably zero.

The antique handguns (there was a documentary about them) were bought legally.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Newbie to this

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

Doesn`t really matter, they are banned as of yesterday afternoon.

How many legally held handguns have been used to kill people since the ban here? I don`t have a scooby but it is probably zero.

That's what i was going to say, several thousand legally held hand guns were removed from the public vastly reducing the risk after Dunblane and before that were semi automatic rifles banned after Hungerford? I was very young.

[KB1]

On 21/03/2019 at 08:52, NoBodyImportant said:

They should make shooting up mosque illegal.  That will solve it.  Thats how we got rid of drugs in America.  

As opposed to what...... it currently being legal🤔  I can't take you serious with comments like that!  

[Scully]

7 hours ago, stuartyboy said:

I agree with you. But at some point you have to risk manage. You reach a level of risk that you are comfortable with. Its like cars. They maim, kill and poison thousands but the public accept that we need them. Its a risk we all accept. Regarding levels of comfort/risk with firearms, people are all different. Majority of folk would be happy with no privately owned guns in the UK. Some on here would be happy with full auto guns. It's all down to individual preference. I'm comfortable with the guns available to us.

Yes you could ban ALL guns and that would stop legally held guns being used in shootings but to me that is disproportionate to the risk posed by what's legally held now. Yes the guns we have can kill, but we weigh up the risk of that happening to the importance and need for these guns. At the moment I think the UK has it reasonably well balanced with the need to protect the public and individuals right to own a gun. It's not perfect, but it's not too bad. And the public seem to be happy with it at the moment. This could change any time though.

To me, part of our fight is public perception. I can't justify to others the need for some guns, therefore I understand when they are banned/or calls for them to be banned. I understand what you are saying about clay shooting and shotguns but again, to me, the advantages of clay shooting outweighs the risk. 

 

 

But if it’s about proportionate risk, then the PM of NZ considered it a proportionate risk for people to own them, or she would have called for them to be banned before now surely? She doesn’t now however, but I suspect political survival may play its part in that change of heart. What else could she do? In the circumstances not proposing a ban would spell the end of her career. Think about it. It has nothing to do with the type of firearm used, it really hasn’t.

Ive always maintained that Blair’s decision to ban ALL handguns had more to do with political expediency than anything else.  

I now understand fully what you mean, but your logic is still nevertheless flawed. Public opinion plays no part in what you are suggesting; which is that banning a certain type of firearm prevents a mass shooting with that type of shooting. Thereby logic dictates ( your logic ) that if we ban what firearms we currently own there will be no mass shootings with them. 

[Scully]

3 hours ago, henry d said:

Doesn`t really matter, they are banned as of yesterday afternoon.

How many legally held handguns have been used to kill people since the ban here? I don`t have a scooby but it is probably zero.

Are you sure? 

He was making the point that banning a type of firearm prevents people from being killed by those types...it doesn’t.

[ordnance]

Quote

To me, part of our fight is public perception. I can't justify to others the need for some guns, therefore I understand when they are banned/or calls for them to be banned. I understand what you are saying about clay shooting and shotguns but again, to me, the advantages of clay shooting outweighs the risk. 

Why would you put the public at risk by supporting tens of thousands of shotguns being in circulation, so people can shoot bits of clay out of the sky. Or support similar numbers of rifles in circulation so people can shoot holes in bits of paper, no need for either. You see all firearms as a potential danger to the public. 

Edited March 22, 2019 by ordnance

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, ordnance said:

Why would you put the public at risk by supporting tens of thousands of shotguns being in circulation, so people can shoot bits of clay out of the sky. Or support similar numbers of rifles in circulation so people can shoot holes in bits of paper, no need for either. 

Exactly.

You could fairly easily get an SGC , go out and buy 10 shotguns, and enough shells to equip yourself, and a group of like minded terrorists of whatever creed, and cause a major atrocity.

Yet this has never happened has it , why ?
Havent they thought of it yet ?
Shall we ban shotguns before they do ?

Forget about what gun does what, its the mind behind the gun we need to tackle.

[stuartyboy]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

now understand fully what you mean, but your logic is still nevertheless flawed. Public opinion plays no part in what you are suggesting; which is that banning a certain type of firearm prevents a mass shooting with that type of shooting. Thereby logic dictates ( your logic ) that if we ban what firearms we currently own there will be no mass shootings with them.

Of course banning a certain type of firearm will prevent a mass shooting by that type of gun held by a certificate holder.

I'm not going to go over and over the same points but will say this again,

I totally understand your salient point which is, that it's the person not the gun who's responsible. I agree with that. Its just that at the moment I can accept the benefits of what we currently have firearms wise, outweigh the potential risks of what we have.

I just can't accept that the benefits of handguns etc outweighs the risk posed by them. 

It's just my personal opinion.

Where's your level of comfort sit at for private gun ownership?

Fully auto guns? hand grenades? RPGs etc? Don't take this to be flippant, it's not meant to. But if you solely argue it's not the type of gun but the person, surely you would have to argue for any type of gun/weapon to be owned?

[NoBodyImportant]

2 hours ago, KB1 said:

As opposed to what...... it currently being legal🤔  I can't take you serious with comments like that!  

Shooting up mosque is illegal already.  So are drugs.  It’s a sarcastic statement pointing out that only law abiding people follow laws. 

[stuartyboy]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Exactly.

You could fairly easily get an SGC , go out and buy 10 shotguns, and enough shells to equip yourself, and a group of like minded terrorists of whatever creed, and cause a major atrocity.

Yet this has never happened has it , why ?
Havent they thought of it yet ?
Shall we ban shotguns before they do ?

Forget about what gun does what, its the mind behind the gun we need to tackle.

 

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

Why would you put the public at risk by supporting tens of thousands of shotguns being in circulation, so people can shoot bits of clay out of the sky. Or support similar numbers of rifles in circulation so people can shoot holes in bits of paper, no need for either. You see all firearms as a potential danger to the public. 

I agree with you both, yes its the person that can be the problem not the gun.  But I stand by that I have a line that I think is acceptable to me and the public regarding what guns are acceptable or required.

Same question to you as to Scully. Where's your line? Fully auto guns, SAM missiles etc? As if ìts the person and not the weapon, you shouldn't have an issue. 

And if you do, you have the same line as me. Just that mines set a bit lower.

[NoBodyImportant]

Full auto and hand grenades are legal in the USA they are not a problem.  Pipe bombs are also legal.  As long as you pay for you stamp.  

[Scully]

11 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

Of course banning a certain type of firearm will prevent a mass shooting by that type of gun held by a certificate holder.

I'm not going to go over and over the same points but will say this again,

I totally understand your salient point which is, that it's the person not the gun who's responsible. I agree with that. Its just that at the moment I can accept the benefits of what we currently have firearms wise, outweigh the potential risks of what we have.

I just can't accept that the benefits of handguns etc outweighs the risk posed by them. 

It's just my personal opinion.

Where's your level of comfort sit at for private gun ownership?

Fully auto guns? hand grenades? RPGs etc? Don't take this to be flippant, it's not meant to. But if you solely argue it's not the type of gun but the person, surely you would have to argue for any type of gun/weapon to be owned?

Ok. So let’s try it this way. In your opinion, the benefits of S1 semi automatic and pump action high capacity magazine fed shotguns, CF high capacity bolt action rifles, high capacity magazine fed CF straight pull rifles, high capacity magazine fed semi automatic and bolt action RF rifles; CF handguns ( because they haven’t been banned as you suggest ) high capacity CF magazine fed lever action carbines, BP handguns, S2 magazine fed semi automatic and pump action shotguns, sxs and ou shotguns, outweigh the potential risks posed by them? See what I mean? Still regard your argument as logical? 

As regards my personal comfort level for private ownership of legally held firearms, it sits at anything which can be used in a legitimate sporting capacity, which includes target shooting. 

I am also an advocate for the right for law abiding people to have the right to choose if they so wish, to carry arms for self defence, whether that be a pepper spray or a firearm. 

[mossy835]

just another knee jerk.the bad boys will still get them.

[stuartyboy]

I'm going to bow out of this topic. Feel like I will be repeating myself again and again, and tbh , don't have time. 

All the best and happy shooting with whatever your into

[Wasabi]

3 hours ago, mossy835 said:

just another knee jerk.the bad boys will still get them.

True but in my experience, through my line of work, the bad boys can get hold of guns we can't e.g. handguns etc but can't get the amount or quality of ammunition needed for a mass shooting.  

Jo bad boy is more concerned with shooting rival gang / drug dealers than loads of innocent random people. The average mass shooting is carried out by deranged people who would stick out like a sore thumb trying to buy a gun illegally. If they get one legally they can then buy a lot of ammunition. A mass shooting would be more difficult with the sporting guns we have in the UK than the military weapons available in the US.