NZ to ban all semi automatic firearms

[Deker]

49 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

 

For the record, I agree that military (and military style) weapons have no place outside the military

 

And that there is the problem, what is classed as "military style"? I have a Ruger precision rifle for long range target shooting, it looks military style but operates no different to any other .308 bolt action rifle, should these be banned too?

Edited March 21, 2019 by Deker
typo

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, NoBodyImportant said:

Not at all.  Not one person I know has been murdered.  Our gun laws are not what the media makes it out to be.  To buy a gun you have to pass a background check.  Even at gun shows. The loophole doesn’t exist.  Plus if you outlaw them the only the outlaws will own them.  Example- 750k bumpstocks have been manufactured.  Not counting the homemade ones.  3 have been turned in since the ban.  Our gun deaths are centralized in a few urban, ethnic areas.  

My understanding was there are common federal laws and differing state laws. In Michigan you just need a state drivers licence to purchase pretty much anything firearms related.

I've been told by a fair few colleagues that at fairs and markets in MI and OH firearms are often exchanged with no questions asked?

[NoBodyImportant]

Here is the truth.  America is living a lie.  Half our country is on welfare.  We have a incredible welfare system.  I could quit work today and our government will take care of me and my family the rest of my life. But between half the country not wanting to work and the USA giving billions to Africa/ South America/ Asian we can’t afford it to much longer.  Eventually the welfare system is going to run out.  The people at the top want to stay at the top and want us peasants disarmed before the lie catches up. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Just now, NoBodyImportant said:

Here is the truth.  America is living a lie.  Half our country is on welfare.  We have a incredible welfare system.  I could quit work today and our government will take care of me and my family the rest of my life. But between half the country not wanting to work and the USA giving billions to Africa/ South America/ Asian we can’t afford it to much longer.  Eventually the welfare system is going to run out.  The people at the top want to stay at the top and want us peasants disarmed before the lie catches up. 

Interesting to get a view from across the pond.

[12gauge82]

18 minutes ago, NoBodyImportant said:

He could have built a bomb.  He could have ran through a crown in his car.  

Agreed, its why I'm hovering on the fence, however, a counter argument would be, someone else may not have been able to manufacture a bomb and in this instance, running people down would very likely not have resulted in anywhere near as many deaths, therefore banning semi auto would save lives. (that's not necessarily my argument, I'm playing devil's advocate) 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, stuartyboy said:

I totally agree in the sentiment that it's not the weapon used, but the person that's responsible. However, I'm going to play Devils advocate and make a point that will be unpopular here.

Since they've banned semi auto centerfire  rifles since Hungerford, there's been no mass shootings with legally held semi auto CF rifles in the UK.

Since they banned handguns after Dunblane, they've been no mass shootings with legally held handguns in the UK.

So it does work. And it's highly popular with the overwhelming majority of the population. 

Yes, they are still shootings, stabbings, acid attacks but no shootings with legally held semi auto guns and handguns.

If the above guns wherent taken out of civilian hands, how many more attacks would've/couldve happened? Would it be like America,  with frequent attacks?

Yes,  I know criminals still have guns, so do terrorists but we're talking about legally held guns and mass shootings. 

Tin hat on.....

I can understand the sentiment; the PM is now between a rock and a hard place, and knee jerk reactions are a primary reaction to political survival; hence the reason we in the UK have the totally ineffectual knife laws we have. I can understand the sentiment, I just don't agree with it. 

It seems to work, as you suggest, but if you apply your logic to the UK then we shouldn't currently have bolt action rifles nor double ejector shotguns, due to the Derek Bird shootings. Be careful what you wish for.

There are still shootings with illegally held semi automatic firearms in this country, just not on the scale we have come to know as unacceptable, and usually ( but not always ) restricted to the criminal fraternity. 

As for the 'American problem'; it is a nation of firearms owners. It makes sense as such, to go armed for self defence; the irony is that the vast majority of mass shootings take place in 'gun free zones', where the carrying of firearms for self defence is not allowed. Who'd have thought? 

[Mice!]

10 minutes ago, NoBodyImportant said:

Not at all.  Not one person I know has been murdered.  Our gun laws are not what the media makes it out to be.  To buy a gun you have to pass a background check.  Even at gun shows. The loophole doesn’t exist.  Plus if you outlaw them the only the outlaws will own them.  Example- 750k bumpstocks have been manufactured.  Not counting the homemade ones.  3 have been turned in since the ban.  Our gun deaths are centralized in a few urban, ethnic areas.  

I don't know anyone that's been murdered thankfully, but mass shootings in the states seems fairly common and not one type of gun has been banned.

you have what a hundred or so guns because of an over bearing government??? Really?? In this country I'm pretty sure you'd be getting those guns taken off you. 

[JohnfromUK]

5 minutes ago, Deker said:

And that there is the problem, what is classed as "military style"? ......... bolt action rifle, should these be banned too?

 

And that is why I am against a knee jerk ban, but think that it is up to the NZ Government and people to decide what they want to do longer term with full consideration to making a sound law without loopholes and minimal damage to legitimate uses (which as someone has pointed out may be quite different to what we see in the UK).

[Scully]

3 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Agreed, its why I'm hovering on the fence, however, a counter argument would be, someone else may not have been able to manufacture a bomb and in this instance, running people down would very likely not have resulted in anywhere near as many deaths, therefore banning semi auto would save lives. (that's not necessarily my argument, I'm playing devil's advocate) 

So like I've said before, it's a numbers game...it's all about what society deems acceptable. Weird eh. 

[NoBodyImportant]

3 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

My understanding was there are common federal laws and differing state laws. In Michigan you just need a state drivers licence to purchase pretty much anything firearms related.

I've been told by a fair few colleagues that at fairs and markets in MI and OH firearms are often exchanged with no questions asked?

We have a country wide system called NICS.  When you buy a long gun anywhere in the USA you have to show an ID and fill out a NICS form.  Then they call the atf and the run your SS#.  They will give you a yes,no, or a hold.  Holds by law must turn into a yes or no within 3 days.  Hand guns are much harder.  They require a permit system that varies from state to state.  Some states are shall sign and some a may sign.  Shall sign states the sheriff has to give you a permit if you have zero felonies.  May sign states the sheriff might sign but he can deny you for any reason. But a judge can over turn it if they won’t sign for a permit. 

[Scully]

2 minutes ago, Mice! said:

 

you have what a hundred or so guns because of an over bearing government??? Really?? In this country I'm pretty sure you'd be getting those guns taken off you. 

Let's not make this an American issue eh. Different country different culture, where they have the freedom to own as many firearms as they choose. Who is the more dangerous; a deranged extremist with an AK47 and a couple of magazines, or a law abiding content family man with a hundred? 

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, NoBodyImportant said:

We have a country wide system called NICS.  When you buy a long gun anywhere in the USA you have to show an ID and fill out a NICS form.  Then they call the atf and the run your SS#.  They will give you a yes,no, or a hold.  Holds by law must turn into a yes or no within 3 days.  Hand guns are much harder.  They require a permit system that varies from state to state.  Some states are shall sign and some a may sign.  Shall sign states the sheriff has to give you a permit if you have zero felonies.  May sign states the sheriff might sign but he can deny you for any reason. But a judge can over turn it if they won’t sign for a permit. 

Thanks for the insight! I was in Top Gun in Michigan last week and did see a guy filling out a form.

[Benthejockey]

1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said:

Agreed, its why I'm hovering on the fence, however, a counter argument would be, someone else may not have been able to manufacture a bomb and in this instance, running people down would very likely not have resulted in anywhere near as many deaths, therefore banning semi auto would save lives. (that's not necessarily my argument, I'm playing devil's advocate) 

Bombs are relatively easy to make. For example tannerite although used for reactive targets in a big enough quantity - like a 5 gallon bucket so not a huge amount - would make a massive bang and although relatively difficult to detonate it only takes a shot with a bullet going a bit faster than rim fire velocity. Or home made Anfo - nitrogen prills and fuel oil - makes a big bang. And depending how intricate you wanted to get you could make it go pop by lighting it on fire or source proper electronic detonators.

[NoBodyImportant]

5 minutes ago, Mice! said:

I don't know anyone that's been murdered thankfully, but mass shootings in the states seems fairly common and not one type of gun has been banned.

you have what a hundred or so guns because of an over bearing government??? Really?? In this country I'm pretty sure you'd be getting those guns taken off you. 

No, I have a hundred or so because I like guns.  We have a system of checks and balances in our government.  You see the USA is 50 individual states.  We formed a federal government the levy taxes to form a standing army that’s sole purpose is to insure the states right to govern themselves from all threats foreign and domestic.  But to insure the states remain free to govern themselves the state cilvilans have the right to own weapons.  

3 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Thanks for the insight! I was in Top Gun in Michigan last week and did see a guy filling out a form.

Now that being said most crack dealers also sell guns and those can be had no questions asked.  

4 minutes ago, Benthejockey said:

Bombs are relatively easy to make. For example tannerite although used for reactive targets in a big enough quantity - like a 5 gallon bucket so not a huge amount - would make a massive bang and although relatively difficult to detonate it only takes a shot with a bullet going a bit faster than rim fire velocity. Or home made Anfo - nitrogen prills and fuel oil - makes a big bang. And depending how intricate you wanted to get you could make it go pop by lighting it on fire or source proper electronic detonators.

You guys probably don’t remember the Oklahoma bombing.  3 barrels of diesel fuel and fertilizer.

[Ultrastu]

It wasnt that long ago in nz that your average joe was a farmer and did need his guns. The country over there is changing . (Obviously faster and in directions some people dont like ) 

To my mind the nz pm is not much better that the shooter .forcing her own political views on millions of others in a "i dont consider how it may effect millions of people " way 

Im not saying there gun laws are perfect and their isnt room for improvement .but using an even to get your own way isnt correct. 

 

 

[NoBodyImportant]

I really don’t know the culture of NZ.  But many times we hear about things from our media about Majority of people want this!  Then the vote will come  and it will get defeated horribly.  Hillary Clinton was supposed to win 42 states in a landslide.  Our media is fake as it gets.   

[NoBodyImportant]

7 hours ago, Scully said:

Let's not make this an American issue eh. Different country different culture, where they have the freedom to own as many firearms as they choose. Who is the more dangerous; a deranged extremist with an AK47 and a couple of magazines, or a law abiding content family man with a hundred? 

I have never been arrested for anything.  In fact every time I buy a gun I pass a background check.  The class three weapon stamps I have took me over a year to get each.  The class three permits are a deep check that requires your local sheriff to sign off on and everything.  I love my government.  Our job market is incredible, stock portfolio is ****ing money right now.   We are heading in the right path.  

[12gauge82]

7 hours ago, Scully said:

 

 

7 hours ago, Scully said:

So like I've said before, it's a numbers game...it's all about what society deems acceptable. Weird eh. 

Spot on

[Newbie to this]

7 hours ago, Ultrastu said:

Also .military style is bad (black with weaver rails etc ?) But a wood stocked version of the same semi auto is ok .

Oh yeah that makes sense 😒

 

This, 100% a 22lr semi-auto, is a 22lr semi-auto! Why does it matter what it looks like?

[henry d]

Let us just go back a bit here, the possible ban on military style semi auto and assault rifles was due to a specific incident, in this incident a man used the rifle to make a statement, much like Brivik, and he wanted to live, to him there was no compulsion to kill all in the mosque, the act had to be an atrocity which he could make a political statement about both during and after.

If he had used a bomb he would have had to place it in or near to the mosque, both could have been thwarted, unless he went in with the bomb strapped to him. Similarly for a knife/golf club/other weapon. He didn`t, it was all about him and the power of the weapons he held and the political statement. I think it is right that in the light of that these weapons are banned, as by banning them the likelihood of the same atrocity happening is significantly reduced, all other scenarios are redundant in this argument.

[stuartyboy]

7 hours ago, Scully said:

t seems to work, as you suggest, but if you apply your logic to the UK then we shouldn't currently have bolt action rifles nor double ejector shotguns, due to the Derek Bird shootings.

That's my point though. 

After Dunblane and Hungerford they banned the firearms used in each atrocity. 

What Bird did was shocking but if he had handguns, he could have caused even more devastation. Same as if he had centerfire automatic rifles. 

I'm not saying that we should ban .22s and shotguns because of what he did, but I think the shooting community was lucky in this instance that more restrictions wheren't brought in.

Whereas,  the horrendous atrocity in NZ is always going to bring much tighter restrictions and public support for banning firearms in public hands.

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

Let us just go back a bit here, the possible ban on military style semi auto and assault rifles was due to a specific incident, in this incident a man used the rifle to make a statement, much like Brivik, and he wanted to live, to him there was no compulsion to kill all in the mosque, the act had to be an atrocity which he could make a political statement about both during and after.

 

If he had used a bomb he would have had to place it in or near to the mosque, both could have been thwarted, unless he went in with the bomb strapped to him. Similarly for a knife/golf club/other weapon. He didn`t, it was all about him and the power of the weapons he held and the political statement. I think it is right that in the light of that these weapons are banned, as by banning them the likelihood of the same atrocity happening is significantly reduced, all other scenarios are redundant in this argument.

 

So all semi-autos should be banned???

Edited March 21, 2019 by Newbie to this

[bluesj]

10 hours ago, stuartyboy said:

I totally agree in the sentiment that it's not the weapon used, but the person that's responsible. However, I'm going to play Devils advocate and make a point that will be unpopular here.

Since they've banned semi auto centerfire  rifles since Hungerford, there's been no mass shootings with legally held semi auto CF rifles in the UK.

Since they banned handguns after Dunblane, they've been no mass shootings with legally held handguns in the UK.

So it does work. And it's highly popular with the overwhelming majority of the population. 

Yes, they are still shootings, stabbings, acid attacks but no shootings with legally held semi auto guns and handguns.

If the above guns wherent taken out of civilian hands, how many more attacks would've/couldve happened? Would it be like America,  with frequent attacks?

Yes,  I know criminals still have guns, so do terrorists but we're talking about legally held guns and mass shootings. 

Tin hat on.....

I may be wrong but wasn't the firearms licensing system changed at about the same time making it easier for police to refuse or revoke licenses.

That may have had a bigger impact that banning some firearms ( I know they are not banned just harder to get).  

[Ultrastu]

Just now, henry d said:

Let us just go back a bit here, the possible ban on military style semi auto and assault rifles was due to a specific incident, in this incident a man used the rifle to make a statement, much like Brivik, and he wanted to live, to him there was no compulsion to kill all in the mosque, the act had to be an atrocity which he could make a political statement about both during and after.

 

If he had used a bomb he would have had to place it in or near to the mosque, both could have been thwarted, unless he went in with the bomb strapped to him. Similarly for a knife/golf club/other weapon. He didn`t, it was all about him and the power of the weapons he held and the political statement. I think it is right that in the light of that these weapons are banned, as by banning them the likelihood of the same atrocity happening is significantly reduced, all other scenarios are redundant in this argument.

 

I dont agree with any of that sorry .

[Remimax]

well there we have it little wonder it so easy to shaft us uk gun owners , reading these comments ,  gun owners supporting bans on "weapons" ***.

i was affected buy the uk semi auto ban and pistol ban all them years ago  not hard to see why it was so easy for them

don't deserve a licence in my eyes .