NZ to ban all semi automatic firearms

[bluesj]

12 minutes ago, Remimax said:

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 . 

 

 

 

We saw that with the proposed 50 cal ban! On here it was case of I don't use one so no one should for some.

[Newbie to this]

Yes, I can't quite get the mentality of one semi-auto is bad, but another is OK, purley based on it's looks. They are both capable of the same thing.

Maybe it is like you say, I don’t like/use them, so no one should have one, mentality

Edited March 21, 2019 by Newbie to this

[stuartyboy]

56 minutes ago, Remimax said:

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 

Having a difference of opinion to yourself shouldn't preclude one from having a licence....

And it's 'easy to shaft us UK gun owners' purely because the overwhelming vast majority of the public don't give a toss about you or I wanting to go shooting or they are totally against it. They see or read about the latest atrocity, wherever it happens, and base their opinions on that. If you held a referendum about private ownership of guns, probably 90% of folk would vote against guns, as they have no interest in them or ever likely to use one. The politicians know this and change laws to suit public opinion and themselves.

I stand by my earlier sentiments. At the time of the handgun ban I believed it was unfair as it was the work of a lunatic that caused it. But now, I think that the likelihood is, that the ban has saved lives. As with subsequent tragic shootings in the UK, the death toll would likely have been higher with handguns, but we can never know that for sure. It's only my belief.

And if that means you don't get to shoot targets with a pistol, so be it.

Edited March 21, 2019 by stuartyboy

[ordnance]

Quote

 

stuartyboy

•  
•  

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. 

 

How do you know even if they did not ban handguns and S/A rifles, there would have being any mass shootings anyway using these type of firearms. For all you know it could have made absolutely no difference.

Edited March 21, 2019 by ordnance

[Harnser]

I have always had certain reservations about centre fire self loading rifles simply because of the damage they can cause in the wrong hands . And yes I did have a centre fire self loader that was used for compition shooting all over the UK . When they were banned we went to bolt action and straight pull rifles . The comps were just the same ,but took longer to shoot . Not such a big deal to lose the self loaders 

Harnser

 

[Scully]

2 hours ago, stuartyboy said:

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.

But Bird didn't have either handguns or self loading rifles; he used the firearms you and I use. He killed 12 people and injured another 11. So why aren't you saying we should ban .22's and shotguns? Your logic surely dictates that we should! 

To suggest if he'd had handguns or semi auto rifles he could have caused even more destruction is irrelevant; if Bird had entered a school or a hospital or supermarket ( or a mosque )  with his .22 and his shotgun, instead of cruising the countryside looking for victims, he could have caused much more destruction than he did, and the death toll would have been much higher.

The shooter in NZ selected his venue deliberately, with the intention of causing maximum impact, as did Hamilton. Ryan and Bird were opportunistic. The fact is they were all carried out by legitimate firearms owners. Your logic is skewed.

 

2 hours 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.

 

But yet again, by that logic, none of us should now own the firearms we do. 

[henry d]

2 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

So all semi-autos should be banned???

I said it at the beginning, it's specific to what happened, so only the assault/semi automatic rifles.

[Scully]

52 minutes ago, Harnser said:

I have always had certain reservations about centre fire self loading rifles simply because of the damage they can cause in the wrong hands . And yes I did have a centre fire self loader that was used for compition shooting all over the UK . When they were banned we went to bolt action and straight pull rifles . The comps were just the same ,but took longer to shoot . Not such a big deal to lose the self loaders 

Harnser

 

But not enough of a reservation to stop you from buying one? Or from carrying on with bolt-action or straight pull actions? 🤔

[simonm]

11 hours ago, Mice! said:

You are being funny aren't you? I realise your from America but how many high school shootings does it take to be too many? Yes you have a massive population and the country is huge but the gun laws are nuts.

And all tools are dangerous in the wrong hands.

As I understand it the statistics regarding "high school shootings" are rather misunderstood, as they include shootings near or on high school property out of school hours?

[henry d]

5 minutes ago, Scully said:

 

 

But yet again, by that logic, none of us should now own the firearms we do. 

Sure, but apart from the idea that the American guy posted earlier, that of; "I want therefore I shall have." in respect to a firearm that has little use in the field or target shooting. The word "assault" is a good descriptor.

[Raja Clavata]

10 hours ago, Ultrastu said:

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 

I can only assume you wrote this to cause a reaction...

[Ultrastu]

Just now, Raja Clavata said:

I can only assume you wrote this to cause a reaction...

No .i stand by what ive said .

Its an emotive subject obviously. But .

To take lots of peoples lives (by any means ) and to make it into a huge political statement (as he did) .Is to FORCE  your opinion and views on other people .he chose not to try any lawful or reasoned means , with debate or logic .he Forced them with guns .

The nz .pm is now skipping past any resoned debate where logic and other peoples opionions are taken into consideration and Forcing her own agenda in a similar way . (Not as bad obviously  with guns etc ) but its not the way laws ,that should be respected by the populace should come into effect .Thankfully the uk government take a little longer than a week to pass new laws .

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by Ultrastu

[Remimax]

26 minutes ago, Scully said:

But Bird didn't have either handguns or self loading rifles; he used the firearms you and I use. He killed 12 people and injured another 11. So why aren't you saying we should ban .22's and shotguns? Your logic surely dictates that we should! 

To suggest if he'd had handguns or semi auto rifles he could have caused even more destruction is irrelevant; if Bird had entered a school or a hospital or supermarket ( or a mosque )  with his .22 and his shotgun, instead of cruising the countryside looking for victims, he could have caused much more destruction than he did, and the death toll would have been much higher.

The shooter in NZ selected his venue deliberately, with the intention of causing maximum impact, as did Hamilton. Ryan and Bird were opportunistic. The fact is they were all carried out by legitimate firearms owners. Your logic is skewed.

 

But yet again, by that logic, none of us should now own the firearms we do. 

Took the words out of my mouth  Scully  which is what gets me with the i'm allright jack attitude because everything we own and shoot can be affected in a blink.

[Newbie to this]

15 minutes ago, henry d said:

Sure, but apart from the idea that the American guy posted earlier, that of; "I want therefore I shall have." in respect to a firearm that has little use in the field or target shooting. The word "assault" is a good descriptor.

assault rifle

noun

a lightweight rifle developed from the sub-machine gun, which may be set to fire automatically or semi-automatically.

I don’t believe the word 'assult' could be used to describe the rifle used, as it cannot be set to full auto, so once you drop the 'assult' from 'assult rifle' you are just left with 'rifle' all be it a semi-auto rifle, no different from any other semi-auto rifle.

 

 

[stuartyboy]

32 minutes ago, Scully said:

But Bird didn't have either handguns or self loading rifles; he used the firearms you and I use. He killed 12 people and injured another 11. So why aren't you saying we should ban .22's and shotguns? Your logic surely dictates that we should! 

I'm not calling for a ban on any type of firearms.  However I'm sympathetic to why folk are and do call for a ban on guns/some guns after such tragic events.

Fact is, there's a massive amount of difference between the limited range of a .22 or shotgun compared against a semi auto CF rifle.  Also a semi auto CF rifle or handgun is much easier to load and fire quickly. 

I think we were fortunate after Bird in not to have more restrictions imposed on .22 and shotguns. But if, heaven forbid, similar happens again. We will not be as fortunate. I'm not sympathetic with a ban on these guns as, if I'm honest, I can see a legimate need for them. I can't with handguns or semi auto CF rifles. I know, it's the old 'United we stand, divided we fall' but I honestly can't come up with an argument to support handguns etc when faced with people who strongly oppose them. But I can argue a case for sporting rifles and shotguns. 

[Newbie to this]

.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Newbie to this

[Remimax]

8 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

I'm not calling for a ban on any type of firearms.  However I'm sympathetic to why folk are and do call for a ban on guns/some guns after such tragic events.

Fact is, there's a massive amount of difference between the limited range of a .22 or shotgun compared against a semi auto CF rifle.  Also a semi auto CF rifle or handgun is much easier to load and fire quickly. 

I think we were fortunate after Bird in not to have more restrictions imposed on .22 and shotguns. But if, heaven forbid, similar happens again. We will not be as fortunate. I'm not sympathetic with a ban on these guns as, if I'm honest, I can see a legimate need for them. I can't with handguns or semi auto CF rifles. I know, it's the old 'United we stand, divided we fall' but I honestly can't come up with an argument to support handguns etc when faced with people who strongly oppose them. But I can argue a case for sporting rifles and shotguns. 

what do you call limited range ? don't fancy being shot buy either but  a 12gauge slug groups rather well at a100yards and has massive energy coupled to a full capacity fac pump of 8+1 ?

Edited March 21, 2019 by Remimax

[ordnance]

6 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

I'm not calling for a ban on any type of firearms.  However I'm sympathetic to why folk are and do call for a ban on guns/some guns after such tragic events.

Fact is, there's a massive amount of difference between the limited range of a .22 or shotgun compared against a semi auto CF rifle.  Also a semi auto CF rifle or handgun is much easier to load and fire quickly. 

I think we were fortunate after Bird in not to have more restrictions imposed on .22 and shotguns. But if, heaven forbid, similar happens again. We will not be as fortunate. I'm not sympathetic with a ban on these guns as, if I'm honest, I can see a legimate need for them. I can't with handguns or semi auto CF rifles. I know, it's the old 'United we stand, divided we fall' but I honestly can't come up with an argument to support handguns etc when faced with people who strongly oppose them. But I can argue a case for sporting rifles and shotguns. 

A legitimate use for handguns, how about target shooting IPSC etc. ? 

IPSC World - Northern Ireland | IPSC Northern Ireland

 

 

[Scully]

3 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

I'm not calling for a ban on any type of firearms.  However I'm sympathetic to why folk are and do call for a ban on guns/some guns after such tragic events.

Fact is, there's a massive amount of difference between the limited range of a .22 or shotgun compared against a semi auto CF rifle.  Also a semi auto CF rifle or handgun is much easier to load and fire quickly. 

I think we were fortunate after Bird in not to have more restrictions imposed on .22 and shotguns. But if, heaven forbid, similar happens again. We will not be as fortunate. I'm not sympathetic with a ban on these guns as, if I'm honest, I can see a legimate need for them. I can't with handguns or semi auto CF rifles. I know, it's the old 'United we stand, divided we fall' but I honestly can't come up with an argument to support handguns etc when faced with people who strongly oppose them. But I can argue a case for sporting rifles and shotguns. 

But none of what you say is logical regarding your initial post! Read it again; you state that by banning the relevant guns there have been no more shootings with these type of legally held firearms, which is true. Therefore, ( using that same logic ) if the guns Bird used were banned then there would be no more shootings with those type of legally held firearms also. So why do you think they shouldn't be banned if other types are? I just can't understand your logic. 

There simply isn't a massive amount of difference between the range of a .22 or shotgun in the confines of a classroom or in this latest case, a mosque; the range is irrelevant! Speed of loading isn't an issue either; you can very very quickly reload even a double ejector shotgun, some S1 shotguns have magazines longer than the barrels and .22's come with magazines, some of them even have banana type magazines. My old Remington Speedmaster had a magazine capable of holding .22's running into their teens. Your logic simply doesn't add up. 

As an aside, there is no legitimate 'need' for ANY of our legally held firearms, as they're all mostly owned for 'sport'. My handguns were owned for 'sport', as are all my currently owned firearms. 

[Raja Clavata]

Some of the comments being made on this thread really do beggar belief and could be used against us later on.

(owner of a .22lr MIL spec AR15 with 25 round magazine)

[stuartyboy]

But none of what you say is logical regarding your initial post! Read it again; you state that by banning the relevant guns there have been no more shootings with these type of legally held firearms, which is true. Therefore, ( using that same logic ) if the guns Bird used were banned then there would be no more shootings with those type of legally held firearms also. So why do you think they shouldn't be banned if other types are? I just can't understand your logic. 

Scully,  I apologise if I'm not coming across clear. Handguns and CF semi autos where banned due to being used in horrible circumstances. This created the public appetite for banning them. They where also banned due to their lethality. In these cases, the muzzle energy and fast reloading of box magazines containing large amounts of ammunition meant the weapons where deemed to be especially lethal. 

Now, my point is that I can sympathise with the decisions to ban them. This is because I can empathise with people who challenge the right for others to own them. I can argue all day long about the need to have a .22 for vermin. I can argue all day long for the need to have a shotgun for sport/game/vermin. I can argue all day long for the need for a .243 for deer fox etc. I can argue and hold my ground and have anti shooters understand why some folk possess these guns.

But I can't argue for semi auto centerfire rifles or handguns in this country. Yes, rifles could be handy for fox etc but not enough to justify them. Non shooters just don't accept that the need for some to shoot at targets outweighs the perceived risk to them. Even if their fears are unfounded. Most reactions are along the lines of 'Why do they need big guns to shoot a target, why not use an Airgun'

Basically, sympathised with banning what's been banned due to what I perceive to be  lack of real need for them and the massive potential lethality with them. Realised that's not going to be popular in a shooting forum but it's just my opinion.

 

[stuartyboy]

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

A legitimate use for handguns, how about target shooting IPSC etc. ? 

IPSC World - Northern Ireland | IPSC Northern Ireland

 

 

A legimate use, yes. But not a good enough reason for the public to support handguns being allowed back in mainland UK. Obviously the laws in NI are different regarding handguns,  and rightly so to suit their needs.

1 hour ago, Remimax said:

what do you call limited range ? don't fancy being shot buy either but  a 12gauge slug groups rather well at a100yards and has massive energy coupled to a full capacity fac pump of 8+1 ?

100 yards is still a very limited range against a rifle with a good shot behind it

[ordnance]

Quote

 I can argue all day long about the need to have a .22 for vermin. I can argue all day long for the need to have a shotgun for sport/game/vermin. I can argue all day long for the need for a .243 for deer fox etc. I can argue and hold my ground and have anti shooters understand why some folk possess these guns.

You don't need any of the above, only a few people really need to carry out game/vermin control and no one needs to shoot clays target shoot etc. Follow your logic ban them all then there is less chance of them being used in a shooting. 

Quote

A legimate use, yes. But not a good enough reason for the public to support handguns being allowed back in mainland UK. Obviously the laws in NI are different regarding handguns,  and rightly so to suit their needs.

You are right about the public support for handguns being allowed back, most members of the public would support it if  all firearms were banned tomorrow. 

Edited March 21, 2019 by ordnance

[NoBodyImportant]

2 hours ago, simonm said:

As I understand it the statistics regarding "high school shootings" are rather misunderstood, as they include shootings near or on high school property out of school hours?

Yes,  anything within a 500 yards.  Plus in cities the ball courts are open to the public after a hours.  So the youths will put money on basketball games a fight it out when they loose.  Those get counted.  

[stuartyboy]

18 minutes ago, ordnance said:

You don't need any of the above, only a few people really need to carry out game/vermin control and no one needs to shoot clays target shoot etc. Follow your logic ban them all then there is less chance of them being used in a shooting. 

Yes, you're right. But there is a need for .22s, shotgun, bolt actions and that is wildlife management and all the benefits that brings. 

But the need for target shooting with a handgun or semi auto CF is not there in the public opinion. And as I've said frequently,  I can understand that therefore I can empathise with them.

But I understand the need for .22s etc so can't empathise with any calls to ban them.