NZ to ban all semi automatic firearms

[Mice!]

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?

Really misunderstood?

I had a very quick look, there are more than 150 people on the 4 examples above that died, should New Zealand wait for a few more shootings before they do something?

so 152 " mass shootings" in the usa where guns are much more available, i would say our gun laws are pretty good.

152*8 =1216 people killed any changes to gun laws??

[NoBodyImportant]

2 hours 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.

They are Defense weapons. 

[bluesj]

6 hours ago, Mice! said:

Really misunderstood?

I had a very quick look, there are more than 150 people on the 4 examples above that died, should New Zealand wait for a few more shootings before they do something?

so 152 " mass shootings" in the usa where guns are much more available, i would say our gun laws are pretty good.

152*8 =1216 people killed any changes to gun laws??

No point looking at US numbers and trying to compare the with other countries.

you number say 1216 killed I think the total is nearer 30,000 a year most being suicide.

but they also have figures to say over 3.5 million attacks on people are stopped each year because the intended victim had a gun on them.

[Fisheruk]

I really cannot see why we need semi auto cf in the UK. Bolt actions work well for me.

Semi auto .22lr have their place for some vermin control, but the way some folk use them rattling off scores of rounds on a range is nothing more than overgrown kids playing with a Nerv gun IMHO. Not in my mind justifiable need to warrant a license.

It is accuracy that kills, not just blasting away like a kid on an Xbox.

There may be places in the world where semi auto cf’s are required, but my understanding is that the new laws in NZ will have exemptions for agricultural use. Bit like pistols in the UK for Humane Dispatch. 

[12gauge82]

For me, this comes back to the point Scully made earlier, about being a numbers game and what the public finds acceptable, yes semi auto centrefire is more lethal, but then all firearms are lethal to varying degrees in the wrong hands, how many deaths is too many? By that reasoning shouldn't all guns be banned just incase, or firearms certificates issued only when absaloutly necessary, or should all firearms be allowed including fully auto?

I really don't know, like everyone on here, I feel sorry for all the victims and families of those who were killed in the shooting. 

[henry d]

8 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

They are Defense weapons. 

Not in this case, the word "assault" in and of itself describe exactly what it is for. If you are being shot at it could be used to defend, but again it is redundant in this case.

[NoBodyImportant]

1 hour ago, Fisheruk said:

 

It is accuracy that kills, not just blasting away like a kid on an Xbox.

 

It’s called accuracy through volume.  Like a shotgun.  Catch a coon on the run at 100 yards and you lead them and walk the rounds in on them by watching tracers.  

[Dr_Scholl]

Not at all surprised. 

When I heard about what was going on, after the initial shock and disgust wore off, one of the first things that popped into my head were "well, they can kiss their guns goodbye".

As the owner of 2 AR-15's, It makes me grateful I live in a country where gun owners have the numbers and political influence to not be bulldozed when something like this happens.

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

Not in this case, the word "assault" in and of itself describe exactly what it is for. If you are being shot at it could be used to defend, but again it is redundant in this case.

Are you just ignoring the fact that they are NOT 'Assault' rifles. The definition is is one of my earlier posts.

[henry d]

 

12 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

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.

 

 

noun

noun: assault; plural noun: assaults

1. 1.

   a physical attack.

   "his imprisonment for an assault on the film director"

   synonyms:

   (physical) violence, battery, mugging, actual bodily harm

[Newbie to this]

6 minutes ago, henry d said:

Deport those whose like Sonny Bill were born and raised there? I`d like to see you try

noun

noun: assault; plural noun: assaults

1. 1.

   a physical attack.

   "his imprisonment for an assault on the film director"

   synonyms:

   (physical) violence, battery, mugging, actual bodily harm

By your definition any rifle can be an assault rifle.

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

 

 

Edited March 22, 2019 by Newbie to this

[Mice!]

3 hours ago, bluesj said:

No point looking at US numbers and trying to compare the with other countries.

you number say 1216 killed I think the total is nearer 30,000 a year most being suicide.

but they also have figures to say over 3.5 million attacks on people are stopped each year because the intended victim had a gun on them.

you haven't looked at the information i posted, its about mass shootings, which says the gun man kills at least 4 victims.

 

[Scully]

10 hours ago, stuartyboy said:

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. 

 

 

 

There is no need for an apology, and I'm not looking for an argument, I'm merely trying to point out the contradiction in your point of view. 

Again, following your logic, all those who shoot nothing but targets ( clays ) with shotguns, don't have a 'need', so they should be banned?  You can't argue that there is a legitimate need for them as used in sport, because even in the Olympics they use rimfire handguns ( for which our squad must travel abroad to practise ) and there are numerous worldwide CF competitions, as you claim these were rightly banned. 

I understand totally what you're saying regarding a legitimate use, but if you base your logic that the bans have worked so far, then banning everything would mean there would be no more mass shootings. 

Believe you me, if someone with a CF bolt action or RF semi auto rifle and ten magazines walks into a school or mosque and blocks the exit by taking up position there, it will be a mass shooting in real terms. 

Have you considered cap and ball revolvers in a classroom or mosque? It's still a handgun. One revolver and half a dozen pre-loaded cylinders? I can't recall how many rounds each holds now, but if it's five then that's 35 rounds. 

You can't have it both ways; I now understand where you're coming from, but if your argument is that banning these types of firearms prevents mass shootings, then it applies to all firearms. It has too. 

[Scully]

10 hours ago, Mice! said:

Really misunderstood?

I had a very quick look, there are more than 150 people on the 4 examples above that died, should New Zealand wait for a few more shootings before they do something?

so 152 " mass shootings" in the usa where guns are much more available, i would say our gun laws are pretty good.

152*8 =1216 people killed any changes to gun laws??

It's worth pointing out ( as I mentioned earlier ) that in a country which has the 'right to bear arms', where it makes sense to be armed, all the above shootings took place in designated 'gun free' zones. In other words, the shooter knew that even if someone in those venues had a permit to carry for self defence, being law abiding people, they would have left their personal firearm at home and be unarmed.  Like the shootings in NZ, it doesn't take a great amount of courage to confront unarmed people when you yourself are armed. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

An interesting article in the Economist;

https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/03/21/new-zealand-announces-a-gun-clampdown?cid1=cust/ddnew/email/n/n/20190321n/owned/n/n/ddnew/n/n/n/nUK/Daily_Dispatch/email&etear=dailydispatch&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily_Dispatch&utm_term=20190321

[Zapp]

A small number of posts have been removed for breaching the terms and conditions.  Please ensure your comments are within the site rules so the thread can remain open.

[stuartyboy]

5 minutes ago, Scully said:

There is no need for an apology, and I'm not looking for an argument, I'm merely trying to point out the contradiction in your point of view. 

Again, following your logic, all those who shoot nothing but targets ( clays ) with shotguns, don't have a 'need', so they should be banned?  You can't argue that there is a legitimate need for them as used in sport, because even in the Olympics they use rimfire handguns ( for which our squad must travel abroad to practise ) and there are numerous worldwide CF competitions, as you claim these were rightly banned. 

I understand totally what you're saying regarding a legitimate use, but if you base your logic that the bans have worked so far, then banning everything would mean there would be no more mass shootings. 

Believe you me, if someone with a CF bolt action or RF semi auto rifle and ten magazines walks into a school or mosque and blocks the exit by taking up position there, it will be a mass shooting in real terms. 

Have you considered cap and ball revolvers in a classroom or mosque? It's still a handgun. One revolver and half a dozen pre-loaded cylinders? I can't recall how many rounds each holds now, but if it's five then that's 35 rounds. 

You can't have it both ways; I now understand where you're coming from, but if your argument is that banning these types of firearms prevents mass shootings, then it applies to all firearms. It has too. 

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. 

 

 

[Mice!]

15 minutes ago, Scully said:

It's worth pointing out ( as I mentioned earlier ) that in a country which has the 'right to bear arms', where it makes sense to be armed, all the above shootings took place in designated 'gun free' zones. In other words, the shooter knew that even if someone in those venues had a permit to carry for self defence, being law abiding people, they would have left their personal firearm at home and be unarmed.  Like the shootings in NZ, it doesn't take a great amount of courage to confront unarmed people when you yourself are armed. 

The point i was trying to make scully was about people saying the bans we've had on guns might not have had any effect, NZ have had this shooting and decided to ban the weapons used, hopefully making this kind of thing much harder to do again.

The states have banned nothing despite repeated shootings, i know which I'm in favour of.

[stuartyboy]

15 hours 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 .

 

 

 

It was easy to 'shaft us UK gun owner's'

A mad man walked into a primary school and murdered 16 5 and 6  year olds and their teacher.

The ban had nothing to do with the shooting community opposing a ban or not. Probably 99% of the population of the UK was calling for it. And understandably after what had just happened. It is a shame that people lost their hobby but this was nothing compared to what the parents lost. We where never going to come back from that.

[Scully]

1 minute ago, Mice! said:

The point i was trying to make scully was about people saying the bans we've had on guns might not have had any effect, NZ have had this shooting and decided to ban the weapons used, hopefully making this kind of thing much harder to do again.

The states have banned nothing despite repeated shootings, i know which I'm in favour of.

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. 

[Rewulf]

18 minutes ago, Scully said:

You can't have it both ways; I now understand where you're coming from, but if your argument is that banning these types of firearms prevents mass shootings, then it applies to all firearms. It has too. 

+1

This type of thread always seems to elicit the same responses, but you have to get it down to base level, the 'gun' whatever type, didnt kill those people, the person holding it did.

The killer or killers never once thought to themselves, I cant possibly commit mass murder unless I have a particular firearm.
Are we saying that if semi auto CFs had already been banned in NZ , that the perps wouldnt have bothered with the attacks ?

Are we saying that if the US didnt have the 2nd A. and had banned handguns and anything above bolt actions and shotguns, there wouldnt be mass shootings ?

Its all very well saying , 'But they shoot quicker, have bigger magazines, are more lethal'  it just comes back to the mind of the killer, in this country they use vehicles and knives.
Like Scully said, you can load an O/U very quickly with practice, I can put 40 aimed shells down range in 2 minutes on a flush with my semi auto without breaking a sweat.
I have friend with a lever release action SBR 9mm , who can empty the 20 round mag in 7 seconds, 10 rounds out in 10 seconds out a .357 lever action Henry ?
Does a semi auto gun  really make that much difference ?

Legally held firearms are used mercifully scarcely in mass shootings, or any murder in this country.
Even in  'Gun  country' America, legal firearms account for a very small percentage of illegal gun homicide.

Blame the gun, but its the people who shouldnt have them that commit the crime, ban them instead.

[NoBodyImportant]

Just now, 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. 

True,  I was in the barn the other day and found a blanket roll that I had forgot about. Guns are stacked deep here. You could outlaw them but for every store bought  one in the US there is a homemade one without serial numbers.  We can own a non serialized gun as long as we made it for personal use. 

 

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, NoBodyImportant said:

True,  I was in the barn the other day and found a blanket roll that I had forgot about. Guns are stacked deep here. You could outlaw them but for every store bought  one in the US there is a homemade one without serial numbers.  We can own a non serialized gun as long as we made it for personal use. 

 

Awesome ! You forgot about 9 ARs in the shed 

I want to live over there !

[Sako7mm]

5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Awesome ! You forgot about 9 ARs in the shed 

I want to live over there !

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

[NoBodyImportant]

3 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Awesome ! You forgot about 9 ARs in the shed 

I want to live over there !

Yea, 20 in guns are dead over hear.  Back in 2004 the assault weapons ban lapses and they became legal to own again.  So police agencies dumped the old 20inchers on the market.  I bought them to eventually switch them to 14.5in carbine barrels and collapsible stocks but that never happened.