Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 147727	2019-03-21 03:49:00	Changes to the Firearms Act	WalOne (4202)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1459324	2019-03-22 01:49:00	When there is a suicide bombing - we blame the bomber. When there is a drink driving caused death - we blame the driver (we don't go and ban the type of car the person was driving or the alcohol that was consumed) When there is a shooting - we blame and ban the firearms? We don't blame the firearms, we acknowledge the shooter had way too easy access to them and do something about it in the hopes that it will help reduce the likelihood of a future event. The blame still squarely sits with the shooter. We have to draw a line somewhere and we will always disagree exactly where that should be. We already don't allow people to buy miltary grade weapons like hand grenades, rocket launchers, and full auto machine guns for obvious reasons. And the lack of incidents with these weapons indicates it's at least reasonably effective in keeping them out of the hands of the general public. We don't allow you to go shopping in a tank either and that could be a lot of fun I think. The question is at what point do you start to restrict access to something because it might be misused or pose a danger to the public. Heck we can't even buy double happies any more and they were great fun, contrasting that to being able to buy a military semi automatic weapon makes one of those rules seem ridiculous. We might just disagree on which one. Your right to have fun has to be secondary to everyone elses right to be safe surely? Nobody is suggesting everyone who owns these guns is a crazy person not to be trusted (ok maybe I am...), just that the more of these guns that are in circulation the more likely it is for one to fall into the hands of the wrong person, and we've just seen where that can lead. We can eliminate the risk but we can attempt to minimise it. You'll just have to destroy pumpkins 5 shots at a time, suck it up.	dugimodo (138)
1459325	2019-03-22 01:50:00	Incidentally on a lighter note, WTF is happening I find myself agreeing with B.M. ! :p	dugimodo (138)
1459326	2019-03-22 02:25:00	Incidentally on a lighter note, WTF is happening I find myself agreeing with B.M. ! :p You are not well, did you forget your medication this morning? :p	B.M. (505)
1459327	2019-03-22 02:27:00	We have to draw a line somewhere and we will always disagree exactly where that should be. We already don't allow people to buy miltary grade weapons like hand grenades, rocket launchers, and full auto machine guns for obvious reasons. And the lack of incidents with these weapons indicates it's at least reasonably effective in keeping them out of the hands of the general public. We don't allow you to go shopping in a tank either and that could be a lot of fun I think. This is the first mass shooting in how many years? The lack of incidents doesn't really indicate anything. The question is at what point do you start to restrict access to something because it might be misused or pose a danger to the public. Heck we can't even buy double happies any more and they were great fun, contrasting that to being able to buy a military semi automatic weapon makes one of those rules seem ridiculous. We might just disagree on which one. Of course we need to restrict access to some things, that's the entire reason why we have gun licenses in the first place. The license restricts who can own those weapons. It sounds like our current gun regulations could certainly be tightened, but a knee jerk response is never the best idea when we haven't yet taken the time to fully analyze what happened in this situation. Your right to have fun has to be secondary to everyone elses right to be safe surely? Nobody is suggesting everyone who owns these guns is a crazy person not to be trusted (ok maybe I am...), just that the more of these guns that are in circulation the more likely it is for one to fall into the hands of the wrong person, and we've just seen where that can lead. We can eliminate the risk but we can attempt to minimise it. You'll just have to destroy pumpkins 5 shots at a time, suck it up. Again, rushing in to legislation and regulation isn't the way to minimise it. The knock on effect is going to be an expanded black market as opposed to having some of these weapons on the public register. One might say that if he couldn't have bought these weapons at a shop this wouldn't have happened but I would disagree- he spent two years planning this and had enough time to procure the weapons illegally as well. Taking the guns away from people who don't use them for harm has no guarantee that it'll reduce the chance of someone who has intent to harm someone being able to obtain them, only that next time, god forbid that there is a next time, we can say well they got the gun illegally so that's that or introduce more legislation to ineffectively restrict them more. For a lot of people (and for me too, personally) it just feels like the government is trying to get brownie points by rushing to show the world that we're doing something, however ineffective it may be. Legislation and regulations are things that should be carefully crafted, especially when we're dropping such a large amount of money and resources to do something that might make people feel better but doesn't really solve any problems. They could have temporarily banned sales of these weapons while the police do their jobs and figure out exactly what happened, and then legislative experts would be able to effectively craft new laws that have more of a chance of stopping these types of things happening in the future while not needing to spend millions on an ineffective buyback program, not to mention having to deal with frustrated gun owners. They may recommend in the end that we do ban these weapons, but at least by that point there would be a coherent response as to why that would be the most effective response as opposed to rushing in like a bull trying to trample a red handkerchief, when the real issue is the matador.	baabits (15242)
1459328	2019-03-22 02:46:00	Of course we need to restrict access to some things, that's the entire reason why we have gun licenses in the first place. The license restricts who can own those weapons. It sounds like our current gun regulations could certainly be tightened, but a knee jerk response is never the best idea when we haven't yet taken the time to fully analyze what happened in this situation. It's obvious we won't agree on this but lets be honest the current law doesn't do jack to restrict access to guns. Tightening it up is exactly what's happening, just not in a way you agree with it seems. If the guns exist, people will get them. We can't get rid of them all but we can reduce the numbers of them. Sure it's a bit knee jerk in how quickly it's happened, but this is not a new issue and not the first time these measures have been proposed. This is just the catalyst and the last straw for something that was likely always inevitable. Part of why they were able to come up with the details of the changes so quickly is very likely because it had been discussed previously. How much will it honestly affect your life and happiness if you don't have access to these weapons? I struggle to believe the impact is significant.	dugimodo (138)
1459329	2019-03-22 03:02:00	Here’s how you deal with them. The Pumpkins and Water Containers were saved. :thumbs: 9476 9477 9478 From HERE (www.stuff.co.nz)	B.M. (505)
1459330	2019-03-22 03:09:00	It's obvious we won't agree on this but lets be honest the current law doesn't do jack to restrict access to guns. Tightening it up is exactly what's happening, just not in a way you agree with it seems. If the guns exist, people will get them. We can't get rid of them all but we can reduce the numbers of them. Sure it's a bit knee jerk in how quickly it's happened, but this is not a new issue and not the first time these measures have been proposed. This is just the catalyst and the last straw for something that was likely always inevitable. Part of why they were able to come up with the details of the changes so quickly is very likely because it had been discussed previously. How much will it honestly affect your life and happiness if you don't have access to these weapons? I struggle to believe the impact is significant. It doesn't do much? It restricts who can own them, and the written rules they seem quite extensive as long as they are being enforced correctly, especially if you need an endorsement. I completely disagree that they don't do much, we supposedly have 1.25 million guns in the country (so about 30 guns to every 100 people) and a gun homicide rate of 0.11 to every 100,000 people. That's extremely effective. Australia in comparison has about 14 guns to every 100 people and a gun homicide rate of 0.18:100000. The last straw implies that there were many straws beforehand. I would disagree also- this is the first mass shooting that I can remember. It's not about how it affects life and happiness, it's about not creating rushed haphazard rules that cause more trouble than what they supposedly save.	baabits (15242)
1459331	2019-03-22 03:26:00	Every year hundreds of people die on NZ roads as a result of careless driving, bad conditions, alcohol, or speeding. Why not limit all cars to maximum of 100km/hr, why not equip all vehicles with alcohol interlockers so the driver cannot start their vehicle without blowing below the required level? Oh its too hard, too expensive, people will find a way around it, police state, bla bla. Guess what, the exact same thing will happen with firearms. If someone exists in such a mental state that they willingly go out and shoots a lot of innocent people - do you really think the actual purchase of the firearm used was the deciding factor as to whether or not they would proceed with their actions? It's a poorly thought out knee jerk reaction that was fired through parliament in record time giving no chance for a proper inquiry as to the situation. Yes, firearm laws in NZ needed to change, but this knee jerk reaction is not the way to pass new legislation.	Bozo (8540)
1459332	2019-03-22 04:15:00	I think the reason for banning semi autos over 5 rounds with detachable round is to do the with the perceived shorter time it takes to kill a certain amount of people. I would argue that an unwooded bolt action .303" Jungle Carbine using spare magazines and 5 shot speed clips could do just about the same damage in not much more time. Germans sometimes thought the British were firing auto rifles at them to discover the troops could use the SMLE action so fast.	prefect (6291)
1459333	2019-03-22 04:20:00	It must be that bloody Super Moon last night. Dugimodo is agreeing with me and Judith Collins with the Government. :eek: Where will it all end. 9479 HERE (www.stuff.co.nz)	B.M. (505)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15