AlexanderA
Member
The gun situation in New Zealand is vastly different from that in the U.S. I don't think what happens in New Zealand is a prototype for what might happen in the U.S.
Is chat about the NZ decision to ban semi-auto rifles prohibited here?
- Thread starter Ignition Override
- Start date
- Status
FlSwampRat
Member
I got into a discussion about gun control with a friend online. This is a person I know IRL. He and his wife are anti gun. He owns a Dodge Charger R/T so I asked him why he felt he needed 300+ horsepower to go to work and didn't he honestly think that might relate to positions some take on magazine capacity. He replied that it certainly didn't, his car wasn't designed to kill like assault weapons are. The usual blah blah blah. I used the car analogy because many people (meaning non gun owners) can relate more to cars than to something with which they have no actual experience.
So I wrote this post and blogged it. Here's the blog post.
We need to do something about the overpowered cars on our roadways. There is no reason for having a car with over one hundred horsepower. Cars are lighter and need less power to achieve legal highway speeds, the VW bug of the 60's had a measly 40 horsepower and could easily travel on most any interstate highway, turnpike or parkway in the country.
One doesn't need an 840 horsepower Dodge Demon to go grocery shopping or to commute to work. Yet excessive speed is a direct factor in more than a quarter of all annual traffic fatalities. From the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration. “Speeding endangers everyone on the road: In 2017, speeding killed 9,717 people, accounting for more than a quarter (26%) of all traffic fatalities that year.” Almost 10,000 people killed just because someone was going too fast.
There is no real reason for a car to have more than 4 cylinders. It wastes gas, contributes to pollution and makes it easy to accidentally go over the safe speed limit.
Racecar style automobiles are even worse, it's one thing to have the speedometer creep past the legal limit, but a car that looks like it belongs on a racetrack more than a city street is a direct challenge to some drivers to exceed the speed limit, perhaps even initiate a high speed chase when a law enforcement officer tries to pull them over, endangering everyone on the road. Racing stripes, spoilers and such do not make the car truly go faster, however they may make the driver feel they're in a racecar and no one can catch them.
Now that a chunk of people are up in arms about such potential legislation for which I seem to be advocating, I challenge everyone to stop and think, isn't this the same being said about guns and gun-control?
After the New Zealand shooting tragedy they are banning weapons based on looks. “In the interim, New Zealand Governor General Patsy Reddy has signed an order to reclassify some semi-automatic weapons as 'military-style'.“ This is just like what I was talking about above when I discussed vehicles being “racecar style”. They are talking the same language here, but in relation to guns.
My handy dandy internet dictionary defines style as “a distinctive appearance”. So we're talking about banning something because of looks. Not function, not capability, merely looks. Two guns, one with a wooden stock like Grandpa's deer rifle (Mini 14 in this case) and the other with a polymer stock, pistol grip, both with removable magazines and semi-automatically firing the same bullet, the former passes the assault rifle sniff test for some by virtue of not having a pistol grip extending down below the mechanism the latter doesn't and is therefore ban-able in many people's eyes. The presence or lack of a pistol grip doesn't affect in the least how deadly the weapon is, but the sinister black look of the second is scary looking. Back to car terms, it reminds me of the commercial for the short lived Dodge Magnum where a test panel thought the car was scary looking and the designers were all but high fiving saying that is what they were going for.
A semi-automatic firearm isn't a weapon of war as those are almost always fully automatic capable. One trigger pull can potentially empty the gun of fire-able ammunition when the weapon is fully automatic, semi auto only shoots one round per trigger pull no matter for however long the trigger is held down. Pretty sad that we're coming down to style points to ban things.
As for magazine capacity, there isn't much difference between an eighteen round magazine, two nine round magazines and three six round magazines, a second or two at most, yet, for some reason, many legislators are fixated on drawing a line at 10 round magazine capacity sort of intimating that a lower magazine capacity equipped weapon is less deadly. I urge anyone who has read this far to watch the youtube video whose link is attached to this post.
So many overreactions have produced so many over reaching laws in the past, let's not start passing ones that tread on the toes of constitutionally protected rights.
So I wrote this post and blogged it. Here's the blog post.
We need to do something about the overpowered cars on our roadways. There is no reason for having a car with over one hundred horsepower. Cars are lighter and need less power to achieve legal highway speeds, the VW bug of the 60's had a measly 40 horsepower and could easily travel on most any interstate highway, turnpike or parkway in the country.
One doesn't need an 840 horsepower Dodge Demon to go grocery shopping or to commute to work. Yet excessive speed is a direct factor in more than a quarter of all annual traffic fatalities. From the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration. “Speeding endangers everyone on the road: In 2017, speeding killed 9,717 people, accounting for more than a quarter (26%) of all traffic fatalities that year.” Almost 10,000 people killed just because someone was going too fast.
There is no real reason for a car to have more than 4 cylinders. It wastes gas, contributes to pollution and makes it easy to accidentally go over the safe speed limit.
Racecar style automobiles are even worse, it's one thing to have the speedometer creep past the legal limit, but a car that looks like it belongs on a racetrack more than a city street is a direct challenge to some drivers to exceed the speed limit, perhaps even initiate a high speed chase when a law enforcement officer tries to pull them over, endangering everyone on the road. Racing stripes, spoilers and such do not make the car truly go faster, however they may make the driver feel they're in a racecar and no one can catch them.
Now that a chunk of people are up in arms about such potential legislation for which I seem to be advocating, I challenge everyone to stop and think, isn't this the same being said about guns and gun-control?
After the New Zealand shooting tragedy they are banning weapons based on looks. “In the interim, New Zealand Governor General Patsy Reddy has signed an order to reclassify some semi-automatic weapons as 'military-style'.“ This is just like what I was talking about above when I discussed vehicles being “racecar style”. They are talking the same language here, but in relation to guns.
My handy dandy internet dictionary defines style as “a distinctive appearance”. So we're talking about banning something because of looks. Not function, not capability, merely looks. Two guns, one with a wooden stock like Grandpa's deer rifle (Mini 14 in this case) and the other with a polymer stock, pistol grip, both with removable magazines and semi-automatically firing the same bullet, the former passes the assault rifle sniff test for some by virtue of not having a pistol grip extending down below the mechanism the latter doesn't and is therefore ban-able in many people's eyes. The presence or lack of a pistol grip doesn't affect in the least how deadly the weapon is, but the sinister black look of the second is scary looking. Back to car terms, it reminds me of the commercial for the short lived Dodge Magnum where a test panel thought the car was scary looking and the designers were all but high fiving saying that is what they were going for.
A semi-automatic firearm isn't a weapon of war as those are almost always fully automatic capable. One trigger pull can potentially empty the gun of fire-able ammunition when the weapon is fully automatic, semi auto only shoots one round per trigger pull no matter for however long the trigger is held down. Pretty sad that we're coming down to style points to ban things.
As for magazine capacity, there isn't much difference between an eighteen round magazine, two nine round magazines and three six round magazines, a second or two at most, yet, for some reason, many legislators are fixated on drawing a line at 10 round magazine capacity sort of intimating that a lower magazine capacity equipped weapon is less deadly. I urge anyone who has read this far to watch the youtube video whose link is attached to this post.
So many overreactions have produced so many over reaching laws in the past, let's not start passing ones that tread on the toes of constitutionally protected rights.
P5 Guy
Member
Morning edition is praising NZ and the PM for banning ALL semi-auto firearms, from 22LR to shotguns rifles and hand guns with detachable magazine that hold FIVE rounds or more.
I see a run on C96 Mausers in their future.
I see a run on C96 Mausers in their future.
CLP
member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,397
Sorta like how we do things here in the USA.
I have four cylinder SUV. While gas mileage is very good acceleration from 0 is bit slow. Not a problem for retiree in "hurry to go nowwhere" but might be dissapointing to someone else. Big fast gas guzzlers aren't all bad. They give pride and reason to work which means paying taxes making wheels of entire endeavor working. Do you think people who drive 8 cylinder guzzlers that get 20 to a gallon and bring their own grocery baggies to grocery stores still would if they drove a Prius or Focus? These beasts will also help us in beating China as the biggest polluter country in the entire world. I wonder who is worse us or China?
AlexanderA
Member
We don't want to go down the road of arguing that AR-15's "aren't weapons of war." After all, the 2nd Amendment is precisely about "weapons of war" -- it's not about hunting or sport shooting.
Besides that, even the military's select-fire M16's are habitually used in the semiautomatic mode. A semiautomatic AR-15 has at least 95% of the military utility of an M16. Heck, after WW1, there was a serious proposal within the army about turning all the BAR's into semiautomatics because it was felt they would be more effective that way (less waste of ammunition, etc.). Therefore the argument holds no water on its face.
We should be arguing the opposite -- that as U.S. citizens we are exactly entitled to "weapons of war" for defensive and civic reasons.
Pudge
Member
According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_New_Zealand) from 1951 to March 15 there were 50 people killed in New Zealand in "massacres". March 15 resulted in 50 more. I think it is unrealistic to expect the legislation, over the next 68 years, to significantly impact the number of people killed in "massacres", or the mental state of people intent on harming others. It will however restrict the rights of law-abiding New Zealanders.
That argument will not work because many perople are more afraid of private gun owners then the government. As wealth gap widens politicians will prefer unarmed population to armed one. Let us face it in not do distant future taxes will have to be raised substantially to save Social Security. That will be difficult to sell, therefore, politicians will wait as long as feasibly possible.
Sad yet predictable that the knee-jerk legislation makes no effort to understand the needs of decent honest citizens. Government busy-bodies cling to the belief that they know what is best for everyone, but are oblivious to their personal hobgoblins that are unleashed by shootings. Similarly in the USA, none of our governmental know-it-alls have bothered to ask why people who commit such crimes hold such little regard for human life.
Deanimator
Member
It's absolutely a "prototype", and those who've been calling for "Australian style gun control" for the last decade are absolute proof of it.
Anybody who thinks there's some kind of "bargain" to be made with these people is infinitely foolish.
Deanimator
Member
That is the ONLY point of racially invidious gun controls, EVER.
Deanimator
Member
The Cugnot, the first motor vehicle, was designed as a prime mover for artillery, so his entire argument (like most anti-gun arguments) is premised on a lie.
Dan Forrester
Member
Looks like the shooter is basically getting what he wanted. “One” of his stated goals was basically to curtail gun rights in the US and New Zealand. The left is basicly working hand in hand with this guy to help him achieve one of his stated goals.
Look at page 11 of the shooters manifesto.
“I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states and thereby the political situation of the world. The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.
With enough pressure the left wing within the United states will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the US will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty.
This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the US along cultural and racial lines.”
Here’s from page 20
“Won’t your attack result in calls for the removal of gun rights in the New Zealand?
The gun owners of New Zealand are a beaten, miserable bunch of baby boomers, who have long since given up the fight.When was the last time they won increased rights? Their loss was inevitable.I just accelerated things a bit.
They had long since lost their cities, take a look at Auckland. Did you really expect they would not also lose their rights?”
I’m surprised this isn’t talked about more.
Full text here
https://images.encyclopediadramatica.rs/5/50/The_Great_Replacement.pdf
Dan
Look at page 11 of the shooters manifesto.
“I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states and thereby the political situation of the world. The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.
With enough pressure the left wing within the United states will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the US will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty.
This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the US along cultural and racial lines.”
Here’s from page 20
“Won’t your attack result in calls for the removal of gun rights in the New Zealand?
The gun owners of New Zealand are a beaten, miserable bunch of baby boomers, who have long since given up the fight.When was the last time they won increased rights? Their loss was inevitable.I just accelerated things a bit.
They had long since lost their cities, take a look at Auckland. Did you really expect they would not also lose their rights?”
I’m surprised this isn’t talked about more.
Full text here
https://images.encyclopediadramatica.rs/5/50/The_Great_Replacement.pdf
Dan
Last edited:
Seems to me that the shoots was anti Islam with a big ax to grind and more than a bit delusional.Probably anti anybody that was not like him. Think more along the lines of Ted Kaczynski.
And maybe vehicles should be limited to four gallon fuel tanks?
And maybe vehicles should be limited to four gallon fuel tanks?
No one actually knows what the ban in NZ will be like ... yet.
Lots of conjecture, but there are a range of possible outcomes from a total to a partial to a highly restricted outcome since no law has been passed.
We know very little.
Since we don't engage in random conjecture, we don't discuss the details.
That’s going to be a fascinating read. Thanks for posting it.
Not having read that rag I will take a wild guess. Right Wing Nationalist who sees his belief system and way of life dissapearing. Blames Americans for distabilizing the Middle East releasing mass migratin of local population. Loathes people for not standing up to status quo and believing that voting can still change anything. Nothing to be facinated with.
My advice is work, pay taxes, enjoy cheap gas prices, food,.......listen or read pseudo-conservative outlets Breitbart, Fox, Infowars, Rush.....to get psychological burst if you need to. Nothing good can came from reading this manifest.
Last edited:
I have no fear of my government. My advice to those that do is to open up to different experiences like attending ethic food festivals or perhaps just striking a friendly conversation with: Jose, Dilip, Ahmed, Najum,....at local Walmart. Not listening to Rush, InfoWars..... or going to 24 HourCampfire HuntersCampfire maybe all that is needed. Good luck.
alsaqr
Member
Long time ago i read the Ted Kaczynski manifesto: Ted Kaczynski's brother read the manifesto and called the FBI.
Ain't got time to read another manifesto by a murdering nutcase.
Ain't got time to read another manifesto by a murdering nutcase.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,094
If it were just outrage of needless death automobiles would have been banned years ago. The last time less than 30,000 people were killed by them in the USA was 1945. That’s more than 80 people killed each day, every day, for 73 years!
Worse than that is 80 a day would be lowballing the actual figure in 1972 the average was 149 people a day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year
Where is the outrage and “we’ve got to do something” , people?
From their standpoint it boils down to necessity vs. leasure time activity. Petroleum industry, auto industry being powerful and influential they're trying to address this through small steps like cell phone use while driving. Same with opioid use they are focusing on end user not wanting to upset drug company empires or the AMA. The options are focused on education, Narcan from local drug store or rehab centers.
Excellent attitude to have.
Pudge
Member
Amen. The government we have no need to fear will tell us all we need to know via our media (excluding Rush, Info Wars and the 24 Hour Campfire of course).
Thanks for the advice. Maybe, just maybe, I have reasons you don’t understand for being interested in it. Like a fascination with people on what drives them to do the things they do. At least he believed in something so much he felt he had to do something. But what was his trigger? Discounting something as just a nutjob does nothing to prevent this in the future. But studying their own words just might. Even if it turns out he is just crazy, I have a background in psych. Don’t we study how other terrorists become radicalized and look for ways to stop it? Why then should we not now? Because the guy was white? That seems productive. And why do you think we don’t talk to Josè, Dilip, Ahmed, or Dajum? Really....I appreciate your attempt to influence where we get our news from, what we should think, what attitudes to have, and who we should talk to when we’re at Walmart.
“Ahhh Freedom. Attempts to quell you will never cease”.
harrygunner
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,045
Totally agree. Amazing how a mass murder can state goals, then have the establishment bring them into being. Their acquiescence will likely encourage others.
About "others", their existence is amazing. I recently looked at posts on 8ch.net
Please use a Tor browser ( https://www.torproject.org/download/download.html ) to read posts on that site protect yourself.
Quite an eye opener. The world has plenty of truly sick people. And NZ gave them a gift.
Hope the U.S. will be smarter.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
