New Zealand. So much stupid.

I bet smugglers of arms are celebrating,there's going to be a flood of AK47s and ARs heading to the cities there now.Criminals now might have to buy their weapons,but they'll be able to get full auto versions easily.And besides smugglers anyone who has halfass metal working skills and tools can make their own gun.Liberals,it's not hard to do and you can't stop it.The only people affected by these laws are the ones who were never a threat and now have been robbed by their government.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: network dude

What's stupid about it ? it clearly states the weapons are stolen from lawful owners, if the guns aren't there to be stolen in the first place they cannot be used to shoot innocent people.

What's stupid is to do nothing and wait for hope and prayers to fix the problem.

This is a stupid comment. Here we have lawful owners that get burgled and the criminals use the stolen goods for no good.
So the solution is to take them away from the law abiding citizens and [best of all], totally ignore the criminals and let them get on with their illegal activities.
Oh man.
How about this.

- Random searches of gang members, requiring to show a licence for any carried gun, if there is none, nick the bastards and throw away the key?

- Actually get the police's arses in gear when someone reports a burglary and don't just write out a crime number and go 'meh'.

- Require owners to store guns in safes and fine them if they don't do this as it will facilitate the theft of guns by the criminal elements.

- Actively bust gangs even if they are foreigners [ooooh shock]. Give them lengthy jail terms and make an example.

- Go around schools and teach kids how dumb gangs are. Ridicule gang behaviour everywhere so that it isn't seen as cool.

- Death sentence for someone using a stolen gun to kill.


That's only for starters. I think any of these are better than stealing legally owned property whilst protecting the perpetrators of crime.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Wouldn't guns that fire more rounds, at a faster rate, be more lethal?

I'm sure that is not an easy question to answer. On the surface we might say yes but it all depends on the situation. If we are only talking about modern weapons and not lets say comparing a muzzle loader to an AR it is not so black and white.

Rifles of any kind run less than 300 murders per year with the shotgun typically slightly higher in numbers, so here we have a weapon that fires slower with only 5 rounds or so that typically beats out ALL rifles. Now when we compare that less than 300 to 15,000 to 16.000 murders per year I'm not sure what we are trying to prove here.

If I'm in a street fight the AR is best, if I'm looking at long range then a larger bullet would make more sense and that larger bullet would mean maybe 10 rounds at best and typically bolt action. In CA when they limited by law how many bullets a gun can hold to 10 the population just went out and bought bigger guns such as replacing the 9mm to a .45 or 10mm. Talking lethality, get shot in the same place with a 9mm and then a .45 and see what happens. We don't see 100 round semi-auto .22 pistols used in murders either but they are out there, but the .22 can be the assassins' choice if talking zero sound close range.

For mass killings that is 2 or more deaths once again we are talking rather small numbers over all even saying any type of gun. With numbers well under 400 per year a huge chunk of that 400 is not assault rifle. Most mass killings are gang related and done by hand gun. Even looking at statistics of gangs the top 40 guns confiscated by police are all handguns so when you say "more lethal" 2 9mms handguns in my pockets is pretty damn lethal if I was going to go into a crowd somewhere and start shooting, I can even get away with it.

a reply to: Hecate666

You should go and tell law enforcement how to do their jobs, better yet join the force and show them how it's done, go get em tiger.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: network dude
www.foxnews.com...

The government banned the most lethal types of semi-automatic weapons

And remember, all this is because a guy who's single goal was to get New Zealand to ban firearms, killed some people and his reward was he got exactly what he wanted.

Is that true?

I was under the impression his ultimate "goal" was to take out as much Muslims as he possibly could... but I'm happy to be proven wrong there.

His ultimate goal was to kill as many people as possible and hopefully change gun laws in America, so that other countries would follow suit.

All written in his manifesto.

Also a big fan of China as a geosociopolitical model and not a fan of Trump at all.

But to be honest, his manifesto was all over the map.

Crazy is as crazy does...

~shrug~

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Lumenari

Holy hyperbole Batman.

Who said anything about not being allowed to protect themselves. You want to have a conversation great but please enough with the theatrics.

The problem you have is you think it's theatrics.

What it actually is....

is reality.

a reply to: network dude

" I turned in my gun to end gun violence."

"Did you cut off your @#&* to end rape?"


That sums up gun control for me.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: network dude

Wouldn't guns that fire more rounds, at a faster rate, be more lethal?

And the Christchurch killer released a manifesto about trying to get Western countries to reduce immigration rates. Just another deranged white supremacist like so many other mass shooters. If he wanted guns banned and then does stuff that is the diametric opposite, it just shows that he is insane.

Hardly anyone living in New Zealand opposes the gun ban (and, really, we didn't have that large a percentage of the population armed in the first place). It hasn't reduced our freedoms or increased our rate of crime at all. In fact, although the ban came in to force this year, I imagine the amount of gun related crime and suicide has already begun to reduce, just like it did in Australia when they banned guns.

Reducing immigration rates in western nations is now “white supremacy “??!?!????

Every time you post you make a fool of yourself

The gun ban in NZ was a failure. 50,000 firearms is less than one third of the expected amount

This ban has had ZERO impact on firearm related crimes in NZ and will continue to do so

There is a 100% chance that jacinda adern will never be prime minister again

a reply to: Irishhaf doesn't mean they will get them mind you everyone with a gun licence will be a target

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: network dude

Wouldn't guns that fire more rounds, at a faster rate, be more lethal?

And the Christchurch killer released a manifesto about trying to get Western countries to reduce immigration rates. Just another deranged white supremacist like so many other mass shooters. If he wanted guns banned and then does stuff that is the diametric opposite, it just shows that he is insane.

Hardly anyone living in New Zealand opposes the gun ban (and, really, we didn't have that large a percentage of the population armed in the first place). It hasn't reduced our freedoms or increased our rate of crime at all. In fact, although the ban came in to force this year, I imagine the amount of gun related crime and suicide has already begun to reduce, just like it did in Australia when they banned guns.

Reducing immigration rates in western nations is now “white supremacy “??!?!????

It is one of the primary goals of all white supremacist organizations and always has been. How else would one change the ethnic balance of a nation in the long term?

Every time you post you make a fool of yourself

Me?

The gun ban in NZ was a failure. 50,000 firearms is less than one third of the expected amount

It is ongoing. Some guns are still able to be owned under license and registration. The number of guns and gun parts handed in as of September this year was 89,900.

The amnesty and buy-back ended on 20 December, four days ago, and the final statistics have not been released yet.

Any person found with banned firearms or gun parts from the 20th December will have their firearms confiscated without compensation and they will receive a criminal sentence for possession of illegal armaments.

Since the total number of guns is estimated to be 1.5 million, and many types of guns are still allowed, the amnesty and buy back was probably closer to a 100% success.

This ban has had ZERO impact on firearm related crimes in NZ and will continue to do so

We had a lower incidence of gun crime than the US before the ban, and the amnesty ended four days ago. I would like to know what statistics you have based your opinion on?

A similar gun ban in Australia in 2009 drastically reduced their gun crime (by 57%) and even though things were not enforced as heavily over time, the gun crime figures have stayed low. Similar tightening of New Zealand gun laws since the Aramoana massacre of 1992 have also contributed to our low gun crime statistics.

There is a 100% chance that Jacinda Ardern will never be prime minister again

I don't think you are correct in regard to Ardern. I see her as doing what had to be done with efficiency and capability and her popularity is still far in advance of Simon Bridges, the National Party leader.

Colmar Brunton 1 News Poll - November 2019 - Preferred PM - Ardern 36%, Bridges 10%

Nor do I see any great differences in policy between either of the two major parties at this stage.

But aside from that, the election, or otherwise, of Ardern has little to do with the gun ban which was a totally bi-partisan and unopposed act of Parliament.

You really have to stop believing what you read on right-wing US websites. They fear Ardern and the true political centrists. Fake News.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
so when you say "more lethal" 2 9mms handguns in my pockets is pretty damn lethal if I was going to go into a crowd somewhere and start shooting, I can even get away with it.

Probably the most interesting 'thing' I've ever read on ATS (at least in quite a while).

The solution is for not MSM reporting on mass shootings and terrorism. Mass shooters and terrorists want the world to know. They want us to know about them, their thinking and their "manifesto".

MSM by giving them a voice encourage more shootings and terror. They know it but they won´t discuss the morality of this since it would kill their agenda of disarming good people.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
This ban has had ZERO impact on firearm related crimes in NZ and will continue to do so

Although time will tell. This is only a recent ban on semi-automatic weapons, and the amnesty has seen a third given up. As time progresses it would be expected that these lethal firearms will be removed from circulation as licenses come up for renewal and the stigma on possession takes root.

The gun debate in the US polarises politics, alongside the associated toll in carnage and misery. Trying to translate the US gun culture on the decisions in New Zealand is silly thing to do. NZ is not the US.

Typical sky fairy fearing, gun loving, backwards troglodyte! America truly is the country of brainless morons! Please never jump on a plane and visit the UK. Common sense and normality will clearly distress you to the point of murdering countless innocents with your AR-15 because your milk was off and you'd already poured it over your last bowl of lucky charms! BTW I'm half American and I am so thankful that my grandfather happened to be the only yank in history to have the common sense not to go back after the war.

If God was real, he'd HATE America!

a reply to: network dude

a reply to: NotSoBigG

perhaps with your American roots, you can try to muster some will to learn to read past the thread title. Cuz at this point, your post makes you look like kind of an idiot.