New Zealand’s gun confiscation program just failed miserably

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: chr0naut

Written/spoken like an authoritarian elitist... "You must think and act like me, or you are a criminal... If you don't do as I say, not only are you a criminal, you are stupid too... I am sooooooooooo smaaaaart..."

No, we were talking about being a criminal if you break the law. The new gun policy is law here. If you break it, you are a criminal.

The new law was proposed and passed in Parliament unilaterally. There was even a time for submissions from people who disagreed with the statute, before it was completely written and passed into law. There were very few submissions and most of them not for valid reasons usually due to a misunderstanding that New Zealand was covered under the US Constitution. The 2nd amendment has no legal force anywhere else in the world except the United States.

Do you know of a country where if you break the law, you aren't a criminal? I'm fairly sure that happens in the US.

a reply to: Flatcoat

That's some good shooting at that range.

I guess if I had to admit it, the only critter I have any fear of is a razorback. We only have three species here that pose any real threat: black bears, mountain lions, and razorbacks. Bears generally just don't care, leave them alone and they'll leave you alone (with the exception of a mama and cub... stay the HELL away form the cub!). Mountain lions are dangerous, but also rare and they almost never come down from the mountain... and they can be spooked if they do.

But a razorback can't be spooked and it doesn't care to leave anyone alone. Damn things are dangerous alone, and if they pack... that's a world of bad news right there.

I remember the first time I helped cut (castrate) some piglets. Mama sow was one of the most docile hogs I had ever seen. She was just fine with us coming in and catching her piglets as long as she had plenty of slop to eat. Heck, I had wrassled with that sow before... never did any good of course, but she just wasn't aggressive at all. We had her penned up in one of the barn stables and took the litter outside the barn to do the deed. I thought at the time that everyone was being paranoid about making sure she was penned up good.

But all it took was one squeal of pain and mama sow went from a docile animal to a raging beast. She was throwing herself against those oak boards, rattling the whole damn barn, and screaming to high heaven. She would have ripped all of us into slop had she gotten half a chance. She knew her litter was in pain and dammit, she was coming to help!

Swine can be dangerous. Domesticated, they are slow, docile, and under constant control because they are also powerful and intelligent. Wild?

I have seen a few lone razorbacks and several lone wild hogs from a distance. The change they go through is amazing. It's literally a metamorphosis. That mama sow was ready, able, and willing to rip someone limb from limb and she didn't have the speed, agility, or ferocity of a razorback. Then when I heard they were packing... well, that's a nightmare right there.

From what I have been reading in this thread, you don't have any packs. A lone critter can be taken down, as you already know. I just hope no one reading this ever finds a pack of razorbacks. The results would probably be unpleasant.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: chr0naut

Written/spoken like an authoritarian elitist... "You must think and act like me, or you are a criminal... If you don't do as I say, not only are you a criminal, you are stupid too... I am sooooooooooo smaaaaart..."

Do you know of a country where if you break the law, you aren't a criminal? I'm fairly sure that happens in the US.

I dunno, 'Retard Island' perhaps.

Kind regards,

Bally

a reply to: TheRedneck

They do actually run in mobs here too. I've had the arse-clenching experience of hunting on motorbike with a pistol, running with a mob of pigs and taking potshots....the folly of youth. But I have seen how vicious they can get. The old bloke across the road made the mistake of hitting one with a .222 and ended up losing most of his calf muscle.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Flatcoat

That's some good shooting at that range.


From what I have been reading in this thread, you don't have any packs. A lone critter can be taken down, as you already know. I just hope no one reading this ever finds a pack of razorbacks. The results would probably be unpleasant.

TheRedneck

Plenty of packs, bachelor types ranging here but I think the fires have probably wiped a lot out. You really need an outing in the bush here when things green up again.

Farmers contract professional shooters to wipe them out on stations. Everything laid on. Put yer hand up mate for a holiday.

Bally

a reply to: Flatcoat

All a .222 is gonna do is tick it off and make it hungry. I've had friends bounce a .38 off a skull and the thing didn't even break stride. That's why I was complimenting you on that 50m shot. Even with that gun, you had to be accurate.

TheRedneck

a reply to: bally001

Farmers contract professional shooters to wipe them out on stations. Everything laid on. Put yer hand up mate for a holiday.

No, thanks. I think I'd rather just try slapping a black bear. Similar odds.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Over here, we aren't living under a balance of terror. You shouldn't have to fear government, nor should they fear you. They should administer things fairly in service to their citizens, of which they are some.

A utopian dream. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. History bears that out time and time again.

To be fair, there are lots of countries that don't have the dreadful history of the US.

There are countries that abolished slavery completely and don't leave loopholes in their law (read the 13th Amendment). There are some countries that never had slavery, right from their founding. There are some countries that incorporate human rights into their actual statutes of law. There are some countries who don't slyly support big crime because it is so lucrative. There are some countries who prosecute the banksters instead of bailing them out time and time again.

In the 20th and 21st Centuries, there has been no country as involved in as many wars as the US, and, here's the thing, in none of them has the continent of the US, or the people living there, even been slightly threatened. That means you guys are purely warmongers, a rogue nation among the many peaceful nations of the world. Even war-torn nations usually have a valid reason to defend themselves. You guys just dive in at every chance and usually for reasons of your own financial gain, it is never 'life or death survival of a nation' for you.

When your allies called for assistance during the Second World War, where the hell were you? You didn't commit any real help until you were directly attacked.

That's fairly disgusting, morally and ethically, when you think about it.

All governments are run by humans, the same humans you fear who, when in possession of a firearm, want to shoot you. All governments also enforce laws at the point of a gun. That's what makes them governments.

Could you possibly conceive of a government for the people and by the people? You know, like a government that administers and protects its nation instead of being adversarial enemies of it own people?

So guns, in the hands of humans, with an intent to shoot, don't pose a threat to human life?

Not all humans who possess a gun do so with an intent to shoot.

No, but even if the smallest fraction of a percentage of a heavily armed populace do intend to shoot, then you have a massive problem.

How do you stop that happening? Do you expect to do it by handing out more guns at random?

I have never shot another human being. I have used my weapon to prevent a carjacking, though... luckily for both of us, the guy decided he didn't want to carjack me when he realized he was about to die in the process.

If, as you claim, people who possess guns want to shoot others, the bloodbath in the US would be legendary.

39,773 gun deaths in 2017 and rising each year sounds fairly legendary to me.

In the American Revolutionary War there were only 17,000 gun deaths and the war lasted 12 years. You guys have more than double the total deaths from that war each year.

Face it the US has a bit of a problem and it is a bloodbath.

Throwing more guns at the problem does not improve the statistics.

That has not happened, and is a testament to the fact that most people who possess firearms are loathe to use them unless absolutely necessary.

It has, and does happen. Refer to any figures on total gun deaths per year. Most people may be sensible but there are always those few...

Proliferating more guns is not a solution.

I don't think that I will throw my life away to defend the day on which garbage is collected or the color of the deodorant blocks they put in public toilets or if they open another lane on the motorway or not.

Please, provide one example anywhere in the world where that has happened.

Please provide one example of anything more valuable than a human life? Say, your life, for instance. Would you throw that, or those of your loved ones, away so that the US can get cheap access to some resource (like oil) or so a leader can bask in the glow of victory?

The loss of masses of human lives is hard to justify for any reason other than, possibly, the saving of more lives, but birth rates stay about the same and death rates during wartime increase spectacularly. It is always a negative pointing trend.

Your concept of government and mine are clearly quite different. We are a little country, with a little government and we wouldn't elect someone for the role who didn't appear to have the credentials to do the actual, and largely boring, work.

We certainly do have different concepts of government. Your blind trust in those you do not know frankly astounds me.

Again, good luck living under tyranny. You make your masters proud.

TheRedneck

You make the mistake of thinking that I don't know those in government in my country. I know quite a few. If you recall previous posts, I was one of a small team who helped get a new party into government here in New Zealand a few years back.

And our government isn't likely to fall to tyranny either. In Australia and New Zealand we operate our government under a modified Westminster Parliamentary system which is (IMHO) immensely superior to your pseudo-Romanesque republic.

Historically, republics have always devolved into tyrannical leaderships such as dictatorships or an emperor. Read a bit of Roman history, then look into some other notable republics to see how they fared.

To the best of my knowledge, this has never happened to a 'Westminster style' parliamentary system of government. But I suppose it hasn't been around as long as a republican system and so has simply not accrued enough failures yet.

originally posted by: bally001

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: chr0naut

Written/spoken like an authoritarian elitist... "You must think and act like me, or you are a criminal... If you don't do as I say, not only are you a criminal, you are stupid too... I am sooooooooooo smaaaaart..."

Do you know of a country where if you break the law, you aren't a criminal? I'm fairly sure that happens in the US.

I dunno, 'Retard Island' perhaps.

Kind regards,

Bally

Did you even understand the question? It was a serious question.

Are you suggesting that there is an actual place that is "Retard Island"?

Honestly, if you want to impress, and to win in a debate, you need to provide cogent counter-point.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Flatcoat

All a .222 is gonna do is tick it off and make it hungry. I've had friends bounce a .38 off a skull and the thing didn't even break stride. That's why I was complimenting you on that 50m shot. Even with that gun, you had to be accurate.

TheRedneck

It occurs to me that if a projectile has insufficient kinetic energy (mass and velocity) to penetrate, then firing more of the same thing is not going to penetrate any better than the first round.

So an automatic or semi-automatic weapon of the same caliber and rounds won't actually help much, from the stand-point of the physics involved.

What you really need is a larger bore weapon, or a higher velocity round/propellant combination, or both. Then you can take down your prey with a single well placed shot.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut


A police search of their property will get them jail time and a criminal record. Even if the gun is never used for criminal purposes. That is how a gun ban works.

does that make you proud, or sick? Oh, and what is the definition of fascism?

But it's Progressivism!
Sounds so much cooler than Fascism, doesn't it?

a reply to: FredT

I have hunted coyote. They will kill cattle, usually calves, and sheep, and assorted other animals, including your puppy, or cat.

They are a hugely successful predator that has largely, in many places, replaced other predators such as wolves, bear, cougar, etc...

Smart. Adaptable. I admire 'em, so long as they stay outta my hen house, back yard, etc...

a reply to: Irishhaf

I almost learned that the very hard way a few years back.

A friend of mine convinced me to go hog hunting with handguns. OK...what the Hell, right? Uh-huh...

I was carrying a Desert Eagle .357, with nine in the mag, and one up the spout.

I found, or was found by, not sure which, by a big ol' pig. Well, you could almost hear the bugle sound the charge. Squeal of rage, and it was on. I double tapped it, it stumbled a bit, and regained its balance and continued the charge. I unloaded my remaining 8 shots into it, finally dropping it about 15 feet away--seemed a lot closer--from me.

That was just a tad bit too close for comfort. Never, again. I will not use anything smaller than .308 from a rifle on a hog.

I've hunted just about every fairly large game animal in North America, and that's as close to death as I've ever come. That pig dressed out at around 200 lbs if I remember correctly. Tasted really good.

It makes for a great story, but man...it could have been really bad.

The Scottish Government and Police Guesstimated 500,000 air guns were in circulation in Scotland before the new licencing laws. Just over 32,000 were handed in.
They ramp up the figures to make it sound as though the nation is armed to the teeth and the public ( mostly cats and swans) must be protected.

a reply to: chr0naut

To be fair, there are lots of countries that don't have the dreadful history of the US.

To be fair, that all depends on what you consider "dreadful." Read on.

There are countries that abolished slavery completely and don't leave loopholes in their law (read the 13th Amendment).

I have read the 13th Amendment. It abolishes slavery in any form.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

There are some countries that never had slavery, right from their founding.

Only very newly-formed countries. Some still have slavery.

There are some countries that incorporate human rights into their actual statutes of law.

Like the USA. Read the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments).

There are some countries who don't slyly support big crime because it is so lucrative. There are some countries who prosecute the banksters instead of bailing them out time and time again.

Name 'em.

When you're through with that, try to understand that the majority of the country does not want the banks bailed out. That's the government acting against the will of the people... believe it or not.

In the 20th and 21st Centuries, there has been no country as involved in as many wars as the US, and, here's the thing, in none of them has the continent of the US, or the people living there, even been slightly threatened.

You're right. And in all of them (save a couple), had the people known the real reason for the war, they would have opposed it. There's that "benevolent" government again, lying to the people. You know, the government you trust with your very life.

When your allies called for assistance during the Second World War, where the hell were you? You didn't commit any real help until you were directly attacked.

Minding our own business for once... like you just insisted we do in the last paragraph. Now you're complaining we didn't get involved fast enough. Make up your damn mind, man!

You don't get to complain that we go to war too fast, then immediately complain we take too long to go to war. Pick a side.

Could you possibly conceive of a government for the people and by the people? You know, like a government that administers and protects its nation instead of being adversarial enemies of it own people?

Why, yes I can. But it would have to be a government that has a good reason to fear the people, else it has no incentive to act in the best interests of the people.

Can you conceive of any group of humans who are truly altruistic and still able to obtain political power? I can't. Such a group has never existed in human history.

No, but even if the smallest fraction of a percentage of a heavily armed populace do intend to shoot, then you have a massive problem.

How do you stop that happening? Do you expect to do it by handing out more guns at random?

Actually, yes. People who have a tendency to shoot without just cause are far, far less likely to do so when their target can shoot back.

Not sure where you got the "random" comment, but whatever.

39,773 gun deaths in 2017 and rising each year sounds fairly legendary to me.

Of course it does! Can you read? The vast majority of those deaths are from law enforcement actions (exempted under all gun ban proposals) and suicide (which a gun ban would not prevent as other methods are also available). More of them happen when a person defends themselves against criminal attacks. Out of those almost 40,000 "gun deaths," only a tiny fraction of them are the result of some loose cannon with a gun going postal.

This has already been pointed out in this very thread.

It has, and does happen. Refer to any figures on total gun deaths per year. Most people may be sensible but there are always those few...

Proliferating more guns is not a solution.

No, you read those figures... you seem to not have. Every city where guns are heavily restricted has turned into an actual bloodbath, whereas the areas with little to no gun bans remain mostly crime free. Every. Single. One.

Please provide one example of anything more valuable than a human life? Say, your life, for instance.

That's easy: the safety of my children or my wife.

You make the mistake of thinking that I don't know those in government in my country. I know quite a few.

And will you know "quite a few" should the present government be voted out of power?

And our government isn't likely to fall to tyranny either. In Australia and New Zealand we operate our government under a modified Westminster Parliamentary system which is (IMHO) immensely superior to your pseudo-Romanesque republic.

Is your government run by humans?

The same humans you don't trust to have a gun?

Historically, republics have always devolved into tyrannical leaderships such as dictatorships or an emperor. Read a bit of Roman history, then look into some other notable republics to see how they fared.

I am fairly well-versed in history, thank you. I know about the Roman Empire. It fell due to corruption from within and then succumbed to enemies from without. The whole point of the conservative movement in the US is to try and prevent that from happening to us and return to a more pure form of republic. You know, the same movement you are constantly against, even if it means skewing statistics and stating outright lies?

I will give you this: you are consistent in your inconsistency. Too bad you usually don't understand a single word of what you type.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: chr0naut

Hmmm:

Gang Action Plan details announced - New Zealand Law Society

The problem is our gang numbers are 1/2 the population of your fine country. Add in the sheer size of America and it is much more open than NZ for foreign gangs coming here that makes our problem ten fold to anything NZ might have. BTW the 9,000 they kill is mostly themselves...

a reply to: seagull

Yup family friend ran into a large boar unloaded his 12 gauge and nadda, thing chased him up a tree he eventually had to hang off a lower branch and get an up close hit with his .357 behind the ridge plate.

acquaintance ran into a pack of razor backs, kept him treed for a day before they got distracted by something else, at one point he started to climb down because he thought they were gone and they had just gone and lay down and waited thankfully for him he paused and listened and they rushed out before he touched the ground.

Nasty animals but good eating.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Bang on in everything you said...

Can you conceive of any group of humans who are truly altruistic and still able to obtain political power? I can't. Such a group has never existed in human history.

While I cant say an entire group, the ring leaders of our founders were pretty darn close.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

To be fair, that all depends on what you consider "dreadful." Read on.

I have read the 13th Amendment. It abolishes slavery in any form.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Really, didn't you read past the first five words?:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

That word, 'except' provides a legal loophole. It means that a convicted criminal (& note that the 'crime' is undefined. That means any charge, even a minor misdemeanor, can be sufficient) can be enslaved. That's a MAJOR loophole, eh?

Only very newly-formed countries. Some still have slavery.

America, at 232 years old, is a new country. At the time the US Constitution was written, most of the world had already abolished slavery.

Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- See that entry at the end of the list about what the State of California did in 2018? How could that be if the US had actually already fully abolished slavery? Face it, what most Americans believe about their country, is fiction.

Like the USA. Read the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments).

Where is the US Constitutional clause guaranteeing assumption of innocence in a court room? And, apparently, the US Constitution does not extend to the complete abolition of slavery. Where is the right to education? Where is a right to having access to food, shelter or medical care (I mean, these are the very basics of human existence, right)?

Name 'em.

When you're through with that, try to understand that the majority of the country does not want the banks bailed out. That's the government acting against the will of the people... believe it or not.

And that is a positive?

The only ones who want the very rich, to stay very rich at the expense of the general populace, are the very rich.

You're right. And in all of them (save a couple), had the people known the real reason for the war, they would have opposed it. There's that "benevolent" government again, lying to the people. You know, the government you trust with your very life.

It isn't my government. It isn't my country.

Minding our own business for once... like you just insisted we do in the last paragraph. Now you're complaining we didn't get involved fast enough. Make up your damn mind, man!

You don't get to complain that we go to war too fast, then immediately complain we take too long to go to war. Pick a side.

What of ethical reasoning or motivation?

You don't betray your friends. You don't attack the near defenseless. You don't take what isn't yours. It's all so many confusing grey areas, right?

Why, yes I can. But it would have to be a government that has a good reason to fear the people, else it has no incentive to act in the best interests of the people.

A true democracy is the people. It gives voice to the majority of its citizens and also tries to listen with empathy to minorities, but not at the expense of the majority.

Can you conceive of any group of humans who are truly altruistic and still able to obtain political power? I can't. Such a group has never existed in human history.

It is happening all across the world and has been doing so since well before the Americas were 'found' by Columbus. the Greeks started out in the right direction but their system was overridden militarily by the Romans.

Actually, yes. People who have a tendency to shoot without just cause are far, far less likely to do so when their target can shoot back.

He who shoots first has a decided advantage. The dead cannot return fire.

Not sure where you got the "random" comment, but whatever.

Of course it does! Can you read? The vast majority of those deaths are from law enforcement actions (exempted under all gun ban proposals) and suicide (which a gun ban would not prevent as other methods are also available). More of them happen when a person defends themselves against criminal attacks. Out of those almost 40,000 "gun deaths," only a tiny fraction of them are the result of some loose cannon with a gun going postal.

Suicides by firearm vastly outnumber the other gun deaths. There is actual data showing that suicidal people who do not have access to the rapid death by gun, reconsider their actions and choose, instead to live. If you reduce easy access to guns, you reduce the total number of suicides. You cannot simply assume that gun suicides are not part of the gun death statistics.

This has already been pointed out in this very thread.

No, you read those figures... you seem to not have. Every city where guns are heavily restricted has turned into an actual bloodbath, whereas the areas with little to no gun bans remain mostly crime free. Every. Single. One.

I dispute those figures and, as explained, free travel means that regional differences in the rules are largely ineffectual.

That's easy: the safety of my children or my wife.

They don't have human lives?

And will you know "quite a few" should the present government be voted out of power?


They have been voted out of power, but as I said, small government...

Is your government run by humans?

The same humans you don't trust to have a gun?

Are all humans the same to you?

I am fairly well-versed in history, thank you. I know about the Roman Empire. It fell due to corruption from within and then succumbed to enemies from without. The whole point of the conservative movement in the US is to try and prevent that from happening to us and return to a more pure form of republic. You know, the same movement you are constantly against, even if it means skewing statistics and stating outright lies?

I will give you this: you are consistent in your inconsistency. Too bad you usually don't understand a single word of what you type.

TheRedneck

< sarcasm on >

Clearly, I am wrong, after all, you said so.

< sarcasm off >

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

Hmmm:

Gang Action Plan details announced - New Zealand Law Society

The problem is our gang numbers are 1/2 the population of your fine country. Add in the sheer size of America and it is much more open than NZ for foreign gangs coming here that makes our problem ten fold to anything NZ might have. BTW the 9,000 they kill is mostly themselves...

Ah the numbers game.

Surely you also have more law enforcement officers.

If your government cannot do its job because of big numbers... sorry but that just seems like they are probably not even trying.