New Zealand’s gun confiscation program just failed miserably

a reply to: gortex

By that definition the US doesn't have a problem with that either. Legal select-fire weapons are exceedingly rare in the US and extraordinarily expensive. As a result, crimes committed with these types of weapons are rare as well.

"Weapons of war have no place in a civilized society."

Well, that's like, your opinion, man. Mine is this: in three decades the only thing my guns have killed are beer cans, the occasional game critters (that are later eaten; i am morally opposed to hunting for "sport") and paper targets. Three times now they've saved my life merely by their presence.

a reply to: netwarrior

Three times now they've saved my life merely by their presence.

You oppressed criminals with your guns? How dare you! Criminals have rights too, you know.

Oh, and fully automatic weapons (anything that can be quickly switched to fully automatic is defined as a fully automatic) are not just expensive; they're illegal.

I guess we need two laws making them illegal now? "Double-secret-illegality"? Dean Wormer would be proud...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

That is why I made the "legal" distinction, my Southern brother. After the 1986 Machine Gun ban making everything manufactured after 86 illegal for non-LEO/SOT to own, the government essentially placed an artificial supply bottleneck, driving the price up. The licensing requirements weed out the troublemakers pretty well.

You could get one next year in most jurisdictions if you have the cash (last i saw it was 6 grand for a simple stamped metal machine pistol) and if your local Sheriff/Chief of Police says it's ok with them.

I say next year because the ATF approves things at the speed of snail.


Edit: i just saw your edit. They are not illegal. Just highly regulated.

You posted...

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: 727Sky

New Zealand has a population of less the 5 million people , 51,000 fewer illegal firearms seems like a good result to me.

Assault rifles are a weapon of war and have no legitimate place in a civilized society.

You were asked to define "assault weapon". So, you answered with this definition and link to a respected dictionary...

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: TheRedneck

Here's one.
Assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.
www.britannica.com...


If someone needs an assault rifle for hunting then they're obviously not much of a hunter , or they think Predator was a documentary.

(Responding to the bolded text in the above quotes).

Way to publicly express your total ignorance on the topic of which you preach. You do know that an AR-15 (and it's other civilian copycat rifles) are not select fire, right? They are ONLY semi-automatic fire, as are many pistols. Again, that means one trigger pull, one bullet. You can hold the trigger all day long, and you will still only fire one bullet. This is not rocket science here, and the facts have been posted repeatedly to you and others here at ATS. Yet insist on willingly ignoring the facts in favor of your need to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty., and doubt) of someone willing to defend themselves and others with firearms that "look scary" and "look like a weapon of war". The problem is they are NOT weapons of war, Let me repeat that so it sinks into that thick skull of yours, THEY ARE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS OR WEAPONS OF WAR using your own posted definition.

So, what is your issue then? Do you always try to control other peoples lives because of your own willing ignorance? What other areas of your life are you going to tell others how wrong they are? What gives YOU the right to do that other than your fear and willing ignorance?

a reply to: netwarrior

Yeah, I know the older weapons are just severely regulated and priced like they're made out of moon dust. I was referring to new automatic weapons. The regulations on owning a fully auto weapon are so severe that I just gave up ever even wanting one. I once got to watch our JROTC weapons instructor fire a M-60; that'll likely be the extent of my experience with them.

Still, might as well be just illegal... you spend $10k+, wait a year (if you're lucky), and part of that regulation by the ATF gives them the right to inspect your weapon at any time for any reason without warning... when the ATF has full authority to drive up to your door unannounced and demand you turn over that $10k+ weapon for inspection... not many criminals are going to be involved in that kind of deal. Heck, not many law-abiding people are going to be involved in that kind of deal.

And remember that if a fully auto weapon is used in a crime, they have the exact location of every single person registered to have one, and there's not that many to go through. I'll stick to semi-auto and a spasm in my trigger finger. Saves ammo.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Amen. I don't have the ammo budget for anything with a giggle switch anyway. It's hard enough keeping up with match .308.

originally posted by: pheonix358
Well, those 120,000 people have stuck up their middle finger to the Government.

Well add... If I have 20k+ in value in guns am I just going to turn them in even if I support this effort? It would be like the Government tells everyone to just turn in their gas cars for destruction and then just go out and buy electric cars.

At least in America we have the 2nd and the 4th amendment which is...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

And remember that if a fully auto weapon is used in a crime, they have the exact location of every single person registered to have one, and there's not that many to go through. I'll stick to semi-auto and a spasm in my trigger finger. Saves ammo.

TheRedneck

When you think about the value of full auto in defense or effectiveness is mainly used only for suppression as your aim is almost nil that eats through bullets like mad and heats up your barrel very quickly, so a lot of negatives there. Something like a M60 that is belt fed and mounted in some way is a little more accurate and can shoot through wall etc where you really are not directly aiming at anything, and is quick to swap barrels by design.

I would bet if you used something like a Tommy gun on full auto I could be more lethal with a well aimed 9mm. People don't even use the 3 rounds burst much as its turns a 30 round mag into a 10 round mag. So maybe back in the 30s the Tommy gun was used somewhat by bad guys as shock and awe it didn't last very long as a weapon of choice.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Exactly!

That's the real thing: those wanting gun control are not really after the "assault weapons"... they already have the laws against them and such strict controls the "assault weapons" don't even exist in large numbers... and what few do exist do not get into the hands of killers. It's nothing more than linguistic trickery to claim that "assault rifles" need to be regulated.

Every firearm has a primary purpose. If I am being attacked by a gang, I want a nice little 12-gauge pump... I can take out groups and still fire reasonably quickly, and the boom from a 3" magnum will cause anyone not hell-bent on killing me for the sole purpose of killing me to leave quickly. If I am deer hunting, I like my Mini-14. The .223 caliber is cheap to reload and is plenty strong enough to bring down a deer. If I have to face down a bear, I want the old Marlin lever-action .444... A little slow, but each bullet is going to make a big hole even through tough bear hide. Varmit gun, for snakes, possums, etc? Give me a .22 pistol any day, or a little .38 Special revolver. Accurate and enough power to make a varmit decide it doesn't want to be where I don't want it to be. Single combat (as in self protection)? I like a .357 Magnum... it'll knock a grown man back 10 feet from close range, spit a fireball several inches out of the barrel for aesthetics, swings fast, and shoots fast enough (not to mention a revolver has a certain amount of shock factor in itself).

Not one of those firearms I just listed have any real military use. The closest would be the Mini-14, which is the civilian version of the M-16 without the select switch. One of the many bans that we have gone through actually made my 30-round clips illegal for it! Luckily, that has since expired a timely expiration. But if something as un-military by design can be considered an "assault rifle" just by using the standard clips, then no firearm is safe.

No, they want anything that will use expanding gas to launch a projectile. For now anyway; they'll soon want anything that can launch a projectile period... including but not limited to a kid's rubber-band-equipped slingshot. The purpose is to make sure no one can defend themselves.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

That's the real thing: those wanting gun control are not really after the "assault weapons"... they already have the laws against them and such strict controls the "assault weapons" don't even exist in large numbers... and what few do exist do not get into the hands of killers. It's nothing more than linguistic trickery to claim that "assault rifles" need to be regulated.

I don't think you understand the benefits of making all ARs illegal. We would chop off less than 250 deaths per year from the 16,000, gains!

If I am deer hunting, I like my Mini-14. The .223 caliber is cheap to reload and is plenty strong enough to bring down a deer.

Though I have 5.56 I like to swap the upper for a 300 BK for deer and wild pigs with my M4. The main reason is I'm running a shorter barrel and the 5.56 is design for maximum powder burn rate with a 20 inch barrel, so you lose power shooting a 5.56 in a shorter barrel, where the 300 BK is design for maximum burn rate in a 14.5 barrel and being a 308 to boot adds to the advantage of knockdown power.

I like a .357 Magnum... it'll knock a grown man back 10 feet from close range, spit a fireball several inches out of the barrel for aesthetics, swings fast, and shoots fast enough (not to mention a revolver has a certain amount of shock factor in itself).

I'm a Glock .40 and 9mm fan, just got the Glock 19x and it is really a sweet gun. My .40 I have had for almost 20 years, think I cleaned it twice...lol, but I can hit a nail head at 30 feet with it.



As far as pistols go I'm looking at this baby...Rhino .357

. including but not limited to a kid's rubber-band-equipped slingshot. The purpose is to make sure no one can defend themselves.

TheRedneck

Or just pointing your finger...

If there are approx. 170,000 legal guns in NZ could someone give me the data on what number of those 170,000 were used in illegal activity?
The legal guns have never been the problem (except when an owner goes haywire, and that can happen with any weapon never mind guns) it's the illegal guns that are the problem and no-one, and I mean no-one solves that problem by confiscating legal guns.

a reply to: Xtrozero

As far as pistols go I'm looking at this baby...Rhino .357

I saw one of these at a recent gun show. Been salivating ever since.


S&W .460 Magnum... elephant round in one hand. If you can hold it...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Actually longer than decades.

The whole 'Assault" label is designed to get a visceral response.

My Noveske AR sure looks like it dropped out of a Call Of Duty game and looks evil, but I guarantee you my 308 Ruger is way way more deadly.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky

"Sorry Democrats"? Do you think that this has any relevance with a US political party?

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

A plurality of Democrats were applauding NZ's PM for issuing the mandatory buyback and touting the idea for the US. Most Democrat POTUS candidates have also mentioned NZ and have advocated gun buyback or outright mandatory confiscation plans for the US. So yeah, New Zealand's failures in gun seizure would seem to have relevance to one party's visions of delusion within the USA.

a reply to: 727Sky

Anyone who has been watching Hong Kong knows full well how a government treats its unarmed citizens during times of mass protest.

People in this thread appear to think that government is a mandatory requirement that all countries must have and that all citizens must work for the government so that the government can provide all the protections one wishes for, whilst simultaneously allowing criminals to kill and TVs to brainwash.

Government is meant to work for its citizens. Some here simply cannot conceptualize limited small government adhering to the will of citizens' liberty and freedom - for them, government is the answer to every problem facing society - simply inject more government into society until they become indistinguishable.

Sad.

I wonder what colour grey will eventually be chosen for our mandatory jumpsuits we will soon all be wearing?

originally posted by: TheRedneck


S&W .460 Magnum... elephant round in one hand. If you can hold it...

TheRedneck

My neighbor has a .500 and at about 2 bucks a round you don't shoot that puppy very much. Here is the funny part, the liberal would say why would anyone NEED a gun like that and I would say...you ever salmon fish in Alaska?

originally posted by: FredT

My Noveske AR sure looks like it dropped out of a Call Of Duty game and looks evil, but I guarantee you my 308 Ruger is way way more deadly.

Nice gun, I have Daniel Defense. When I swap my uppers back and forth from 5.56 and 300 BK both fit like they were milled perfectly to the one lower.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

Government is meant to work for its citizens. Some here simply cannot conceptualize limited small government adhering to the will of citizens' liberty and freedom - for them, government is the answer to every problem facing society - simply inject more government into society until they become indistinguishable.

Are forefathers really wanted larger State Goverment foot prints with a small federal foot print to support. This is because we are actually like 50 united countries we call states. Some for our forefathers didn't even want a Constitution as they felt it was too over powering over the authority of the state.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Need? Nah, no one needs a gun like that... or at least very few people do. I certainly don't. But I do want it, and as long as I don't go playing video games for real, that's my right.

The problem is that if someone can take what I want, they can take what I need. Only I can decide if I need something or not.

TheRedneck

a reply to: FredT

The whole 'Assault" label is designed to get a visceral response.

That's it in a nutshell.

Back in the day, it was the duty of a father to teach his kids about guns. We had a school parking lot loaded with pickup trucks that had full gun racks in the back window, and no one ever got shot. Today, the only thing many fathers teach their kids is that guns are bad, and as a result we have no guns anywhere near a school because everyone's afraid of them, and the schools are getting shot up regularly.

We just saw this on page 1. A poster is all for taking "assault rifles" away from the people, but when pressed to define an "assault rifle," he defines it as something that is already illegal (or at least uber-heavily regulated and grossly overpriced).

TheRedneck