Self defense not a valid reason to own a firearm

If only the UK had some kind of gun control laws

Then those four black guys would not have murdered the female bLack-lives-matter activist yesterday

I mean, if they had a licensing system then it would have been impossible for them to obtain the guns to begin with

D
E
R
P

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

some people will be adjudged unfit to own and carry a gun - so be it - but those that have sufficient reason for ownership, have a clean slate, do not have psychiatric issues, and show reasonable responsibility of being likely to follow safety precautions, can legally own, and perhaps even open carry, a gun.

So as long as I beg some idiot in a political office, spent my childhood locked in a monastery so I couldn't get in trouble, undergo psychiatric analysis, always do exactly as I am told, and haven't made anyone in law enforcement angry, I can hold a gun and *gasp* maybe even pull the trigger sometime under "proper" supervision?

Go, take that attitude, and stuff it. That's why people treat you with the disdain they do.

Yes, like the example in this thread where South Africa is implementing legislation that will limit access to firearms. Even in the USA, with its odd and civilly inconsiderate 2nd amendment, there is some limited gun control.

We were speaking of living situations. You just said you live on an island with strict import/export so there is little biodiversity, and claimed that was "typical of most people in the world." Now you want to change the context to legislation? How about sticking to the point? That's why people treat you with such disdain.

I did not say we had little biodiversity. That was what you said, several times. I did reply that we had a wide biodiversity but again, your opinion and desire to 'win points' has overcome rationality.

I explained that we don't have a few American species. This is because it isn't America here. America is a unique and separate land mass.

And, it appears, despite the firearms proliferation that could be used in effective pest control, is overrun by actually dangerous pest species. I suppose that must be because the individual states biosecurity officers cannot coordinate efforts against common threats? See, I can invent invalid and sideline arguments off the cuff, too.

It is clear from your posts that you are already under significant threat. I wouldn't want to add to that.

But still, you do so by your rhetoric even when it is pointed out to you. That's why people treat you with such disdain.

Ah, I see, some sort of masochistic motivation.

Masochistic in my view would be living among an animal which regularly kills for sport alone, uses manipulation and deceit on a continual basis to achieve selfish results, and which cannot be trusted no matter the amount of training and domestication. In other words, cities filled with people.

Here's an even better idea - go out and do genuinely adventurous things, in spectacular and diverse places, rather than subject yourself and your family to constant low-level stressors in an unchanging environment. It will be far better for everyone's health and well-being.

Here's an idea: try to understand the situation before giving advice. I am quite happy here, and under less stress without people aggravating me than I have ever been. That's why people treat you with such disdain.

There is also a wide native biodiversity in New Zealand. Expecting it to harbor species from America is perhaps a little silly, though?

Biodiversity means an abundance of different creatures. You just got through telling me you didn't have many different animals because New Zealand ensures they don't sneak onto the island. Now which is it? Is New Zealand relatively sterile of undesirable life, or isn't it? That's why people treat you with such disdain.

Look at your situation critically. No one has, historically, disarmed everyone in the USA. Nor are they likely to.

Almost every other country, however, has disarmed the public, and typically just before being taken over by a tyrant dictator. Russia, Germany, most of Europe, China, Japan... the list is endless. So saying it hasn't happened is simply the same as saying that we are still free of complete tyranny... for now.

As to the likelihood of it happening here? Seems pretty likely when politicians are bold enough to state openly in a debate "YES! We are coming for your guns!" to thunderous applause.

But in your mind, apparently something that hasn't happened can never happen. That's why people treat you with such disdain.

The pro-gun lobby paints every attempt...

Do you really believe everything people believe is based on politics? I have fielded calls from the NRA (cold calls; I have never been a member) where I chewed them out and called them a bunch of political hacks for trying to spread propaganda. Not everyone is so entrenched with party politics as you. Some of us, despite what you may think, simply want to be left alone to live our life like our fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and so on. You think that we need to be controlled instead. That's why people treat you with such disdain.

There you have evidence that they simply aren't doing what you say they are!

And now the word twisting, as though you are unable to read simple English. That's why people treat you with such disdain.

But there is gun crime in those quiet little backwaters.

There are fire-breathing dragons in New Zealand!

See, I can say crap about things I don't know about as well. You have no concept of what my life is like (as evidenced by this exchange), yet you purport to know how much gun crime exists in this area. That's why people treat you with such disdain.

And there is nothing to stop people from cities coming into your quiet backwater with guns and intention to do mischief. The automobile has meant we are all quite mobile these days.

I beg to disagree. There is one thing: we are armed. Of course, that is the one thing you would like nothing better than to take away, so I can only assume you want crime in these sleepy little backwater places. Gotta get that equity with the big city, right?

You just made the single most definitive reason for a people to stay armed, and I would wager you think you did the opposite. If there are those who would harm me able and willing to come to me, I need some way to defend myself with at least equal firepower to theirs.

As for the first shot... yeah, they might get one off from a distance. They'd better be damn good at sniping, though, because as soon as a trigger is pulled in my direction, one or both of us will not leave under our own power. Maybe that's why you are so scared of guns... if I were constantly and purposely offending everyone around me ad nauseum as you seem eager to do, I think I might want to make sure that no one around me had a gun either.

That's why people treat you with such disdain.

TheRedneck

In previous posts, you have mentioned that you kept loaded weapons at hand, and that those weapons were in easy reach of your young children (who, you assured me would never touch them).

You are, by your own admission, irresponsible with firearms and a danger to yourself those around you.

That is why you treat others with such disdain.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

The weapons escalation occurred years ago and is so pervasive that you don't even seem to notice it.

Ahahahaha
Ahahahahaha Ahahahaha
So you are selling that Al Capone and his ilk didn't use tommy guns?

Wasn't that escalation in firearms?

They weren't illegal until 1934, so no, it was not.
Your "escalation " theory is unresearched, hot garbage.
Your throw it all at the wall and see what doesn't get called out and sticks is inadequate.

The escalation happened when Tommy guns became available and criminals realized that they had a higher killing power than other firearms, and so they opted for the higher killing power option.

The change in easy availability has led to a situation where there aren't a lot of Tommy guns and other fully automatic firearms in the hands of criminals today. It shows that gun control works and de-escalates things.

This also explains why criminals don't usually carry RPG's today.

Without gun control legislation, things escalate. With gun control, they de-escalate. The proof is there.

Once again you are full of crap.
Just let it go, you are ridiculous.
Tommy gun to ak is not escalation.
And gun control has not stopped criminals from getting aks.
Both are autos, you know like in the car jacking video above.

And thanks for using my original point about the rpgs.
Put a quarter in your ass cause you played yourself.

I could point out what you have chosen for your avatar name, and what that says about your attitude. But i'm sure you are aware of of it.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: chr0naut

If there are no guns....

I can give you a link on how to make a 9mm, fully automatic, sub machine gun...out of mostly off the shelf plumbing supplies. Yes you will have to use a drill and file and other tools to make it. But you can make. And it was a Brit that wrote the instructions. It even tells you how to make the magazines and all the springs.

I can follow it because I was a machinist. Not everyone can nor should, but if you carefully follow the instruction...you will have your very own, highly illegal firearm.

There are also files out there that turn a standard AR 15 semi-auto to full auto, by using a 3d printer. Because it is super easy, I will be very vague about what it is and how it works. Because it is also super illegal to do that conversion.

But again let’s say (for sake of argument) every last gun is magically removed from the face of the earth. That even thinking of a gun is an automatic death penalty, no trial, no waiting in jail, just bang dead...well no that would take a gun. Thunk...hand crossbow bolt, dead.

Here is the thing about law breakers...they break the law. So having a gun is just breaking another law then. And they are going to find someone to make them one. Because a whole lot (way, way more than today’s legal market) of money will be made by making and selling guns...see also Amendment 18 prohibiting alcohol and money made bootlegging alcohol.

Indeed. There are bad people committing crimes with firearms. Therefore, we shouldn't even try.

We should restrict the ability of decent law-abiding folks

D
E
R
P

And after all this reeeeeee, ‘self defense’ is STILL an absolutely 100% valid reason to own a firearm

And always will be

If only there was a low—IQ government who recently placed restrictions on law abiding licensed firearms owners and has since seen a MASSIVE increase in gang violence, gang crime and gun crime.........

Don’t look at that though

originally posted by: ANNED
"Cities have more gun crime because they have more population and more guns."

Now that this a lot of BS.

Rural areas have many more firearms than cities per person.

Yes, but they don't have as many citizens.

Government (and specifically local governments who have legislative responsibility, in the US, in regard to local gun control) have to consider the greater good for their constituency. That is why you can't simply disregard the population centers in this argument.

Actually, a small city with a few million people, half of them armed, has more guns than a few towns of 100,000 with all of them armed.

Guns definitely save lives when New Zealand whackjobs go on the attack in the USA

www.nzherald.co.nz... ILRYLNPPEKWYDY4/

i.stuff.co.nz...

And the FUNNIEST part for me is, the mother faced ZERO charges and the gun was never taken out of her possession AND the criminal never even hurt a single person. He never even got into the house (saved by a gun) AND he will never see the light of day

Because

Regardless what leftists believe should happen, being shot don’t NOT exonerate you of your attempted crime

He never hurt a soul, he got shot and spent a month in the ED, he can’t go home and see mommy, and he’ll be spending the next 40 years (if the judge is LENIENT) in a foreign prison

All thanks to a gun.

Imagine if the mother had a speeding ticket from 25 years ago and she was ‘restricted’ from owning a firearm, the attempted murderer would be at home safe, protected by a pathetic government that would be fighting to prevent him from being returned to face trial

There’ll be some screeching when he’s sentenced. “That’s too harsh, we let them out after four years, it’s not fair”



sHe ShOuLd HaVe wAiTeD fOr tHe PoLiCe

a reply to: chr0naut

And far more good people with guns that harm no one so we should steal their property because F’ em. It is what you are saying right?

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: chr0naut

And far more good people with guns that harm no one so we should steal their property because F’ em. It is what you are saying right?

No. I am proposing proper licensing, registration, training and vetting, but the good people may reasonably retain their property.

Even owning a firearm for self defense is reasonable and arguable under those terms. What is not reasonable is to classify automatic weapons with large ammunition capacities (like 30 rounds) as 'defensive'. Clearly, weapons in these categories should be severely restricted.

Gun control does not mean a blanket gun ban.

It means being responsible, in a legislative sense, for public safety and the greater good.

a reply to: chr0naut
Lol
Wrong again, as is your way, my user name has absolutely NOTHING to do with firearms, pally.
Ahahahaha
Too freaking funny!!!!

a reply to: chr0naut

What is not reasonable is to classify automatic weapons with large ammunition capacities (like 30 rounds) as 'defensive'.

LOL whatever credibility you had just died right there in that sentence, good lord man in the states that required a class 3 firearms license which basically allows the ATF to show up at any time and give you a prostate exam level examination.

I do not know anyone that isn't a gun dealer, or gun smith that ever even entertained getting one.

Gun control does not mean a blanket gun ban.

You really should read some of the doozies that the nuts in congress write when they introduce a gun control law, they dont identify a gun, they identify aspects that could be considered military in nature which are really just cosmetic.

Thats part of the reason so many people say NO at any attempt to discuss it, if they said we want to remove AR-15's and made an argument for it many would at least listen, but thats not what they do they use vague language to try and allow for the most flexibility possible.

a reply to: chr0naut

Okay. Let’s look at such “reasonable, responsible” qualifications applied in the past. Voting was restrict by age, race and gender. Voting was even limited to land owners at one time here in the US. 18 years old is relatively new, it was 21 when Woodstock happened. Hence why Representatives need to be 25 and Senators 30 years old respectively.

Credit scores the solution?

How about social media posts...or are you “woke” enough to own a gun, which means you would not at all.

How about we actually have investigations listed when they occur on background checks? That might have helped with the Parkland School Shooting but done zero for Sandy Hook because those were his mother’s guns and he killed her to take them. Aurora, CO Batman shooting would have helped if his mental issues and counseling been added...but where is the line for HIPPA violations?

Currently there is enough privately owned firearms for everyone in the US to have one (probably 1.2 guns to be honest). If shootings deaths were even one percent of all yearly deaths then you might have a serious problem. As is the yearly death toll of being murdered by a firearm of any type in the US is about 0.0000333% or about 3.3 per 100,000 people. Chicago, IL is higher and Jacksonburg, OH (population 52) is naturally way lower.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

Uh yeah,the way our bill of rights works is anything not mentioned to be fed jurisdiction is left up to individuals. In short anything we want to do short of infringing on anothers rights is legal even stuff not written about.

If you don't have them as rights under law. You don't have them.

Wrong. our laws work different than yours. you do not live here. your opinion is worthless.

Licensing
Registration
Training
And vetting


JUST LIKE THE CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUE SHOOTER !

All laws and rules were followed and yet.....

Leftists aren’t smart

Or maybe the call is for ‘banning’ as well?

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
Licensing
Registration
Training
And vetting


JUST LIKE THE CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUE SHOOTER !

All laws and rules were followed and yet.....

Leftists aren’t smart

Or maybe the call is for ‘banning’ as well?

If you remember, some of that legislation happened after the Christchurch mosque shootings.

And they changed our gun laws responsive to the Christchurch mosque shootings (only days after).

And the laws were carried unanimously in our parliament. Both left and right were in total agreement.

a reply to: chr0naut

And the laws were carried unanimously in our parliament. Both left and right were in total agreement.

Same coin, two heads, same masters.

And they changed our gun laws responsive to the Christchurch mosque shootings (only days after).

The laws were written in advance of the shootings. They have to be tabled and so on and so forth. Takes more than a few days.

Hoodwinked the Public are. Just a big group of slave drones.

P

The only laws they ‘changed’ were

“BAN THEM”

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: chr0naut

And the laws were carried unanimously in our parliament. Both left and right were in total agreement.

Same coin, two heads, same masters.

And they changed our gun laws responsive to the Christchurch mosque shootings (only days after).

The laws were written in advance of the shootings. They have to be tabled and so on and so forth. Takes more than a few days.

Hoodwinked the Public are. Just a big group of slave drones.

P

LOL. No.

I remember the very public debates beforehand.

The NZ government has a history of reacting quickly to situations.

Like with COVID-19 lockdowns, they were implemented in a matter of hours after it was confirmed that the virus was active in the community. And more than once, as well.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
The only laws they ‘changed’ were

“BAN THEM”

Then why is there still procedure for legal gun ownership in New Zealand, if they are banned?

Apply for a New Zealand firearms licence - New Zealand Police

a reply to: chr0naut

The ONLY law they changed was to BAN certain types of firearms

Mr Tarrant followed your laws, and shot a lot of people

Laws don’t stop criminals

But armed citizens do

I hope Troy Skinner enjoys his gunshot wound while he spends the next four decades in a cell

Yet another life saved by an armed citizen