Guns

[PocketZeven]

Details are important.

You'll notice that I have attempted to get you to very clearly explain every single component of the phrase "high-powered, military-style, semi-auto rifle" (except, to this point, "rifle"). Why have I done this? So we can very clearly see, in detail, what it is you're talking about rather than some nebulous buzzwords. You haven't done so, but that's really to be expected at this point.

Not really. I'm asking you questions about your opinion precisely because I don't know the answer to them - and because I suspect you don't either.

I suspect that because your answers have been wishy-washy at best. You seem to be having difficulty explaining exactly why semi-auto is bad and why military-style is bad, and you haven't even bothered with high-powered yet. When vague answers to pretty simple questions appear attached to someone who has extremely strongly held opinions, it's because they're beliefs that have never been analysed properly. My hope is that you critically analyse them and either craft answers that justify the opinion or change the opinion if they cannot be justified.

I didn't ask what the danger was, I asked how you quantified it. That means how you can assign a number to how dangerous something is, in order to objectively measure it. I also asked how you decide how dangerous something is before you say the public "have no business" owning them.

When you say "certain guns pose more danger", how are you measuring the amount of danger the guns pose?

I didn’t assign a number and not planning to.

Edit: I have answered most of your questions, yet you ignore the anwers.

Pretend for a second that I live in NZ, and apply all the same reasoning I just presented you with. Don't avoid the tough questions here, dig in.

Government buyback. Financial compensation would perhaps not satisfy you, but in the case of the greater good I was going for. It is matter of opinion if it is sufficient. I don’t how a government buyback is implemented, but let’s assume you won’t lose money on those guns. Would you still think you are being damaged?

What do you think of gun licensing like you underwent for adoption, but for guns?

 

[Danoff]

Government buyback. Financial compensation would perhaps not satisfy you, but in the case of the greater good I was going for. It is matter of opinion if it is sufficient. I don’t how a government buyback is implemented, but let’s assume you won’t lose money on those guns.

Buyback is problematic for two reasons. 1) It doesn't address the issue of the loss of self-defense for law-abiding citizens. 2) It forces the general public to foot the bill, compounding the immorality.

Let's assume, just for the sake of argument here, not getting into specifics, that my income is high. There are like 400 million civilian firearms in the US. So if you spent $100 on each (and that's a lowball number), that's $40B. If I'm in the top 5% of all income in the country that means my population group pays 60% of all taxes. 5% of the US population is 16.35 million people. So those 16.35 million people will pay 60% of a $40B buyback program. So the average share of a person in the top 5% of the buyback program would look something like... $1467.

So you say I'm not going to lose money because of the buyback program, but it's going to cost me $1500 in taxes to buy back my guns.

 

[PocketZeven]

Buyback is problematic for two reasons. 1) It doesn't address the issue of the loss of self-defense for law-abiding citizens. 2) It forces the general public to foot the bill, compounding the immorality.

Let's assume, just for the sake of argument here, not getting into specifics, that my income is high. There are like 400 million civilian firearms in the US. So if you spent $100 on each (and that's a lowball number), that's $40B. If I'm in the top 5% of all income in the country that means my population group pays 60% of all taxes. 5% of the US population is 16.35 million people. So those 16.35 million people will pay 60% of a $40B buyback program. So the average share of a person in the top 5% of the buyback program would look something like... $1467.

So you say I'm not going to lose money because of the buyback program, but it's going to cost me $1500 in taxes to buy back my guns.

Those are significant problems, hence I said it would be a sacrifice. I am assuming you are not willing to do, but perhaps a majority of citizens might. The burden of the buyback would then be spread over all citizens instead of just the gun owners, which is the point of a buyback. It is a matter of opinion and if I put myself in your position, one I would be prepared to make. As for this specifics ban, you are still allowed to own certain bolt/lever/pump action rifles and semi-auto handguns. So the sacrifice of self defense is somewhat less impactful.

Speaking about the right to self defense. I have always been confused about the right to self defense, stand your ground and not taking the law into your own hands. In a lot of countries, killing out of self defense is considered manslaughter.

 

[Danoff]

hence I said it would be a sacrifice

Only because it's a lazy solution.

I am assuming you are not willing to do, but perhaps a majority of citizens might.

Instead of jumping to trampling the minority, how about we come up with more intelligent solutions.

The burden of the buyback would then be spread over all citizens instead of just the gun owners, which is the point of a buyback.

Doesn't change the moral picture, and doesn't change my particular portion of it.

It is a matter of opinion and if I put myself in your position, one I would be prepared to make.

You just really don't want your politicians to have to think hard I guess.

Speaking about the right to self defense. I have always been confused about the right to self defense, stand your ground and not taking the law into your own hands. In a lot of countries, killing out of self defense is considered manslaughter.

It's never immoral to prevent someone from violating your rights (if you're innocent).

 

[Famine]

I didn’t assign a number and not planning to.

Then how are you able to determine just how dangerous things are in order to judge which things are too dangerous and which are not.

Edit: I have answered most of your questions, yet you ignore the anwers.

I've acknowledged every one of your attempts at answering (you completely ignored the query about measuring a gun's power, by the way), but you just don't seem to follow the line of questioning at all.

I'm trying to get you to show that you have critically analysed your statements and come up with objective data, and you shirk it at every turn. I even gave you cold hard numbers derived from your own statements showing defined upper and lower bounds (for an acceptable rate of fire) and you not only dodged it you actually posted a bullet-pointed list to show your outrage at it...


The problem is that your position is defined by feelings; it's subjective, not objective. We absolutely should not enact laws that are based on feelings.

We can absolutely measure all of the things I've been asking about. We can measure how many bullets a gun can fire. We can measure the damage at point of impact. We can measure the effective range. We can put all of those things together to create a "danger coefficient" of a firearm. We can draw a line anywhere we want on the scale where something is "too" dangerous. That would be arbitrary, but it would be arbitrary while based on rational data (like speed limits and age for buying alcohol are).

I've tried to get you to do any part of that, but you don't seem to actually want to. Your stated and restated position is that you support and advocate a ban on guns that hit a bunch of buzzwords - some of which aren't even your own buzzwords - because people have "no business" owning them, entirely on whim and free from data.

I can only wonder why that is, and why you refuse any attempt to critically evaluate this position.

 

[PocketZeven]

Then how are you able to determine just how dangerous things are in order to judge which things are too dangerous and which are not.

I've acknowledged every one of your attempts at answering (you completely ignored the query about measuring a gun's power, by the way), but you just don't seem to follow the line of questioning at all.

I'm trying to get you to show that you have critically analysed your statements and come up with objective data, and you shirk it at every turn. I even gave you cold hard numbers derived from your own statements showing defined upper and lower bounds (for an acceptable rate of fire) and you not only dodged it you actually posted a bullet-pointed list to show your outrage at it...


The problem is that your position is defined by feelings; it's subjective, not objective. We absolutely should not enact laws that are based on feelings.

We can absolutely measure all of the things I've been asking about. We can measure how many bullets a gun can fire. We can measure the damage at point of impact. We can measure the effective range. We can put all of those things together to create a "danger coefficient" of a firearm. We can draw a line anywhere we want on the scale where something is "too" dangerous. That would be arbitrary, but it would be arbitrary while based on rational data (like speed limits and age for buying alcohol are).

I've tried to get you to do any part of that, but you don't seem to actually want to. Your stated and restated position is that you support and advocate a ban on guns that hit a bunch of buzzwords - some of which aren't even your own buzzwords - because people have "no business" owning them, entirely on whim and free from data.

I can only wonder why that is, and why you refuse any attempt to critically evaluate this position.

You are focusing on buzzwords here not me. I already addressed your question and said I am not an authority on how and which number is too much or just right. You already now I cant objectively determine that number. I am applying the recent ban in NZ as an action that other countries also should. The government is there to decide what is too much and what number is just right. Do you think there shouldn’t be any limit? Would you make automatic weapons legal? Or grenade launchers? How, in your words, would you quantify the legal limit?

Other options I also put out, but not taken into account is gun registration and licenses. Another I have not mentioned is making loaded weapons illegal to be carried with ammunition to for example hunting ground or gun range. There are many gunreform options that the USA are not taking.

Only because it's a lazy solution.



Instead of jumping to trampling the minority, how about we come up with more intelligent solutions.



Doesn't change the moral picture, and doesn't change my particular portion of it.



You just really don't want your politicians to have to think hard I guess.



It's never immoral to prevent someone from violating your rights (if you're innocent).

Organizing a gun buyback is far from lazy and actually very complicated. Why do you think it lazy? What would you propose, what I didn’t already proposed? You are focusing on one part. I already shared many other options, like gunregistration, licensing etc.

You haven’t answered if you would agree a gun owner should also be undergoing the same strict process as you underwent applying for adaption?

How justified is it to kill someone for violating your rights? Who determines that taking someone rights for violating your own is justified?

Edit:
A humorous look on how gun laws are implemented in Switzerland:

 

[Danoff]

Organizing a gun buyback is far from lazy and actually very complicated. Why do you think it lazy?

Well because it's not morally thought through, and it's not likely to actually achieve the desired result, and it causes a ton of collateral damage. Seems like the definition of a lazy plan to me.

What would you propose, what I didn’t already proposed? You are focusing on one part.

Because that's the part I have a major issue with.

I already shared many other options, like gunregistration, licensing etc.

You haven’t answered if you would agree a gun owner should also be undergoing the same strict process as you underwent applying for adaption?

Well not exactly the same process, but yes, that strict. I don't have a problem with licensing, in fact, I think it makes a ton of sense.

How justified is it to kill someone for violating your rights? Who determines that taking someone rights for violating your own is justified?

You're not taking someone's rights, they're forfeiting theirs when they violate yours. Rights are reciprocal.

 

[Famine]

You are focusing on buzzwords here not me.

I mean... I'm literally trying to get you to define and clarify every part of "high-powered, military-style, semi-auto rifle", and you won't actually do it because you only want to use those buzzwords. I want to talk objective data, you want to use emotive language.

I already addressed your question and said I am not an authority on how and which number is too much or just right.

Then perhaps you should become better informed, in order to make your opinion factually backed, rational and defensible?

You already now I cant objectively determine that number.

And yet it can be determined...

You already told us that you thought a semi-auto had too high a fire rate, while a bolt-action does not. I brought you actual, physical numbers for those two things - 45 rounds-per-minute for a Bushmaster AR-15, 20 rounds-per-minute for a Lee Enfield - establishing that you think that the higher number is unacceptable but the lower one is acceptable, and further establishing that the cut-off for you is somewhere between those too marks. You objected to that, denied it completely and had a rage about me not using your style of language.

I am applying the recent ban in NZ as an action that other countries also should.

Yet if we sit and critically evaluate that action we see that it is not rational. There is no objective data, just feelings, buzzwords and emotional language. You are advocating irrational laws - and there's nothing quite like a badly conceived law for gaping loopholes.

The government is there to decide what is too much and what number is just right.

And where are the New Zealand government's numbers published?

Oh right, they've not taken any rational action, they've just decided that a bunch of guns are "military-style" (which is a nonsense, weasel phrase) and banned them.

Do you not think it be better for lawmakers to create a data set where we know the fire rate of weapons, we know the muzzle velocity, we know the weight of ammunition, we know the energy delivery at impact, we know the range, and literally any other factor you want to decide is part of how high-powered and dangerous these things are, then create a danger index, then decide where we want the line on that danger index for ownership and non-ownership, rather than just say "This gun looks nasty let's ban it"?

Do you think there shouldn’t be any limit? Would you make automatic weapons legal? Or grenade launchers? How, in your words, would you quantify the legal limit?

As I told you in the other thread, my line is drawn at the point where it is not possible to own or operate something without harming the rights of others. If you can own and operate it without harming anyone's rights, I'm fine with you having it - precisely because it's absolutely none of my business.

If you operate it specifically with the intent of harming other people's rights, I'm not fine with you having it (or similar things) any more.

This would be quantified by the number 0 (no rights harmed through ownership and operation, so fill your boots) and 1 (one or more rights harmed through ownership and/or operation, and you can't have it any more).


Your turn.

*places bet*

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You mean there are no westerns during the civil war? Dont try to portray me as ignorant. As an american you should now the periods overlap. Civil war westerns: Django, the good, the bad and the ugly, the hatefull eight etc..

No they really don't. The guns that won the west and those traditionally used for historical shows and competition were never seen in the Civil War and many Americans understand that there is a vast difference. Especially since repeating and lever action rifles were years away from being perfected for mass production.

So yes I do feel you have some ignorance in various areas of the topic and yet when called on it rather fight back and act as you're being somewhat a victim... Just because Hollywood does something doesn't mean that it's correct, this is the same group of people that constantly use weapons that were never produced in the time frame the movie is set. Or my favorite never account for the correct amount of ammo in a magazine. Furthermore, Django is ambiguous with it's exact time frame. Sure the protagonist wears a union outfit but then the are the red shirts and they came to exist in the reconstruction era. Hateful Eight took play in 1877.

You are arguing on the details? I have been quite clear, Semi auto rifles similair to AR-15 are more dangerous then bolt/lever/pump action rifles. It is in my opinion that civilians have no business owning these for the purpose of self-defense or hunting. The "military style" I was literally quoting from legislation in NZ. However you made conclusion even before actuallty reading my posts. I dont have to define the term, because I didnt decide to use it. I clearly stated why in my opinions civilians should not own certain weapons. You misquote me by claiming :

Again how are they more dangerous, you espousing "that's just what I think" isn't an argument. I brought up military style because it is a popular across the board term to use, by law makers to lump sum a group of guns to justify how dangerous they are and why they need to be banned.

Why do you say that I claim that certain weapons dont meet my arbritrary military style design?? That is not true. Also I did say they have a large magazine capacity and rate of fire that, in my opinion are not needed for self protection and hunting. However i did not say their rate of fire is not high enough! You are misrepresenting my posts.

Yeah again I could get bolt action rifles with large magazine capacity and more powerful rounds, I could get an AR style rifle in .22 with large magazine as well. How do these two things change one my assessment of what you said and why it's misplaced. And how the AR .223 and .308 guns you dislike are more dangerous?

You did say lever and bolt action and pump action rifles don't have a high enough rate of fire, I'm not at all misrepresenting your posts, cause that was a pillar argument you've made as to why popular AR styles are fine to ban but not more potent platforms or styles.

 

[PocketZeven]

Well because it's not morally thought through, and it's not likely to actually achieve the desired result, and it causes a ton of collateral damage. Seems like the definition of a lazy plan to me.



Because that's the part I have a major issue with.



Well not exactly the same process, but yes, that strict. I don't have a problem with licensing, in fact, I think it makes a ton of sense.



You're not taking someone's rights, they're forfeiting theirs when they violate yours. Rights are reciprocal.

If its moral and collateral damage is subjective though. Australia doesnt seem to have suffered much from such a "lazy" plan. But I agree it brings a lot of complications if you consider the size and number of guns the USA has. Within the context of the USA, I agree this is not a realistic option.

Licensing does make sense. But some would say that would be ingfringement on their rights.

Your answer does lack nuance. Personally it is unjustifiable to kill someone, just for trespassing.

I mean... I'm literally trying to get you to define and clarify every part of "high-powered, military-style, semi-auto rifle", and you won't actually do it because you only want to use those buzzwords. I want to talk objective data, you want to use emotive language.

Then perhaps you should become better informed, in order to make your opinion factually backed, rational and defensible?

And yet it can be determined...

You already told us that you thought a semi-auto had too high a fire rate, while a bolt-action does not. I brought you actual, physical numbers for those two things - 45 rounds-per-minute for a Bushmaster AR-15, 20 rounds-per-minute for a Lee Enfield - establishing that you think that the higher number is unacceptable but the lower one is acceptable, and further establishing that the cut-off for you is somewhere between those too marks. You objected to that, denied it completely and had a rage about me not using your style of language.

Yet if we sit and critically evaluate that action we see that it is not rational. There is no objective data, just feelings, buzzwords and emotional language. You are advocating irrational laws - and there's nothing quite like a badly conceived law for gaping loopholes.

And where are the New Zealand government's numbers published?

Oh right, they've not taken any rational action, they've just decided that a bunch of guns are "military-style" (which is a nonsense, weasel phrase) and banned them.

Do you not think it be better for lawmakers to create a data set where we know the fire rate of weapons, we know the muzzle velocity, we know the weight of ammunition, we know the energy delivery at impact, we know the range, and literally any other factor you want to decide is part of how high-powered and dangerous these things are, then create a danger index, then decide where we want the line on that danger index for ownership and non-ownership, rather than just say "This gun looks nasty let's ban it"?

As I told you in the other thread, my line is drawn at the point where it is not possible to own or operate something without harming the rights of others. If you can own and operate it without harming anyone's rights, I'm fine with you having it - precisely because it's absolutely none of my business.

If you operate it specifically with the intent of harming other people's rights, I'm not fine with you having it (or similar things) any more.

This would be quantified by the number 0 (no rights harmed through ownership and operation, so fill your boots) and 1 (one or more rights harmed through ownership and/or operation, and you can't have it any more).


Your turn.

*places bet*

What are you going on about? There are whole researches, etc. panels to decide what the legal limit should/should not be. Like the maximum speed limit, alcohol limit etc. You are being arbitrary just for arguments sake. If you disagree with the term military style that NZ use, I am not the one to argue with.

So basically anyone may own a WMD for protection in your logic?

No they really don't. The guns that won the west and those traditionally used for historical shows and competition were never seen in the Civil War and many Americans understand that there is a vast difference. Especially since repeating and lever action rifles were years away from being perfected for mass production.

So yes I do feel you have some ignorance in various areas of the topic and yet when called on it rather fight back and act as you're being somewhat a victim... Just because Hollywood does something doesn't mean that it's correct, this is the same group of people that constantly use weapons that were never produced in the time frame the movie is set. Or my favorite never account for the correct amount of ammo in a magazine. Furthermore, Django is ambiguous with it's exact time frame. Sure the protagonist wears a union outfit but then the are the red shirts and they came to exist in the reconstruction era. Hateful Eight took play in 1877.



Again how are they more dangerous, you espousing "that's just what I think" isn't an argument. I brought up military style because it is a popular across the board term to use, by law makers to lump sum a group of guns to justify how dangerous they are and why they need to be banned.



Yeah again I could get bolt action rifles with large magazine capacity and more powerful rounds, I could get an AR style rifle in .22 with large magazine as well. How do these two things change one my assessment of what you said and why it's misplaced. And how the AR .223 and .308 guns you dislike are more dangerous?

You did say lever and bolt action and pump action rifles don't have a high enough rate of fire, I'm not at all misrepresenting your posts, cause that was a pillar argument you've made as to why popular AR styles are fine to ban but not more potent platforms or styles.

I consider the good, bad and ugly as westerns. You dont. Got it. Very ignorant of me. *sarcasm*. I recommend you do your own research on civil war era handguns.

"thats just what i think" is a misquote. I have not said that. I cant comment on something I have not said. But to humor you, common sense tells me an AR/15 with a 30 bullet magazine is more dangerous then a bolt action rifle in a mass shooting.

I did not exclude more potent platform or styles. I just used an AR-15 as an example and never claimed it was a "pillar" argument. You made that conclusion yourself. You conveniently omit that I also adressed magazine capacity, There should be limits a citizen can own for protection, hunting or target shooting. What limits? Not for me to decide, but indepth research could make a recommendation.

 

[ryzno]

Personally it is unjustifiable to kill someone, just for trespassing.

Why? That said, a warning shot can be enough to make someone think twice about trespassing.
I have a friend who lives in the mountains. He has ginseng on his property. People constantly trespass on his property looking for that little root he depends on for part of his income.
Does he not have a right to defend his property and crop that provides income for his family?

 

[Famine]

What are you going on about?

Answering your questions - you should try it sometime.

There are whole researches, etc. panels to decide what the legal limit should/should not be. Like the maximum speed limit, alcohol limit etc.

Great. So?

You are being arbitrary just for arguments sake.

That's not what the word "arbitrary" means. Arbitrary would be if you decided something should be banned and then slapped a bunch of vague, umbrella-term buzzwords together instead of specific definitions.

If you disagree with the term military style that NZ use, I am not the one to argue with.

I don't disagree with the term, I simply don't know what it means because it's incredibly vague and you won't explain it. The New Zealand government did not post advocating the ban on this forum. You did. You used the term and you supported it as a reason for banning somehting - but yet you cannot (or won't) actually explain what the term means.

That - like the other terms you've used and refused any attempt to clarify - indicates that you're simply nodding your head and agreeing with the emotive terms used to limit citizens' rights without any analysis whatsoever. You say some guns have too high a firing rate, but won't say what number is too high. You can't explain a gun's "power" when you say something is "high-powered". You won't explain what makes one gun "military-style" but not another gun.

To reiterate, do you not think it be better for lawmakers to create a data set where we know the fire rate of weapons, we know the muzzle velocity, we know the weight of ammunition, we know the energy delivery at impact, we know the range, and literally any other factor you want to decide is part of how high-powered and dangerous these things are, then create a danger index, then decide where we want the line on that danger index for ownership and non-ownership, rather than just say "This gun looks nasty let's ban it"? Or do you prefer your lawmaking to be vague, knee-jerk, uninformed and gaping with loopholes.

New Zealand seems to have done just that, and you're supporting that position. If you don't want to be asked to defend it, don't post supporting it.

So basically anyone may own a WMD for protection in your logic?

Can someone own or operate "a WMD" without harming other people's rights (clue: look at what the people who own and/or operate WMDs have to do in order to simply possess them)? There's your answer.


I'd ask what you understand by the term "WMD", but you don't seem big on explaining the terms you just throw around.

 

[PocketZeven]

Answering your questions - you should try it sometime.

Great. So?

That's not what the word "arbitrary" means. Arbitrary would be if you decided something should be banned and then slapped a bunch of vague, umbrella-term buzzwords together instead of specific definitions.

I don't disagree with the term, I simply don't know what it means because it's incredibly vague and you won't explain it. The New Zealand government did not post advocating the ban on this forum. You did. You used the term and you supported it as a reason for banning somehting - but yet you cannot (or won't) actually explain what the term means.

That - like the other terms you've used and refused any attempt to clarify - indicates that you're simply nodding your head and agreeing with the emotive terms used to limit citizens' rights without any analysis whatsoever. You say some guns have too high a firing rate, but won't say what number is too high. You can't explain a gun's "power" when you say something is "high-powered". You won't explain what makes one gun "military-style" but not another gun.

To reiterate, do you not think it be better for lawmakers to create a data set where we know the fire rate of weapons, we know the muzzle velocity, we know the weight of ammunition, we know the energy delivery at impact, we know the range, and literally any other factor you want to decide is part of how high-powered and dangerous these things are, then create a danger index, then decide where we want the line on that danger index for ownership and non-ownership, rather than just say "This gun looks nasty let's ban it"? Or do you prefer your lawmaking to be vague, knee-jerk, uninformed and gaping with loopholes.

New Zealand seems to have done just that, and you're supporting that position. If you don't want to be asked to defend it, don't post supporting it.

Can someone own or operate "a WMD" without harming other people's rights (clue: look at what the people who own and/or operate WMDs have to do in order to simply possess them)? There's your answer.


I'd ask what you understand by the term "WMD", but you don't seem big on explaining the terms you just throw around.

I guess you are just being lazy. I have posted many sources for you to find out yourself what that term means. Supporting something does not need one to know every single detail.

I have answered your questions, you refused the answers. Once again:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1992/0346/latest/DLM168889.html
https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/firearms-manual-2002.pdf
edit: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bil...ibited-firearms-magazines-and-parts-amendment
edit 2: https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us...rms-act-1983-semi-automatic-firearm-air-rifle

I can specify my example. You seem to dislike any umbrella terms and feign ignorance. Would you let people to own sarin gas for personal protection?

Why? That said, a warning shot can be enough to make someone think twice about trespassing.
I have a friend who lives in the mountains. He has ginseng on his property. People constantly trespass on his property looking for that little root he depends on for part of his income.
Does he not have a right to defend his property and crop that provides income for his family?

Youn can defend by using better security. (fences, camera, alarms etc.) Police is the one to enforce the law. I do have to add, that we have more police per capita in my country. And I do understand that in rural area's it is a difficult situation. But as for urban areas, police need to do their jobs.

A warning shot has a similar effect as an alarm. Actually shooting someone to death is in my opinion not justifiable.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I have a friend who lives in the mountains. He has ginseng on his property. People constantly trespass on his property looking for that little root he depends on for part of his income.
Does he not have a right to defend his property and crop that provides income for his family?

My livelihood is being directly threatened by the seemingly illegal actions of a board of directors of a massive company, should I be allowed to shoot them?

 

[Tired Tyres]

I guess you are just being lazy. I have posted many sources for you to find out yourself what that term means. Supporting something does not need one to know every single detail.

I have answered your questions, you refused the answers. Once again:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1992/0346/latest/DLM168889.html
https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/firearms-manual-2002.pdf
edit: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bil...ibited-firearms-magazines-and-parts-amendment
edit 2: https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us...rms-act-1983-semi-automatic-firearm-air-rifle

I can specify my example. You seem to dislike any umbrella terms and feign ignorance. Would you let people to own sarin gas for personal protection?



Youn can defend by using better security. (fences, camera, alarms etc.) Police is the one to enforce the law. I do have to add, that we have more police per capita in my country. And I do understand that in rural area's it is a difficult situation. But as for urban areas, police need to do their jobs.

A warning shot has a similar effect as an alarm. Actually shooting someone to death is in my opinion not justifiable.

So if a drug addict breaks into your house you going to assume they can be reasoned with or warned off when you have to protect your family and you have an instinct for self preservation? Good look with that one.

 

[PocketZeven]

So if a drug addict breaks into your house you going to assume they can be reasoned with or warned off when you have to protect your family and you have an instinct for self preservation? Good look with that one.

I specifically mentioned trespassing not breakin and entering.

But even then it it justified to kill the dude without any nuance? Armed or non-armed? In US culture it perhaps is your right. In other regions it can be seen as manslaughter and excessive. Better home security or having a non-lethal weapon could be an alternative.

 

[Famine]

I guess you are just being lazy. I have posted many sources for you to find out yourself what that term means.

Yes, I'm being lazy by refusing to answer what I mean when I use nebulous terms

Supporting something does not need one to know every single detail.

Dude... have you even seen what you're typing?

You're literally supporting stripping citizens of their rights based on a knee-jerk response to an event using arbitrary undefined terms that you advocate without even being able to articulate what they mean - and yet other people are being lazy and arbitrary?

Even when literally spoonfed actual objective data on your opinion, you won't take even a moment to critically analyse the opinion, and instead react with anger, insults and further obfuscation.


You're espousing an opinion here. You're being asked basic questions on the foundations that support this opinion. You're evading everything with "I don't have to know the numbers" and "why don't you ask New Zealand". New Zealand isn't posting this rubbish here, you are. You've chosen to share the opinion and state that you agree with it, so you get asked the questions, and yes, if you're going to say some guns fire too fast and some guns are too powerful, you kinda have to know what the numbers are in order to draw the line where something is "too" much - otherwise it's just subjective rubbish.

I have answered your questions, you refused the answers. Once again:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1992/0346/latest/DLM168889.html
https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/firearms-manual-2002.pdf
edit: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bil...ibited-firearms-magazines-and-parts-amendment
edit 2: https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us...rms-act-1983-semi-automatic-firearm-air-rifle

Literally none of this is relevant.

I can specify my example.

I have no idea what this phrase means.

You seem to dislike any umbrella terms

When used to create law and violate rights, yes. Nebulous terms can be used to further violate rights, not to mention the loopholes they create, because of their lack of specificity. If someone says "Right, we're banning cars that are too powerful", you bet I'm going to ask how powerful "too powerful" is, and so should you.

and feign ignorance.

Dude... I'm asking you questions about your opinion that you won't back up in any way, even when given specific examples to pick from. There is simply no way for me, or anyone, to know what's in your head if you won't explain it.

Would you let people to own sarin gas for personal protection?

Would you like to know why this isn't quite the "gotcha" you think it is? It's because my position is thought-out, analysed, robust, and consistent, and my answer is yet again:

Can someone own or operate [this thing] without harming other people's rights? There's your answer.

 

[BobK]

Better home security or having a non-lethal weapon could be an alternative.

What if one cannot afford "better" home security? Are you going to supply the funds for my security if I cannot afford it?

Can you give us an example of what would be an effective non-lethal weapon?

When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

 

[Exorcet]

My livelihood is being directly threatened by the seemingly illegal actions of a board of directors of a massive company, should I be allowed to shoot them?

What do you mean by threat?

Before addressing your example, I just want to examine a parallel hypothetical one that was spurred by you mentioning illegal activity and seeming to imply it as negative. Go back in time far enough and a slave owner could make an argument similar to yours.

"I know the Underground Railroad company is just a front, they're actually stealing my legally purchased slaves and threatening my ability to produce crops. This is unacceptable."

Yet the slave owner would be in the wrong despite being on the side of the law.

Back to your example. If someone is doing something illegal, then the recourse would be to inform the authorities and let them sort it out. It's why they exist. However this might not work out well for you if the criminal poses a direct threat to you. Telling someone who intents to kill you that they will have to deal with the police might not stop them from killing you. It would be perfectly reasonable for you defend yourself in that instance. Businesses don't usually operate that way, so I don't see self defense applying in your case.

 

[Blood Eagle]

I also don’t believe trespassing and most property crime is a good enough reason for lethal force. The legality of it itself is questionable and depending in your states castle doctrine, if one exists, should be read and understood. Lethal force is a heavy decision that should really only apply to life threatening situations. Hippies stealing ginseng isn’t a good enough reason but in that situation, a brandish and verbal threat is fully ok, then it’s up to the other party if they want to do anything that will get them killed. If you trespass at a military base, for example, you will not be shot on site. You will be detained, questioned and prosecuted. It is up to you the trespasser if you are going to die or not.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes, I'm being lazy by refusing to answer what I mean when I use nebulous terms

Dude... have you even seen what you're typing?

You're literally supporting stripping citizens of their rights based on a knee-jerk response to an event using arbitrary undefined terms that you advocate without even being able to articulate what they mean - and yet other people are being lazy and arbitrary?

Even when literally spoonfed actual objective data on your opinion, you won't take even a moment to critically analyse the opinion, and instead react with anger, insults and further obfuscation.


You're espousing an opinion here. You're being asked basic questions on the foundations that support this opinion. You're evading everything with "I don't have to know the numbers" and "why don't you ask New Zealand". New Zealand isn't posting this rubbish here, you are. You've chosen to share the opinion and state that you agree with it, so you get asked the questions, and yes, if you're going to say some guns fire too fast and some guns are too powerful, you kinda have to know what the numbers are in order to draw the line.

Literally none of this is relevant.

I have no idea what this phrase means.

When used to create law and violate rights, yes. Nebulous terms can be used to further violate rights, not to mention the loopholes they create, because of their lack of specificity. If someone says "Right, we're banning cars that are too powerful", you bet I'm going to ask how powerful "too powerful" is, and so should you.

Dude... I'm asking you questions about your opinion that you won't back up in any way, even when given specific examples to pick from. There is simply no way for me, or anyone, to know what's in your head if you won't explain it.

Would you like to know why this isn't quite the "gotcha" you think it is? It's because my position is thought-out, analysed, robust, and consistent, and my answer is yet again:

I am not supporting stripping rights. That is you interpertation of it.

I am not angry, but annoyed. You are focusing on specifics, while ignoring the overall message.

Those are answers, yet you choose to reject them. I literally said I didnt know. Yet you keep pressing the subject. Also I am not a lawyer.

So your answer is yes? In your world owning saringas is a right, correct?

What if one cannot afford "better" home security? Are you going to supply the funds for my security if I cannot afford it?

Can you give us an example of what would be an effective non-lethal weapon?

When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

That is a strange hypothesis. What if someone cant afford a gun then? Are the goverment required to subsidize a gun?

 

[MatskiMonk]

What do you mean by threat?

Before addressing your example, I just want to examine a parallel hypothetical one that was spurred by you mentioning illegal activity and seeming to imply it as negative. Go back in time far enough and a slave owner could make an argument similar to yours.

"I know the Underground Railroad company is just a front, they're actually stealing my legally purchased slaves and threatening my ability to produce crops. This is unacceptable."

Yet the slave owner would be in the wrong despite being on the side of the law.

Back to your example. If someone is doing something illegal, then the recourse would be to inform the authorities and let them sort it out. It's why they exist. However this might not work out well for you if the criminal poses a direct threat to you. Telling someone who intents to kill you that they will have to deal with the police might not stop them from killing you. It would be perfectly reasonable for you defend yourself in that instance. Businesses don't usually operate that way, so I don't see self defense applying in your case.

So does the criminal in Ryzno's example pose a direct threat? My point is, however quaint and rural the picture may be, what's happened is simply a threat to someones business and by extension, their livelihood. If you point a gun at Ginseng thief, they'll drop the root and scarper - assuming you haven't shot them dead. In either case, business defended. If I walk into the boardroom of a large pharma company, with a gun, and tell them I will shoot them unless they return what's not theirs, and they do so.... business defended... why would one be acceptable and not the other. Why does one get to use the threat of death, and not the other?

 

[Famine]

I am not supporting stripping rights. That is you interpertation of it.

Banning an item that people own makes those people criminals for owning the item. Even if you don't want to acknowledge the morality of owning that item (and you certainly don't), you are creating criminals out of innocent people. That's what stripping rights is.

I am not angry, but annoyed. You are focusing on specifics, while ignoring the overall message.

Yes, so you keep saying. Wrongly, but you keep saying it.

You say that you support the banning of "high-powered, military-style, semi-auto rifles". None of those words actually mean anything on their own without specifics. The specifics is what give those things meaning. Otherwise they're vague, nebulous words that could be applied to a broad spread of things without any reason or cause to - or not apply to things they should apply to. That's how you create bad laws.

Those are answers, yet you choose to reject them. I literally said I didnt know. Yet you keep pressing the subject. Also I am not a lawyer.

Dude... if you don't know what the basics of your opinion are, why on Earth would you hold such a strong opinion and get all cross at me for questioning it? You don't need to be a lawyer to know that if someone says "we're banning high-powered cars" without telling you what classes as high-powered, they can literally ban anything under that regulation with no recourse.

These are questions you should be asking yourself well before you start arguing yourself puce on an internet forum supporting something you literally don't know about.

So your answer is yes? In your world owning saringas is a right, correct?

To repeat myself:

Can someone own or operate [this thing] without harming other people's rights? There's your answer.

Do you think that you can own "sarin gas" without harming other people's rights? Do you think that you can use "sarin gas" without harming other people's rights?


Sarin is actually a liquid, but becomes a vapour easily.

 

[PocketZeven]

So does the criminal in Ryzno's example pose a direct threat? My point is, however quaint and rural the picture may be, what's happened is simply a threat to someones business and by extension, their livelihood. If you point a gun at Ginseng thief, they'll drop the root and scarper - assuming you haven't shot them dead. In either case, business defended. If I walk into the boardroom of a large pharma company, with a gun, and tell them I will shoot them unless they return what's not theirs, and they do so.... business defended... why would one be acceptable and not the other. Why does one get to use the threat of death, and not the other?

The response was that someone violating your rights is forfeiting theirs. I commented that lacks nuance. How would your case be legislated in US law?

Banning an item that people own makes those people criminals for owning the item. Even if you don't want to acknowledge the morality of owning that item (and you certainly don't), you are creating criminals out of innocent people. That's what stripping rights is.

Yes, so you keep saying. Wrongly, but you keep saying it.

You say that you support the banning of "high-powered, military-style, semi-auto rifles". None of those words actually mean anything on their own without specifics. The specifics is what give those things meaning. Otherwise they're vague, nebulous words that could be applied to a broad spread of things without any reason or cause to - or not apply to things they should apply to. That's how you create bad laws.

Dude... if you don't know what the basics of your opinion are, why on Earth would you hold such a strong opinion and get all cross at me for questioning it? You don't need to be a lawyer to know that if someone says "we're banning high-powered cars" without telling you what classes as high-powered, they can literally ban anything under that regulation with no recourse.

These are questions you should be asking yourself well before you start arguing yourself puce on an internet forum supporting something you literally don't know about.

To repeat myself:

Do you think that you can own "sarin gas" without harming other people's rights? Do you think that you can use "sarin gas" without harming other people's rights?


Sarin is actually a liquid, but becomes a vapour easily.

You are oversimplifying by claiming it stripping people's rights. There is nuance, yet you always seem to speak in black and white.

Dude I just posted various links to the definition. Read them in your own time if you like. You choose not to. Your claim I am not telling you is just another attempt to misenterperting my post. As for the NZ definition of MSSA I have been referring to, you are lazy for not trying to find:

MSSA describes a self-loading rifle or shotgun with one or more of the following features:

• Folding or telescopic butt
• Magazine that holds, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding, more than 15 cartridges for .22 rimfire
• Magazine that holds more than 7 cartridges, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges for other than .22 rimfire
• Bayonet lug
• Pistol grip as defined by Order in Council
• Flash suppressor.

If someone supports Roe v Wade, does that person really need to know every single word/letter of it? You are just being annoying and having a unreasonable high standard to think that everyone who supports something needs to know all the details.

So yes or no? You are answering a question, with more questions? One could rig saringas as a security measure.

 

[Famine]

You are oversimplifying by claiming it stripping people's rights. There is nuance, yet you always seem to speak in black and white.

There is zero nuance to criminalising people overnight.

Dude I just posted various links to the definition.

You've definitely posted several links to a definition of something, but you've not told me how you can quantify "high-powered", or "dangerous", or what firing rate is too much and what firing rate isn't - despite being presented with numbers emergent from your opinion that an AR-15 is too much (45/minute) but a bolt-action rifle, which I gave the Lee Enfield as an example of, as not being too much (20/minute). You've also not told me what you say "military-style" is, despite being presented with several weapons to classify.

There's a reason you can't directly classify a weapon according to whether it's "military-style" or not, and it's presented directly to you in each of those links. I wonder if you can tell me what it is...

If someone supports Roe v Wade, does that person really need to know every single word/letter of it? You are just being annoying and having a unreasonable high standard to think that everyone who supports something needs to know all the details.

Of course you should know all the details of a law you support. What kind of heinous gibberish is this?

So yes or no? You are answering a question, with more questions? One could rig saringas as a security measure.

Sarin is a liquid.

If you can own sarin without harming other people's rights, yes. If you cannot own sarin without harming other people's rights, no. If you can use sarin without harming other people's rights, yes. If you cannot use sarin without harming other people's rights, no. If you can but harm other people's rights with it anyway, no and you may not own it again.

As I said three times in this thread today alone, this is literally your answer: can you own or use [thing] without harming other people's rights? So, do you think that you can own "sarin gas" without harming other people's rights? Do you think that you can use "sarin gas" without harming other people's rights?

 

[Exorcet]

So does the criminal in Ryzno's example pose a direct threat?

Yes, there is a threat of immediate loss posed by the criminal if they're obviously there to steal. In that case they clearly decided to disregard the well being of someone else and there is no indication that they might not be willing to go further in ignoring rights.

My point is, however quaint and rural the picture may be, what's happened is simply a threat to someones business and by extension, their livelihood.

I'm not actually defending one's livelihood, but the means to obtain a livelihood. The difference being that you can't say that someone is entitled to being provided for. That might not even be physically possible in some cases (ie drought that destroys all food). On the other hand interfering with someone's ability to survive can't be justified because it results from a subjective attempt to raise the importance of one person above another.

If you point a gun at Ginseng thief, they'll drop the root and scarper - assuming you haven't shot them dead. In either case, business defended. If I walk into the boardroom of a large pharma company, with a gun, and tell them I will shoot them unless they return what's not theirs, and they do so.... business defended... why would one be acceptable and not the other. Why does one get to use the threat of death, and not the other?

Essentially you only get to use the threat of death if someone uses it against you. The ginseng thief is a simpler case. It's easier to establish that someone intruding on your property is trying to harm you than it is in the case of the pharmaceutical company. However it's not totally unambiguous. It's not the thief being on your property that would automatically give you the right to shoot them. The thief may not be a thief, but someone lost. It's only when it's clear that you are being harmed that defending yourself becomes an option.

The situation with the company is more complex. There's nothing to say that in all cases you wouldn't be justified in pulling a gun on them, but it's more likely you wouldn't be in the same situation of immediate threat as in the thief case. Is the company in the process of bulldozing your home because they want to build a factory on it (assuming there is no warning or attempt at coming to a resolution and everyone involved is complicit)? That's analogous to the thief example. Did the company overcharge you accidentally, which puts them in wrongful possession of your money? They haven't actually threatened you unless it turns out they did it intentionally and refuse to give it back. In the event that they do refuse pulling out a gun probably won't resolve the situation any faster than going through court. It also could come across as if you were the aggressor which could potentially put other people in danger as they might try to defend themselves or involve the police.

 

[PocketZeven]

There is zero nuance to criminalising people overnight.

You've definitely posted several links to a definition of something, but you've not told me how you can quantify "high-powered", or "dangerous", or what firing rate is too much and what firing rate isn't - despite being presented with numbers emergent from your opinion that an AR-15 is too much (45/minute) but a bolt-action rifle, which I gave the Lee Enfield as an example of, as not being too much (20/minute). You've also not told me what you say "military-style" is, despite being presented with several weapons to classify.

There's a reason you can't directly classify a weapon according to whether it's "military-style" or not, and it's presented directly to you in each of those links. I wonder if you can tell me what it is...

Sarin is a liquid.

If you can own sarin without harming other people's rights, yes. If you cannot own sarin without harming other people's rights, no. If you can use sarin without harming other people's rights, yes. If you cannot use sarin without harming other people's rights, no. If you can but harm other people's rights with it anyway, no and you may not own it again.

As I said three times in this thread today alone, this is literally your answer: can you own or use [thing] without harming other people's rights? So, do you think that you can own "sarin gas" without harming other people's rights? Do you think that you can use "sarin gas" without harming other people's rights?

There is nuance. If said “stripping of rights” with the goal to protect people from rights being violated in my opinion it can be justified. If it is not intended to protect other people’s rights then maybe you can view it more black and white.

I am not an authority on lots of things, but just because I don’t know all the intricate details, I can’t support them?

edit: Or required to know every detail, to share my opinion on a forum?

Thank you for answering finally, but answering a question with another is not an answer.

edit 2: I guess you live in a world where misuse of certain tools and substances should not be regulated or prevented. In an ideal world I would fully agree, but in reality (stupid/crazy/malicious etc.) people should be protected from themselves and others.

 

[Famine]

There is nuance. If said “stripping of rights” with the goal to protect people from rights being violated in my opinion it can be justified. If it is not intended to protect other people’s rights then maybe you can view it more black and white.

Ahhh, the greater good. One of my favourite excuses for fascism.

I am not an authority on lots of things, but just because I don’t know all the intricate details, I can’t support them?

You can support what you like, but if you're uninformed about it you risk looking... well, uninformed.

The first person you should try to convince of anything is yourself. If there's gaps in your knowledge, fill them. Ask the questions of yourself. Examine it. If it doesn't survive questioning, reevaluate it. Keep doing that until it's robust and stands up to questions.

If you don't, by the time a government passes laws stripping your rights from you, you've lost. Advocating for vaguely worded laws is essentially complicit in fascism.

Thank you for answering finally

I mean, that's a rib-tickler coming from you, but I also answered it before you posted it and the answer hasn't changed. And it's the same answer from the NZ thread.

 

[PocketZeven]

Ahhh, the greater good. One of my favourite excuses for fascism.

You can support what you like, but if you're uninformed about it you risk looking... well, uninformed.

The first person you should try to convince of anything is yourself. If there's gaps in your knowledge, fill them. Ask the questions of yourself. Examine it. If it doesn't survive questioning, reevaluate it. Keep doing that until it's robust and stands up to questions.

If you don't, by the time a government passes laws stripping your rights from you, you've lost. Advocating for vaguely worded laws is essentially complicit in fascism.

I mean, that's a rib-tickler coming from you, but I also answered it before you posted it and the answer hasn't changed. And it's the same answer from the NZ thread.

Dont immediately put it in one box. Greater good is not exclusive to facism. Also with religion, communism, socialism etc.

The current whitehouse is a champion of being vague. But I do make a difference between actually have the power to be informed and vote vs. sharing an opinion on a forum.

Dont know what ribtickler means, but Its difficult to argue with someone who views many things as black and white. Nuance is then rejected for being vague or an excuse for facism.

 

[Famine]

Greater good is not exclusive to facism. Also with religion, communism, socialism etc.