New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[PocketZeven]

At no point in any of the posts I've made which you've steadfastly ignored have I mentioned intentional deaths. I have repeatedly asked why 1.2 million people being killed each year as a result of the misuse of cars is better than 250,000 people bring killed each year as a result of the misuse of guns, and you have repeatedly pretended the question doesn't exist (as usual).

Why is being killed by accident by someone not using a tool properly better than being killed on purpose by someone not using a tool properly? Why does it matter to the person killed?

It is important to the relevance to this topic. You can not use accidental deaths in the equation. You can might as well ban fat and sugar. They are the leading cause of deaths in the world. But totally not relevant. Guns are weapons for killing, sugar and fat for eating and cars for transport.

Drone aircraft were not invented to endanger civil aviation or close airports. Does this mean we shouldn't consider them when thinking about security in those cases?


What difference does the purpose make?

It is a 1 on 1 comparison though. Both cars and guns are effective at killing, so it stands to reason if death by one is a problem, so is death by the other. Yet guns seem to get more attention when it comes to this. If you want to keep the benefits of car transport while reducing vehicle related deaths you can. Most cars allow their users to drive in ways that are considered unsafe for most roads, namely speeding. Some cars even advertise their capability for exceeding normal behavior on roads. There are also prevention measures available to keep unsafe drivers off the road like alcohol measuring keys. Yet people just seem turn away from placing tight restrictions on vehicle use, accepting deaths that might result, for the sake of convenience or fun. That's their choice, but then it seems odd to turn around and act completely different when it comes to something else.

By the way, even if you're carrying a gun around for self defense it's still not for the purpose of killing (unless maybe the carrier is insane). You can defend yourself through fear (deterrence). Even if you have to shoot at someone you can do it through injury and not outright trying to kill. In any case, "purpose" still doesn't matter, because anyone can use anything for whatever purpose they want.

Purpose matters. Why do you own scissors? (to cut paper) Why do most people own cars? (transport) Why do people own guns? (to kill enemies). What doesnt compute?

 

[Famine]

It is important to the relevance to this topic. You can not use accidental deaths in the equation. You can might as well ban fat and sugar. They are the leading cause of deaths in the world. But totally not relevant. Guns are weapons for killing, sugar and fat for eating and cars for transport.

That's a new record for ignoring questions for you - three ignored in one post.

Guns are weapons for killing

Still not true, however many times you say it.

 

[Exorcet]

Purpose matters.

Why?

Why do you own scissors? (to cut paper)

They've traditionally been useful to me, I can't think of the last time I used them to cut paper though.

Why do most people own cars? (transport)

I agree.

Why do people own guns? (to kill enemies).

I've never met anyone who fits this description. No gun that I have ever used has been used to kill anything, nor have I ever considered killing anything with a gun. The closest link I can make between killing and guns in my life is being given one by someone else as a precaution against wild life.

What doesnt compute?

First that purpose doesn't matter. Like I brought up before, drones weren't made to disrupt air travel, yet they have the ability to do so. What matters if the effectiveness of drones to endanger passenger aircraft. Purpose does not even enter the equation.

Secondly, you're assigning purpose to things in nonsensical ways. You say a gun's purpose is to kill, yet countless people use guns to do anything but that.

 

[PocketZeven]

That's a new record for ignoring questions for you - three ignored in one post.

Still not true, however many times you say it.

You are asking questions that are answered in my previous post. The stats already say that (compared to the Netherlands) you have way more homicides (1000%). Accidental death have much less disparity. Accidental death is not what happened in NZ and for another topic. It would be more relevant if you would compare stats concerning intential deaths by cars vs guns.

The actual mortality rate between usa and netherlands are almost the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_mortality_rate

How do you explain that large difference in homicides?

edit:

Why?


They've traditionally been useful to me, I can't think of the last time I used them to cut paper though.


I agree.


I've never met anyone who fits this description. No gun that I have ever used has been used to kill anything, nor have I ever considered killing anything with a gun. The closest link I can make between killing and guns in my life is being given one by someone else as a precaution against wild life.


First that purpose doesn't matter. Like I brought up before, drones weren't made to disrupt air travel, yet they have the ability to do so. What matters if the effectiveness of drones to endanger passenger aircraft. Purpose does not even enter the equation.

Secondly, you're assigning purpose to things in nonsensical ways. You say a gun's purpose is to kill, yet countless people use guns to do anything but that.

What other purpose is there for owning a gun and opencarry, then kill?

 

[PocketZeven]

double

 

[Famine]

You are asking questions that are answered in my previous post.

Nowhere have you answered why you're fine with 1.2 million people being killed by misuse of cars every year but not fine with 250,000 people being killed by misuse of guns every year. Nowhere have you answered why it's better to be killed by a tool by accident than on purpose. Nowhere have you answered how it matters to the person killed.

The stats already say that (compared to the Netherlands) you have way more homicides (1000%).

Not even close to true. Even ignoring the fact that "homicide" is not "murder", but all instances of a human being killed, you've ignored one key point again:

I'm not American.

Accidental death is not what happened in NZ and for another topic.

People being killed by someone misusing a tool is what happened in New Zealand. You don't see it that way because you keep on insisting that guns are made with the sole purpose of killing - which is still absolute nonsense, despite your repetition of it.

I'm asking why you're fine with 520% more people being killed by people misusing a different too. Although the answer you're unwilling to admit to is likely because you have a use for that tool, but not the other one.

 

[PocketZeven]

Nowhere have you answered why you're fine with 1.2 million people being killed by misuse of cars every year but not fine with 250,000 people being killed by misuse of guns every year. Nowhere have you answered why it's better to be killed by a tool by accident than on purpose. Nowhere have you answered how it matters to the person killed.

Not even close to true. Even ignoring the fact that "homicide" is not "murder", but all instances of a human being killed, you've ignored one key point again:


People being killed by someone misusing a tool is what happened in New Zealand. You don't see it that way because you keep on insisting that guns are made with the sole purpose of killing - which is still absolute nonsense, despite your repetition of it.

I'm asking why you're fine with 520% more people being killed by people misusing a different too. Although the answer you're unwilling to admit to is likely because you have a use for that tool, but not the other one.

I am not fine with that and never stated so. Why even assume that? The conversation was relevant to guns as weapons in mass shootings. How is that connected to accidental traffic deaths? Killing with guns isnt actually misusing it. A gun is intended to be used to kill. A gun isnt a convential tool, it is a weapon. What other use is there then kill?

edit:

What happened in NZ could have been prevented if he had no acces to said "tool" (weapon). Speculating he might have used a bom or car is for another topic.

The question should be why do mass-shootings happen so often?

Perhaps I should rephrase. What data would convince you that gun control has influence on intential deaths/violent crime/mass shootings?

Would you think that less guncontrol in the UK would have no influence on violent crime, mass shootings or intential deaths?

 

[Exorcet]

What other purpose is there for owning a gun and opencarry, then kill?

Purpose is up to the user. So it could be anything.

Here is a case of a gun successfully used in self defense without killing or even an attempt to kill:

 

[Famine]

I am not fine with that and never stated so. Why even assume that?

Your refusal to answer the question.

Since you're not fine with it, I assume you're now going to be as anti-car as you are anti-gun?

The conversation was relevant to guns as weapons in mass shootings. How is that connected to accidental traffic deaths?

520% more people die annually from people misusing cars as die from misusing guns. You're still not answering why dying in an accident through misusing a tool is better than dying through deliberate misuse or a tool, or why it matters to the person killed.

Killing with guns isnt actually misusing it.

It absolutely is - unless you intend to suggest that the overwhelming majority of the billion guns which don't kill are misused each year?

A gun is intended to be used to kill.

Tripe. A gun is a tool designed to project a bullet over distance, delivering significant force at the point of impact. Several of them are designed for their aesthetics too.

A gun isnt a convential tool, it is a weapon. What other use is there then kill?

Aside from killing (people and animals), guns can be used for:
Target shooting
Display
Deterrent

For those latter two uses, you're talking about a gun that's never even fired...

What happened in NZ could have been prevented if he had no acces to said "tool" (weapon). Speculating he might have used a bom or car is for another topic.

He literally drove from site to site in a car, and had homemade pipebombs strapped to it. You're not even trying to hide your ridiculous anti-gun bias at this point.

 

[PocketZeven]

Purpose is up to the user. So it could be anything.

Here is a case of a gun successfully used in self defense without killing or even an attempt to kill:

You dont need a gun to do that.

Your refusal to answer the question.

Since you're not fine with it, I assume you're now going to be as anti-car as you are anti-gun?

520% more people die annually from people misusing cars as die from misusing guns.

It absolutely is - unless you intend to suggest that the overwhelming majority of the billion guns which don't kill are misused each year?

Tripe. A gun is a tool designed to project a bullet over distance, delivering significant force at the point of impact. Several of them are designed for their aesthetics too.

Aside from killing (people and animals), guns can be used for:
Target shooting
Display
Deterrent

For those latter two uses, you're talking about a gun that's never even fired...

He literally drove from site to site in a car, and had homemade pipebombs strapped to it. You're not even trying to hide your ridiculous anti-gun bias at this point.

No I am not anti car. For the reason I told you. Cars are for transport and guns for killing.
So at least you admit gun's primary purpose is killing.
- Target shooting (as a sport, you dont need to carry it at home, but at the practice range for safety)
- display (the gun should be disabled)
- deterrent (depending on what risk, a dog, security system, tear gas, taser etc. are just as or more effective)

 

[Exorcet]

You dont need a gun to do that.

Sure, there are a wide range of things that can be used in self defense. A gun is just one of many, but we can see that killing doesn't go hand in hand with gun use.

 

[PocketZeven]

Sure, there are a wide range of things that can be used in self defense. A gun is just one of many, but we can see that killing doesn't go hand in hand with gun use.

A gun however isnt neccesary and one instance of nonlethal resolvement, doesnt justify less guncontrol. The robber shouldnt have a gun in the first place.

He literally drove from site to site in a car, and had homemade pipebombs strapped to it. You're not even trying to hide your ridiculous anti-gun bias at this point.

I didnt know about the shooter having pipebombs? But consider there are factors why pipebombs didnt end up killing and guns did.

 

[Famine]

So at least you admit gun's primary purpose is killing.

Quote me. I very specifically said that it was not, and repeatedly told you that your claim otherwise is tripe.

No I am not anti car. For the reason I told you. Cars are for transport and guns for killing.

Then this statement is a lie:

I am not fine with that and never stated so.

You are anti-gun while admitting that gun misuse kills less than a fifth of the people that car misuse kills worldwide. You are fine with how many people cars kill through misuse, because cars are a tool you understand and guns - as you've repeatedly shown - are a tool that you do not understand.

Or you're not fine with it and should be more anti-car than you are anti-gun.

- Target shooting (as a sport, you dont need to carry it at home, but at the practice range for safety)
- display (the gun should be disabled)
- deterrent (depending on what risk, a dog, security system, tear gas, taser etc. are just as or more effective)

Your opinions on what other people need for their purposes are not relevant.

Genuinely amazed you brought up tear gas as a deterrent. Not only does that indicate you have no clue how tear gas works, it also shows you're ignorant of your country's own laws, where tear gas is classed as an explosive weapon and tasers are a firearm - and both are illegal. Insane.

I didnt know about the shooter having pipebombs?

I'm shocked that you'd ignore a piece of information that doesn't fit your rabid anti-gun narrative. Shocked.

 

[Exorcet]

A gun however isnt neccesary and one instance of nonlethal resolvement, doesnt justify less guncontrol. The robber shouldnt have a gun in the first place.

The example was brought up because "purpose" was being discussed.

I don't use statistics to determine what should or shouldn't be owned. To ban something, it should be harmful. A gun sitting around doing nothing isn't harmful and I see no reason to ban them. Someone misusing a gun to harm is a problem that should be fixed, but this doesn't involve taking guns away from people using them correctly. I think it's also important to not create scapegoats. Guns are used in crimes in part because of their effectiveness, but the same goes for many things. Just focusing on guns and ignoring the other problems just leaves us more vulnerable than we need to be.

 

[kembro]

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/8/18254626/mass-shootings-gun-violence-laws-study

No need for semi automatic weapons unless you are useless at shooting or just like squeezing off magazines to feel like a hero. Been shooting since 6 in NZ. Never needed an assault rifle to kill anything I've eaten. Never took a gun out without the intention to use it for its purpose, take life. If I was sighting in or target shooting it was to improve the accuracy and speed of the kill. Display and Deterent are not reasons to own a gun, as more of those weapons get used against untrained owners.

Countries with less guns and tighter gun laws have less gun violence from everything I've seen.

 

[Famine]

No need for semi automatic weapons unless you are useless at shooting or just like squeezing off magazines to feel like a hero.

There's no need for an expensive car or a nice cake either. Need is not relevant.

Been shooting since 6 in NZ.

Exclusively with single-fire weapons too.

Never needed an assault rifle to kill anything I've eaten. Never took a gun out without the intention to use it for its purpose, take life.

Even on a firing range? That must be quite macabre.

If I was sighting in or target shooting it was to improve the accuracy and speed of the kill.

That... would be the purpose of practice, yes.

Presumably by not using the gun for what you say is its intended purpose (to "take life") you were misusing it?

Display and Deterent are not reasons to own a gun, as more of those weapons get used against untrained owners.

Sure they're reasons. That you can conjure an objection (citation needed for the increased rate of gun owners having their own guns used against them rather than the criminal's own, by the way) which seems to actually be an objection against ownership without training doesn't diminish the reasons.

I'm not sure muggers ask for a proficiency licence when they target someone openly carrying a firearm, but I'm happy to consider the evidence that they do.

 

[kembro]

Often used semi automatic rifles, Ruger jammed when needed many times. Bolt action never failed for me. Last time I check ranges were used to improve accuracy for hunting. Must have misunderstood what it was about.

 

[Famine]

Often used semi automatic rifles, Ruger jammed when needed many times.

Presumably no times as no-one needs them...

Last time I check ranges were used to improve accuracy for hunting. Must have misunderstood what it was about.

I thought ranges were for whatever you and the range owner wants - shooting off a few, or practising to improve aim, for example - but I never realised that they had live targets.

 

[BobK]

Guns are weapons for killing
...
Why do people own guns? (to kill enemies).

WRONG

What other purpose is there for owning a gun and opencarry, then kill?

This question has been answered many times, yet you choose to ignore the answers. Why?

Killing with guns isnt actually misusing it

Yes it is, except in the small number of cases where it's being done legally (armed combat for instance).

A gun is intended to be used to kill.

WRONG

What other use is there then kill?

This question has been answered many times, yet you choose to ignore the answers. Why?

The question should be why do mass-shootings happen so often?

Yes, that's the question that should be asked. 👍

Cars are for transport and guns for killing.

WRONG on both counts.

The robber shouldnt have a gun in the first place.

Actually in the first place, the robber shouldn't be robbing anybody.

 

[PocketZeven]

Quote me. I very specifically said that it was not, and repeatedly told you that your claim otherwise is tripe.

Then this statement is a lie:

You are anti-gun while admitting that gun misuse kills less than a fifth of the people that car misuse kills worldwide. You are fine with how many people cars kill through misuse, because cars are a tool you understand and guns - as you've repeatedly shown - are a tool that you do not understand.

Or you're not fine with it and should be more anti-car than you are anti-gun.

Your opinions on what other people need for their purposes are not relevant.

Genuinely amazed you brought up tear gas as a deterrent. Not only does that indicate you have no clue how tear gas works, it also shows you're ignorant of your country's own laws, where tear gas is classed as an explosive weapon and tasers are a firearm - and both are illegal. Insane.

I'm shocked that you'd ignore a piece of information that doesn't fit your rabid anti-gun narrative. Shocked.

You are claiming a narrative that I didn’t even mention. The point was deaths with intent. The way you are putting car related deaths into the conversation you might as well add heart disease, smoking diabetes etc. Or even mobile phones, which also cause a lot of deaths indirectly and by accident. You can’t compare accidental deaths with intestional deaths. That doesn’t make sense?

I never claimed, said or even suggested that I was fine with car related deaths. I have lost friends in car accidents. Yet I drive a car daily. Car related deaths are primarily accidents. How many gun related deaths were accidents compared to intentional ones? Cars aren’t like guns so stop comparing them.

I made a mistake and mistranslated teargas, while I mean pepper spray.

And yes these are illegal in my country, but used in the USA as alternative to guns . The illegality in my country already correlated with the low intentional death rate compared to the us, which has less strict laws. So why so amazed. While there are incidents, overall my country does not have gun issues. Hopefully time will tell if NZ will be safer after implementing stricter gun laws.

Why so shocked? This piece of information is missing in most reports. I personally haven’t found it yet. That said we are talking about a shooting here. There were no deaths by bombs in the NZ case. So what is the relevance? If the deaths were caused by bombs, I would never even mention guns, even if he had them in his car.

You are completely ignoring that the shooting was caused by deaths by deflecting that a gun is just a tool like a car. I am objecting that you can’t compare the two.

WRONG



This question has been answered many times, yet you choose to ignore the answers. Why?



Yes it is, except in the small number of cases where it's being done legally (armed combat for instance).



WRONG



This question has been answered many times, yet you choose to ignore the answers. Why?



Yes, that's the question that should be asked. 👍



WRONG on both counts.



Actually in the first place, the robber shouldn't be robbing anybody.

You are absolutely right about the robber. But that is for another conversation.

If I’m wrong about the purpose of guns. Then please explain to me why guns are invented and used primarily in active use. Display, target shooting as a sport are all secondary uses. The claim that guns were not invented to kill is wrong. A gun is a weapon. And look up the definition and purpose of a weapon.

 

[Famine]

The point was deaths with intent.

Actually you inserted yourself into this conversation by responding to my post (shockingly without even reading it), so you don't get to say what the point was. My point, to which you were responding, was that guns, like cars, are tools that people can keep and use without harming the rights of others.

That followed on from earlier posts about the death rates associated with people misusing these items being 520% higher with cars than guns, and even if normalised to the number of cars and guns (like that matters to people who are killed by them) it's 400% higher.

You responded that guns are made to kill (which isn't true) and cars are made as transport (which isn't true) - again, like either of those things matter to people who are killed by them. I pointed out that this was nonsense and asked if you were fine with the death toll of cars on that basis. You, as usual, tried your hardest to avoid answering that (and any question), but subsequently admitted that it's okay to kill 1.2 million people every year through the misuse of cars because cars aren't meant to kill people and you understand the usefulness of cars.

You won't answer why dying through misuse of cars is better for the person who dies than dying through misuse of guns.

Then please explain to me why guns are invented

To project flames, possibly for display purposes, in the 10th Century. The first recorded use as a weapon comes a couple of hundred years later, in th 12th Century.

and used primarily in active use.

That's quite difficult to say with nearly a billion guns on the planet. The overwhelming majority are unused. Of those that are, the overwhelming majority are used to fire a projectile at an inanimate object for sport, fun or practice.

About 45m of the USA's 300m privately held firearms (15% of households include one or more hunters; only 32% of households even have guns) are owned by hunters, so assuming each uses all of them and doesn't target shoot or keep any on display, that's 45m guns used to kill things (15%). There's a maximum of 40,000 guns - including those held by police and military - used to take a human life each year in the USA, if each kills one person, but that also includes suicides (which are roughly 30% of the total in any given year). Still, that's 0.013% at the higher figure.

The USA does seem to have a violence and mental health problem that a lot of people (like you) want to pretend is a gun problem rather than address, and hunting is culturally more normal, so it's likely that it will be disproportionately high in terms of guns used to kill living things (and both used and misused to kill humans), but the primary use for 85% of them is to be inert or shoot at inanimate targets, and the primary "active" use would be to shoot at inanimate targets.

If you think the primary purpose of guns is to kill, you'll now need to say that 85% of all guns are misused because they are not used to kill, and people keeping them for display are misusing them, and people shooting at targets are misusing them, and people carrying them for self-defence are misusing them.

Nevertheless you won't, and you won't accept any of the above, and in about three posts' time you'll be back to "guns are designed to kill" because you think it's true.


It still fascinates me that Ardern wants to ban guns with too many bullets. It's literally drawing a line as to how many deaths it's okay to cause with a gun. Although given that some pistols have a higher capacity as standard than the demonised AR-15, it's even worse than that - it's drawing a line as to what type of gun it's okay to be killed by.

It's the same kind of line drawn by people who think 1.2m deaths caused by misuse of cars each year is okay, but 250k deaths caused by misuse (and appropriate use - a fair chunk of those deaths are lawful killings and self-defence) of firearms each year is not. If you're killed by this tool, by someone incompetent, your death is acceptable, but if you're killed by that tool, by someone on purpose, your death is unacceptable.

The mental contortions required for that to fit inside one head must make it hard to even stand up straight.

 

[baldgye]

The mental contortions required for that to fit inside one head must make it hard to even stand up straight.

I'm guessing the only reason she can stand-up straight is due to all of the support she's gotten over the past few days...

 

[SVX]

It still fascinates me that Ardern wants to ban guns with too many bullets. It's literally drawing a line as to how many deaths it's okay to cause with a gun. Although given that some pistols have a higher capacity as standard than the demonised AR-15, it's even worse than that - it's drawing a line as to what type of gun it's okay to be killed by.

It's the same kind of line drawn by people who think 1.2m deaths caused by misuse of cars each year is okay, but 250k deaths caused by misuse (and appropriate use - a fair chunk of those deaths are lawful killings and self-defence) of firearms each year is not. If you're killed by this tool, by someone incompetent, your death is acceptable, but if you're killed by that tool, by someone on purpose, your death is unacceptable.

The mental contortions required for that to fit inside one head must make it hard to even stand up straight.

Unfortunately, this is a massive trend with Ardern and her party with a lot of the policies that have been put through. Policies like the banning of single-use plastic bags and off-shore oil exploration - while sound like good ideas, are policies which she has admitted as been structured by no solidified data, but - she has said herself - "what feels right". It's tainted her response to the shooting somewhat to me, as it makes the banning of the guns seem like even more of a knee-jerk reaction than normal, knowing the context of a lot of her other policies. What sounds good in the headlines as "making a difference", even if that difference made is diddly squat.

 

[Famine]

I'm guessing the only reason she can stand-up straight is due to all of the support she's gotten over the past few days...

Indeed, the popular opinion is always the right one, isn't it?

I'm yet to find out why killing 30 people (or 18, or 8, or any number) with one pistol before reloading is good and killing 20 people with one AR-15 before reloading is bad. Or why incompetent car drivers killing 1.2 million people is good but gun owners killing 250k (both competently and lawfully and incompetently... and themselves) is bad.

It can literally only come down to "nobody needs a gun that does that" and "well I find cars useful and don't like guns" - and neither is a sound basis to make laws on, especially when you're stripping people of rights and making some criminals overnight...


... and it doesn't address the actual issue, which is why some people want to kill other people. But then responding to someone ignoring other people's rights by stripping rights from lots of other people rather than admit failings is pretty much how most governments now operate.

 

[baldgye]

Indeed, the popular opinion is always the right one, isn't it?

I'm yet to find out why killing 30 people (or 18, or 8, or any number) with one pistol before reloading is good and killing 20 people with one AR-15 before reloading is bad. Or why incompetent car drivers killing 1.2 million people is good but gun owners killing 250k (both competently and lawfully and incompetently... and themselves) is bad.

It can literally only come down to "nobody needs a gun that does that" and "well I find cars useful and don't like guns" - and neither is a sound basis to make laws on, especially when you're stripping people of rights and making some criminals overnight...


... and it doesn't address the actual issue, which is why some people want to kill other people. But then responding to someone ignoring other people's rights by stripping rights from lots of other people rather than admit failings is pretty much how most governments now operate.

The comparison of cars to guns is about as meaningful as comparing trains to ICBM’s.

The pathetic terrorist who carried out this atrocity wanted to spark a foreign gun debate, seems he’s at least been successful here. If NZ wants to ban semi-auto guns, why not?
It seems to have been widely supported and the country isn’t facing an insurrection over it.

 

[Famine]

The comparison of cars to guns is about as meaningful as comparing trains to ICBM’s.

It certainly is, if you ignore everything about it.

As stated in previous posts, cars and guns are both tools that people can own and use normally without harming the rights of others. They can also choose to use them specifically to harm the rights of others (although it's easier to use a gun to defend rights and the rights of others than it is to use a car for same). Through misusing them they can also harm the rights of others. Despite relatively similar numbers of guns and cars worldwide, cars kill more than five times as many people than guns do, mainly through misuse.

It's a pretty strong argument for better regulation on who can own and operate cars. Of course it's hard for people who like cars and don't like guns to see that, and they routinely hand-wave it away with absurd comparisons to chemical and nuclear weapons that are almost impossible to own and use normally without harming the rights of others.

The pathetic terrorist who carried out this atrocity wanted to spark a foreign gun debate

I thought he wanted to kill immigrant muslims...

If NZ wants to ban semi-auto guns, why not?

It's insane, it's morally bankrupt, it creates criminals, it creates precedent for banning things on the basis of simply not liking or understanding them, it doesn't address the issue...

It seems to have been widely supported

Indeed, the popular opinion is always the right one, isn't it?


"Semi-auto" means "fires once for a press of the trigger, then chambers the following round if one is available". Not sure why that's evil and a six-shooter revolver isn't.

 

[HenrySwanson]

When did gun laws in the UK restrict rifles such as those used in the NZ attack? Was it Dunblane or was that only handguns?

 

[baldgye]

I thought he wanted to kill immigrant muslims...

He provided a handy manifesto.

 

[Famine]

He provided a handy manifesto.

That's one for other people to pick through, as I'm not especially into reading other people's insane ramblings (despite my engagement here - no-one's quite as insane as mass-murdering incel). Safe to say he had multiple purposes then?

When did gun laws in the UK restrict rifles such as those used in the NZ attack? Was it Dunblane or was that only handguns?

Tough to say, but 1968 or 1988.

The Firearms Act in 1968 outlawed most burst-fire and self-loading firearms. After Hungerford in 1987, the Act was updated to effectively outlaw most long guns. Dunblane saw two updates to the Act, both in 1997, to outlaw most handguns.

The weapons Derrick Bird used in 2010 - a 12-gauge double-barrelled shotgun and a .22 bolt action rifle - were both legal to own, and licensed, as far as I'm aware. This incident resulted in no change to legislation.

 

[baldgye]

Safe to say he had multiple purposes then?

Correct.