New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[mustafur]

Not to call out anyone that I know but when I was younger I was friends with someone who was part of an outlaw motorcycle gang(We call them Bikies here) who had very easy access to automatic weapons(Such as Uzis, AKs etc)and was likely selling them on to others, just because you don't hear about it in Australia doesn't mean it's not possible to get.

All these weapons would be highly illegal even in the US and imagine if they got in the hands of a Psychopath.

The key thing here is Criminals don't follow laws.

 

[Dennisch]

Not to call out anyone that I know but when I was younger I was friends with someone who was part of an outlaw motorcycle gang(We call them Bikies here) who had very easy access to automatic weapons(Such as Uzis, AKs etc)and was likely selling them on to others, just because you don't hear about it in Australia doesn't mean it's not possible to get.

All these weapons would be highly illegal even in the US and imagine if they got in the hands of a Psychopath.

The key thing here is Criminals don't follow laws.

It's the same here.

If you need one, you'll have an AK in 24 hours. Simple as that. They found a massive weapon stash not too long ago 10 minutes from my house, because of a random traffic stop.

 

[Danoff]

There's no need for me to pat myself on the back since I've done nothing, unlike yourself with your condescending attitude who has a lot to say, but no solution to provide.

I can only talk for myself and I'll say it again. I am happy that it is more difficult for an idiot to commit this type of act again in my country.

It's not. Guns were not the easiest way. Obtaining a truck and running people over was probably the easiest way, and that's still just as easy as it was.

I'm not naive enough, despite your attempts to show that I am, to think that this will stop anyone who is 100% committed to doing something like this from doing it.

And obviously this guy (and people like him) are 100% committed.

Out of interest, what would you do if you were the NZ Prime Minister?

Announce that my country will not be bullied into harming its citizens by murderous thugs, and remind everyone that harming the population with misguided policies is exactly what these people want. If you want to know what steps I would take to prevent something like this in the future... I'm not sure I'm well versed enough in NZ circumstances to make that call. In the US I think we need stricter (or at least more consistent) licensing for certain firearms and firearm devices (like bump stocks). I'm not under the illusion that the las vegas shooter would suddenly NOT have killed a bunch of people if that happened though.

Lets say you are mentally unstable and in rage and you want to kill your classmates or immigrants. A firearm costs 2k (which you cant afford at the moment) and you also need to find a black armsdealer or look on the dark web. So you start finding money or start saving, making connection, asking around, using your IP to google "firearm dark web". In the mean time you might cool down or are intervened by council/doctor/family/friend/love intrest and decide you dont want to act in that "fit of rage" anymore. How different it could have been if he could immediately act on his decision and go to the local gunstore and purchase one after a simple backgroundcheck.

So you steal a truck and run people over. Or you rent a truck and some fertilizer and blow them up.

I'm not arguing that stricter background checks don't help. I think they can. But we need to be honest about how effective they would be in this situation, and from what little I know about the situation, it looks like the answer is virtually none.

Your example is legitimate, but isnt making it more difficult for that person to obtain a weapon, a deterrant or at least a way to slow his progress/ planning down since there are more steps to his endgoal so that authorities can find the breadcrumbs or people in his surroundings recommend a mental health specialist ? A lot more things that could go wrong, make mistakes and get caught or intervened, compared to relatively easily obtaining a gun legally?

edit: fixed spelling

Yes, it does help reduce the chances that this event is carried out by a gun, which is worth doing (carefully, and not at collateral cost to the freedoms of law-abiding citizens). I want to be clear though, I'm not convinced that it stops the event. In fact, I'm not even convinced that it reduces the number of casualties. So while it might help in some circumstances (to have stricter licensing, a ban is ridiculous), it's not necessarily even related to this case. So I view this entirely a security theater, so that people can pretend that the issue is now fixed and can go back to ignoring the possibility.

Edit:

One more time, a little more clearly perhaps.
- Background checks and stricter licensing can help in other cases
- They probably don't help in cases like this
- They may not even reduce the body count in cases like this

 

[Animera]

You still come across as very condescending.
The shooter in this case was able to legally buy the weapons he used. He was also legally allowed to buy the larger cartridges.
Now he isn't. Obviously this doesn't mean that these items cannot be acquired, but it cannot now be done legally.

I don't understand how you can say that banning certain semi-automatic weapons is harming the population.
Owning a gun in New Zealand is not a right, it is a privilege.

 

[Danoff]

You still come across as very condescending.
The shooter in this case was able to legally buy the weapons he used. He was also legally allowed to buy the larger cartridges.
Now he isn't. Obviously this doesn't mean that these items cannot be acquired, but it cannot now be done legally.

I don't understand how you can say that banning certain semi-automatic weapons is harming the population.
Owning a gun in New Zealand is not a right, it is a privilege.

Peacefully purchasing a gun from someone peacefully selling one is a human right (by nature of freedom of contract) everywhere. There is no such thing as a human right which is dependent on geography. I don't understand what part of curtailing freedoms being harm confuses you.

 

[PeterJB]

When you are determined enough to go through with mowing down a whole building full of innocent people (and apparently actively avoid resisting arrest), a law banning certain types of guns which makes little difference to how accessible they are isn't going to stop you. Making something illegal doesn't also make it vanish into thin air.

 

[MatskiMonk]

The probability of a type of tool being used is proportional to its availability and effectiveness. A highly effective, readily available tool will be the highest risk, reducing the risk is about making them less available or less effective. Opposite that of course, you have the simple practicalities of enforcing restrictions, and also unintended impact. If you're going to ignore pragmatic risk based thinking, then as often as you equate guns to cars and lorries, you have to equate it nerve agents, high explosives, and cyberwarfare utilities, and the like.

 

[Animera]

Okay, I give up.
I'll just happily live in my country where owning certain semi-automatic firearms is now illegal.
And I'm still happy about it as are the vast majority of my fellow Kiwis.

 

[Famine]

You still come across as very condescending.
The shooter in this case was able to legally buy the weapons he used. He was also legally allowed to buy the larger cartridges.
Now he isn't. Obviously this doesn't mean that these items cannot be acquired, but it cannot now be done legally.

But he (well, someone else) can still legally buy a single handgun and kill 30 people with it before reloading.

So the new law effectively says "you can kill 30 people with one gun, so long as it's not with the wrong kind of gun", rather than "you can kill as many people as you want with any type of gun".

Oh, he also made two bombs which were attached to a car. I wonder how legal they were...

I don't understand how you can say that banning certain semi-automatic weapons is harming the population.

Passing laws that criminalise possession of items makes those who own the items criminals for no reason other than the decision to criminalise it. When you make criminals out of ordinary people, you harm them.

 

[Danoff]

I don't understand how you can say that banning certain semi-automatic weapons is harming the population.
Owning a gun in New Zealand is not a right, it is a privilege.

By the way, the press release on the subject posted here earlier stated that people have to hand over their (now-illegal) firearms to the government or become criminals when the time period for handing them over has passed. How is this not harming them? You're telling someone that something they own, which may have been in the family for some time, and which may be something that they spent a lot of time searching for and training with, is now going to make them a criminal if they don't give it up. That is, quite clearly, very harmful.

 

[Famine]

then as often as you equate guns to cars and lorries, you have to equate it nerve agents, high explosives, and cyberwarfare utilities, and the like.

Guns and cars are tools that can be used for enjoyment (without harming the rights of others) and a practical purpose (without harming the rights of others) or be misused and put others at risk. So are explosives - blowing crap up is fun.

I'm not sure what the practical purpose or fun uses of nerve agents and "cyberwarfare utilities" (you may have to explain that) are that do not harm the rights of others.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Guns and cars are tools that can be used for enjoyment (without harming the rights of others) and a practical purpose (without harming the rights of others) or be misused and put others at risk. So are explosives - blowing crap up is fun.

What is the practical impact on your life of guns being banned*, versus all vehicles being banned?

*I know we live in the UK, where firearm ownership is already limited, but I'm sure you see what I'm saying - in your day to day life, if there were no vehicles how would it compare to there being no guns?

I'm not sure what the practical purpose or fun uses of nerve agents and "cyberwarfare utilities" (you may have to explain that) are that do not harm the rights of others.

Owning something you know is powerful, even if you never intend to use it.... Shrug, who cares, if you want want to legitimise something because it's fun we could make all kinds of rubbish up, maybe I just like seeing what Novichok would do to goldish, rats or labradors.

As for cyberwarfare utilities. We are all at risk from cyber attacks, if we all had the ability to launch them, surely that would be a good defence? A great equaliser? Just like how guns stop grannies getting robbed by big blokes in hoodies. Or maybe, I just find testing site security fun? Who knows.

 

[Danoff]

as often as you equate guns to cars and lorries, you have to equate it nerve agents, high explosives, and cyberwarfare utilities, and the like.

 

[MatskiMonk]

That would be a good example of 'the like' . Can't be that accessible though?

Edit: Can't tell if that is Shawn Nelson or not.

 

[Danoff]

That would be a good example of 'the like' . Can't be that accessible though?

He owns it legally.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/26/arnold-schwarzenegger-gives-kids-rides-in-his-old-war-tank.html
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment...r-takes-own-personal-tank-spin-000359471.html

I don't know what the qualifications are to own a tank, maybe you have to be governor first. Not entirely sure. But he's not governor now. I'm not sure there's anything that should be banned, but there are things which may require extreme levels of documentation.

 

[Famine]

What is the practical impact on your life of guns being banned*, versus all vehicles being banned?

*I know we live in the UK, where firearm ownership is already limited, but I'm sure you see what I'm saying - in your day to day life, if there were no vehicles how would it compare to there being no guns?

None, really. I mean, I'd have to shift to writing about games about cars, and cars in other countries, but as far as my day-to-day existence goes there'd be not that much impact - especially as everyone else would be in the same boat.

Not that this should be a factor in deciding what merits being banned. The practical impact on my life of banning golf or homosexuality would be zero, for example. That doesn't mean I should be just fine with it being banned. In fact, I shouldn't be.

Owning something you know is powerful, even if you never intend to use it.... Shrug, who cares, if you want want to legitimise something because it's fun we could make all kinds of rubbish up

I pointed out that these things have practical purposes, as well as enjoyment value, without harming other people's rights. That's not "legitimising something because it's fun", but showing actual uses for these things that do not cause any harm to other people's rights. Cars and guns do that, nerve agents and "cyberwarfare utilities" don't - hence why it's apt to group the first two together and separate the others from them.

In fact you've focused on the wrong keyphrase for much of your post. If it's not going to cause harm to other people's rights, I'm pretty much fine with someone owning it for display purposes alone, and if you do use something to harm other people's rights, you should forfeit some freedoms.

maybe I just like seeing what Novichok would do to goldish, rats or labradors.

You certainly could do that, so long as they're your goldfish, rats or labradors. I mean, the animal rights people would have a fit (as would the labradors), but if you're not harming anyone else's rights that's fine. I'm not sure what the practical purposes of Novichok are aside from having fun killing animals with it though, but then we do have all sorts of chemicals for eradicating pests that the public can own.

I mean, you do know how to handle nerve agents and you've got the appropriate storage facilities right? You wouldn't want to accidentally harm someone else's rights by mishandling it after all.

As for cyberwarfare utilities. We are all at risk from cyber attacks, if we all had the ability to launch them, surely that would be a good defence? A great equaliser?

A defence against a cyber attack would be a defence. You don't defend your own networks by attacking other people's networks - in fact it makes it more likely.

Just like how guns stop grannies getting robbed by big blokes in hoodies.

They're certainly a deterrent. After all, nobody wants to be shot, not even criminals. But then attacking big blokes in hoodies with your gun doesn't stop you from being attacked. In fact it makes it more likely, as bystanders and the police shoot back.

Or maybe, I just find testing site security fun? Who knows.

That would be "white hat hacking", and is something commonly employed by people who want to find vulnerabilities in their own sites. If you're doing it with their consent, you're not harming their rights.

 

[Blood Eagle]

He owns it legally.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/26/arnold-schwarzenegger-gives-kids-rides-in-his-old-war-tank.html
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment...r-takes-own-personal-tank-spin-000359471.html

I don't know what the qualifications are to own a tank, maybe you have to be governor first. Not entirely sure. But he's not governor now. I'm not sure there's anything that should be banned, but there are things which may require extreme levels of documentation.

You can own a decommissioned tank in the US but the guns and firing control systems have to be disabled. You can also own decommissioned military planes as well like say an F4 Phantom if you have the funds.

 

[Danoff]

You can own a decommissioned tank in the US but the guns and firing control systems have to be disabled. You can also own decommissioned military planes as well like say an F4 Phantom if you have the funds.

lol... well I'm sure those control systems couldn't be re-enabled. And then there's the fact that it's totally safe when they're disabled:

 

[MatskiMonk]

None, really. I mean, I'd have to shift to writing about games about cars, and cars in other countries, but as far as my day-to-day existence goes there'd be not that much impact - especially as everyone else would be in the same boat.

You don't think that distribution of food and medicines would become an issue, or perhaps the movement of people to pretty much every sector of industry and infrastructure?

Not that this should be a factor in deciding what merits being banned. The practical impact on my life of banning golf or homosexuality would be zero, for example. That doesn't mean I should be just fine with it being banned. In fact, I shouldn't be.

.. but like food, medicine and infrastructure, you can appreciate this would - in the case of homosexuality - affect other peoples non-voluntary decisions. Owning a gun is not analogous to an ineffectual basic instinct to procreate.

I pointed out that these things have practical purposes, as well as enjoyment value, without harming other people's rights. That's not "legitimising something because it's fun", but showing actual uses for these things that do not cause any harm to other people's rights.

If it has an actual legitimate purpose, which I think roughly equates to being something that can be commercialised on large scale that by definition can't be achieved by other financially viable/practial means, then there's no reason not to restrict the **** out of it, but still allow its sale. Accountability at every level will give greater control than the accountability of an individual with a different agenda.

You certainly could do that, so long as they're your goldfish, rats or labradors. I mean, the animal rights people would have a fit (as would the labradors), but if you're not harming anyone else's rights that's fine. I'm not sure what the practical purposes of Novichok are aside from having fun killing animals with it though, but then we do have all sorts of chemicals for eradicating pests that the public can own.

If it's owned by a member of the public can it be classed as a pest? That'd be handy. Anyway, I'm not sure what practical purposes a gun serves that any number of other items for general sale in the UK couldn't also achieve. If you want to put holes in something a distance away because its fun, buy a bow and some arrows... good luck going on a rampage with one if you don't have legal ideas on your agenda though....

I mean, you do know how to handle nerve agents and you've got the appropriate storage facilities right? You wouldn't want to accidentally harm someone else's rights by mishandling it after all.

Totes.

A defence against a cyber attack would be a defence. You don't defend your own networks by attacking others - in fact it makes it more likely.

A defence against a bullet is a bullet proof vest, America believes it's another bullet... who's right on that, is clearly a hot topic, different nations seem to have different ideas about what's an OFFENCE and what's a D-FENS.

That would be "white hat hacking", and is something commonly employed by people who want to find vulnerabilities in their own sites. If you're doing it with their consent, you're not harming their rights.

So do you support the rights of someone sharing a utility (for instance in the Rumble Strip or on an offsite platform like Volafile) that could enable people to specifically attack the database structure of GTP? I'm not asking if you advocate the possible end effect, I'm just wondering if sharing of the tools, for lets say... errrr... informational purposes... would be something you support or not?

 

[Danoff]

Anyway, I'm not sure what practical purposes a gun serves that any number of other items for general sale in the UK couldn't also achieve.

You're arguing it both ways here. That guns are extremely potent (for killers) and not potent at all (for defense).

 

[MatskiMonk]

You're arguing it both ways here. That guns are extremely potent (for killers) and not potent at all (for defense).

No, I'm arguing that all things that make a gun an effective tool for defense (i.e., the arguments pro-gun will make), also apply to it as a weapon. That is not the same as being able to replicate its function as a recreational tool, which is where I was arguing it is easily replaced by other weapons that achieve the same basic function but don't allow for accurate rapid fire.

 

[Danoff]

No, I'm arguing that all things that make a gun an effective tool for defense (i.e., the arguments pro-gun will make), also apply to it as a weapon. That is not the same as being able to replicate its function as a recreational tool, which is where I was arguing it is easily replaced by other weapons that achieve the same basic function but don't allow for accurate rapid fire.

Oh I see. You're not equating a bow and arrow as a defensive weapon, you're equating it as a recreation weapon. I mean, ice cream tastes good, but so do donuts. So you obviously don't need both. Bathtubs probably down a certain number of people every year, so we should just have showers. Or am I missing something?

 

[Famine]

You don't think that distribution of food and medicines would become an issue, or perhaps the movement of people to pretty much every sector of industry and infrastructure?

Not to me, no. You asked what the practical impact would be on my life.

.. but like food, medicine and infrastructure, you can appreciate this would - in the case of homosexuality - affect other peoples non-voluntary decisions. Owning a gun is not analogous to an ineffectual basic instinct to procreate.

This section is a bit all over the place. Remember I said that I wouldn't be fine with banning golf, homosexuality, cars or guns, regardless of the fact that banning these things would have zero or close to zero direct practical impact on my life, because that's not a concerning factor in whether things should be banned.

I wouldn't be fine with it, because it would violate people's rights.

If it has an actual legitimate purpose

Define "legitimate".

which I think roughly equates to being something that can be commercialised on large scale that by definition can't be achieved by other financially viable/practial means

Why does something need to be mass produced commercially to have a purpose?

then there's no reason not to restrict the **** out of it, but still allow its sale. Accountability at every level will give greater control than the accountability of an individual with a different agenda.

Again, a bit all over the place and I'm having trouble following. If "a thing" has what you think is a legitimate purpose, which you think means it can be commercially produced in large scales, someone (government?) must "restrict the **** out of it"?

Honestly, I'm looking around at my office and wondering why monitors, printers and Playstations need restrictions.

If it's owned by a member of the public can it be classed as a pest?

I... what?

Anyway, I'm not sure what practical purposes a gun serves that any number of other items for general sale in the UK couldn't also achieve.

Guns can be used for sport, for animal and pest control, for self-defence, and for putting on display.

If you want to put holes in something a distance away because its fun, buy a bow and some arrows... good luck going on a rampage with one if you don't have legal ideas on your agenda though....

It's exceptionally difficult, and pretty close to inhumane, to exercise animal control with a bow or crossbow. The projectile moves too slowly, is too affected by environmental conditions and provides insufficient impact energy to kill even a small animal (such as a rat) with the first strike, assuming you can hit the target. Yes, I've practiced archery - a lot.

It's also somewhat tricky to defend oneself with a bow, and even notwithstanding the prohibitions on where and when you can discharge an arrow (crossbows are subject to the same regulations as air rifles) it's actually already illegal in the UK too (we cannot use anything that is a weapon as a weapon, or anything that can be used as a weapon as a weapon; we can only use things that have defined purposes other than as a weapon which we would also have reason to own aside from their qualities that would make them a good weapon as a tool to defend ourselves). They look a bit out of place in an antique gun collection too.

A defence against a bullet is a bullet proof vest, America believes it's another bullet...

A bulletproof vest does very little to stop a bullet when it doesn't hit the vest. Like in your face, leg or pelvis. In any case, bulletproof vests are only a defence against a bullet that has been fired. Another bullet isn't a defence against a bullet either, unless you're an exceptional shot. Guns, however, are a defence - a defence against the bullet being fired in the first place.

So do you support the rights of someone sharing a utility (for instance in the Rumble Strip or on an offsite platform like Volafile) that could enable people to specifically attack the database structure of GTP?

GTPlanet is a private institution, not a country. On private property you may have more restrictions on your freedoms than those your country's laws already restrict (you may notionally have fewer restrictions, although that won't preclude an arrest).

On GTPlanet, for example, your freedoms are limited by the Acceptable Use Policy:

You will not use the forums for the purposes of sharing or distributing viruses, licenses, registration information, software keys, pirated commercial multimedia files, “cracks”, or other information designed to do harm to or allow unlawful access to any computer software or systems.

What people share "on an offsite platform" is none of my concern. If they're not using it to harm other people's rights, why should I care?

 

[Novalee]

We will also ban all assault rifles," she continued. "We will ban all high capacity magazines. We will ban all parts with the ability to convert semi-automatic or any other type of firearm into a military-style semi-automatic weapon. We will ban parts that cause a firearm to generate semi-automatic, automatic or close to automatic gunfire."

http://www.thisisinsider.com/how-will-new-zealand-gun-control-work-2019-3

According to this article they are also going to ban high capacity magazines or clips


I feel confident if true ,30 round clips will be no more in New Zealand .

But even if they did not , the average person is not that accurate at anywhere near the distance of a rifle.

 

[Famine]

I feel confident if true ,30 round clips will be no more in New Zealand .

But even if they did not , the average person is not that accurate at anywhere near the distance of a rifle.

You can buy a standard, unmodified handgun with a 30-round capacity. And handguns are what you want in close-quarters.

 

[Novalee]

FAMINE WROTE:
You can buy a standard, unmodified handgun with a 30-round capacity. And handguns are what you want in close-quarters.



If 30 round magazines are not considered high capacity, then what would be ?

Another thing to consider is a trained person can walk into a room and get 30 hits on 30 targets with a pistol , but the average person wouldnt be able to unless the targets are not moving .

Off top my head i cant think of any the more recent mass shootings where they just used a pistol.


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/ch...earms-gun-licences-and-gun-law-in-new-zealand


That link says that in New Zealand pistols are restricted already , so chances are they are more easily tracked as to who has one in accordance with laws there.

I cant find what exact limit for a pistol will be in New zealand
But in Canada which also treat pistols as restricted , this article says 10 round limit .


Pistols are limited to a 10 round maximum capacity regardless of action type or caliber.


The exceptions come in the fact some magazines will hold more of a smaller round and in some instances that is allowed.

https://www.wolverinesupplies.com/b...e-magazine-capacity-and-canadian-firearms-law

Once the law changes in New Zealand ,we shall have a clear picture of what high capacity means and for what guns .

It will be interesting to see how it all pans out

 

[Famine]

FAMINE WROTE:

We have Quote and Reply features. They send Alerts to people so they know that they have been quoted.

"High capacity magazines" are a modification that allows a gun to hold and fire more ammunition without reloading. The Kel-Tec PMR30 has a 30-round capacity as standard - no modifications.

Another thing to consider is a trained person can walk into a room and get 30 hits on 30 targets with a pistol , but the average person wouldnt be able to unless the targets are not moving .

Yes, you'd need a few of them. But that's fine, it seems.

Remember, Ardern's proposed change to the firearms laws isn't "guns are bad, let's get rid of them", but "these guns are bad, because you can kill too many people at once with them, but others are fine". This argument means that you have an non-zero upper limit on how many people it's okay to kill with one gun.

And it's always guns. This dick had pipebombs in his car. If he'd chucked a couple into a prostrate group of praying Muslims, would we still be talking about the guns he had - or is murdering several people only bad when you use the wrong type of gun to do it?

 

[Novalee]

We have Quote and Reply features. They send Alerts to people so they know that they have been quoted.

Yes i know but i forgot to use it and didnt want to retype everything. At any rate i never respond with a gotcha , im more interested in reality of a stituation.


Based on mass killings we have seen up to date seem to fall under few types.

Isil and most the islamic type terrorists seem to use what ever is handy , guns cars, bombs ,knives .

Western white supremist / nationalists seem to mostly use semi auto rifles , tim mcvey is an exception. Unibomber another.

My opinion is the islamists terrorists want get the job done with ego not really paying a part while the kkk. Neo nazis types want to be famous as part of the terror.

As far as gun control goes i think that what Canada has and now New Zealand wont be the end of gun use in terror plots ,


but i think it does help in cases where if some doesnt have a way to get their hands on a high kill rate rifle , they might not go through with the attack or even plan one .
Humans are fickle in that sometimes a persons choice can change just because of one thing .

I personaly think it is part of human dna to settle scores with violence and the ones of us that choose to not use violence as a end game do so because we choose not to , not because humans are inherantly docile.

I Hope the people that lost loved ones in christchurch can find some sort of peace and know that a fair amount of humans do want to live in a non violent way .

 

[abrahamx]

There's 3,500 deaths on the world's roads every day.

they are not migrants running over people on purpose though. A car accident and someone going into a public place and opening fire on strangers is not even in the same ballpark. If all those deaths were done on purpose I would be all for banning cars.

 

[Famine]

they are not migrants running over people on purpose though. A car accident and someone going into a public place and opening fire on strangers is not even in the same ballpark. If all those deaths were done on purpose I would be all for banning cars.

Almost 1.3 million people die annually because people can't use cars responsibly, and that's fine, while 250,000 people - less than 20% of that number - die annually* because people can't use guns responsibly, but that's not fine?

What's your threshold for acceptable death tolls from accidents with an object before the object is too dangerous for the public to have? What's your threshold for acceptable death tolls from deliberate acts with an object before the object is too dangerous for the public to have? Are these limits different, and why?


*Some 27% of which are suicides**
**Fun fact, that's one death per 4,000 guns, but one death per 1,000 cars. Yep, a car is four times more likely to kill you by accident than a gun is on purpose, even including times when you point the gun at yourself...