New Zealand gunmen kill 49 people at two mosques

[Town Heretic]

Criminals love extremely tight gun laws [which they ignore]

How do they feel about antibiotics? Because those work too.

Or, so do citizens who aren't criminals and who love being safer. Because they are when those guns aren't readily available and the laws are strict.

that keep honest people from owning the best deterrent to being their victims.

You don't need assault rifles and bump stocks to do that. And countries without those weapons you're trying to justify, without bump stocks and with strict background checks, safety courses, registration, well, they have lower gun violence incidents, lower murder rates too.

 

[Stripe]

That's funnier still. Let me know when you get to something I write that you actually understand...if only for the novelty.

Nobody understands anything you say. :crackup:

In my country we have the right to them.

Nope.

Why do I know your laws better than you do?

We actually did ban certain cars here, when they proved inherently unsafe in design.

You're not looking to ban guns that are badly designed.

Are you incapable of thinking things through before you post?

 

[Ktoyou]

So the police should stick with lever actions, revolvers, and pumps?

Bob used to say, all you need is a 30-06 and .257 Roberts, maybe a lever action 30-30, or 35 Remington and a good revolver and a pump shotgun, or an over-under" Then later, he said, "maybe a .260 Remington would be better than a .257 Roberts" He said that but he had around a dozen rifles. Although he had many, he never had any assault rifles, or rifles that appeared like assault rifles and he laughed at this who wanted them, although he did not think banning them mattered.

The think to note is, for Bob, black rifles din't matter, as much as may be moot.

 

[Ktoyou]

The second Amendment isn't about hunting.

What does the main distinction for owning guns have to do with rights?

 

[ok doser]

Criminals love extremely tight gun laws [which they ignore] that keep honest people from owning the best deterrent to being their victims.

you mean places with extremely tight gun laws like st louis, baltimore, detroit, new orleans ...?

 

[Stripe]

Here's the key issue from New Zealand: Since Aramoana in 1990, there have been four incidents categorised as mass shootings, including Christchurch — and two of those were committed with shotguns. There simply hasn't been any great reason to crack down on gun ownership or ban things. The jump to legislation is a reaction to an incident. If Christchurch hadn't happened, nothing would have changed.

So it's fair to ask: Is reactionary legislation a responsible way to govern. Even if the ban were good, is reactionary governance a good precedent to set?

However, more importantly, what we don't want is for Christchurch to spark copycat incidents. The way to stop such attacks is to have people able to defend themselves.

So a better use of "not letting a disaster go to waste" would have been to authorize the use of armed guards at places of congregation.

That would at least be a step in the right direction.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nobody understands anything you say. :crackup:

You made a poll? lain:

Nope.

I'm not going to argue over whether or not some foreign layman is ignorant of our law, but thanks for the effort to make that part clear.

Meanwhile, in the United States, we have a right to firearms and the debate is really over whether we should have stronger restrictions relating to the exercise of that right.

You're not looking to ban guns that are badly designed.

Didn't say we were.

You wrote: And if you banned cars, traffic fatalities would fall.

So I responded: Sure. And we actually did ban certain cars here, when they proved inherently unsafe in design.

Inherently unsafe is the important part there, not design.

Are you incapable of thinking things through before you post?

No, though I probably should spend less time on your side bars and more time simply pointing to the simple and plain truth, which is that every other nation that institutes strict control over guns, enforcing bans on semi and fully automatic weapons, among other measures, has dramatically lower rates of gun violence than do those without such laws.

Worse, for you, those laws don't lead to people essentially finding another way, on the whole. Which is why their murder rates are lower in general.

 

[Town Heretic]

Here's the key issue from New Zealand: Since Aramoana in 1990, there have been four incidents categorised as mass shootings, including Christchurch — and two of those were committed with shotguns.

How many preventable killings does a nation need before acting in a way that appears to largely prevent them is reasonable?

There simply hasn't been any great reason to crack down on gun ownership or ban things. The jump to legislation is a reaction to an incident. If Christchurch hadn't happened, nothing would have changed.

And if no one died of cancer we probably wouldn't be looking for a cure. How many people have to die from cancer before you think instituting stricter rules relating to cancer causing agents is a good idea?

So it's fair to ask: Is reactionary legislation a responsible way to govern. Even if the ban were good, is reactionary governance a good precedent to set?

There's nothing fair about that effort, unless you see the word reactionary as neutral or good.

However, more importantly, what we don't want is for Christchurch to spark copycat incidents. The way to stop such attacks is to have people able to defend themselves.

Rather, the demonstrably better course to follow if you want fewer mass shootings and lower levels of homicidal violence is to do what New Zealand is about to do, because it has worked across a great many nations that are safer for the measures.

So a better use of "not letting a disaster go to waste" would have been to authorize the use of armed guards at places of congregation.

That would at least be a step in the right direction.

Actually, having armed police in place more visibly while those better measures are being put in place wouldn't be a bad idea at all.

 

[Stripe]

I'm not going to argue over whether or not some foreign layman is ignorant of our law, but thanks for the effort to make that part clear.

What part? The part where you mischaracterized the nature of your law? The US has a right to bear arms; it does not have a right to own firearms.

There's some wisdom in acknowledging the difference.

Didn't say we were.

You seem easily confused by your own writing.

Let's look at what you said and how I answered it again.

:yawn:

Every other nation that institutes strict control over guns, enforcing bans on semi and fully automatic weapons, among other measures, has dramatically lower rates of gun violence than do those without such laws.

Even if that were true — and it's not — you refuse to acknowledge the silliness of your argument. When you ban cars, traffic fatalities end.

Can you not see that you're being agreed with? Removing the tools makes the act impossible.

Worse, for you, those laws don't lead to people essentially finding another way, on the whole. Which is why their murder rates are lower in general.

That which you assert without evidence we are justified in ignoring.

 

[ok doser]

Removing the tools makes the act impossible.

Banning box cutters makes 911 impossible

 

[Stripe]

We actually did ban certain cars here, when they proved inherently unsafe in design.

So you think something "inherently unsafe in design" is not necessarily "badly designed"?

It looks like you'll just say anything to make sure you're always arguing. :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

How many preventable killings does a nation need before acting in a way that appears to largely prevent them is reasonable?

None.

We could have authorized armed guards at any time. :up:

If no one died of cancer we probably wouldn't be looking for a cure.

There's nothing fair about that effort, unless you see the word reactionary as neutral or good.

:AMR:

Rather, the demonstrably better course to follow if you want fewer mass shootings and lower levels of homicidal violence is to do what New Zealand is about to do, because it has worked across a great many nations that are safer for the measures.

Did you miss the facts? There have been five such incidents in the past 30 years. Two of those involved weapons that are not being banned.

You'll almost have to go into negative numbers to reduce the number of incidents.

Having armed police in place more visibly while those better measures are being put in place wouldn't be a bad idea at all.

Banning weapons will do nothing to help. It will advance the public sentiment that the state will protect people.

As we've seen, it won't.

 

[Town Heretic]

None.

We could have authorized armed guards at any time. :up:

In transition, and if by armed guards you mean police, sure.

Did you miss the facts? There have been five such incidents in the past 30 years.

And if they change the laws they might not have any for the next 30. There'd been 13 in Australia over nearly twenty years and none in the more than 20 years since they changed the laws.

You gotta love progress.

Banning weapons will do nothing to help.

All evidence to the contrary.

It will advance the public sentiment that the state will protect people.

It will advance the fact that intelligent law applied to gun safety can actually promote safety and the public good.

 

[Stripe]

In transition, and if by armed guards you mean police, sure.

Nope. We have police. They arrived after all the damage had been done.

I think we'll stick with what I say, not with what you wish I would say.

And if they change the laws they might not have any for the next 30. There'd been 13 in Australia over nearly twenty years and none in the more than 20 years since they changed the laws.

You're conflating issues to pretend the statistics match your agenda. Shooting incidents in New Zealand and Australia have typically been committed using shotguns. Of the 13 you speak of in Australia, most would not have been stopped under the bans you propose.

And if you want to keep those 13, there are plenty of similar incidents post-Port Arthur that you've ignored.

All evidence to the contrary.

Only evidence you make up or refuse to present.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope. We have police. They arrived after all the damage had been done.

You said we could have authorized guards to protect people. I said I'm okay with that in transition if those guards are police. In that case we'd at least have people with training and background, who could be further trained by people with even greater experience within other police departments and/or the military. As stop gaps go it's not a bad idea.

As a substitute for the laws I'm in favor of, no.

You're conflating issues to pretend the statistics match your agenda.

My agenda is a safer world. That's it. I own guns and support the right we have here, in my country, to own them. I don't support the unfettered exercise of that right. And while I'm glad to see you working a new word into your functional vocabulary, you've mishandled it there. Conflating isn't applicable or demonstrated in what follows by you.

Shooting incidents in New Zealand and Australia have typically been committed using shotguns.

I don't know if that's true, but it seems likely given the common ownership of that weapon and that the assault rifle hasn't been as aggressively and cheaply marketed until relatively recent times.

Of the 13 you speak of in Australia, most would not have been stopped under the bans you propose.

Entirely possible. So, the Port Arthur attack was launched using a Colt AR15 and 35 people were murdered. Before that? The highest body count in those 13 was the Queen Street massacre, where 8 people were killed. It the average was closer to 5. Or, you could fit over half of those 13 into the once incident in terms of fatalities.

It only took one of those for people to realize that certain weapons, now numerous and cheaply purchased, were a greater danger to the general public.

Only evidence you make up or refuse to present.

The first part is, ironically, made up. The latter part is simply peculiar.

 

[Stripe]

As stop gaps go it's not a bad idea.

:yawn:

My agenda is a safer world.

Those who sacrifice liberty for safety will end up with neither.

You can't move in New Zealand without breaking a law. All we've done is made lawlessness more necessary and inviting.

Conflating isn't applicable or demonstrated in what follows by you.

So which is it? Are the 13 incidents before Port Arthur part of your evidence or not?

If they aren't, retract your assertion. If they are, list the incidents after 1996 that are similar in nature to the ones prior.

It only took one of those.

Nope.

 

[Town Heretic]

:yawn:

But that's just awful as stop gaps go for reason.

Those who sacrifice liberty for safety will end up with neither.

Those who sacrifice safety without good reason frequently confuse misunderstood quotes for arguments.

You can't move in New Zealand without breaking a law.

Must really make tourism problematic.

And driving, of course.

All we've done is made lawlessness more necessary and inviting.

It isn't necessary to have a semi or fully automatic weapon to protect yourself. And if anyone finds criminal behavior inviting, let alone more inviting, they have other issues to deal with that I'm not professionally trained in helping them with, but there are any number of people in the mental health field and/or law enforcement that can assist them.

So which is it? Are the 13 incidents before Port Arthur part of your evidence or not?

See, you didn't actually make the case that noting 13 mass murders prior to changing the law and zero since is anything other than a pertinent illustration of efficacy relating to tightening gun laws. The other and prior variety were had in multiples.

Nope.

One was sufficient, literally, to get public opinion and legislators moving.

 

[Stripe]

It isn't necessary to have a semi or fully automatic weapon to protect yourself.

Do you have a point hiding somewhere in there?

It isn't necessary to have a Subaru WRX Sti.

And if anyone finds criminal behavior inviting, let alone more inviting, they have other issues to deal with that I'm not professionally trained in helping them with, but there are any number of people in the mental health field and/or law enforcement that can assist them.

Had just one man ignored the regulations, dozens might have been saved.

But thanks for turning a serious point into silliness.

See, you didn't actually make the case that noting 13 mass murders prior to changing the law and zero since is anything other than a pertinent illustration of efficacy relating to tightening gun laws. The other and prior variety were had in multiples.

:AMR:

Are you holding onto your assertion and ignoring the post-Port Arthur incidents?

One was sufficient, literally, to get public opinion and legislators moving.

1. There wasn't just one.
2. They never let a tragedy go to waste.

The law change will achieve nothing.

 

[Town Heretic]

Do you have a point hiding somewhere in there?

If I handed it to you you'd probably just put your eye out with it.

It isn't necessary to have a Subaru WRX Sti.

It isn't necessary for you to keep posting this sort of thing, but there you go.

Had just one man ignored the regulations, dozens might have been saved.

Had the man not had easy, affordable access to the weapon he chose, had gun restrictions and qualifications been in place it might not have happened at all. It hasn't in most places with them.

But thanks for turning a serious point into silliness.

You mean you've been serious this whole time? Jesus wept, that's even scarier.

Are you holding onto your assertion and ignoring the post-Port Arthur incidents?

I'd ask if you had a point there, but, you know, supra.

1. There wasn't just one.

You keep moving those goal posts, Stripe ol boy. One of these days the ball is bound to roll through it.

The law change will achieve nothing.

Meanwhile, the guy who said that in Australia is still looking as silly as you will over time.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Had the man not had easy, affordable access to the weapon he chose, had gun restrictions and qualifications been in place

The man, had he been determined enough, would have gone AROUND the law, buying such a weapon on the black market.

:idunno:

it might not have happened at all. It hasn't in most places with them.

It might not have.

It CERTAINLY would not have had there been people armed with similar weapons who knew how to use them acting as a deterrent against such, AND if there had been a properly enforced death penalty, where such actions, if the criminal is caught, would lead to his quick execution.