It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Zealand Gun-Crime Rates Soar Following Gun-Bans

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2020 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

So your equating gun ownership to a disease then.

I've had enough stupid comments for one day.




posted on May, 20 2020 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: chr0naut

So...

Very few people then, eh?

Not everyone is quite that shallow, most especially the vast, vast majority of gun owners.

Guns, of any sort, are tools. They are not status symbols, they are not penis extensions--not sure how that would apply to the many, many women who own guns...but anyway, they aren't. Or any other stupid associations that are made by anti-gun people...

I have to wonder, with such an attitude, if you even know any one who owns guns??

I know quite a few gun-owners, and not one of them thinks in that fashion. So, very few then, eh?


I know some very responsible gun owners. I would not class them as 'gun nuts'.

However, the prevalence of Rambo-style archetypes in the popular media, the published details of many gun-enabled mass-murderers, and numbers here on ATS who need to respond to the slightest inference that gun ownership may be so motivated, such would indicate that I am in not, in fact, inflating the prevalence of the attitude.

edit on 20/5/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: chr0naut

Oh, sure...

If there weren't cars, there wouldn't be traffic accidents involving them, would there??

How silly is this game??


What is silly about that? It is an entirely rational statement.

Do you see the difference between an emotional appeal and a realist one?



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: chr0naut

So your equating gun ownership to a disease then.

I've had enough stupid comments for one day.


Where it relates to an actual social problem, yes, I think it does represent an unbalanced minority mindset with direct health and wellbeing implication for the wider community.



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Gothmog

when a spelling mistake = your sole rebbutal - its time to give up .

and yes - i do understand it - hence my post

now do you ? - you can spell it - but can you asctually give a reason how / why civilian firearms ownership in new zealand suppressed criminal activity - prior to 2018 ??


Nope.
My response was accurate.
The causation is the correlation.



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


I replied to seagull's question.

Oh...

You may not realize this, but everyone else can see your replies, too. Not just the person you reply to.

I hope that's not too inconvenient...

TheRedneck



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


I replied to seagull's question.

Oh...

You may not realize this, but everyone else can see your replies, too. Not just the person you reply to.

I hope that's not too inconvenient...

TheRedneck


Yes, I know. As visible as Seagull's question.




posted on May, 20 2020 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


the prevalence of Rambo-style archetypes in the popular media

We have a word for that... we call it "fantasy."

John J. Rambo is not real. He is a fictitious (made up) character who is played by a man whose real name is Sylvester Stallone. He never went to Vietnam during the war.

He also plays Rocky Balboa.


the published details of many gun-enabled mass-murderers

Some of those might be "gun nuts." I find it a bit insulting that you would place ATS members in the same category with often infamous criminals.

No, scratch that... I find it extremely insulting.


and numbers here on ATS who need to respond to the slightest inference that gun ownership may be so motivated

You seriously believe that a desire to maintain the ability to protect oneself against known threats is an indication that one is a "nut"?


such would indicate that I am in not, in fact, inflating the prevalence of the attitude.

It would also indicate a disassociation from reality...

TheRedneck



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


the prevalence of Rambo-style archetypes in the popular media

We have a word for that... we call it "fantasy."


The fantasy works because of the ideation.

It is one of the premises of the multimillion-dollar advertising industry, where they present an association between their products and some idealistic situation, in the hopes that people will purchase the product to try and emulate that ideal in their own lives.

It is similar to the suggestion that one might utilize a gun to defend oneself against an adversary when clearly the statistics show that is a very rare occurrence. None the less, it still sells guns.


John J. Rambo is not real. He is a fictitious (made up) character who is played by a man whose real name is Sylvester Stallone. He never went to Vietnam during the war.

He also plays Rocky Balboa.


What part of what I said made you think that I thought John Rambo was a real person? What an absurd 'deduction' and equally weak 'argument'.





the published details of many gun-enabled mass-murderers

Some of those might be "gun nuts." I find it a bit insulting that you would place ATS members in the same category with often infamous criminals.

No, scratch that... I find it extremely insulting.


Really? You must be self-identifying as a 'gun nut' for that to be the case.





and numbers here on ATS who need to respond to the slightest inference that gun ownership may be so motivated

You seriously believe that a desire to maintain the ability to protect oneself against known threats is an indication that one is a "nut"?


As the experience is that a number of people are injured or killed with their own firearms. Surely, it is unreasonable to maintain that guns are only protective.

Clearly firearms can often be the opposite of protective and pose a risk to their owner, by accident, or by suicide, or by criminal misuse, or even by a misunderstanding of intention by law enforcement.



such would indicate that I am in not, in fact, inflating the prevalence of the attitude.

It would also indicate a disassociation from reality...

TheRedneck

No, I think that in a society with tens of thousands of firearm-related deaths a year, to say they are benign is a dissociation from reality.

edit on 20/5/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

Yes but without guns, they wouldn't be gun deaths.


What's your point? So you are saying our suicides would be even lower than New Zealand then? Gangs would stop what they do? So ya the 3% that die to accidental gun deaths wouldn't happen... lol you win... geez.



posted on May, 21 2020 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


The fantasy works because of the ideation.

In other words, you think fantasy is based in reality.

You might want to avoid the Marvel Studio movies... you're liable to start thinking that there are giant green men with bad tempers running around New York.


What part of what I said made you think that I thought John Rambo was a real person?

The part where you assumed that America is full of "Rambos" because you saw it in the movies.

Sorry if I busted your fantasy bubble. Someone had to tell you for your own good.


Really? You must be self-identifying as a 'gun nut' for that to be the case.

I self-identify as an American and as a gun owner. You claim that is synonymous with being a "gun nut." Keep your projections to yourself.


As the experience is that a number of people are injured or killed with their own firearms. Surely, it is unreasonable to maintain that guns are only protective.

Clearly firearms can often be the opposite of protective and pose a risk to their owner, by accident, or by suicide, or by criminal misuse, or even by a misunderstanding of intention by law enforcement.

Primarily protective. Obviously, any tool can be involved in an accident. There have been many times the accidents around here from using chain saws than from using guns. As a matter of fact, I don't recall ever hearing about someone accidentally injuring themselves or others with a gun here. I'm sure someone has, but it must be very very few for me to have never heard of one.

Suicides, yea, that happens. If it wasn't a gun it would be a knife, or an overdose... that has nothing to do with guns. It is a mental health issue. If someone wants to kill themselves, they're going to do it. Heck, Jeffrey Epstein managed to get himself all suicided and stuff with a bedsheet, during a suicide watch in a high-security prison facility, and he wasn't even trying to!

Criminal misuse is typically thwarted by firearm availability, not encouraged by it... except in areas where the criminals know there are no guns. I have thwarted one attempt by a would-be mugger myself.

If law enforcement use common sense, there would be no misunderstanding. That happens because typically someone thinks the cops are actually burglars or robbers... or worse.

On the other hand, I have had to pull out a gun and walk outside probably 20 times this year already for one critter or another. I have shot at them maybe 5 times. I hit and killed three. That's in 1/3 of a year, from one household. The sheer number of times people in areas such as this use their guns for self-defense against critters or criminals outweighs the number of times a firearm is used for malicious purposes by 1000 to 1.

So yeah... primarily protective. Movies notwithstanding.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 21 2020 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Suicides, yea, that happens. If it wasn't a gun it would be a knife, or an overdose... that has nothing to do with guns. It is a mental health issue



That's not true, many people that would commit suicide would not just choose a different weapon or way to kill themselves if the preferred choice of suicide was removed, in the U.S many cases of suicide would simply not have happened without available firearms.

Same goes for school shootings, these lunatics would not simply choose to use a knife instead if a gun wasn't available to them.
edit on 21-5-2020 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2020 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Semi-automatic weapons do make it very easy to kill a bunch of people in a short amount of time.

Of course, if 30-50 feral hogs show up you will be ready. But if you live in Glendale that's probably pretty far down on the list of things to worry about.

edit on 5/21/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2020 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

True, but those 30-50 gangbangers show up you'll be ready.



posted on May, 21 2020 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


The fantasy works because of the ideation.

In other words, you think fantasy is based in reality.


No, the fantasy remains fantasy, despite the ideation of the weak minded.


You might want to avoid the Marvel Studio movies... you're liable to start thinking that there are giant green men with bad tempers running around New York.


Why would I be liable to believe that?



What part of what I said made you think that I thought John Rambo was a real person?

The part where you assumed that America is full of "Rambos" because you saw it in the movies.

Sorry if I busted your fantasy bubble. Someone had to tell you for your own good.


I didn't say that.

Think of it this way, children play-act, but they don't think they have really become whom the are pretending to be.

With a real gun, the childish can play-act that they are someone they aren't. Unfortunately, real guns can cause real consequences when 'played with'.



Really? You must be self-identifying as a 'gun nut' for that to be the case.

I self-identify as an American and as a gun owner. You claim that is synonymous with being a "gun nut." Keep your projections to yourself.


Would a 'balanced' gun owner feel a pathological need to suggest absurdities to justify their gun ownership?



As the experience is that a number of people are injured or killed with their own firearms. Surely, it is unreasonable to maintain that guns are only protective.

Clearly firearms can often be the opposite of protective and pose a risk to their owner, by accident, or by suicide, or by criminal misuse, or even by a misunderstanding of intention by law enforcement.
Primarily protective.


Based upon what proof?

We have the bodies of the dead by the tens of thousands as proof of the danger guns pose. What do you have that counters even a thousandth of that?


Obviously, any tool can be involved in an accident. There have been many times the accidents around here from using chain saws than from using guns. As a matter of fact, I don't recall ever hearing about someone accidentally injuring themselves or others with a gun here. I'm sure someone has, but it must be very very few for me to have never heard of one.


I can remember when your vice President injured someone else in a 'hunting accident' and even your most highly trained seem to cause 'friendly fire' casualties. If you aren't seeing these things it is because you are in denial and filtering out the reality.

Records on Cheney's shooting incident to be released - Politico

EXAMINING ACCIDENTAL SHOOTING DEATH STATISTICS - Aftermath


Suicides, yea, that happens. If it wasn't a gun it would be a knife, or an overdose... that has nothing to do with guns. It is a mental health issue. If someone wants to kill themselves, they're going to do it. Heck, Jeffrey Epstein managed to get himself all suicided and stuff with a bedsheet, during a suicide watch in a high-security prison facility, and he wasn't even trying to!


How do gun laws affect suicide rates? - Johns Hopkins


Criminal misuse is typically thwarted by firearm availability, not encouraged by it... except in areas where the criminals know there are no guns. I have thwarted one attempt by a would-be mugger myself.


There is almost no limitation on availability of firearms to criminals. They can buy them just like anyone else. Not only that, they are more likely to lie to get a gun. The 2nd amendment, interpreted as you seem to have done, arms the insane and the criminal. There is nothing in it to ensure that guns don't end up in the wrong hands, and so, they do.


If law enforcement use common sense, there would be no misunderstanding. That happens because typically someone thinks the cops are actually burglars or robbers... or worse.


Law enforcement are trained to respond to someone drawing a weapon without delay or consideration. There are significant numbers of police shootings of those who were not combative, even of those who were unarmed, but are actually holding a stick or a mobile 'phone.


On the other hand, I have had to pull out a gun and walk outside probably 20 times this year already for one critter or another. I have shot at them maybe 5 times. I hit and killed three. That's in 1/3 of a year, from one household. The sheer number of times people in areas such as this use their guns for self-defense against critters or criminals outweighs the number of times a firearm is used for malicious purposes by 1000 to 1.

So yeah... primarily protective. Movies notwithstanding.

TheRedneck

I have not had reason to use a gun in the last two years.



posted on May, 21 2020 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


That's not true, many people that would commit suicide would not just choose a different weapon or way to kill themselves if the preferred choice of suicide was removed, in the U.S many cases of suicide would simply not have happened without available firearms.

Ever had clinical depression? I have, and I reject that hypothesis.


Same goes for school shootings, these lunatics would not simply choose to use a knife instead if a gun wasn't available to them.

No, they probably wouldn't use knives... at least most of them. Bombs would be far more efficient.

Good luck getting rid of those. They tried it after the OK City bombing. Futile; too many ways to make things go BOOM.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 21 2020 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So your solution is for everyone to move to Glendale?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 21 2020 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


No, the fantasy remains fantasy, despite the ideation of the weak minded.

So you admit your position on American "gun nuts" is based in fantasy. Well, that's progress, I suppose.


I didn't say that.

Think of it this way, children play-act, but they don't think they have really become whom the are pretending to be.

With a real gun, the childish can play-act that they are someone they aren't. Unfortunately, real guns can cause real consequences when 'played with'.

Are you claiming that people are giving their young children guns to play with? "Here, Johnny, take this loaded .45 ACP and go play Cops and Robbers with your friends." Sorry, but that's more fantasy; people are not giving their young kids running chain saws either (at least I sincerely hope not).

And yes, you did say that, here.


Would a 'balanced' gun owner feel a pathological need to suggest absurdities to justify their gun ownership?

I fail to see how self-defense against actual threats is considered an "absurdity." Please explain.


Based upon what proof?

A lifetime of continual need. Which I will assume you will deem anecdotal. It's not anecdotal to me.


We have the bodies of the dead by the tens of thousands as proof of the danger guns pose. What do you have that counters even a thousandth of that?

More warped stats? How many of those bodies are from criminals? Hint: the vast majority.


I can remember when your vice President injured someone else in a 'hunting accident' and even your most highly trained seem to cause 'friendly fire' casualties. If you aren't seeing these things it is because you are in denial and filtering out the reality.

One highly publicized accident, which did not result in death. Wow. Is that the best you got?

I fail to see how admitting the possibility of accidents is "filtering out reality." I stated my experiences in this area. Reality is not whatever you choose it to be. That puts us back into fantasy again.

As I said above, I reject the hypotheses outright that claim suicides are due to firearm availability.


There is almost no limitation on availability of firearms to criminals. They can buy them just like anyone else.

Actually, they can't. Felons are not legally allowed to possess a firearm. Yet they somehow manage to get them on a fairly regular basis. I wonder why that is?

Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with criminals not following laws, by definition. That's sorta what makes them criminal. Which again takes us back into some fantasy realm where outlawing firearms means criminals will simply shrug and become upstanding citizens.

The concept of using laws to remove firearms from society only shifts the balance of power toward those who do not follow the laws.


Law enforcement are trained to respond to someone drawing a weapon without delay or consideration.

OK.


There are significant numbers of police shootings of those who were not combative, even of those who were unarmed, but are actually holding a stick or a mobile 'phone.

So you're saying the training is a failure? I fail to see how that promotes your argument.


I have not had reason to use a gun in the last two years.

Congratulations.

I have not had a problem with air pollution in almost 60 years. Does that mean air pollution does not exist? I suppose so...

TheRedneck



posted on May, 21 2020 @ 08:55 AM
link   
A similar thing happened in the 1990s in the UK.

A Criminal Justice Bill criminalised more things. More people were arrested. Crime went up.

People's behaviour hadn't changed. The reaction of the law enforcement and criminal justice systems had.

Think about it.



posted on May, 22 2020 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


No, the fantasy remains fantasy, despite the ideation of the weak minded.

So you admit your position on American "gun nuts" is based in fantasy. Well, that's progress, I suppose.


Their fantasy. Perhaps your fantasy. Not my fantasy.



I didn't say that.

Think of it this way, children play-act, but they don't think they have really become whom the are pretending to be.

With a real gun, the childish can play-act that they are someone they aren't. Unfortunately, real guns can cause real consequences when 'played with'.

Are you claiming that people are giving their young children guns to play with? "Here, Johnny, take this loaded .45 ACP and go play Cops and Robbers with your friends." Sorry, but that's more fantasy; people are not giving their young kids running chain saws either (at least I sincerely hope not).

And yes, you did say that, here.


I made no mention of children there. But there are some childish adults. Ones who own guns and imagine that they are 'protecting' themselves and their loved ones.



Would a 'balanced' gun owner feel a pathological need to suggest absurdities to justify their gun ownership?

I fail to see how self-defense against actual threats is considered an "absurdity." Please explain.


An accident with a firearm or suicide by firearm are actual threats. Are you suggesting that these are lowered by the ownership of a firearm? People are more likely to be injured by, or because of, their own firearm than to be 'protected' by it. The suicide by firearms number alone tell that story. But every firearm owner says "that's some other idiot, not me".



Based upon what proof?

A lifetime of continual need. Which I will assume you will deem anecdotal. It's not anecdotal to me.


I have lived a lifetime of no need of a firearm at all. Many people do.

Perhaps you take stupid risks and are obnoxious to others? Perhaps you live in a world of criminals who are armed by the same laws and same stores that arm you?



We have the bodies of the dead by the tens of thousands as proof of the danger guns pose. What do you have that counters even a thousandth of that?

More warped stats? How many of those bodies are from criminals? Hint: the vast majority.


Those bodies don't have to be from the actions just of criminals to be dead because of firearms. Guns are dangerous at all times. That is how they work.



I can remember when your vice President injured someone else in a 'hunting accident' and even your most highly trained seem to cause 'friendly fire' casualties. If you aren't seeing these things it is because you are in denial and filtering out the reality.

One highly publicized accident, which did not result in death. Wow. Is that the best you got?

I fail to see how admitting the possibility of accidents is "filtering out reality." I stated my experiences in this area. Reality is not whatever you choose it to be. That puts us back into fantasy again.

As I said above, I reject the hypotheses outright that claim suicides are due to firearm availability.


You see, how could all those firearm suicides not be from firearms?

Many people attempt suicides, are not successful and never try again. They often say afterwards that it was a heat of the moment thing.

Of course there are many ways that people commit suicides, but if it involves a gun, it is far more likely to be successful.



There is almost no limitation on availability of firearms to criminals. They can buy them just like anyone else.

Actually, they can't. Felons are not legally allowed to possess a firearm. Yet they somehow manage to get them on a fairly regular basis. I wonder why that is?


Because guns are everywhere and very available in a society where large populations are armed, perhaps?


Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with criminals not following laws, by definition. That's sorta what makes them criminal. Which again takes us back into some fantasy realm where outlawing firearms means criminals will simply shrug and become upstanding citizens.


I never said that, but at least those unarmed criminals cannot kill multiple victims, near instantly, at a distance.



The concept of using laws to remove firearms from society only shifts the balance of power toward those who do not follow the laws.


No, law enforcement are still armed. The general public don't have weapons to be misused and the criminals find it harder to acquire guns because, overall, there are fewer of them available by any means.



Law enforcement are trained to respond to someone drawing a weapon without delay or consideration.

OK.


There are significant numbers of police shootings of those who were not combative, even of those who were unarmed, but are actually holding a stick or a mobile 'phone.

So you're saying the training is a failure? I fail to see how that promotes your argument.


The training protects the officer. It is in response to a situation where they can be fairly sure that everyone is armed.


I have not had reason to use a gun in the last two years.

Congratulations.

I have not had a problem with air pollution in almost 60 years. Does that mean air pollution does not exist? I suppose so...

TheRedneck


I don't huff exhaust pipes, just because pollution exists, either.



edit on 22/5/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join