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: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2020 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Phage

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


If those gangbangers are armed with semi-automatics, and have their guns up and ready to fire before you do, you are a gonner, even if you could get your gun out of wherever it is stored, load it, aim, and fire, you'd be dead at the first instant.

In fact, if you offered no threat to the gangbangers, you might just survive. Pull out a gun and you are dead.

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




posted on May, 22 2020 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Their fantasy. Perhaps your fantasy. Not my fantasy.

Still fantasy, and one you seem to believe in, given that you admitted basing your opinion on it.


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.

originally posted by: chr0naut

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'.

Tell me another lie, liar.


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?

No. I am saying that some people need the protection a firearm offers, and the risk to oneself is no greater than the risk of using any other dangerous tool. My table saw can lop a hand off in a couple of seconds... but no one is wanting to ban table saws.


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?

Good for you. That must have been a pretty sheltered life, seeing as you seem to be the obnoxious one in this conversation.

I specifically mentioned wildlife. Believe it or not, not all critters are in zoos. I have to deal with bears, feral hogs, mountain lions, poisonous snakes, and coyotes. I have to protect my animals form predators: possums, foxes, weasels, coons, skunks. I also have to stay alert for any rabies outbreaks; a rabid rabbit will attack a human without hesitation and a single bite can infect.

I have pulled a gun once... once... in my life on another human (who was trying to mug me). Luckily I didn't have to pull the trigger. Probably wouldn't have mattered if I had pulled it, since as soon as he saw I was armed, he decided to very quickly be somewhere else. He would probably have outrun the bullet.

That's my reality. I'm glad yours is a nice, sterile environment where nothing ever goes awry. Just don't try to push your plastic utopian illusion on me. I like reality.


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.

Did you know it is possible to kill a person with a plain stick ink pen? It is. It's just a little difficult.

Any tool can be dangerous. I have already mentioned chainsaws and table saws, but the same applies to any tool. They are dangerous if misused. That's no reason to ban them.


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.

Oh, so suicide by overdose or self-asphyxiation is not fatal? Someone should tell Jeffrey Epstein that before he gets buried by mistake!

Oops, too late. Shame...


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

Around here, practically everyone owns at least one gun. It's pretty much a requirement to live here. There have been no gun deaths in my lifetime in my local area. The last robbery here was about 40 years ago.

Your statistics are skewed. Most gun shootings occur in cities where there is a high degree of gun regulation. Criminals roam pretty much freely with firearms, while others are hindered legally from using a firearm for self protection. To someone who lives a life of crime, jail is little more than a career advancement workshop, but they tend to try to avoid being shot.

In every area where firearm ownership is commonplace, crime is low. People learn to use their tools properly.


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

Really? They can't?

Oklahoma City Bombing
168 dead, 680+ wounded, 582 buildings damaged or destroyed, 68 vehicles destroyed, $352 million in estimated damages.

No guns involved.

Timothy McVeigh was not at the scene when the bomb exploded.

September 11, 2001
2977 deaths, 25,000+ wounded, over $10 billion in damages.

No guns involved.

But at least in this case, the attackers did not attack from afar.


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

I'm not really interested in what you're huffing.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 22 2020 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
I hate to say this but I am not surprised by these latest crime stats.


There are 250,000 registered gun licences in New Zealand, and 1.5 million registerd firearms. (6 guns per registered firearm owner)

56,000 banned semi-automatic weapons were handed in, in the 2019 buy-back scheme.

These gun owners did not hand in their gun licence. They handed in a banned semi-automatic weapon, which is a very small dint in overall number of guns. These people have several guns still.

It's very unlikely that a gun amnestry resulted in more gun crime.

Guns don't kill people, People kill people right? There are 200,000 new people in New Zealand since 2017. Quite significant for such a small country.

It would be interesting to see who these people were commiting these "gun crimes".

A lot of web sites have been listed the rise in gun conviscations when pointing to rise in "gun crime", yet this is bound to happen with the banning of certain assault weapons. It's an insignificant fact






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



posted on May, 22 2020 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Liar



posted on May, 22 2020 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nzg17
a reply to: chr0naut

Liar


In regard to what?



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 02:43 AM
link   
defensemaven.io...

See. Guns are great.

Guns save lives. That’s a fact.

And the FUNNY part about this story: the father will never be charged. Never be arrested. Never be held accountable. Because what he did was right and correct.

It’s also really funny that the rapist died without ever getting to commit a crime. He didnt hurt a single person in that house and he got shot and killed.

Another HILARIOUS story that actually involves a New Zealander is the story of Troy Skinner.
The gutless kiwi who travelled all the way across the world to rape a child.

He never hurt a single person. He never even came close. And although he was shot in the neck and spent time in ICU, he now awaits trial in Virginia and he will be spending the rest of his entire life in federal prison.

Much to the dismay of the pro-crime lefties


Guns save lives

Every single day

www.newshub.co.nz... (Poor Troy Skinner. He never actually got to hurt a single person. Got shot in the neck and now will spend more time in jail than Brenton Tarrant. Ha ha haaa. He should have started his criminal career in a country that’s too gutless to PUNISH criminals - his own)
edit on 23 5 2020 by Breakthestreak because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Debunkology

originally posted by: 727Sky
I hate to say this but I am not surprised by these latest crime stats.


There are 250,000 registered gun licences in New Zealand, and 1.5 million registerd firearms. (6 guns per registered firearm owner)

56,000 banned semi-automatic weapons were handed in, in the 2019 buy-back scheme.

These gun owners did not hand in their gun licence. They handed in a banned semi-automatic weapon, which is a very small dint in overall number of guns. These people have several guns still.

It's very unlikely that a gun amnestry resulted in more gun crime.

Guns don't kill people, People kill people right? There are 200,000 new people in New Zealand since 2017. Quite significant for such a small country.

It would be interesting to see who these people were commiting these "gun crimes".

A lot of web sites have been listed the rise in gun conviscations when pointing to rise in "gun crime", yet this is bound to happen with the banning of certain assault weapons. It's an insignificant fact







Do you even know what semi-auto means? Does the NZ govt? Every firearm I own is semi auto. Sheesh.

If you banned semi auto guns you'd have nothing but revolvers and muzzle loaders left.



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: KnoxMSP

[quotte]If you banned semi auto guns you'd have nothing but revolvers and muzzle loaders left.


utter bollox - hand guns were not a part of the 2019 restrictions , so :


2 words : bolt action

2 more words :

lever action

2 more words :

pump action

all such firearms - can be legally owned and used - by NZ citizens - subject to the terms of thier licence - and regulations on use

all previously held semi auto handguns - sig 226 , walther p99 etc etc ] - remain legally held - and can remain so - subject to the owners licence - and use regulations



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: KnoxMSP

utter bollox

2 words : bolt action

2 more words :

lever action

2 more words :

pump action

all such firearms - can be legally owned and used - by NZ citizens - subject to the terms of thier licence - and regulations on use



Agreed, you being limited to such firearms is truly utter bollocks. What is a bolt action rifle gonna protect you from? Great for hunting, not so much for defense. Same for lever. I have never seen a pump action I could actually carry with me, so I really don't know how you think any of these are acceptable defense weapons. You wanna be railroaded by your Govt' feel free. You should have the right to defend yourself against all threats, in what ever manner you deem fit.
edit on 23-5-2020 by KnoxMSP because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: KnoxMSP
What is a bolt action rifle gonna protect you from? Great for hunting, not so much for defense. Same for lever. I have never seen a pump action I could actually carry with me


You see the difference, in the US you probably think you need to carry a firearm.

In NZ, it is going totally overboard. I've travelled to nearly 40 countries. New Zealand is by far the safest country I've ever visited. I've never felt more safe.

I had the pleasure of living over there in 2012 and 2013.

Kiwis would laugh at someone who thinks they need a gun in the first place to protect themselves. It is total paranoia.

The reason Kiwis and Moaris own guns, is for hunting first and foremost. This is why there wasn't much push back for banning certain weapons in the first place, because they were not needed.




edit on 23 5 2020 by Debunkology because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Still fantasy, and one you seem to believe in, given that you admitted basing your opinion on it.


I believe Disney films exist and most are fantasy, too. I can base my opinions on the Disney organisation and their audience without myself believing the fantasy films are anything but fantasy.




chr0naut

Tell me another lie, liar.


Please go back to your post and review the section that you quoted back then, and that you said mentioned children.

It's exact text was:


"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."


If you click on the link, It is different than the section that you quoted in your later post. You can also go back to that initial post of yours to verify that I am correct and not lying.

You took things out of context and accused me of things that you deliberately misconstrued to make your lying point.

By your own admission you suffer from clinical depression.

Also, I recall where, in a previous topic thread, you said that you kept a loaded firearm at hand at all times, and that it was in reach of your children, but that they, of course, know better than to touch your gun.

That is taking a great risk with other people's lives, especially of your own children!

You can't un-kill someone. That makes even a slight probability, an extreme risk. I'm fairly sure even the NSA would be horrified at your level of abject irresponsibility especially in light of your psychological condition.

You clearly don't seem to see the danger posed by the high availability of a loaded firearm, so I suspect that you have delusional problems, too.



No. I am saying that some people need the protection a firearm offers,


Some people. But not all people, and especially not clinically depressed people!


and the risk to oneself is no greater than the risk of using any other dangerous tool. My table saw can lop a hand off in a couple of seconds... but no one is wanting to ban table saws.


But table saws also have many other uses, other than dismembering people.

And you can hardly roll up into a public place and 'table saw' off the hands of numbers of people in a few seconds.

Apart from shooting, what else can you use a gun for?


Good for you. That must have been a pretty sheltered life, seeing as you seem to be the obnoxious one in this conversation.


No, you were clearly being obnoxious in responses to posts where I was not being directly accusative of you and was being polite. You have been impolite and accusative in nearly every post. I am now responding in kind.


I specifically mentioned wildlife. Believe it or not, not all critters are in zoos. I have to deal with bears, feral hogs, mountain lions, poisonous snakes, and coyotes. I have to protect my animals form predators: possums, foxes, weasels, coons, skunks. I also have to stay alert for any rabies outbreaks; a rabid rabbit will attack a human without hesitation and a single bite can infect.


Baits, traps and repellents have proven more effective than the lone gun nut.


I have pulled a gun once... once... in my life on another human (who was trying to mug me). Luckily I didn't have to pull the trigger. Probably wouldn't have mattered if I had pulled it, since as soon as he saw I was armed, he decided to very quickly be somewhere else. He would probably have outrun the bullet.

That's my reality.


Sounds more like fantasy.


I'm glad yours is a nice, sterile environment where nothing ever goes awry. Just don't try to push your plastic utopian illusion on me. I like reality.


It isn't a utopia. For one thing, there are gun nuts shooting at crowds. People with weapons and with mental conditions.


Did you know it is possible to kill a person with a plain stick ink pen? It is. It's just a little difficult.


The point is to not kill.


Any tool can be dangerous. I have already mentioned chainsaws and table saws, but the same applies to any tool. They are dangerous if misused. That's no reason to ban them.

Oh, so suicide by overdose or self-asphyxiation is not fatal? Someone should tell Jeffrey Epstein that before he gets buried by mistake!

Oops, too late. Shame...


A bicycle is a mode of transport like a car, but one goes faster and takes more people. A bit like guns as they relate to suicide.


Around here, practically everyone owns at least one gun. It's pretty much a requirement to live here. There have been no gun deaths in my lifetime in my local area. The last robbery here was about 40 years ago.


How local? I'm sure your state has lots of gun deaths, even if you live in the boondocks.


Your statistics are skewed. Most gun shootings occur in cities where there is a high degree of gun regulation. Criminals roam pretty much freely with firearms, while others are hindered legally from using a firearm for self protection. To someone who lives a life of crime, jail is little more than a career advancement workshop, but they tend to try to avoid being shot.


So, you would make guns more prevalent?


In every area where firearm ownership is commonplace, crime is low. People learn to use their tools properly.


But where there are guns, the results of crimes, which still happen, are more often fatal.


Really? They can't?

Oklahoma City Bombing
168 dead, 680+ wounded, 582 buildings damaged or destroyed, 68 vehicles destroyed, $352 million in estimated damages.

No guns involved.

Timothy McVeigh was not at the scene when the bomb exploded.

September 11, 2001
2977 deaths, 25,000+ wounded, over $10 billion in damages.

No guns involved.

But at least in this case, the attackers did not attack from afar.


Bombs are armaments, just like guns are. Would you suggest that everyone carry bombs, too, for the reason that they aren't nerve gas?

The point is not to have killings with weapons. How might one achieve that?


I'm not really interested in what you're huffing.

TheRedneck


I'm not really interested in allowing you to promote the spread of deadly weapons because you want to play cowboys.

edit on 23/5/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 01:14 PM
link   
When are people going to learn that legislation does not change the behavior of criminals? Criminals break the law. That is why we call them criminals. If you make something illegal the only people who will abide by that law, by definition, are the law abiding citizens. The criminals couldn't care less.

Legislation does not regulate behavior in people who do not respect the law. It serves no purpose other than giving you a reason to prosecute after the fact. In the case of violent crimes involving firearms, after the fact is not when you want to intervene. As such, this type of legislation is flawed from the very start and incapable of accomplishing the goals for which it is intended.

Chicago...



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
When are people going to learn that legislation does not change the behavior of criminals? Criminals break the law. That is why we call them criminals. If you make something illegal the only people who will abide by that law, by definition, are the law abiding citizens. The criminals couldn't care less.

Legislation does not regulate behavior in people who do not respect the law. It serves no purpose other than giving you a reason to prosecute after the fact. In the case of violent crimes involving firearms, after the fact is not when you want to intervene. As such, this type of legislation is flawed from the very start and incapable of accomplishing the goals for which it is intended.

Chicago...


A change in the law might prevent successful suicides and accidental shootings.

Those things are gun deaths, too.



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Your post is riddled with problems and straw man arguments.

Not all depression is the same. Depression does not indicate delusion. Your assertions are unfounded straw man arguments.

Shooting is the function of a gun. What you shoot and why is varied and diverse. Anything can be used as a weapon. To justify removal of one weapon because you see no other purpose for it is disingenuous. The key word here is YOU. I enjoy sport shooting and hunting. Why should I be denied a source of recreation because you don't like it?

Dealing with destructive wildlife does not make a person a gun nut. Another straw man argument.

Removing firearms from the public does not reduce violent crime. After London banned firearms they passed New York city in per capita murder - and it was done with knives. Of course the solution was clear - now they are banning knives. No legislation that focuses on the tools people use will ever be successful. History has proven that far too many times. Its a shame some people refuse to learn from history.

There are very few people who would argue that removing firearms from the hands of criminals would be a bad thing. Yet not one single person who advocates anti gun legislation has ever come up with a plan to take guns from criminals. Virtually every piece of legislation ever suggested targets law abiding citizens. They continually pass these ineffective laws targeting the only firearms they can find - the ones belonging to law abiding citizens, then say its not their fault that crimes involving firearms did not decrease. Yes - it is your fault. You and everyone like you who continually waste time and resources on so-called solutions that never solve anything. In fact, there is no one else to blame but you. Not even the criminals. They are only taking advantage of the conditions you created. You even put up signs telling the criminals where to ply their trade. Then you sit back and look aghast at the world you created while you draft yet another round of ineffective legislation to violate the rights of law abiding citizens.

Well done.
edit on 23-5-2020 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
When are people going to learn that legislation does not change the behavior of criminals? Criminals break the law. That is why we call them criminals. If you make something illegal the only people who will abide by that law, by definition, are the law abiding citizens. The criminals couldn't care less.

Legislation does not regulate behavior in people who do not respect the law. It serves no purpose other than giving you a reason to prosecute after the fact. In the case of violent crimes involving firearms, after the fact is not when you want to intervene. As such, this type of legislation is flawed from the very start and incapable of accomplishing the goals for which it is intended.

Chicago...


A change in the law might prevent successful suicides and accidental shootings.

Those things are gun deaths, too.


If that were true then accidental shooting and suicide would be nonexistent in Chicago due to the heavy gun laws. But that obviously isn't the case.



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: chr0naut

Your post is riddled with problems and straw man arguments.

Not all depression is the same. Depression does not indicate delusion.


I never said it did.


Your assertions are unfounded straw man arguments.


Hello, hello, is there an echo in here? You already said that in your opening sentence.




Shooting is the function of a gun. What you shoot and why is varied and diverse. Anything can be used as a weapon. To justify removal of one weapon because you see no other purpose for it is disingenuous. The key word here is YOU. I enjoy sport shooting and hunting. Why should I be denied a source of recreation because you don't like it?


Because it is unnecessary and dangerous. There are sports which are banned on that basis.

Illegal sports
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Dealing with destructive wildlife does not make a person a gun nut.


I never said it did.


Another straw man argument.


Another echo. Perhaps there is a resonant empty space somewhere?




Removing firearms from the public does not reduce violent crime. After London banned firearms they passed New York city in per capita murder - and it was done with knives. Of course the solution was clear - now they are banning knives. No legislation that focuses on the tools people use will ever be successful. History has proven that far too many times. Its a shame some people refuse to learn from history.


Funny, but in Australia and in New Zealand, there have been very few firearm related deaths after gun bans. Also the knife bans in London are only against carrying knives as weapons. The bans aren't against knives themselves. And, for what reason would someone be carrying a knife around on the street in London? To defend against rabid wildlife?

Australia has a similar ban on the carrying of knives, too. They've had it for years, but because the death from stabbings isn't great in Australia, your average weapons minded publicity site wouldn't ever mention the law's success.


There are very few people who would argue that removing firearms from the hands of criminals would be a bad thing. Yet not one single person who advocates anti gun legislation has ever come up with a plan to take guns from criminals.


What? You just mentioned the English law that does just that. Canada, Australia, Singapore, Japan and New Zealand also have similar laws.


Virtually ever piece of legislation ever suggested targets law abiding citizens. They continually pass these ineffective laws targeting the only firearms they can find - the ones belonging to law abiding citizens, then say its not their fault that crimes involving firearms did not decrease. Yes - it is your fault. You and everyone like you who continually waste time and resources on so-called solutions that never solve anything. In fact, there is no one else to blame but you. Not even the criminals. They are only taking advantage of the conditions you created. You even put up signs telling the criminals where to ply their trade. Then you sit back and look aghast at the world you created while you draft yet another round of ineffective legislation to violate the rights of law abiding citizens.

Well done.


The gun laws cannot target just criminals, it is true. They apply equally, to everyone. Like all good laws should.

Your argument is like suggesting that road rules disadvantage good road users, just because some don't obey the rules - that's a real straw-man argument, there.

Strict firearm laws reduce gun deaths: here’s the evidence - The Guardian

States with strict gun laws have fewer firearms deaths. Here’s how your state stacks up - CNBC

FACT CHECK: Is Chicago Proof That Gun Laws Don't Work? - NPR

Do Areas With Stricter Gun Laws Have Less Crime? - Civics Nation

ANNUAL GUN LAW SCORECARD - Giffords Law Center

These four countries have nearly eliminated gun deaths - here's what the US can learn - The Independent

Stronger Gun Laws Linked to Less Gun Violence, Study Finds - USNews

edit on 23/5/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 02:31 PM
link   

edit on 23/5/2020 by chr0naut because: Double post



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
When are people going to learn that legislation does not change the behavior of criminals? Criminals break the law. That is why we call them criminals. If you make something illegal the only people who will abide by that law, by definition, are the law abiding citizens. The criminals couldn't care less.

Legislation does not regulate behavior in people who do not respect the law. It serves no purpose other than giving you a reason to prosecute after the fact. In the case of violent crimes involving firearms, after the fact is not when you want to intervene. As such, this type of legislation is flawed from the very start and incapable of accomplishing the goals for which it is intended.

Chicago...


A change in the law might prevent successful suicides and accidental shootings.

Those things are gun deaths, too.


If that were true then accidental shooting and suicide would be nonexistent in Chicago due to the heavy gun laws. But that obviously isn't the case.


Chicago is a single city (which, by the way has less strict gun laws than in Illinois), where people can come and go from outside, freely. Also there are no barriers at state lines.

Chicago having stricter gun laws doesn't matter if criminals can just go for a drive to pick up all the guns and ammo they want.

edit on 23/5/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: KnoxMSP

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: KnoxMSP

utter bollox

2 words : bolt action

2 more words :

lever action

2 more words :

pump action

all such firearms - can be legally owned and used - by NZ citizens - subject to the terms of thier licence - and regulations on use



Agreed, you being limited to such firearms is truly utter bollocks. What is a bolt action rifle gonna protect you from? Great for hunting, not so much for defense. Same for lever. I have never seen a pump action I could actually carry with me, so I really don't know how you think any of these are acceptable defense weapons. You wanna be railroaded by your Govt' feel free. You should have the right to defend yourself against all threats, in what ever manner you deem fit.


The only thing you need semi-automatic weapons to defend yourself from, are others similarly armed. If no one has semi-automatic weapons, then you don't need to defend against them.



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


I believe Disney films exist and most are fantasy, too. I can base my opinions on the Disney organisation and their audience without myself believing the fantasy films are anything but fantasy.

So you admit to basing your opinions on the creations of a group whose very purpose is to create fantasy. I fail to see the difference between basing an opinion on fantasy and basing an opinion on the works of those whose created them.


You took things out of context

Did I? That post was worded to insinuate the giving of loaded firearms to children, and you even mentioned the word children. A lie, in order to be believable, should have at least some superficial basis in truth. Yours is so transparent as to not even attempt to disguise the disingenuous nature.


By your own admission you suffer from clinical depression.

Incorrect... no, let's call that out for what it is: another baldfaced lie. I said:

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

The fact that one has suffered from an ailment in the past does not mean one suffers from it today. That part of my life is far, far behind me and will stay behind me. I only brought it up to counter the false argument that suicides are based on the availability of a desired method.

I assume you suffered from incontinence at one point in your life... say, at age 1 or 2 months of age. By your own (lack of) logic, you must suffer from incontinence today.


But table saws also have many other uses, other than dismembering people.

And you can hardly roll up into a public place and 'table saw' off the hands of numbers of people in a few seconds.

Apart from shooting, what else can you use a gun for?

Oh, well done!

Look, readers, and observe the wording in that attempt at an argument. We started out with a declaration by me that table saws, like any misused tool, are dangerous. That was an example directed toward accidental shootings, intended to show that accidents are not confined to firearms and that the argument is thus moot.

We then have the declaration that table saws are incapable of being intentionally misused to create widespread casualties... a true enough statement, but one that changes the premise of the original point. Finally, the new argument is couched in a false question that solidifies the change from the original argument: "Apart from shooting, what else can you use a gun for?"

The answer, of course, is nothing since a gun by definition is designed to project a small projectile form the end of a barrel under the pressure of rapidly expanding gases: aka "shooting." However, that argument is facetious as it ignores that all tools have a specific use. Back to the tablesaw example, what else can it be used for other than cutting materials?

A more proper and more topical question would have been "what else can one use a gun for other than killing someone?" Of, course, the answers to that question are quite extensive: self-protection against wildlife and hunting to procure food would be among the two primary answers. That would not have had the desired connotational effect and would not have been unanswerable, however.

It is somewhat rare for one to condense so much of the change in argument into such a small space; such is indicative of a lack of experience and expertise in composing arguments. Therefore I invite the readers to observe this tactic since it is in this case so easily observable.


Baits, traps and repellents have proven more effective than the lone gun nut.

Really? You should call the CDC and let them know that a rabid animal will now be susceptible to baits, traps, and repellents.

When faced with a sudden encounter with a dangerous animal, such tactics are simply ridiculous. One has a few moments to ensure that said animal is either unwilling or unable to attack. Else, one ends up waking up below the dirt instead of above. Momma bear, who suddenly mistakenly believes you just bothered her cub, is not interested in baits, traps, nor repellent. Nor is Mr. Boar, who sees you as the bait.


there are gun nuts shooting at crowds. People with weapons and with mental conditions.

Yes, that does happen occasionally. Of course, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the "mental condition" is often diagnosed as a result of the shooting. Before the shooting occurred, the shooter was perfectly normal and considered mentally healthy. Therefore, your argument is redundant.

You also seem to be very loose in your definitions. I believe you defined "gun nut" for us earlier and your definition did not include shooting at crowds. Actually, your definition was

originally posted by: chr0naut
A gun nut is someone who feels that the ownership of a gun gives them personal power and validity, and feels the need to justify their preference.

Now you seem to be inferring "gun nut" by actions rather than by opinion as before. Can we get a definition for "gun nut" that doesn't change post to post?


The point is to not kill.

On that one point, I will agree with you completely. Since none of my guns have ever been used to kill a person, I will assume that I have so far achieved that goal despite having protection.

You, I will further assume, reached that goal by intentionally making sure you had no capability to kill another.

Whose achievement is greater?


A bicycle is a mode of transport like a car, but one goes faster and takes more people. A bit like guns as they relate to suicide.

So guns make suicide faster (admitted) and also make it apply to more than one person? I fail to see how a suicide with a gun can kill more more people than a suicide by any other means? Suicide is the intentional taking one's own life. How can one have more than a single life? Are we watching movies again?


How local? I'm sure your state has lots of gun deaths, even if you live in the boondocks.

The general area. My state does have some gun deaths, primarily in the larger cities. I understand they are fairly common, albeit not what one might call widespread, in Birningham for instance.


So, you would make guns more prevalent?

Actually, no. Outside Constitutional considerations, I believe some minor regulation would be helpful. Obviously, violent felons have indicated by their actions an inability to safely wield a weapon should not do so. Obviously those who have severe mental defects have a high risk of being prone to act irrationally and should not be wielding a weapon. There are some weapons I would like to see bans on... I see little need for the average citizen to have a Patriot missile bank in their backyard, for instance. By some strange interpretation of our Constitution, however, Patriot missile banks are already illegal to possess, as are the rest that I see as ban-worthy. My biggest complaint there is that the bans are still illegal as per the Constitution. I do, however, resist the idea of amending the Constitution at this point in time to allow them to be legal, simply because I know people like you would attempt to work in wording that could be used to ban all firearms.

~continued~



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join