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: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

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

~continued~

I also support firearm safety training classes. I went through them, as a part of my brief stint in high school taking JROTC. I actually got to fire an M-16 (preset to semi-auto) and watched my instructor fire an M-60 on full auto.

It was... impressive...


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

They certainly are.. often fatal to the criminal.


Bombs are armaments, just like guns are.

Dear readers, please observe again how quickly the subject is being changed from firearms to armaments. This is an excellent opportunity to see how debates are staged to present both sides of an argument based solely on how well each side appears to support the intended goal. You are indeed privileged to observe this type of tactic not once, but twice in one post.


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

Stop people from wanting to kill others.

Of course, that is not possible. There will always be those who wish harm on others. However, the solution is often more complex that I presented it above: similar results can be achieved if the known and certain penalty for attempting to kill another exceeds the desire one might possess to do so. That's why we have laws. Violation of a law subjects one to a harsh penalty, up to and including death by the state.

Our laws do not work as well as they could, however, because of the uncertainty one rightfully perceives in punishment being administered. Far too often justice is delayed, and justice delayed is justice denied. This increases the perceived likelihood that one may commit a crime and yet escape punishment. To receive punishment for a crime, one must first be caught (I believe that would be about a 50/50 chance for violent crimes), must undergo a trial period, must be convicted, and then is allowed to continually appeal decisions that they do not like. In capital punishment cases, the chances of actually being executed are almost zero, only rising substantially above zero where the offense is the most grievous or consists of continual crimes.

I do not by that wish the court system to be changed from its original intent (maybe it should revert back to it some); I instead present that a criminal who knows that the home they are invading is that of a gun owner will be more convinced of harsh immediate judgement should they proceed with their crime. There is no court docket, no appeal, and no attorney's argument when one decides to commit a crime against someone who is capable of defending themselves successfully.

I therefore present that the best method to ensure that someone does not kill another person is to ensure that any attempt carries inherent to it a high probability that they will lose their own life. A balance of power between the law-breaking and the law-abiding, if you will.


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

I assure you, this is not a Western, I am not Randolph Scott, and I am playing at nothing.

TheRedneck




posted on May, 23 2020 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
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.


Two cases among thousands of actual criminal murders in the USA carried out with guns.


Much to the dismay of the pro-crime lefties


They aren't pro crime. They are strongly against the far more numerous criminal murders that are done with firearms.

Do you approve of those criminal acts of murder?


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)


No, a gun is incapable of saving a life. They are dangerous appliances. every time they are used to take a life, even the life of a criminal, they are taking a life. It's a fairly absolute and definite thing.

While it may be argued that guns can be used defensively, in the case of the death of the offender, you can't ever be 100% sure that the offender was actually going to follow through and commit the crime. You see, one side is an absolute, definite, with no doubt of outcome. The other is presupposed and there is a margin of doubt.

Your argument is also similar to suggesting that if everyone in a family were murdered, that it would prevent that family or their descendants from ever committing a crime. It is poor reasoning.



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: AutomateThis1
a reply to: 727Sky

Let's wait and see what Chronaut has to say about this.


He’ll turn it into an attack on Americans?

Oops, too late.


Not Americans, just the gun nuts.


American gun nuts.
Maybe Ted Nugent comes to mind?
FBI statistics will tell you it's actually the domain of a small group by gender, age and race.
Amazing how pervasive brainwashing conditions our thinking and perception.



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Debunkology

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.





I guess that could be the reason. I grew up in a pretty low income area, and have seen some pretty bad violence perpetrated. You can go on you tube and find multiple accounts of people defending themselves in the states with their legally owned AR. I know if I am out numbered I am not going for the pistol.



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.


If someone comes at me with a knife you think I should limit myself to a knife? Sorry, but that is the bollocks there. I have the right to out arm my assailants.

Also, we haven't even gotten to the part about tyranny, and protecting yourself from your own Govt'...
edit on 23-5-2020 by KnoxMSP because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: KnoxMSP

A pistol wouldn't do the trick?

It worked for Indie. Or are you that bad of a shot?
edit on 5/23/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: KnoxMSP

A pistol wouldn't do the trick?

It worked for Indie. Or are you that bad of a shot?


My ego isn't big enough to think I can hit every target with every round. I plink at the family cattle farm on a regular basis, and get to our local county range on the regular, but I am not tactically trained enough to rely on my skill. Not ashamed to admit that.

I don't want to have to change magazines. My bedside drawer only carries 8 rds of 9mm. I was told in my defensive carry performance class that in a night time hostile situation you can unload a magazine without realizing it. Watch some vids of people defending themselves. A lot of the shots are taken at random. When the situation comes I don't want to reload.



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: KnoxMSP




My ego isn't big enough to think I can hit every target with every round.
So, 1 out of 8. Maybe you should get more practice.

A handgun is one thing though. Do you feel a need to own a semi-automatic rifle for self protection? How many rounds do you reckon are required for that?
edit on 5/23/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: KnoxMSP




My ego isn't big enough to think I can hit every target with every round.
So, 1 out of 8. Maybe you should get more practice.

A handgun is one thing though. Do you feel a need to own a semi-automatic rifle for self protection? How many rounds do you reckon are required for that?

You don't read? I practice at least a few times a month, and have for 20+ yrs. My son and I plink with a pellet gun, and bow almost every day.

That's not the point though, and I assumed you knew that. With your statement, I take it you've never even been to a firearm self defense course, or you'd know that you can't believe you're gonna be that accurate in the heat of the moment.

Yes, I do, because the people around me committing crimes have the equivalent to my pistol. I'd like to up the ante for sure. Maybe you live somewhere that is all peaches and cream, but I live in Florida.



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: KnoxMSP

I used to hunt. I owned a rifle and a shotgun but I gave them to my brother-in-law because I had no further use for them and was not taking proper care of them.


Yes, I do, because the people around me committing crimes have the equivalent to my pistol.
So, it's sort of a MAD situation where you live? Not so much 40-50 feral hogs, but home intruders bearing AK-47s? To bad you can't get an Uzi.


No, it's not peaches and cream here. But gun related deaths are quite rare.

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



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals


Amazing how pervasive brainwashing conditions our thinking and perception.

Quite amazing indeed.

Apart from the obvious humor one can get by watching certain members twist and turn their way through complex mental gymnastics to try and justify the unjustifiable, I will admit I have a developed a particular interest in chr0naut's positions. He represents a way to analyze what and why others in other countries can have such a loathing of the simple ability Americans maintain for self-defense. His regular Freudian slips, most of which I don't point out for obvious reasons, allows me to gather some semblance of insight into his thinking.

It would appear to me, based on this analysis, that his position of being totally and completely against any form of gun ownership is based on a complete misunderstanding of American culture and the purpose guns serve to the vast majority of society. He sees the US as something akin to Mad Max... roving gangs of killers continually coming into contact with other roving gangs of killers and people in the streets running for their lives from gunfire on a daily basis. I'm sure he won't admit to that mental image (to do so would be to expose his bias, after all), but the insinuations in his posts do indicate such.

Now, where would one get such a notion? Well, that is obvious! From movies and the news. Our movies can be quite violent because they serve as a relief valve of sorts, a way to allow our frustration out safely in front of a screen. Minor incidents that occur out of random chance can be blown up and exaggerated to the point that legends are formed... and legends make a lot of money!

As an example, look at the Rambo series of movies. They seem to be everyone's favorite catch phrase when it comes to violence. First Blood held a grain of truth; there are indeed many veterans who for long had been forgotten and were making their way through life as best they could. Many had mental issues associated with fighting a war. That part of the story, about a Vietnam vet who was just walking through a small town on his way to nowhere, desperately wanting to be left alone, was true. But that's where the truth stopped and fantasy began. No sheriff would ever be able to put a vagrant through the kind of hell that was done to poor Rambo (at least not and remain sheriff for long), and no one man would ever be able to take on a full police station of armed cops and escape without serious damage.

It is interesting to note that John J. Rambo, in the movie, did not use guns... his primary weapon was his knife. He only resorted to gunplay after gunplay was used against him.

Now look at the MSM and what they tend to report on: violent crime, and the more violent the better. Especially when committed by anyone who can be labelled a "conservative" and thus used to demonize political rivals, a single episode can be reported literally to death. Of course, one who studiously considers this amount of reporting might likely come to the conclusion that such massive reporting would be indicative of a rare event and not a commonplace one. Commonplace events rarely make headlines.

Combined this paints the exact opposite picture to the truth of the vast majority in America. Sure, there are roving bands of gangs in certain areas of the larger cities, but these exist in all countries. The fact that they have weapons does not make them unique; it simply means those in these areas need the same weapons to defend themselves. A group of thugs with baseball bats can be countered by a similar group of police who have tear gas... no guns needed. A group of gang members with semi-auto firearms cannot be countered with tear gas, however; they require an armed response.

I have come to believe also (and this may be a mistaken judgement) that police response times are pretty fast in most parts of the world. Not so much here. The USA is a fairly sparsely populated country, dotted with small but highly dense areas of large population. Where population is high, so is response time from social services. But when population is sparse, the travel time needed to respond to a cry for help can be itself a major hurdle. People are on their own for the most part until help can arrive, and that can run from minutes to hours.

That is simply the way it is.

So America has adopted the existence of firearms as a means of self-protection, not only from roaming criminals which for the most part do not exist in most of the country, but from wildlife and from official acts of tyranny. These do exist, and in greater number than criminal attacks in most areas. It is not uncommon for a law enforcement officer to decide they are the law (probably because they watched too many Westerns themselves) and cause great pain and suffering to those they are sworn to protect. While an armed response to such is never a good idea and a very rare thing, the simple fact that one is possible serves the same effect to a degree.

Of course, should a criminal bent on causing harm to the innocent venture too far from their own little pockets of influence, they are also aware that homes are mostly well defended, especially out away from where law enforcement is common. Thus, criminals stay close to the cities for the most part.

The push to remove guns from society is coming from these cities where crime is rampant, and where the response has historically been to disarm the citizens. Ironically, that has never worked; in every case where it was tried, the rate of violent crime increased. A city slicker has little need for a gun outside of protection; there just aren't many places to hunt and wildlife tends to not thrive well in cities. Thus, protection is offered in the way of police response and it becomes easier to convince people.

That simply isn't possible outside the cities. There can be no police response in a timely matter due to the distances that must be traveled. Out there, out here, the need for defense is still of great importance, and the need to have available firearms to hunt and defend against wildlife are also paramount. Thus, we have the age-old rivalry between slickers and country folk, and that has been broadcast to the rest of the world by one lone side: those who want to confiscate all firearms. Is it any wonder the rest of the world sees us as they do?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: KnoxMSP

I used to hunt. I owned a rifle and a shotgun but I gave them to my brother-in-law because I had no further use for them and was not taking proper care of them.


Yes, I do, because the people around me committing crimes have the equivalent to my pistol.
So, it's sort of a MAD situation where you live? Not so much 40-50 feral hogs, but home intruders bearing AK-47s? To bad you can't get an Uzi.


No, it's not peaches and cream here. But gun related deaths are quite rare.

We have feral hogs, and crazy bath salt face eaters here.

Gun deaths are not so rare here. On top of many home invasions and robberies.


Florida

• Violent crime rate: 384.9 per 100,000 people

• Total 2018 murders: 1,107 (3rd highest)

• Imprisonment rate: 582 adults per 100,000 (14th highest)

• Poverty rate: 13.6% (17th highest)

Some cities here are 8x the national average for violent crimes. Yea, I need my guns.



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Chicago has some of the most strict gun laws in the country, including the rest of Illinois. I know, I live there.



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.


Illinois, especially Chicago, do not recognise out of state firearms licenses. Its one of the few states that do not have reciprocation. Also, because of that fact if you go out of Illinois to purchase a firearm, for instance buying one online, the firearm will be sent to a local FFL licensed shop where you can pick it up after filling out the proper paperwork and waiting until it clears.

No one can just drive across a state line and buy all the guns and ammo they want.

Worst argument ever. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
edit on 23-5-2020 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



I never said it did.




By your own admission you suffer from clinical depression.



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.


Delusional problems, too. As in addition to the previously stated depression. What license do you possess that allows you to make diagnosis based on discussion board posts? Or are you delusional in believing you are qualified to do so?



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

Because the more I read your gibberish the more logic holes I find. You have been repeating the same nonsense ad nauseum throughout this discussion.



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

It may be unnecessary for you, but you don't matter. Some sports are banned, but shooting isn't one of them.



I never said it did.



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

Yes, you did. Your words, not mine.



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

Calling them out en mass did nothing for you so perhaps addressing them individually will make the point for you...In short - there are many logic holes and straw man arguments in your posts. And when confronted, as shown above, you lie about it.



Funny, but in Australia and in New Zealand, there have been very few firearm related deaths after gun bans.




NEW ZEALAND CRIME
Rates of gun crimes and killings using guns at highest levels in a decade
3:01 pm on 18 May 2020

link
Hmmm...



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

Show me one thing, anything, that proves firearms were taken from criminals as opposed to law abiding citizens. Just one.



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

And there you have it. A good law would target everyone equally. But these lame anti gun laws completely fail to address the one group of people they are designed to target - criminals. No one knows how many illegal guns there are, where they are, or who has them. This ridiculous legislation requires criminals to suddenly become morally and ethically civic minded people and turn in their weapons. Sorry, but if that was going to happen, it would have by now.



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: KnoxMSP

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.


If someone comes at me with a knife you think I should limit myself to a knife? Sorry, but that is the bollocks there. I have the right to out arm my assailants.

Also, we haven't even gotten to the part about tyranny, and protecting yourself from your own Govt'...


If neither you nor a potential assailant were armed, then the deadliness of the confrontation disappears at that point.

And really, do you think you would have a snowball's chance in hell in standing against the armed forces of police or military? Taking up arms against them would identify you as 'the enemy'. On a small scale, you could possibly resist a benign government, but if they were truly tyrannical, you'd be red mist.



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut


If neither you nor a potential assailant were armed, then the deadliness of the confrontation disappears at that point.




You can't go back and un-invent the bow and arrow, homie...

There's always gonna be weapons to use against people. As long as a humans have access to them they are going to use them, and sometimes to nefarious ends. I have the right to protect myself with a more deadly weapon. Sorry that goes against your views. Live in Holly Hill, FL for a week, then tell me you don't need a gun, lol.



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

City folks have a hard time stepping in the back yard and running through a few clips target shooting. Some of us here in the US can do exactly that and I think if everyone could they would also think guns are just as fun as they are of critical importance. Sucks for city folks, they need summer camps to learn shooting. Make it mandatory.



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

I truly believe that is the very heart of the issue here: a lack of training. My father taught me from the time I could walk good what a gun was, how it worked, and most importantly, how to handle it safely. I had a Daisy BB gun that I was given pretty much free reign with before I turned a teenager. I was allowed to use the .22 rifle and .410 shotgun under his direct supervision.

He had three rules he lived by when it came to guns, which his father taught him and which I taught my children:
  • Treat every gun as though it were loaded at all times.
  • Never point a gun at anything you don't want to kill.
  • Never kill except for food or self-defense.
I particularly think that last one was inspired genius; imagine if the punishment for murder was that one had to eat their victim?

Mercy was also implied as a reason to kill, although he never mentioned it. An animal, such as a pet, which was suffering and had no chance of survival could be put down mercifully. Typically, a close friend did that deed. Lead them off a little ways, make them comfortable, reassure them, then step back behind them and pull the trigger. No more pain. It was always a hard thing to do, but it had to be done at times. I only hope I am never in that situation; laws would prevent me from receiving such mercy.

But I digress...

Back then, that was as much the responsibility of the father as explaining the birds and the bees. It was just something one did. There were no accidental shootings to speak of back then, because everyone was raised to know how to handle a weapon. Heck, I remember in high school, there were pickup trucks with full gun racks scattered all across the parking lot! We would actually check out each other's guns on school property and no one batted an eye. There was also no mention of school shootings... the biggest trouble we got into was harassing teachers behind their backs and smoking in the bathroom (instead of the designated smoking area outside).

Today, though, so many people are so terrified of a gun that parents seem to not want to teach their kids anything about them. Those kids grow up curious about this device that can kill, and eventually get old enough to access them. Without any idea of how they work and what they are intended for, they become misused. That leads to more fear of the evil scary guns and more people who grow up ignorant of them. Eventually, we get to today, when the gun itself is demonized instead of the person who used it.

Your will is your weapon; your gun is just the tool, as useful and as dangerous as any other tool.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: chr0naut


I never said it did.

By your own admission you suffer from clinical depression.


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.
Delusional problems, too. As in addition to the previously stated depression. What license do you possess that allows you to make diagnosis based on discussion board posts? Or are you delusional in believing you are qualified to do so?


I hold no such qualification, but my wife does. In her role of dementia care (she has now changed career) she came across a fair bit of delusional psychopathy.

However, I said that I "suspect" it, which is different than emphatically asserting it.



Hello, hello, is there an echo in here? You already said that in your opening sentence.
Because the more I read your gibberish the more logic holes I find. You have been repeating the same nonsense ad nauseum throughout this discussion.


I have only repeated things where I was responding to someone who has made assumptions that I was saying what they wanted to refute, rather than responding to what I actually said. I was trying to emphasize what I actually said.



Because it is unnecessary and dangerous. There are sports which are banned on that basis.
It may be unnecessary for you, but you don't matter. Some sports are banned, but shooting isn't one of them.


In the 1908 Summer Olympics in London, Pistol Duelling was a sport. I'm fairly sure it is now banned.



I never said it did.

Baits, traps and repellents have proven more effective than the lone gun nut.
Yes, you did. Your words, not mine.


I said "Baits, traps and repellents have proven more effective than the lone gun nut." This is not the same as, "Dealing with destructive wildlife does not make a person a gun nut"?

In no way does the first quote, even vaguely, imply that dealing with feral wildlife makes one a 'gun nut'. The first quote was about the effectiveness of methods.



Another echo. Perhaps there is a resonant empty space somewhere?
Calling them out en mass did nothing for you so perhaps addressing them individually will make the point for you...In short - there are many logic holes and straw man arguments in your posts. And when confronted, as shown above, you lie about it.


I didn't lie about it. There is no logic hole in what I actually posted. Nor was there a straw-man argument anywhere in what I posted.

As your previous point demonstrates, you aren't even trying to understand what I have posted. You are too set on replying to what YOU want to refute, rather than what I post.



Funny, but in Australia and in New Zealand, there have been very few firearm related deaths after gun bans.

NEW ZEALAND CRIME Rates of gun crimes and killings using guns at highest levels in a decade
3:01 pm on 18 May 2020
link
Hmmm...


Although the article was 'spun' to make it appear that there were more murders and violent crimes after the law, the truth is that, while there were a few more violent gun crimes, there were far more confiscations of illegal weapons (counted as gun crimes), due to the fact that fewer weapons were classed as illegal previous to the law.

Also, the rise in violent gun crimes happened prior to the law coming into effect and the report covered a period substantially prior to the implementation of the law.



What? You just mentioned the English law that does just that. Canada, Australia, Singapore, Japan and New Zealand also have similar laws.
Show me one thing, anything, that proves firearms were taken from criminals as opposed to law abiding citizens. Just one.


The law change was quite recent. Already our police are confiscating illegal firearms. Which is why the firearm related crime numbers are higher. It is a crime to own some types of firearms.



The gun laws cannot target just criminals, it is true. They apply equally, to everyone. Like all good laws should.
And there you have it. A good law would target everyone equally. But these lame anti gun laws completely fail to address the one group of people they are designed to target - criminals.


Tell me again what law makes the lawless comply with the law? LOL.


No one knows how many illegal guns there are, where they are, or who has them. This ridiculous legislation requires criminals to suddenly become morally and ethically civic minded people and turn in their weapons. Sorry, but if that was going to happen, it would have by now.


What, just because it doesn't happen instantly, you are ready to declare it a failure.

It will take time, and every semi-automatic weapon taken out is one less semi-automatic weapon in criminal hands. It is happening.


edit on 24/5/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut


It will take time, and every semi-automatic weapon taken out is one less semi-automatic weapon in criminal hands. It is happening.



Wait, what? You know how many unregistered firearms there are? It is simply not possible. They will find a way to get a gun. You truly are living in fantasy world.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join