DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus New Zealand has it right

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47648549

New Zealand bans semi automatic weapons, follow the world’s lead.

When I said I’m coming for your semi automatic weapons, I meant it. Are we still going to hide behind an antiquated, constitutional right? Do you not see what humans will do with weapons?

Talk to me about a given right to bear arms

Please explain how awesome gun anti rights are, with the recent mass murders there.

Thanks.

So, my semi auto shotgun would be illegal. And my .22 caliber hand gun would be illegal?

For the record: totally and completely illegal in the U.S. UNLESS a person has paid a large fee, AND been checked.


But, screw it. Let's take my semi auto shotgun away, right? I mean, after all, it's shot clay pigeons.

Let's ban my .22 handgun. I mean, it's nailed so many bulls eyes on a target range it's unreal.

This here, is why people will disagree with you:


Next week, they'll come for the pump shotguns, or the 6 shooters. Once all of that is accomplished, they'll come for the single shot shotgun, or pistol. Once they get them all from the legally owned citizens, everyone will be safe. Right?

They're proposing GPS trackers on knives in the UK now. When do they go after pointed sticks?

New Zealand doesn't have the 2nd amendment.

They just went through an atrocity - and they have acted to try to make their nation and their citizens safer. Nice to see what can happen without the usual BS politics that the NRA brings. The PM even said they don't know what can and will work .... but at least they are trying to do something.

Be nice if it was possible to have a meaningful dialogue after gun atrocities here in the USA. But it get's stone walled before it even starts with many simply saying that if you give an inch - it'll lead to the government taking everyone's weapons away ....I have to say, it must be pretty wretched to live your lives living in fear of things that would never happen.

Its a wast of time trying to explain the difference between auto and semi-auto to liberals Arch. Just the look of assault weapon scares them to death even though it shoots like a 22 plinker.

You mean without the usual BS politics of hearing all sides before legislation is enacted? We do have the 2A. Do you support passing a law depriving people of a right, even if you don't know whether it will be effective?



It's hard to have meaningful dialogue when you consider one side as nothing but "BS politics". There is very legitimate concern that the government will not stop once they begin. Just about every pro gun control politician said, "it's a start" when the background check bill was presented. None will elaborate on when it will stop, or what their goals are.



Being proactive isn't fear, and I'm not wretched. The concerns are based on historical fact. It took one event in NZ for strict gun control to be enacted, while admitting that they do not know whether it will be effective. That's not how our congress works nor should work. There is no evidence that gun control legislation will prevent gun violence in this country. Just look at the communities here with the strictest gun control laws.

Yeah right. Stop with the separatism and hate bro. It just makes you look uneducated.

I agree making all semi automatic guns illegal is wrong. Even a 1800’s colt revolver is a semi auto.

Thank you for the reply and proving my point.

It looks as if - because of the 2nd amendment - you believe there should be unrestricted rights for any citizen to own whatever firearm they wish? That's not something I agree with. But, again nice attack.

What attack? You're the one that said you wanted meaningful dialogue and then went on to call the opposing side wretched, BS politics and whatnot. I tried to be very careful without sounding condescending or insulting while addressing all of your points. You're the one that's being those things while trying to put words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say that any citizen could own any firearm they wish. I don't believe the mentally ill or convicted felons should own firearms. I don't believe all citizens should be able to own full auto firearms. I don't believe bumpstocks should be legal.

Try practicing what you preach.

Show me how or why there is "legitimate concern" the Govt won't stop?

Show my how or why NZ enacting strict gun control laws in their country that doesn't have a 2nd amendment is in any way a parallel to what could, would or should happen in the USA?

If you don't believe everyone should have a right to own any type of weapon - then you already believe in gun control in some form ... why not be open to real discussions on what might help the masss shootings and gun violence epidemic?

We had the slaughter in Vegas - we had Parkland .... and what happened? Not much - other than the NRA and pro gun lobby ratcheting the rhetoric up and attacking anyone and any discussion about reviewing gun regulation.

The issue as I see it - there isn't a golden solution that's obvious and simple. There isn't a single piece of legislation that gets passed and suddenly the issues is solved ... The reason the NZ PM said that their legislation doesn't suddenly make the country safe is because they live in the real world and are facing reality. BUT THEY ARE TRYING. If someone with a gun wants to keep it illegally and kill people - they probably will. But in 10-15-25 years time the chances diminish constantly. Definition of insanity ... doing the same thing (no change) and expecting a different result. Like it or not guns are the preferred method for the whackos of the world to kill and maim .... the answer by the pro gun lobby is to instill fear that the big bad Govt wants to take any control measure as a first step to getting rid of all your guns. . . . that's twaddle. There are estimates of 350+ million fire arms in the USA ... they aren't being spirited away any time. And the simple truth is every year there will be more and more and more and more and more and more and more innocent lives taken ... and the pro gun lobby won't sit and even talk. . . they'd much rather laugh at how wrong the 'other side' get the nomenclature of guns as if that somehow precludes them from wanting to discuss the topic.

It’s about human nature.

A superior force will always eventually subjugate a weaker peoples.

For whatever reason. For some sort of resource. For power. Whatever.

“Now, you’re going to do what I tell you. Or die.”

The founding fathers knew this.

The founding fathers of the U.S. did a pretty good job of trying to form a “more perfect union”. Which included at least a small measure of potential individual choice against an unforeseeable tyranny with the right to bear arms.

It’s not much. But without guns, a group of people is completely at the mercy of a group that has guns.

The number of casualties due to random mass shootings is minuscule. It just doesn’t seem that way because of the extensive media coverage.

Go ahead New Zealand. The U.S.A. is still your “protectorate”. You don’t need guns.

Good for you.

Now get me a coffee. Light, no sugar.

I did, in my original post when I referred to the pro gun control crowd calling the background check legislation "a good start".



My stand was that I don't think that you can. What are you getting at?



Who said I wasn't open to real discussions on what might help with mass shootings and gun violence? You're the one that wants to limit it to gun control.



Again, it seems like you're the one doing the attacking. Also, it looks like your saying that we can't discuss the issue unless gun regulation is accepted.



If we try like that in this country, we are infringing on the rights of the law abiding.



There's no proof of that at all in American communities that have enacted strict gun regulation.



Guns are also the preferred method for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.



Again....more than a few politicians have actually said that background checks "are a good start" without elaborating.



And there's no proof that gun control will prevent it.



I agree there should be dialogue, but the gun control people are every bit as guilty in not wanting to negotiate in good faith and painting the pro 2A community as paranoid whack jobs. You did it yourself by calling us wretched and afraid. Is that your idea of healthy dialogue?

When you want to solve a problem, you look for what has changed.

20-30 years ago, mass shootings were less common, the number of guns was not substantially different, in fact they were easier to get. It is not guns nor their availability that is increasing the problem.

What we have today is a media frenzy around these incidents, for many of these shooters their 15 minutes is a main goal. Less socializing in the digital age may also be a factor, in making the fame more desirable. The NZ guy recorded himself.

What we should do: in addition to looking into mental health services and other things in that area, about which one main problem is that many whackos self-report at least in part because they know they can do that in confidence. Greater disclosure would likely reduce self-reporting.

Mainly, however, this : When we capture the whacko, put a hood over his head and NEVER publicize his name. We could make doing so a threat to public safety, like shouting fire in a crowded theater. As soon as possible after capture and a rapid trial, execute the POS on nationwide TV. Nameless, faceless loser removed from society. No movies, no books, no interviews with friends and relatives. Unmarked, unknown grave. No Fame.

If you want to quote the 'pro gun lobby' saying "it's a good start" and act like that proves that the Govt wants to take all your guns away ..... there's not much point in talking.


Your comments are so full of holes that and we are coming at this from different perspectives - it's not worth the time to type.

One example - there's no proof that gun violence will go down in 25 years after the NZ gun ban ? . . . no of course not. The ban only just toook place. However - it's more than reasonable to think that after a lenghty spell of these guns being illegal - there would be fewer and fewer and fewer held illegally ... and not unreasonable to project fewer deaths as a result ... but there is not proof and there wont be for .... 25 years. Using that as an argument for anything is asinine. Even more asinine to take the same 'there is no proof' to the US.

Another one - we're not talking about the law abiding gun owners. We are discussing the atrocities. The statement that law abiding gun owners like guns for protection - might be true - and their rights are relevant to any discussion on any issue regarding guns and legislation ... but "we like them too" is asinine. Sorry - not being rude, it's just not relevant to the debate.

I agree with this nearly entirely.

The one caveat is that if society and culture has changed irrevocably - and if guns (as they have) are now being used consistently for atrocities, it is also totally valid to examine how accessible they are, and how efficient they are for - say - shooting dozens and dozens of school kids ... and then ask look at ALL possible options that might make an impact. And looking at options and talking about it constantly and in a realistic (both sides) way could only be a positive thing imo

Edit - an example of this might be air travel. Same planes and same way we used them 20-30 years ago. After 911 it became necessary to review security regarding accessibility - the plane hasn't changed. Society and culture has changed ... and that had an impact. . . . . . it's not a perfect analogy by any means.

You know, I actually agreed with you up until,


I think would cause more trauma, honestly. Not sure how showing graphic violence like this on TV would help.



Doesn't a public execution give the person fame?

I normally avoid the gun debate as much as possible because even though I'm considered the uber lefty on the board I do believe in gun ownership for hunting and home protection. I also believe the 2nd amendment had and still has a purpose of check and balance over a tyrannical government which may be more important now than ever before.

But the constant mass shootings and overall cost of lives every year to gun violence must somehow productively be addressed. I don't think a ban on certain types of guns really does it. I think taking bump stocks off the market was a good move. But I agree with the gun guys when they say a semi-auto 22 is a semi-auto 22.

And then I watch a video of the guy in NZ unleashing hell in the name of populist white supremacy with multiple guns shooting what seemed to me to be full auto. He emptied so many clips in rapid burst that nobody stood a chance in the room he walked into. Terrifying regardless of politics.

The answer might be strict licensing/access requirements that include an annual mental health certification. We definitely need to hold gun owners responsible when their guns are used in an incident by another like the kid that recently did the mass shooting with his mother's guns.

We should also discourage rapid fire mechanisms and high capacity clips. This will not diminish the ability to hunt or protect your home, but might save a few lives in these shooter situations. The other thing we should do is tax the gun industry and or owners to pay for more policing and rapid response training. Every school, church, and public gathering of large numbers of people should have trained security. These seem to be the preferred targets of these shooters and we all deserve to be as safe as possible in those settings.

I'm down with all of this... with perhaps an exception to the public execution. But that's a personal bar/line kind of thing. I've long thought that zero publicity is the way to go. Good to see someone else thinking along those lines. Hope a movement starts.

i agree except the part about public executions.

somebody looking for fame and/or looking to be viewed as a Martyr would love nothing more than for this to happen. this right here would completely negate everything else you posted that was spot on.

Just coming in on this thread but I felt compelled to respond when I saw this comment. It tells me that you're ignorant of world history, countries, and regimes over time. I mean is what you just asked a real question. My response is Really? Did you take history in school???

And you never answered the question!

If I didn't know any better I'd say you trust what the government does 100% of the time. I'm pretty sure you do. Hard to argue with that.

You can't get famous if nobody sees your face and nobody knows your name.

A public execution is an affirmation that our justice system is operating correctly, as its citizens desire. There is no shame in removing vermin.

I would let him blubber and wail for a few minutes before pulling the lever. tape delay for any edits needed, late in the day after kids are in bed, etc.

If you can't handle that there is evil in the world that needs to be dealt with, then just read comic books.

a public execution is not affirmation that our justice system is working correctly. that's some of the biggest bull ever pushed on this board.

Well, Swish, you certainly would be an authority.

He got a fair trial. He got an unbiased judge. He got a defense attorney. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers.

Do we SEE him go to prison for life? Do we KNOW punishment was delivered?

Executions were public for many years for good reason. A good justice system does not operate in secret. The people must know what it does, what it means to commit mass murder. We have a right to know it is not tolerated, and to understand fully what that means. No speeches, no BS, just a dead mass murderer. Perceive and understand. Grok in fullness.

executions were then made private for good reasons.

bro the crap you're arguing for would easily make mass murders and terrorism rise higher than what we're already seeing.

public executions aren't a deterrent to heinous crimes. honestly now it seems like you just want to see people executed for your own personal satisfaction.

I'm ok with public executions (burn at the stake) for certain crimes.

Mass murderers
Serial Killers
Rapists
Child Molesters

Nobody is going to try to be a martyr with that result.

Maybe that puts us backwards in humanity's progression. But, clearly, these criminals dont respect the law or other human beings. So they need a deterrant.

disagree. it won't deter anything.

We can agree to disagree then.

Nobody chooses to die in a painful way.

The only reason people would choose to commit those crimes and be caught (if we had that punishment) is if they were mentally ill and incapable of controlling themselves.

The only catch is the wrongly accused and convicted. How many innocent people have been released from death row now? I have zero problem with the death penalty for certain crimes as long as we know we got the right person with 100% certainty. Just because a jury convicts does not equal certainty to me.

But you catch a guy like the guy in NZ. If it was me, he never sees the inside of the cop car let alone the jail.

I can agree to the Burn At The Stake punishment being contingent on

1) The criminal is not mentally ill
2) The evidence against them is airtight, without a doubt.

Don't know that I'm down with burning at the stake. But I'm good with lethal injection, or anything that is instant. The slow agony of burning is beyond cruel.

A bolt or bullet to the head, or something like a big press that just smashes you to jelly instantly would be good. Very visual too.

Have you ever watched Forensics Files? These types of criminals are unbearably cruel to their victims. Especially the abusive ones.

I'm ok with painful deaths for them. It might be incentive for them to not hurt people.

3) The criminal is a witch.

Coming from a Trump stooge thats funny as hell.

I'm up for a guy with Parkinsons pulling the switch on the electric chair.

So then do you trust the government 100% or no? I know you want to be a nanny state. You may think its silly but I need to ask these questions considering some of your posts.