world

NZ gov't to announce gun reforms within 10 days

82 Comments
By Charlotte Greenfield and Tom Westbrook

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2019

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


82 Comments
Login to comment

Because I believe in general that when tens of millions of people own or use a product for the purpose of recreation

What? Nintendo game system?

civilians should be prohibited from owning firearms.

But they already do. What's the problem?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving

2020hindsight - The amount of cognitive dissonance in this quote is just astounding. Making possession of something illegal means you are forcing people to surrender or face the penalty of law, it doesn't matter if you give them a grace period to surrender or not because you are still going to penalize them if they don't surrender it by the end of the grace period if they haven't surrendered. The only time handing in guns would be voluntary is if there is no law on the books making possession illegal. To suggest anything else is a lie.

Yes, I totally agree (except with the cognitive dissonance part).

But it seems as if you can't read or something. Because that is not what we are talking about and you keep missing the point. extanker said:

*A very large number of those law-abiding Americans will not stay that way when someone comes to take their guns.*

He is suggesting that people will rise up if you COME to take away their guns. He could be right.

But we are not saying anyone will COME and take away their guns.

The "come" is the all important word here. Because that is what will precipitate Americans rising up. And so we would suggest not doing that.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You guys have been equating morality with the law forever.

Meh.

No I haven't, as that is not something I think.

Yes you have, I don't have the patience nor the time to go through years of your post history to get the comment(s) stating civilians should be prohibited from owning firearms.

Of course, they'll be criminals working against the better interests of society. Why are you so soft on crime?

Because I believe in general that when tens of millions of people own or use a product for the purpose of recreation and it results in one hundredth of one percent of the population dying from said product that it is acceptable. Further to the point I don't think it is unacceptable to acknowledge that human life is a necessary cost to be able to enjoy the pleasures of life. If the only acceptable cost to be able to enjoy the pleasures of life is zero then we are all going to live very boring lives.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

President Trump gives Muslims in the USA five years to convert to Christianity or face jail

But he does wish he could do that, as well as have a Muslim registry.

Democrats, those actually in the U.S., have. Repeatedly.

Trump is the one who wants to ban bump stocks. When did Obama place any gun restrictions during his presidency. Also, Nixon wanted a complete gun ban. Also, Reagan introduced gun restrictions when he was CA gov. By the way, Reagan was also weak with immigration since he gave out 3M free green cards.

The Democrats insist that banning inanimate objects, like firearms, will some how stop sociopaths from acting like sociopaths

Should high school students be allowed to carry weapons like adults can (under the age of 18)?

You underestimate Americans and how much they value their freedoms. 

It's so funny these same Americans come over to Japan and have to leave their guns at home...then they still talk about their "freedoms" without any actual gun freedom in this country.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

2020hindsight - The amount of cognitive dissonance in this quote is just astounding. Making possession of something illegal means you are forcing people to surrender or face the penalty of law

You guys have been equating morality with the law forever.

If they are holding illegal guns, they should be put in jail and punished according to the full consequence of the law, as they are criminals by definition.

he has in the past stated that all firearm ownership should be made illegal.

No I haven't, as that is not something I think.

it doesn't matter if you give them a grace period to surrender or not because you are still going to penalize them if they don't surrender it by the end of the grace period if they haven't surrendered.

Of course, they'll be criminals working against the better interests of society. Why are you so soft on crime?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Make them illegal. Many people will voluntarily surrender them.

2020hindsight - The amount of cognitive dissonance in this quote is just astounding. Making possession of something illegal means you are forcing people to surrender or face the penalty of law, it doesn't matter if you give them a grace period to surrender or not because you are still going to penalize them if they don't surrender it by the end of the grace period if they haven't surrendered. The only time handing in guns would be voluntary is if there is no law on the books making possession illegal. To suggest anything else is a lie.

I have been arguing with Strangerland on this issue since at least 2012 and he has in the past stated that all firearm ownership should be made illegal.

If you still want to argue the point then consider this thought: President Trump gives Muslims in the USA five years to convert to Christianity or face jail. Would you say Muslims converting during those five years was voluntary? I sure as hell wouldn't.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

not to come*

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Noliving

So making something illegal is not saying you are going to take it away? Yeah I can't say that I agree with that.

That's because you are not looking at the original quote:

A very large number of those law-abiding Americans will not stay that way when someone comes to take their guns.

He is suggesting that people will rise up if you come to take away their guns. He could be right.

But what Strangerland said was to to come and take away peoples guns he said:

Make them illegal. Many people will voluntarily surrender them.

Have an amnesty for 5 years to give people a chance to change their mind (if they decided not to hand in straight away).

Enforcing the crime of possessing illegal guns.
3 ( +3 / -0 )

The overwhelming majority of Americans are not doing drugs nor using prostitutes. Seems it works pretty well.

You are the only one who claims the drug war has been a success.

Um, ok. let's see below:

If you change the law to make their guns illegal, the law-abiding Americans will turn in their guns.

I didn't say anything about taking people's guns.

So making something illegal is not saying you are going to take it away? Yeah I can't say that I agree with that.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Which must be why Democrats in the U.S. just ...

I'm seeing this childishness as bipartisan. Neither party has done anything adult like in regards to the gun problem.

Democrats, those actually in the U.S., have. Repeatedly.

Sounds like there are a few adults in the ranks.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Strangerland - I didn't say anything about taking people's guns.

Democrats, those actually in the U.S., have. Repeatedly.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Strangerland - And that's the kind of childish thinking which prevents from dealing with the issue like adults - like NZ.

The surest sign it won't work is being unwilling to even try.

Which must be why Democrats in the U.S. just reintroduced their failed 1994 gun ban bill as S. 66. After ten years, the mandated study of the 1994 bill showed that it had no impact on crime. EEK! I guess if at first they didn't succeed, lie, lie again. Remember when Senator Feinstein said, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it." Actual American voters did, and still do, remember. The Democrat Party wants to ban all firearms. They just haven't been able to.

Americans have been debating the gun control/firearms issue since 1968. The Democrats insist that banning inanimate objects, like firearms, will some how stop sociopaths from acting like sociopaths. When that doesn't work, maybe Democrats will ban knives. And then trucks, and cars, and pressure cookers. Eventually they will get around to discussing the real issue of why weren't these monsters stopped BEFORE they committed mass murders.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Strangerland didn't say anything about taking away peoples guns.

.

Yes he did, see the below

Um, ok. let's see below:

If you change the law to make their guns illegal, the law-abiding Americans will turn in their guns.

I didn't say anything about taking people's guns.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You simply cannot apply the same laws to drastically different cultures and expect the same result. It just doesn't work and it's ludicrous to think so.

And that's the kind of childish thinking which prevents from dealing with the issue like adults - like NZ.

The surest sign it won't work is being unwilling to even try.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Strangerland - Didn't work for drugs or prostitution in the USA, why would it work for guns in the USA?

The overwhelming majority of Americans are not doing drugs nor using prostitutes.

Seems it works pretty well.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

extanker

A very large number of those law-abiding Americans will not stay that way when someone comes to take their guns.

Strangerland didn't say anything about taking away peoples guns. In any case, do you have any data to back up this speculation?

Except with the number of firearms in the US, the criminals will have a lot more guns than you believe they do and no one to stop them.

Well there is the police...

You simply cannot apply the same laws to drastically different cultures and expect the same result.

Why not? So far you have mentioned it would be unpopular. That's not a deal breaker.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Well, he had mental issues. But he is only one person, and an single incident does not a fact make.

I was only citing a single example off the top of my head.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duwe-rocque-mass-shootings-mental-illness-20180223-story.html

The overwhelmingly large number of Americans are law-abiding. If you change the law to make their guns illegal, the law-abiding Americans will turn in their guns. Then you leave an open amnesty for five years, while arresting and imprisoning those caught with firearms. The more people holding illegal firearms see others being arrested for it, the more will turn them in.

You underestimate Americans and how much they value their freedoms. A very large number of those law-abiding Americans will not stay that way when someone comes to take their guns. I guarantee you that people being arrested for having guns won't turn out the way you think it will and both sides need to learn to work together to solve this rationally and realistically to avoid this outcome.

Eventually, you do get to a point where only criminals have guns. The same situation we face in most of the planet day to day, without getting shot.

Except with the number of firearms in the US, the criminals will have a lot more guns than you believe they do and no one to stop them.

You simply cannot apply the same laws to drastically different cultures and expect the same result. It just doesn't work and it's ludicrous to think so. Until both sides decide to wake up and talk rationally, nothing will ever change.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The overwhelmingly large number of Americans are law-abiding. If you change the law to make their guns illegal, the law-abiding Americans will turn in their guns. Then you leave an open amnesty for five years, while arresting and imprisoning those caught with firearms. The more people holding illegal firearms see others being arrested for it, the more will turn them in.

Strangerland - Didn't work for drugs or prostitution in the USA, why would it work for guns in the USA? Already we are seeing mass civil disobedience/non-compliance with turning in magazine above a certain capacity in New Jersey, Colorado, California and Connecticut. Same with Assault Weapon Bans. No one is handing them in those states where they are prohibited from ownership.

We are already seeing a push in county sheriffs refusing to enforce such laws as well.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

holy commandments*

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The 2nd 'amendment' is not a holy testament written in stone. It sure can be amended again.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

There seems to be a serious lack of arguments from the Pro gun side shown here.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

This is how a civilized and democratic country should operate.

Well said.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Saying and doing are different things, and the ink isn't dry yet. But I really hope that they can effect real change, and that 'other countries' are watching.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Why can't the US reform its gun laws after all these massacres?

America is held hostage by the rantings and Pavlov dog -inducing lies of the loudmouth Wayne LaPierre of the NRA.

Kudos to the Kiwis if they can pull this off - and set a great example for the rest of the world.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

This is how a civilized and democratic country should operate. NZ has a mass shooting, and within 10 days political parties are coming together to fix the problems with the local gun laws using a proven methodology (gun buy backs, restrictions on certain calibers and categories of firearms). It has worked extremely well in Australia after the Port Arthur Massacre, and the figures back it up.

The US, on the other hand, has similar massacres of innocent men, women and children, and the best it can come up with is feeble stand-down periods.

The Second Amendment is outdated. It enshrines the right to bare arms, not taking into account that weapons technology has progressed exponentially since 1791. At that time you were good if you could reload and aim your flintlock twice a minute and people were more evenly distributes in rural environments where a firearm was a necessary tool.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

So you are telling me that none of these mass shooters were all completely sane?

Say what? You quoted me, then asked if I'd said something that wasn't anything like anything I'd said.

How about Adam Lanza? It's not some 'pro-gunner talking point'. It really is a mental health issue.

Well, he had mental issues. But he is only one person, and an single incident does not a fact make.

Mental issues - very hard to fix. But in addition to his mental issues, he had easy access to firearms. Yet America goes on about mental health issues, and tries to fix it with thoughts and prayers, while completely ignoring the easy access to guns issue.

The thing is, we have 400 million guns in the United States backed up by the second amendment. Reason has to be used and just trying to make those 400 million guns go away, is not using reason. Address the realities of it.

I've addressed this in the past. The above argument is akin to a junkie saying 'I'm already hooked on the drugs, so telling me to quit is not akin to reason'. It's flawed logic.

The overwhelmingly large number of Americans are law-abiding. If you change the law to make their guns illegal, the law-abiding Americans will turn in their guns. Then you leave an open amnesty for five years, while arresting and imprisoning those caught with firearms. The more people holding illegal firearms see others being arrested for it, the more will turn them in.

Eventually, you do get to a point where only criminals have guns. The same situation we face in most of the planet day to day, without getting shot.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The second ammendment is not going anywhere.

Hence my earlier post:

America should be embarrassed seeing how adults act after an incident like this.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

So you are telling me that none of these mass shooters were all completely sane?

Dammit, that's what happens when you're interupted mid sentence. That should read 'So you're telling me that all of these mass shooter were completely sane?'

I can't wait to see how many downvotes correcting my grammar gets! Get to it!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It may or may not be a mental health issue (I've never seen any evidence of this, only pro-gunners pushing this talking point), but it's definitely a firearm issue.

So you are telling me that none of these mass shooters were all completely sane? How about Adam Lanza? It's not some 'pro-gunner talking point'. It really is a mental health issue.

The idea that you would be able to solve the problem by talking only half of it is pretty silly. If you want to solve a problem, you tackle it from all angles. America has this weird idea that they can talk about the mental illness side of it, without actually doing anything, while ignoring the firearm side of it altogether, and somehow this problem is going to solve itself.

The thing is, we have 400 million guns in the United States backed up by the second amendment. Reason has to be used and just trying to make those 400 million guns go away, is not using reason. Address the realities of it. The realities of it is millions of people own guns in America and the vast majority, say 99.99999 percent are not using them to commit crimes. Painting with a broad brush and just saying firearms need to go just will not work in America. Time to come up with a better solution.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The second ammendment is not going anywhere. Con safos.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

As a person who was born and lived half of his life in California, I can assure you they can do the same and obtaining guns is a lot easier given the fact that Mexico lays South and getting guns on the streets given the fact that we have a large gang culture it is a very easy thing to do, if that is what you want.

Hahaha. You just proved the point that gun laws that aren't nationwide are ineffective because you can simply go to a different state and buy firearms.

Doesn't matter really hate is hate and the end result is, innocent people were killed doesn’t matter the affiliation.

Agreed, but this does nothing to rectify you inaccuracy in calling it an Islamic attack.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Your argument doesn't hold water for a couple of reasons:

Actually Chicago doesn't have tough gun laws. It used to, but not now. California has tough gun laws. 

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/some-states-with-strictest-gun-laws-also-have-most-dangerous-cities

One of the top ten states with the most restrictive gun laws in the country is Illinois, where last year there were 650 murders in Chicago alone, according to a USA Today's compilation of crime data.

The problem is Chicago's gun laws are not national laws. So all anyone needs to do is go to a nearby state (Wisconsin and Indiana both have weak gun laws) and get their guns there.

As a person who was born and lived half of his life in California, I can assure you they can do the same and obtaining guns is a lot easier given the fact that Mexico lays South and getting guns on the streets given the fact that we have a large gang culture it is a very easy thing to do, if that is what you want.

This wasn't an Islamic attack, it was a White Supremacist attack.

Doesn't matter really hate is hate and the end result is, innocent people were killed doesn’t matter the affiliation.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Cleo, I know you think you know my country better than I do and believe whatever the media tells you, but if you go to Chicago with some of the toughest gun laws in the country is home to some of the highest gun violence anyway, Texas is nowhere near anything close to that, that’s my point, even when it comes to Islamic attacks, on a scale like you see in Europe and now NZ, that just wouldn’t happen like that in Texas. The blowback from that would be legendary.

2020 handled this nicely.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Because, despite what the people who are terrified of guns want to believe, it is a mental health and cultural issue before it is a firearm issue.

It may or may not be a mental health issue (I've never seen any evidence of this, only pro-gunners pushing this talking point), but it's definitely a firearm issue.

The idea that you would be able to solve the problem by talking only half of it is pretty silly. If you want to solve a problem, you tackle it from all angles. America has this weird idea that they can talk about the mental illness side of it, without actually doing anything, while ignoring the firearm side of it altogether, and somehow this problem is going to solve itself.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

bass4funk

...but if you go to Chicago with some of the toughest gun laws in the country is home to some of the highest gun violence anyway...

Your argument doesn't hold water for a couple of reasons:

Actually Chicago doesn't have tough gun laws. It used to, but not now. California has tough gun laws.

The problem is Chicago's gun laws are not national laws. So all anyone needs to do is go to a nearby state (Wisconsin and Indiana both have weak gun laws) and get their guns there.

...even when it comes to Islamic attacks, on a scale like you see in Europe and now NZ, that just wouldn’t happen like that in Texas.

This wasn't an Islamic attack, it was a White Supremacist attack.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

That’s a good point. On the one hand you have arguments for the most effective method of controlling the wild boar population. On the other hand you have scores of innocent people gunned down by madmen.

It’s really hard to know which we should give more weight to.

In the uk boar hunting cannot be done with semi automatics yet boar hunting can be done without restrictions. Recommend minimum calibre is a .270 although a .308 is preferred. Only bolt action rifles are legal yet it does not seem to restrict hunters.

No one was comparing hunting wild boar to shooting people. This comparison was strictly about the need for semi automatic weapons to hunt some animals.

Wild boar have been declared an invasive species by the USDA causing billions of dollars in damages in the US (and much of the rest of the world) and must be culled by the thousands to prevent massive damage to the environment.

https://blogs.plos.org/ecology/2017/02/01/invasive-wild-pigs-leave-a-swath-of-destruction-across-u-s-and-they-keep-spreading/

In the UK, they were extinct and had to be reintroduced and there's maybe 1000 of them total. You might notice there might be a big difference in methods required to hunt them.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/04/trouble-return-wild-boar-britain

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Boar hunting is a need for these weapons in the USA for example, they are an invasive species and if you don't have have a semi-automatic you will most likely not be able to effective in eradicating them.

That’s a good point. On the one hand you have arguments for the most effective method of controlling the wild boar population. On the other hand you have scores of innocent people gunned down by madmen.

It’s really hard to know which we should give more weight to.

In the uk boar hunting cannot be done with semi automatics yet boar hunting can be done without restrictions. Recommend minimum calibre is a .270 although a .308 is preferred. Only bolt action rifles are legal yet it does not seem to restrict hunters.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

There*

I really wish we could edit the posts.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Why a civilian would need a semi-automatic weapon continues to baffle. If someone is a hunter and needs to rapid-fire multiple rounds to kill whatever animal being hunted, it suggests they're a poor marksman and should not be allowed to own a weapon of any kind to hunt.

The need is their versatility, they are effective for hunting, target shooting, and self defense. Boar hunting is a need for these weapons in the USA for example, they are an invasive species and if you don't have have a semi-automatic you will most likely not be able to effective in eradicating them.

Plus need is not a requirement in order to own and use products for non-malicious reasons. I mean unless you are claiming that wants should be prohibited and the only things people should be allowed to own or use are needs then I just don't see the point of the question of "Why do you need XYZ?"

Finally I personally believe that the amount of people, tens of millions, in the USA who own firearms either for hunting, target shooting, or just on principle self defense, outweigh the 100k people who are killed or injured by guns in the USA. That extends beyond firearms as well. I personally believe that whenever you have tens of millions of people who own a product, purchase a service, etc for non-malicious reasons that it outweighs, 100k people being harmed by it.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Demanding that law-abiding citizens be disarmed only makes the law-abiding defenseless against the "nut jobs", and sociopaths.

And yet somehow the disarmed law abiding citizens in every developed country in the world with strict gun laws are not being gunned down by nut jobs anywhere near as often as the heavily armed law abiding citizens of America are.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

cleo - Didn't stop all those people being attacked and killed by nut jobs.

Yes, it's the "nut jobs" who are the problem. It's the individual "nut jobs" who choose to commit mass murder. The "nut jobs" have used bombs, trucks, car bombs, firearms, poison gas, and anything else they chose. Blaming an inanimate object for the actions of it's user isn't going to stop mass murders. Identifying, and treating, these "nut jobs" BEFORE they become mass murderers is the key to ending mass murders.

Demanding that law-abiding citizens be disarmed only makes the law-abiding defenseless against the "nut jobs", and sociopaths.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

"with a large magazine round." "buy a large round magazine"

Come on, who wrote this nonsense?

@PTownsend

In the US you can buy them online. Sick and wrong. See my link above or https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/category/firearms/rifles/semi-automatic/50-bmg.do

Yes, you can order a gun online, after you pass your background check and have the rifle shipped to a licensed firearm dealer to pick it up.

Come on folks, you can't just click 'buy now' and have a gun shipped to your door. It's not even legal to send a gun in the mail.

@yubaru

As a percentage there seem to be more gun owners in the country than others, yet there seems also to be less gun related crime as well

Because, despite what the people who are terrified of guns want to believe, it is a mental health and cultural issue before it is a firearm issue. I'll be the first one to admit the US has a culture problem that we need to fix. Taking away guns from people who have not committed a crime is not going to do it. Gun owners are being punished for a crime they didn't commit.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

No need to doubt it, you've got the details, Texas, dozens dead.

Cleo, I know you think you know my country better than I do and believe whatever the media tells you, but if you go to Chicago with some of the toughest gun laws in the country is home to some of the highest gun violence anyway, Texas is nowhere near anything close to that, that’s my point, even when it comes to Islamic attacks, on a scale like you see in Europe and now NZ, that just wouldn’t happen like that in Texas. The blowback from that would be legendary.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

I said, usually

No, you didn't. You said:

*in States where there is a huge percentage of gun owners, you *just won’t see incidents like this happening

and when it was pointed out to you that incidents like this do happen with depressing frequency in the US, -

to have a similar attack happen in, let’s say, Texas.....doubt it, the blowback would be legendary

No need to doubt it, you've got the details, Texas, dozens dead. And what 'blowback' was there? The perpetrator was shot at by a bystander as he left the church (when all the victims were already dying or dead) and was able to drive away in a car, crashed after a high-speed chase and died from a self-inflicted shot to the head. No 'good guy with a gun' saved a single life in that church, for all that Texas has no laws regulating gun possession (Funny, autocorrect thought I meant to write obsession....not far out.)

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Read it and weep, Americans!

6 ( +8 / -2 )

The logic of gun laws is flawed, the end result will be only criminals with guns and those criminals comforted by the fact they can kill indiscriminately because they know none of the victims will be armed

Andrew Topolski - this argument is refuted by the evidence:

However, since the gun buy-back in Australia there has only been one mass-shooting, which was 18 months ago when a father shot all his family and himself. This obviously means that stricter gun control laws work.

In Australia, the biggest bonus was a 70% reduction in rural youth suicides in the first year after the buy-back. By contrast, there are around 35,000 gun related deaths in the US every year, 60% of which are suicides.

So are you going to change your mind? Or will you just carry on repeating something that is demonstrably incorrect? Alternatively, will you just use another argument instead, because it is not the weight of evidence that guides you, but rather a deep-rooted faith in guns and the arguments come later.

Bass is more open - he believes in guns and the 2nd amendment, and while he does not want innocent people do be shot, he believes that mass shootings are a price worth paying for gun ownership. Perhaps in the way that we see car accidents as a price worth paying for car ownership. I don't agree with it, but at least it is intellectually honest.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

In the Manifesto, he says: ''I could've used any kind of weapon i wanted, but i am intentionally choosing this one in order to provoke the left-wing in America to push for more anti-gun laws so that the pro-gun people will fight back to protect their rights. I hope this division will cause a civil war in America and lead to the Balkanization of America so that White people can be separated from the invaders''.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Not according to what I have on the the topic. It was about individual states being able to defend their independence from the federal government.

That's true as well. But a main concern was that the defeated british might try to attack, and it was necessary to mobilize a citizens army on the spot if they did. One of the arguments for the second amendment is that an armed citizenry is more resistant to tyranny.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Hardly, nothing will take away our second amendment. 

The only thing that could take it away is an amendment to the amendment!

But I fail to see how the "right to bear arms" gives one the "right to bear any arm you damn well feel like".

And nor do I see how any of US gun culture actually supports a "well-regulated" militia. How does unregulated gun access assist the militia? The "militia" can only be interpreted in today's terms as police and National Guard. How are they helped?

Sorry, the 2nd amendment doesn't even make sense.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

This was a one-off unprecedented event. The same thing happened in Australia twenty odd years ago after the Martin Bryant shooting in Tasmania, which started the gun buy-back from the government. Unfortunately, the criminals will always be able to get guns. Even in this case he bought larger magazines online.

However, since the gun buy-back in Australia there has only been one mass-shooting, which was 18 months ago when a father shot all his family and himself. This obviously means that stricter gun control laws work.

In Australia, the biggest bonus was a 70% reduction in rural youth suicides in the first year after the buy-back. By contrast, there are around 35,000 gun related deaths in the US every year, 60% of which are suicides.

People do not need to own guns. Yes, there are sportspeople and professional hunters, but they do not need semi-automatic military weapons. The argument by the pro-gun lobby in the US of, “I need a gun to protect myself from other people with guns” is completely daft logic.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Very odd logic. Psycho criminal kills with gun, so government response is to restrict guns to regula people who font commit crimes. No actual action taken against criminals who have guns.

This is followed by the equally odd result of no one there to stop the criminal because only criminals would have guns. I'll point out the part of the story left wing media is hiding, it was a law abiding citizen who had a weapon which caused the psycho killer to stop killing people and run away. So thr next time this happens, since gun laws don't affect criminals, the next time there, will be more death because no citizens will have a gun to respond with.

The logic of gun laws is flawed, the end result will be only criminals with guns and those criminals comforted by the fact they can kill indiscriminately because they know none of the victims will be armed.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

How about making it illegal to sell ANY arms internationally? No US or Russian arms sales to ANYWHERE! Would probably bankrupt the US!

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Good to see a country able to make a rational judgement without outdated nonsense which is treated as sacred interfering.

Does NZ have any sick organization equivalent to the NRA to contend with?

Anyway, let’s hope they get as many of these filthy devices out of circulation as possible.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

I think the Prime Minister of New Zealand is punishing the wrong people! Many New Zealanders were gun owners but rarely any gun shootings in New Zealand! Not even bank robbery in that country! Some New Zealanders were quite nasty but at most they could control their anger instead of using guns to assault others! This man who took 49 lives is an Australian and his motive of actions is still unclear! It is too rush to ban guns in New Zealand. This is my humble opinion.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

how about gun control AND cultural diversity classes/programmes for ALL. Regardless race, religion, sexual orientation etc. All these started with fear, and hate and guns, knives, cars, trucks, poisons, are just tools to execute the hatred.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

No bass, not hardly, that's the wrong word. You mean exactly. It's your stupid second amendment and merkans' stupid defence of it (1862 all over again?) that exactly illustrates Stranger's point. You're embarrassing yourself, and the fact that you don't realise that is even more embarrassing.

Sorry, I didn’t embarrass myself, would never happen, I’m just telling the truth, I feel terrible for the people of NZ, but I don’t live in that country and I don’t know their politics, but as an American and hunter I’m proud of our second amendment and would fight to preserve and uphold it.

You're a journalist, don't you ever read the news?

Yes, but apparently, most haters of the 2nd amendment have not studied or refuse to learn anything about, they see everything from a one-sided perspective.

The Sutherland Springs Church shooting was very similar to the NZ incident, with a church in place of a mosque. 27 dead, 20 more injured. The fifth-deadliest mass shooting in the US, the deadliest in Texas.

To which the Great Orange One commented, 'this isn't a guns situation'.

I said, usually

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Hardly, nothing will take away our second amendment. I would like to see them try and then we would have another 1862 all over again.

No bass, not hardly, that's the wrong word. You mean exactly. It's your stupid second amendment and merkans' stupid defence of it (1862 all over again?) that exactly illustrates Stranger's point. You're embarrassing yourself, and the fact that you don't realise that is even more embarrassing.

to have a similar attack happen in, let’s say, Texas.....doubt it

You're a journalist (supposedly) - don't you ever read the news?

The Sutherland Springs Church shooting was very similar to the NZ incident, with a church in place of a mosque. 27 dead, 20 more injured. The fifth-deadliest mass shooting in the US, the deadliest in Texas.

To which the Great Orange One commented, 'this isn't a guns situation'.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Hardly, nothing will take away our second amendment. I would like to see them try and then we would have another 1862 all over again.

What happened in 1862? The American Civil War kicked off in 1861.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/brief-overview-american-civil-war

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Even though you didn’t do it on purpose, thanks for proving my point.

Hardly, nothing will take away our second amendment. I would like to see them try and then we would have another 1862 all over again.

it's easy to buy weapons of all varieties that gun sellers will sell them just about whatever they want, and the government can do little to stop the sales.

They can, but to have a similar attack happen in, let’s say, Texas.....doubt it, the blowback would be legendary.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

*where there is a huge percentage of gun owners, you just won’t see incidents like this happening whereas in States where they have stricter gun laws are more prone to being attacked nut jobs like this man.*

Any evidence at all to back up this naked assertion?

Plenty of evidence to the contrary.

The only way you just won't see incidents like this (mass shootings) in the US is by point-blank refusing to look.

2017 Las Vegas (Nevada): 58 dead

2016 Orlando nightclub (Florida) : 49 dead

2007 Virginia Tech (Virginia) : 32 dead

2012 Sandy Hook (Connecticut): 27 dead

2017 Sutherland Springs church (Texas): 27 dead

As far as I can tell none of those states have particularly strict gun laws (Texas, Florida etc., appear to have totally insane gun laws, aka a free-for-all). Didn't stop all those people being attacked and killed by nut jobs.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

@bass many of these crazy terrorists know in States where

it's easy to buy weapons of all varieties that gun sellers will sell them just about whatever they want, and the government can do little to stop the sales.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

*I don't mind firearms being outlawed in Japan, but *make pepper spray and tazers available.

Firearms aren't outlawed in Japan. Cursory research helps to not be incorrect.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Hmmmm....I beg to differ, that’s NZ, they don’t have a second amendment and I understand and respect their laws, I’m proud we have ours and regardless of what anyone thinks, it’s not going away and many of these crazy terrorists know in States where there is a huge percentage of gun owners, you just won’t see incidents like this happening whereas in States where they have stricter gun laws are more prone to being attacked nut jobs like this man.

Any evidence at all to back up this naked assertion?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Yes. And people buying them up quickly.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/111343558/panic-buying-of-guns-ahead-of-ban-sparked-by-christchurch-shooting

Thanks for the link RM, hadn't heard about that! Would be interesting to know what truly motivates this 'panic buying', who's buying etc. Is it a 'last chance to buy' sort of thing or simply (understandably) scared/paranoid ppl thinking things may get worse/self-protection etc?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

America should be embarrassed seeing how adults act after an incident like this.

.

Hmmmm....I beg to differ, that’s NZ, they don’t have a second amendment and I understand and respect their laws, I’m proud we have ours and regardless of what anyone thinks, it’s not going away and many of these crazy terrorists know in States where there is a huge percentage of gun owners, you just won’t see incidents like this happening whereas in States where they have stricter gun laws are more prone to being attacked nut jobs like this man.

Even though you didn’t do it on purpose, thanks for proving my point.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Well, NZ will do what they need to do and do what’s best for their country. Good on them.

America should be embarrassed seeing how adults act after an incident like this.

Hmmmm....I beg to differ, that’s NZ, they don’t have a second amendment and I understand and respect their laws, I’m proud we have ours and regardless of what anyone thinks, it’s not going away and many of these crazy terrorists know in States where there is a huge percentage of gun owners, you just won’t see incidents like this happening whereas in States where they have stricter gun laws are more prone to being attacked nut jobs like this man.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

A .50cal semi-automatic sniper rifle is meant for military purposes

I fully agree. Outlawing civilian possession of them should be included in any gun reform program.

In the US you can buy them online. Sick and wrong. See my link above or https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/category/firearms/rifles/semi-automatic/50-bmg.do

it’s size, weight and heavy recoil would make it impractical for mass shootings or hunting.

Mount one on the bed of a Ford F-150, pack it into a hotel, a high rise apartment, put one on your boat, in a plane - so many possibilities.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I don't mind firearms being outlawed in Japan, but make pepper spray and tazers available.

Or even better, don’t.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Ah_so

I have read news reports that gun owners are voluntarily handing over their weapons ahead of this law.

Yes. And people buying them up quickly.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/111343558/panic-buying-of-guns-ahead-of-ban-sparked-by-christchurch-shooting

Larger than a goat? Like a human?

Sure. And wolves (not in NZ of course), boars, large dogs? Not sure myself, hence the question mark.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Just like drugs, if someone really wants something that's outlawed, like an outlawed firearm, they will find a way to get one (or three or ten). I don't mind firearms being outlawed in Japan, but make pepper spray and tazers available. In the case of the US, the genie is out of the bottle. Americans who have assault rifles are not going to give them up, no matter what laws are on the books. If you don't like people having guns, don't live in the US. It's a high-risk / high-reward nation. Leave that land to those that choose to run with the Devil.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Take note America. It just takes common sense and some guts to change things when they need to be changed. Better late than never as it can only result in fewer senseless deaths.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Except those that aren't. I see lots larger caliber than that, including semi-automatic .50 caliber.

A .50cal semi-automatic sniper rifle is meant for military purposes, and it’s size, weight and heavy recoil would make it impractical for mass shootings or hunting.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

New Zealand, a country of only 5 million people, has an estimated 1.5 million firearms. The minimum age for a gun license is 16, and 18 to own a semi-automatic weapon.

As a percentage there seem to be more gun owners in the country than others, yet there seems also to be less gun related crime as well, and I would like to hope that this was an isolated incident!

I wonder why there is less gun related crime there as a whole?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

See, this is how governments SHOULD work. Not the b---ing and moaning that we have had from the GOP about how we can NOT do anything but THOUGHTS and PRAYERS FOLKS! Amazing, how we can make sweeping changes in truck safety after one fatal crash, but from the 1960s to the present, there have been a MILLION GUN deaths, in the US. Conservative response: SO WHAT? We can have 10 million people die from guns in the next YEAR, but these conservatives want to have their TOYS. So, too bad! America is a sick, sick, sick place.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

Most semi-automatic rifles are chambered for NATO 5.56, .22LR or smaller calibers

Except those that aren't. I see lots larger caliber than that, including semi-automatic .50 caliber.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting

A poor shot firing a semi-automatic .50 caliber?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Great for vermin control, but sometimes lack the power and range to take down anything larger than a goat with one shot.

Larger than a goat? Like a human?

Hard to understand why anyone would need a large calibre semi-automatic.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

It just seems a shame that countries wait for a massacre before doing something.

I have read news reports that gun owners are voluntarily handing over their weapons ahead of this law.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

America should be embarrassed seeing how adults act after an incident like this.

19 ( +23 / -4 )

If someone is a hunter and needs to rapid-fire multiple rounds to kill whatever animal being hunted, it suggests they're a poor marksman and should not be allowed to own a weapon of any kind to hunt.

Most semi-automatic rifles are chambered for NATO 5.56, .22LR or smaller calibers. Great for vermin control, but sometimes lack the power and range to take down anything larger than a goat with one shot. Semi-automatic firing also more efficient when shooting multiple targets in succession, ie; rats, groundhogs, etc...

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

I've read the white national terrorist had his weapons modified to fire semi-automatic.

From what I've read, he modified his rifles to fire fully automatic; they were already semiautomatic when he purchased them. He also added high capacity magazines. It has always amazed me that they never did anything about the high capacity magazine loophole. In part, it was because the firearm laws were last changed 30 years ago, and so complacency had crept in. When I did my NZ firearm's license, I though the process was quite well thought out, but already then I thought it needed upgrading to keep it current. After I got my license and started seeing all the loopholes, I was shocked that they weren't doing anything about it.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

10 days. Impressive. It can be done if there is the will.

15 ( +16 / -1 )

 and 18 to own a semi-automatic weapon.

Why a civilian would need a semi-automatic weapon continues to baffle. If someone is a hunter and needs to rapid-fire multiple rounds to kill whatever animal being hunted, it suggests they're a poor marksman and should not be allowed to own a weapon of any kind to hunt.

I've read the white national terrorist had his weapons modified to fire semi-automatic.

If the gun laws are revised, hopefully semi-automatics will be banned, and anyone converting a weapon to semi-automatic severely punished.

If New Zealand tightens gun laws, good on them.

14 ( +18 / -4 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites