• New Zealand Gun Law Reformation Passes First Reading, 119 to 1
    68 replies, posted
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/386167/mps-debate-new-gun-laws-nzers-want-this-change
What a load of crock. It's basically a case of, "hand them in or else" and anyone who refuses is immediately labeled a criminal for not wanting to take part in some asinine confiscation.
Meanwhile nothing will ever be done about the rise of fascism, which was the real and only cause of the Christchurch mosque shooting
Parliaments can pass several different laws. Just because they do this doesn't mean they won't pass new hate speech laws as well.
I've read the bill. It's a shitshow. Very knee jerk and only gives two days for comments.
Curbing the means to make mass killings is a good thing. Tackling the root cause of this aka facism and mental illness is an indirect process that is hard for a government to manage, and will never happen, gun control is the easy way out.
We should ban fascism.
this but unironically
What does that even mean?
While "fascism" is a but nebulous, I think that white nationalism and far right radicalism now deserves the same level of security scrutiny that Islamic extremism was receiving in the early 2000's. Some of the largest mass shootings in the last few years have been orchestrated by white nationalists or far-right extremists radicalized by disinformation and racism present online.
Good luck banning every household products to create bombs, and cars with modifications to make them more effective at running people over as well. Banning any amount of guns won't stop a mass murderer from doing their bidding, it just forces them to use methods less directly trackable and a bit more creative in execution. It's why people say solve the root cause, because you'll still get nut jobs trying to kill people even if you ban 100% of all guns.
Didn't a New Zealand dude kill himself because the Police labeled him as a criminal and he didn't want to go to jail for life all cause someone reported to police he held a gun in his facebook photo? I think this shit is going way out of hand, banning semi-auto rifles out right 6 days after a mass shooting is little rash.
Hooray for reactive, knee-jerk, ineffectual legislation that punishes the innocent while doing nothing to prevent another attack?
I know moderator ban questioning is grounds for a ban itself, but I can't understand how this was "Very poor taste" when all he said was he read the bill, disagreed with it and listed a reason. Is it because of the NZ shooters part?
that was why, yah, it is in very poor taste to say they should up their game.
That's not exactly what happened, no. He didn't actually risk being jailed at all if the weapon he owned was legal prior to new NZ gun laws. The way the police intervened is discutable but he couldn't have been charged if he was following the law. The grace period was in effect, so recent events couldn't have lead to him being imprisoned for something that was previously legal to do.
So not just a ban on AR-15's or standard capacity mags, but nearly all semi-automatic firearms and components? That seems a bit heavy handed to say the least: https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/1383/919de733-b4c3-4541-94eb-4c04cf1f8ff2/image.png https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/1383/228dbc21-8c37-44da-96f3-528e5ec5ef64/image.png
Of course they did. Said literally no one when talking about New Zealanders. Well you’re not wrong... it’s certainly not stopping them from attempting to pass ARTICLE 13 ON STEROIDS or attempting to jail every individual trying to look at the manifesto. This isn’t even a matter of just guns anymore, Choose one. Nothing says “public safety” like criminalizing an entire demographic of people based upon what they previously owned legally, while greatly increasing the likelihood of standoffs with law enforcement when people inevitably choose not to comply. If the last one was any indication, this will not end well for everyone involved. Also banning a subset of firearms which aren’t used in the vast majority of gun violence to begin with doesn’t “curb the means to make mass shootings” by any real measurement. Columbine was done with a double barreled shotgun, a compliant pistol chambered carbine with low capacity magazines, and an illegal Tec 9 handgun which was already specifically banned by name at the time. You know, like how the New Zealand shooter’s rifle was already in an illegal configuration before this whole situation? Banning certain guns based on their features because “it’s harder for people to make bombs successfully” is the most ignorant thing I’ve heard so far, next to making an ironic shitpost about 2nd amendment arguments in a country where it doesn’t apply. Banning features on firearms doesn’t stop unqualified people from getting guns, and the person who committed this terror attack modified their legally acquired weapon into an illegal configuration. Nothing would have changed.
Can a non-automatic weapon be modified to be semi-auto? Otherwise yeah I don't see how half-measures can change things in a significant way. Sounds like the worst of both worlds.
Can a non-semi-automatic weapon be modified to semi-auto? Short answer, no. Sure, with a proper amount of work, a shovel can become an AK. It's not really realistic though because the actions are completely different. You'd essentially just be building a gun from scratch. Someone with proper gunsmithing experience can give you a better explanation though.
Yes, that is how laws work. I don't understand why some people seem to think that laws about guns aren't real.
And it's bullshit. Why should someone be forced to hand in something for actions they did not commit?
Yes. See: The Huot Rifle and the Charlton Automatic Rifle, both of which are full-auto conversions of the bolt-action Lee Enfield.
Semi-autos are non-automatic What are you even talking about your post makes no sense
Most laws at least have a grandfather clause in them and aren’t ex post facto (aka retroactive punishment).
Again, it was in poor taste for him to say people in New Zealand who are legally licensed gun owners (IE: Shooters) should up their game, which obviously (at least to me) meant exercising their legal rights to push forth legislation that would actually tackle the issue instead of knee-jerk ban guns because a shit head got through the already purposefully designed system meant to weed out the people like himself, which failed because of authoritative inaction.
It's more foolproof yeah, as it's a device made specifically to kill, but if someone wants to kill, they're going to kill. And do you expect barriers to line the sidewalks of every streets? And banning guns doesn't really do anything when someone can just kinda make a gun with stuff you can buy anywhere. Guns aren't exactly the hardest thing to make, you just need to know how they function and get the right materials/tools.
You make it sound like making a gun is as easy as making a cup of coffee.
It is. You can literally build a firearm within five minutes with two pipes and a nail.
No, your bias against my argument makes you perceive it that way. It's no easy feat and you need to learn how to do so, but it's definitely possible within the timeframe of a month. You gotta consider how much time and effort that someone who TRUELY wants to kill will go to do so. The christchurch shooter had 2 entire years to plan this out. You really think he couldn't have made guns in that time period to do the same? Do you seriously think banning any of the guns he had would've stopped what he did? God no, he would've just found another way. He had years to plan this, and most people who do this kind of thing don't just grab a gun and do it on a whim. And the people who do? You can take measures to prevent those without banning all guns.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.