But....New Zealand banned guns...and felt morally superior....now their hospitals are filled with gun shot victims? Say What?

[M14 Shooter]

Rate of Gun murders in the US > 5x rate of gun murders in New Zealand

The US non-gun murder rate (2.27/100k) is 3x that of New Zealand's total murder rate (0.74/100k)
What does this prove?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rights carry responsibility

True.

Of course, government cannot compel responsibility; indeed, the purpose of regulatory policy is to act as a countermeasure to the propensity of individuals for irresponsible actions.

And that the Supreme Court will strike down Federal regulatory measures intended to address gun crime and violence doesn’t mean citizens are helpless to do anything about that crime and violence.

 

[2aguy]

Rate of Gun murders in the US > 5x rate of gun murders in New Zealand

math is hard for gun porn consumers Derp Derp Derp

Has nothing to do with access to guns.......New Zealand a tiny Isand, has a tiny population, homogenous.......the U.S. shares a border with the narco state of Mexico, and our social welfare programs have destroyed the black families in Americ, where we now have 75% of black children born out of wedlock.....that and democrat party policies create our gun crime...not guns...

The democrats in the U.S.

1). attack and handicap our police forces

2) keep releasing known, violent offenders, gun offenders in particular...who do almost all of the criminal shootings in this country......

And the criminals in New Zealand are no different...they have access to the guns they want and need.

 

[2aguy]

Rate of Gun murders in the US > 5x rate of gun murders in New Zealand

math is hard for gun porn consumers Derp Derp Derp

You have to then explain why as more Americans bought and over 19.4 million carried guns in the US.....our gun murder rate went down 49%...our gun crime rate went down 75%...you have to explain that....

Over the last 27 years, up to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


This means that access to guns does not create gun crime........

Why do our democrat party controlled cities have gun crime problems?

1) the democrat party keeps releasing violent gun offenders...they have created a revolving door for criminals who use guns, and will release even the most serious gun offenders over and over again....why? Probably because they realise that normal people don't use their guns for crime, so if they want to push gun control, they need criminals to shoot people.....so they keep releasing them....

2) The democrat party keeps attacking the police.....driving the officers into not doing pro-active policing, cutting detective forces so that murders go unsolved..........

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, you're lying again...all for your fetish.

The OP is advancing these ridiculous lies out of an unwarranted, meritless fear that a ‘new’ Federal AWB will be enacted.

There will be no such ‘ban’ – there is no political will to do so in Congress and the Supreme Court would strike down a ‘new’ AWB.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No. It isn’t. Our gun culture wants almost nothing hindering a person from obtaining a gun. Not a training requirement, not a background check, not even felony status or raising the minimum age (you can buy a gun but you can’t vote, drink or smoke or get a decent rate on auto insurance).

Correct – it’s not a lie.

We see proof of this in scores of threads on this very forum – conservatives’ disdain and opposition to the Heller Court’s reaffirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

The right’s unwarranted hostility to necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

Conservatives who advance the lie that the Second Amendment ‘entitles’ private individuals to possess the same weapons as the military.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

New Zealand banned guns

This is a lie.

New Zealand did not ‘ban’ guns.

 

[westwall]

What a moron you are

Facts are facts. Funny how you are the moron who can't refute them, and no surprise, your little pseudo intellectual ball washer chimes in.

 

[daveman]

That kind of argument always comes. But what about criminals…well, what ABOUT criminals?

They are still going to murder.
They are still going to assault.
They are still going to rape.
They are still going to scam.
They still going to whizz in the public fountains.

Indeed. Meanwhile, gun control laws only have the effect of reducing or eliminating people's right to self-defense with firearms against those criminals who don't obey gun laws.

Why do you want people defenseless against criminals?

 

[daveman]

The US non-gun murder rate (2.27/100k) is 3x that of New Zealand's total murder rate (0.74/100k)
What does this prove?

 

[westwall]

Why not make it FREE for EVERYONE then? Just like contraception should be. If people took gun ownership seriously, maybe there would be fewer accidental shootings. I was very intrigued by something NewsVine_Mariyam posted in another thread, on what she had to learn in order to get a conceal carry permit. As a right, this one carries far more responsibility and consequences than any other and should be treated accordingly.

Rights that have requirements to enjoy them, are not RIGHTS.

How about this, anyone who successfully passes a rigorous training regime is protected 100% from prosecution if they shoot someone in self defense. No prosecution like the asshole DA tried with Rittenhouse, plus no civil litigation is allowed.

How about that?

 

[westwall]

Or maybe because it is considered the 9th happiest country.

3.4 million people. 1 million work. It's easy to be happy when you are on the dole.

 

[daveman]

Correct – it’s not a lie.

We see proof of this in scores of threads on this very forum – conservatives’ disdain and opposition to the Heller Court’s reaffirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

The right’s unwarranted hostility to necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

Conservatives who advance the lie that the Second Amendment ‘entitles’ private individuals to possess the same weapons as the military.

The AR-15, a common target for irrational leftist fear and hatred, is not a military weapon and never has been.

Yet the left continually lies about it, saying it's a "weapon of war".

It isn't. Never has been. Never will be. And is used in less than 3% of all homicides.

Steak knives are used in over 5 times the number of homicides as rifles as a whole.

But nobody's talking about banning steak knives, are they?

Do you know why?

It's because nobody ever defended their freedom against leftist tyranny with steak knives.

 

[westwall]

I would say, having a car licence reduces incidents, having food hygiene regulations reduces food poisoning, having regulations with guns reduces gun incidents. In all three cases, people still die/injured from car accidents, people still die or suffer from salmonella, and people still die or injured from guns. In all three cases above, the regulations in each one reduces the deaths and injuries. Criminals still use cars, criminals sell spirits containing anti freeze, and criminals still use firearms. But it all three cases in most countries, it doesn't mean they want to get rid of driving test, food hygiene regulations, and firearm regulations.

You experienced crime rate in the U.S. at about 47.70 per 100,000 people. That's 0.0477%, yet you guys make out you're overwhelmed with criminals and guns. And the worse part for gun nuts, that's crime rate, not all crime involves a gun. So criminals with guns just does not wash, whatsoFUCKINGever, and apparently you're educated.

You compare the US which has a criminal population in ONE city (Chicago) that is equal to half the population of your second largest city. That city doesn't prosecute criminals. There are dozens of cases where murderers have been set free on bail, who then, sometimes within hours, go out and kill someone else.

So, is it a gun problem, or a progressive "keep sending the violent criminals out into society to do more violence" problem?

 

[westwall]

That kind of argument always comes. But what about criminals…well, what ABOUT criminals?

They are still going to murder.
They are still going to assault.
They are still going to rape.
They are still going to scam.
They still going to whizz in the public fountains.

Ok, so how do you put the genie back in the bottle? You have now admitted that criminals do horrible things. Good people don't. Good people DON'T go murder, rape, rob, and riot. Yet you wish to punish good people for the crimes of the few.

That make any sort of sense to you?

And if it does, why?

 

[westwall]

The thread premise is a lie.

No one has claimed that a given firearm regulatory measure will stop all gun crime and violence.

That is the most common reason given by the progressive left for gun bans.

Don't be even more stupid than you provably are.

 

[Coyote]

Ok, so how do you put the genie back in the bottle? You have now admitted that criminals do horrible things. Good people don't. Good people DON'T go murder, rape, rob, and riot. Yet you wish to punish good people for the crimes of the few.

That make any sort of sense to you?

And if it does, why?

Our laws act in two ways: pro-active (as in reducing the factors that might lead crime or loss of life), reactive (punitive, punishing tbe actual crime)…right?

As such for any crime we layers of rules and laws designed to prevent it and layers of rules and laws designed to enforce consequences once a crime is committed OR an accidental loss of life or injury occurs that may not be a crime.

So let’s take driving for example. On the preventive side we have:

Age limits
License
A test of skill and knowledge in order to get a license.
A vision exam

All that before can even legally drive.

Then, there are laws that govern the vehicle which the driver needs to follow:
Regular safety inspections
Requiring insurance
working head and tail lights

And more yet for the driver:
seatbelts and car seats
no texting and driving
no driving while impaired
Setting speed limits

All of the above on the preventive side, and applies to all drivers good or bad.

Once something has happened, other laws takes effect.

Are good drivers being punished?

 

[Coyote]

You compare the US which has a criminal population in ONE city (Chicago) that is equal to half the population of your second largest city. That city doesn't prosecute criminals. There are dozens of cases where murderers have been set free on bail, who then, sometimes within hours, go out and kill someone else.

So, is it a gun problem, or a progressive "keep sending the violent criminals out into society to do more violence" problem?

If you look at gun deaths, the state with the highest number is Alaska 23). The state with the lowest is MA (3.4).

If you look at the map at this link most of the states with high gun deaths are not progressive states but deep red.

Gun Deaths by State 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

 

[westwall]

Our laws act in two ways: pro-active (as in reducing the factors that might lead crime or loss of life), reactive (punitive, punishing tbe actual crime)…right?

As such for any crime we layers of rules and laws designed to prevent it and layers of rules and laws designed to enforce consequences once a crime is committed OR an accidental loss of life or injury occurs that may not be a crime.

So let’s take driving for example. On the preventive side we have:

Age limits
License
A test of skill and knowledge in order to get a license.
A vision exam

All that before can even legally drive.

Then, there are laws that govern the vehicle which the driver needs to follow:
Regular safety inspections
Requiring insurance
working head and tail lights

And more yet for the driver:
seatbelts and car seats
no texting and driving
no driving while impaired
Setting speed limits

All of the above on the preventive side, and applies to all drivers good or bad.

Once something has happened, other laws takes effect.

Are good drivers being punished?

A firearm is inert until someone pulls the trigger. I have rifles that are 200 years old that have never hurt a fly.

Cars, on the other hand, are not inert. They are mobile objects, and, based on accident data, far more dangerous than firearms. Under 120 million cars kill 30,000 per year. 300 million plus, firearms murder under 10,000. The rest of the gun deaths are suicides.

Idiots love to claim that taking guns away will prevent suicides but real world data proves that to be untrue.

 

[westwall]

If you look at gun deaths, the state with the highest number is Alaska 23). The state with the lowest is MA (3.4).

If you look at the map at this link most of the states with high gun deaths are not progressive states but deep red.

Gun Deaths by State 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

Yeah, 60% are suicides. That's why the gun death rate is so high in Alaska. Winter is depressing. Look at Scandanavian suicide rates, even higher.

WITH GUN CONTROL.