New Zealand's Wacky PM bans sale of semi-automatic rifles, institutes mandatory buyback program

hunarcy

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
6,928
Reaction score
1,087
Points
255
Those aren't arms.

The police should be no better armed than the populace.
But they still have them….. “if we don’t need them, the police don’t need them” doesn’t apply then….right?
No what applies is that you will never get rid of them 100%, so the police need weapons to counter them. and if the police need them, then the lawful citizenry needs them.

Its amazing how little you trust your fellow citizens and how eager you are to suck the dicks of the government.
Well, you don't need an AR-type weapon with 30 bullet cartridges to protect yourself. Not all guns were banned. Read the post that outlines the changes.
What does outlawing an "AR-type weapon" do when you allow more powerful weapons to continue to be available to the general population? Why is an "AR-type weapon" so much more intrinsically bad or dangerous than a .308? And, how is one 30 round magazine worse than four 10 round magazines?
Did you read the post that actually shows the guns being outlawed? Perhaps more powerful weapons don't take large cartridges? I wouldn't know.
Yes, I did. And, I think it's just knee jerk reactionism that will actually accomplish nothing. However, it's not our nation, so I don't suppose it matters to me.
 

hunarcy

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
6,928
Reaction score
1,087
Points
255
This isn't necessarily a knee-jerk reaction.

In 1996, Australia had it's anti gun legislation written up years ahead of Port Arthur shooting that allowed the parliament to ram it through with no opposition.

New Zealand would have had this legislation prepared well ahead of time in order to trot it out in response to an appropriate tragedy.

This legislation did not come about in a vacuum. They are using all the same buzz words used by anti gun groups globally. High capacity, military-style, assault rifles.

Interesting side note, this isn't legislation in the common meaning of the term.

NZ Parliament didn't vote on this, it is an edict from their Cabinet.
But all parties have come out in support of it.

A second tranche of measures is being introduced next week.

including issues such as licensing, registration, and storage.

The country will be a lot safer for this.
Not true. But, who can expect a troll to acknowledge the truth?
Why dont you produce a list of countries ranked by gun deaths. And then show me the ones who have gun control.
Why don't YOU explain how "licensing, registration and storage would have stopped the New Zealand attack or any of the mass shootings in the United States, trollboy? You're the one that claimed those things would make New Zealand safer.
 

hunarcy

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
6,928
Reaction score
1,087
Points
255
Those aren't arms.

The police should be no better armed than the populace.
But they still have them….. “if we don’t need them, the police don’t need them” doesn’t apply then….right?
No what applies is that you will never get rid of them 100%, so the police need weapons to counter them. and if the police need them, then the lawful citizenry needs them.

Its amazing how little you trust your fellow citizens and how eager you are to suck the dicks of the government.
Well, you don't need an AR-type weapon with 30 bullet cartridges to protect yourself. Not all guns were banned. Read the post that outlines the changes.
What does outlawing an "AR-type weapon" do when you allow more powerful weapons to continue to be available to the general population? Why is an "AR-type weapon" so much more intrinsically bad or dangerous than a .308? And, how is one 30 round magazine worse than four 10 round magazines?
You have to break off your attack, switch out the empty magazine, then re-acquire your target.
LOL! Or, you switch out the magazine and acquire a new target. In the Luby's massacre in Killeen Texas back in 1991, the shooter reloaded at least three times before police arrived. Having to switch magazines didn't save any of the 23 people killed or 27 wounded that day.

A Texas Massacre
 

hunarcy

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
6,928
Reaction score
1,087
Points
255
No what applies is that you will never get rid of them 100%, so the police need weapons to counter them. and if the police need them, then the lawful citizenry needs them.

Its amazing how little you trust your fellow citizens and how eager you are to suck the dicks of the government.
Well, you don't need an AR-type weapon with 30 bullet cartridges to protect yourself. Not all guns were banned. Read the post that outlines the changes.
What does outlawing an "AR-type weapon" do when you allow more powerful weapons to continue to be available to the general population? Why is an "AR-type weapon" so much more intrinsically bad or dangerous than a .308? And, how is one 30 round magazine worse than four 10 round magazines?
You have to break off your attack, switch out the empty magazine, then re-acquire your target.
You can stay on target when doing a mag change.
Most cannot. Especially if you’re being fired at while doing it.

Anyway, a criminal with a bag full of revolvers can do just was much damage as someone with an AR-15, especially in a gun free zone that Liberals have created. They should just call them designated victim zones. Morons.
Possibly true.

But still, while you’re reloading or reaching into the bag of revolvers…YOU’RE NOT SHOOTING ANYONE!!!!

Let me guess…we’re now going to have a discussion about how the bag of revolvers will mount themselves into the hands of the assailant…

I swear…the mentality of the 9/11 truthers and the gun nuts on this board are almost just alike.
"most cannot."

Not true. Sorry.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
62,714
Reaction score
8,663
Points
2,030
But they still have them….. “if we don’t need them, the police don’t need them” doesn’t apply then….right?
No what applies is that you will never get rid of them 100%, so the police need weapons to counter them. and if the police need them, then the lawful citizenry needs them.

Its amazing how little you trust your fellow citizens and how eager you are to suck the dicks of the government.
Well, you don't need an AR-type weapon with 30 bullet cartridges to protect yourself. Not all guns were banned. Read the post that outlines the changes.
What does outlawing an "AR-type weapon" do when you allow more powerful weapons to continue to be available to the general population? Why is an "AR-type weapon" so much more intrinsically bad or dangerous than a .308? And, how is one 30 round magazine worse than four 10 round magazines?
You have to break off your attack, switch out the empty magazine, then re-acquire your target.
LOL! Or, you switch out the magazine and acquire a new target. In the Luby's massacre in Killeen Texas back in 1991, the shooter reloaded at least three times before police arrived. Having to switch magazines didn't save any of the 23 people killed or 27 wounded that day.

A Texas Massacre
Perhaps it meant 23 was not 30?

Less time shooting is better than more time shooting....agreed?
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
62,714
Reaction score
8,663
Points
2,030
Well, you don't need an AR-type weapon with 30 bullet cartridges to protect yourself. Not all guns were banned. Read the post that outlines the changes.
What does outlawing an "AR-type weapon" do when you allow more powerful weapons to continue to be available to the general population? Why is an "AR-type weapon" so much more intrinsically bad or dangerous than a .308? And, how is one 30 round magazine worse than four 10 round magazines?
You have to break off your attack, switch out the empty magazine, then re-acquire your target.
You can stay on target when doing a mag change.
Most cannot. Especially if you’re being fired at while doing it.

Anyway, a criminal with a bag full of revolvers can do just was much damage as someone with an AR-15, especially in a gun free zone that Liberals have created. They should just call them designated victim zones. Morons.
Possibly true.

But still, while you’re reloading or reaching into the bag of revolvers…YOU’RE NOT SHOOTING ANYONE!!!!

Let me guess…we’re now going to have a discussion about how the bag of revolvers will mount themselves into the hands of the assailant…

I swear…the mentality of the 9/11 truthers and the gun nuts on this board are almost just alike.
"most cannot."

Not true. Sorry.
Ridiculous
 

cnm

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2013
Messages
31,434
Reaction score
12,657
Points
2,905
Location
Aotearoa
New Zealand's Wacky PM bans sale of semi-automatic rifles, institutes mandatory buyback program
No, the government of New Zealand did that.
 

cnm

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2013
Messages
31,434
Reaction score
12,657
Points
2,905
Location
Aotearoa
We just disarmed the 99.99% of the law abiding public for the actions of the 0.01% who don't obey laws anyway, making it easier not harder for the next crackpot to go on a killing spree.
How is banning military style semi automatics disarming 99.99% of the law abiding public? It would be the other way around.

Still, US gun freaks, if there's a lobbyist supplied talking point, they'll spout it.
 

cnm

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2013
Messages
31,434
Reaction score
12,657
Points
2,905
Location
Aotearoa
But, it does seem "kneejerk" to disarm people who broke no laws because ONE person (a foreigner at that) behaved in a horrible way that was already illegal.
People are not being disarmed. Paranoid talking points show how the gun lobby dominates the US. A category of weapon has been proscribed. We still have others.
 

cnm

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2013
Messages
31,434
Reaction score
12,657
Points
2,905
Location
Aotearoa
Weakness never works. Thats why your kenyan messiah was such a failure.
Hoho, accepting the regular massacre of school children as the price of easy access to handguns and assault style rifles is strength, right?

Hilarity.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top