Those crazy New Zealanders....whatever happened to thoughts and prayers?

[Bird222]

I doubt we will ever be able to stop gun violence. The goal is to limit how much damage a person can do before we can stop them, and do so within the framework of our constitution since it is unlikely to change.

I thought the goal was to limit the damage done in the country as a whole. If so, start with banning handguns.

 

[brycejones]

I thought the goal was to limit the damage done in the country as a whole. If so, start with banning handguns.

I am ok with this ban semi automatics but allow revolvers. (I have no doubt that somehow I have screwed up some gun definiton here so I will now be chastised for it by a gun nutter).

 

[Jhhnn]

I thought the goal was to limit the damage done in the country as a whole. If so, start with banning handguns.

When the subject is gun massacres, it's about firepower. That's why AR's & similar are usually the weapon of choice by perps.

If we want to reduce the carnage from gun violence we can start with that. We may even have a chance of doing so in this country. We have virtually no chance when it comes to handguns in general.

 

[Sunburn74]

Here's a practical use for you. My self-defense is my business. The anti-gun crowds' arguments are going to have to get a lot better to convince me otherwise. What are you gonna do when there may come a time we have to remove a dictator/spy (hint hint) from office and you have banned all guns? Check Bill Maher's opening from this past Friday. A lot of you need to reevaluate your positions.

Throughout history most dictators have been removed without the populace being armed to the teeth.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I am ok with this ban semi automatics but allow revolvers. (I have no doubt that somehow I have screwed up some gun definiton here so I will now be chastised for it by a gun nutter).

I inherited my father's semi-automatic .22 long-rifle Mossberg when I was about 14. My school-mate's father took us to the rifle range. It was "semi-auto" because you only need to pull the trigger to fire another round and then another. That particular rifle would jam with maybe 10 or 12 bullets in the spring-loaded tube, after firing it about 7 or 8 times.

I think your standard AR-15 will fire as fast as you can twitch your finger, and the .222 or .223 caliber rounds will tumble, or otherwise cause great damage. That's why they invented the M-16 -- precursor of the AR-15 -- to maim and kill North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. It wasn't meant as a sporting proposition. It wasn't meant to be a target rifle or a hunting rifle. It was meant to kill people.

After seeing what the pro-gun folks chose to put in the Oval Office this last go-around, do you really feel comfortable that they're sane enough to be trusted with those types of weapons? Maybe they are, maybe they ain't.

Like I said -- I was a fence-sitter, even thinking to acquire one. So far, they've been used to kill people in events untethered to political movements or imperatives to upend an oppressive government.

I'm conflicted, because I see things likes this weekend explosion of Tweets. You'd think people would get the picture from the accumulation of facts and events since 2016. This is not a "successful" presidency. It's a criminal becoming unhinged, chosen by people who think amateurism is a valid expression for the will of the people. The rest of us aren't "the people". We're part of a vast conspiracy, including all the media except FOX, rabid in our desire to take away their freee-dums and allow women to have abortions. All the rest of us are the bad guys.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Can't the Queen of New Zealand just tell them that's how it is?

No, the monarchy doesn't work that way. She is represented in NZ (and Canada/Australia for that matter) by a Governor General. Technically the GG has significant powers but it's only tolerated as a checks and balances system. The last time a Governor General tried to interfere with the internal politics of a nation was in Australia in the 1970s when he literally fired the Prime Minister. It went very badly for him. He was effectively hounded out of the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

 

[BonzaiDuck]

No, the monarchy doesn't work that way. She is represented in NZ (and Canada/Australia for that matter) by a Governor General. Technically the GG has significant powers but it's only tolerated as a checks and balances system. The last time a Governor General tried to interfere with the internal politics of a nation was in Australia in the 1970s when he literally fired the Prime Minister. It went very badly for him. He was effectively hounded out of the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

Just shows my ignorance. I didn't know the British Monarchy still had that sort of tether to the various governments that had been part of the Empire.

I always sneered at the monarchy. I could never understand its popularity, especially here in the States. But the Queen has risen in my estimation of late. Between the last Royal wedding, and the way the Brits have handled Orangutan-Head, I find it comforting. At least for now.

In any event, after popping open a 2013 Cabernet from my garage chiller, I propose a toast.

Here's to Jacinda Ardern, and here's to the Mayor of London.

Our best wishes from your "American cousins".

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I doubt we will ever be able to stop gun violence. The goal is to limit how much damage a person can do before we can stop them, and do so within the framework of our constitution since it is unlikely to change.

Our goal should be to stop as much gun violence as possible. Assault rifle bans don't achieve this since only 100-200 people are murdered by assault rifles per year and most of these could and would be committed with an alternative gun.

You can stop a lot of gun violence within the framework of our constitution by ending the war on drugs, since a significant portion of gun murders are a direct result of this war and the lucrative/violent black market it sustains. Why aren't we talking about this solution? Instead of banning a type of weapon that is used in a pittance of gun murders and is not even required to commit these murders? And you can accomplish this without sending a single non-violent person to ass-rape prison for nothing more than owning something that you don't like them to own.

 

[SMOGZINN]

After seeing what the pro-gun folks chose to put in the Oval Office this last go-around, do you really feel comfortable that they're sane enough to be trusted with those types of weapons? Maybe they are, maybe they ain't.

The thing is most people, even the Pro-Trump, Pro-Gun people are quite sane and mature enough to handle these, and most other, guns. It is that small percentage of the people that are not that causes us to ban them. Most people could be relied on to safely handle high explosives as well, but because of the terrible damage that those items can do in the hands of those few we can't handle them responsibly we can't sell them in Walmart. Guns are the same way, we have to limit them not because they are dangerous in anyone's hands, but because there is no real way to know who's hands they are dangerous in, and the consequences of them being in the wrong hands can be disastrous.

Our goal should be to stop as much gun violence as possible. Assault rifle bans don't achieve this since only 100-200 people are murdered by assault rifles per year and most of these could and would be committed with an alternative gun.

It is not about the total number of deaths. If that was the case there are all sorts of things more dangerous than guns. It is about the specific type of danger they represent. It is a danger that there are almost no ways for an individual to mitigate. It is a danger that causes a lot of secondary social problems. It creates fear, it causes us to feel insecure, and that robs our society of reason.

The danger that mass shootings represent to our collective psyche is worth mitigating.

You can stop a lot of gun violence within the framework of our constitution by ending the war on drugs.... Why aren't we talking about this solution?

We are working on that solution as well. Legislation has been proposed. We are having a national debate. Why do you think we can have only one conversation? Why should not take a multi-prong approach to this problems and solve it in multiple ways? Few problems as complex as this can be solved with one solution. The shooting in Christchurch had nothing to do with drugs, it is disingenuous to claim we should not talk about solutions that would solve that part of the problem as well.

 

[Atreus21]

Lol, you really think the American government's military power would be overwhelmed by some disorganized militia's?!

Ask the Viet cong.

 

[hal2kilo]

Ask the Viet cong.

Were talking real first world government. Not third world.

 

[Atreus21]

Were talking real first world government. Not third world.

The US wasn't a first world government during the Vietnam War?

 

[hal2kilo]

The US wasn't a first world government during the Vietnam War?

Thought you were talking about S Vietnam. That war was completely run by politics. Totally different situation. We weren't ever in there to win. What would we have won? Seems Vietnam is doing just fine now. Could use some more freedom, but probably have as much freedom as they would if S. Vietnam had prevailed.

 

[Atreus21]

Thought you were talking about S Vietnam. That war was completely run by politics. Totally different situation. We weren't ever in there to win. What would we have won? Seems Vietnam is doing just fine now. Could use some more freedom, but probably have as much freedom as they would if S. Vietnam had prevailed.

Not my point. My point is that a determined resistance, outgunned or not, can defeat large militaries. The Viet Cong are hardly the only example.

 

[JD50]

Not my point. My point is that a determined resistance, outgunned or not, can defeat large militaries. The Viet Cong are hardly the only example.

South Vietnam didn't do too well defeating North Vietnam.

 

[thilanliyan]

Ask the Viet cong.

That worked well for them considering the guerilla tactics used and especially the terrain. I think the US could have eventually won had there been the political and social will to see it through. In terms of firepower the US were way ahead, but there were other factors at play there.

You're saying the same can happen on American soil? I can't see it.

 

[Atreus21]

That worked well for them considering the guerilla tactics used and especially the terrain. I think the US could have eventually won had there been the political and social will to see it through. In terms of firepower the US were way ahead, but there were other factors at play there.

You're saying the same can happen on American soil? I can't see it.

Of course the US could've won. The North Vietnamese knew that very well. They adjusted their tactics. They took advantage of the fact that the war was unpopular among Americans. The Taliban gave us fits in Afghanistan. A badly outnumbered force defeated the nigh-invincible British at the Battle of New Orleans.

Of course you can't see it. No one in their right mind would foresee such things happening. Yet they have happened.

 

[Jhhnn]

Atreus21 is so cute when he engages in these revolutionary culture war fantasies.

 

[JSt0rm]

Our goal should be to stop as much gun violence as possible. Assault rifle bans don't achieve this since only 100-200 people are murdered by assault rifles per year and most of these could and would be committed with an alternative gun.
.

source for that number?

 

[JSt0rm]

Of course the US could've won. The North Vietnamese knew that very well. They adjusted their tactics. They took advantage of the fact that the war was unpopular among Americans. The Taliban gave us fits in Afghanistan. A badly outnumbered force defeated the nigh-invincible British at the Battle of New Orleans.

Of course you can't see it. No one in their right mind would foresee such things happening. Yet they have happened.

Are you ready to die because you want to win? Or just send the poors in to die for you while you wrap yourself in nationalistic pride?

 

[pmv]

Ask the Viet cong.

Who had the backing of the USSR. And who were fighting an enemy who had their own country thousands of miles away and had no good reason to be there in the first place and who lost the will to go on when it turned out to be too costly to be worth it.

Are you anticipating a 'Red Dawn' scenario in which North Korea invades the US, or something? What's the point of this comparison supposed to be?

Actually 'the Viet Cong' (by which you presumably mean the NLF) were of course only part of the opposition the French and then US faced. There was also the North Vietnamese army.

I just don't see the relevance to the US today (yet alone New Zealand).

 

[Atreus21]

Who had the backing of the USSR. And who were fighting an enemy who had their own country thousands of miles away and had no good reason to be there in the first place and who lost the will to go on when it turned out to be too costly to be worth it.

Are you anticipating a 'Red Dawn' scenario in which North Korea invades the US, or something? What's the point of this comparison supposed to be?

Actually 'the Viet Cong' (by which you presumably mean the NLF) were of course only part of the opposition the French and then US faced. There was also the North Vietnamese army.

I just don't see the relevance to the US today (yet alone New Zealand).

This doesn't have anything to do with New Zealand. Someone put forth the argument that small disorganized resistances would not prevail against large organized armies, for example that of the US. Yet we have examples of exactly such things happening. The fact that you explain how they happened doesn't dilute the point that they did happen.

I truly don't understand progressives sometimes. You (perhaps not literally you, pmv) speak of imminent fascism, style the more fervent among you as the Resistance, and bemoan the fact that Trump is in control of the nuclear codes. If Trump were to erect concentration camps and inter all manner of minorities in service to white supremacy or some other horror, don't you think that would involve exactly the sort of contingency that the 2nd amendment was intended to dissuade? Do you really regard yourself as helpless if that were to happen, since you think a resistance could never prevail against the US army?

If we had to call upon antifa to protect us from real and true fascists, would we want them armed or not?

 

[Jaskalas]

Taliban in Afghanistan is a better example. They've won the war, or hasn't anyone noticed?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Do you really regard yourself as helpless if that were to happen, since you think a resistance could never prevail against the US army?

This was not aimed at me, but I'll answer anyway. As I have already said, in that sort of situation the primary goal would be to enlist the police and military to our side, because with out them the cause is already lost. You need one of two things to win that sort of resistance: the military, or popular support. Using small arms to fight the military would just lose you the popular support.

 

[Sunburn74]

This doesn't have anything to do with New Zealand. Someone put forth the argument that small disorganized resistances would not prevail against large organized armies, for example that of the US. Yet we have examples of exactly such things happening. The fact that you explain how they happened doesn't dilute the point that they did happen.

I truly don't understand progressives sometimes. You (perhaps not literally you, pmv) speak of imminent fascism, style the more fervent among you as the Resistance, and bemoan the fact that Trump is in control of the nuclear codes. If Trump were to erect concentration camps and inter all manner of minorities in service to white supremacy or some other horror, don't you think that would involve exactly the sort of contingency that the 2nd amendment was intended to dissuade? Do you really regard yourself as helpless if that were to happen, since you think a resistance could never prevail against the US army?

If we had to call upon antifa to protect us from real and true fascists, would we want them armed or not?

Give me an example of a small disorganized resistance winning please.

Large organized resistance groups which are essentially central nationalized governments and militaries win about 1/3 of the time but I'm not aware of any small disorganized military group fending off large occupying militaries.