U.S. Supreme Court on 2nd Amendment Started today

[Vic]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: freegeeks

a clear to the point answer to my question without trying to e-kill me

thx

... except, of course, that no amendment process is necessary if the Second Amendment doesn't provide for a private right of gun ownership.

Originally posted by: halik
You are the one claiming that there is "no such wording" in second amendment as to support individual right to bear arms. Interesting how the wording is identical to the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And so on... are you arguing that none of the amendments grant individual rights?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You think acting superior is proving anything (besides that your an ass)?

You're not qualified to debate the Constitution if you make false, bald-faced assertions that reveal complete ignorance, and are unwilling to learn.

Can you believe this guy?

OK Punchkin, please. Tell us what your qualifications are.

It's not necessary to get into my professional qualifications. The point is many (and this includes you) have a lack of even basic understanding of the issues involved in this thread.

Basic understanding of the issues?

Let's see. People own guns, they have owned guns since they began colonizing this country 400 years ago. They put in the Bill of Rights that the people had the right to keep and bear arms.

Some idiot comes along and says, no you don't have the right to own guns and your too ignorant to understand why..... and don't question my qualifacations to make that determination either.


Too funny, most people couldn't act as ignorant as you if they were trying.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: freegeeks

a clear to the point answer to my question without trying to e-kill me

thx

... except, of course, that no amendment process is necessary if the Second Amendment doesn't provide for a private right of gun ownership.

Originally posted by: halik
You are the one claiming that there is "no such wording" in second amendment as to support individual right to bear arms. Interesting how the wording is identical to the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And so on... are you arguing that none of the amendments grant individual rights?

Clearly the first amendment only applies to the military. Being a constitutional scholar (well maybe, he won't tell us what his qualifications are) I'm sure punchkin would agree.

 

[PingSpike]

Why do people keep responding to that pumpkin guy anyway? Thats like trying to get rid of a turd by eating it.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Let's see. People own guns, they have owned guns since they began colonizing this country 400 years ago. They put in the Bill of Rights that the people had the right to keep and bear arms.

Some idiot comes along and says, no you don't have the right to own guns and your too ignorant to understand why..... and don't question my qualifacations to make that determination either.


Too funny, most people couldn't act as ignorant as you if they were trying.

See my previous collection of just a few of your bon mots in this thread.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Vic
Gun grabbing is an agenda whose time has come and gone. Those countries that have tried it have found it to be unsuccessful. Public sentiment is overwhelmingly pro-gun rights (65% in a recent CNN poll), although there is rational concern that reasonable regulation be in place.

Just to drag up a quote from earlier in the thread, I'd like to point out that in my country (New Zealand) and many others gun control has been extremely successful. I'm not saying it would necessarily work in USA and I personally don't give a hoot what happens one way or the other but I do take exception to Vic spreading bold-faced lies, whether intentional or not.

Could you explain to me how gun control has been extremely successful in your country? What sort of gun control is adopted, and what effects has it had? Less teenage pregnancies, bigger crop harvests and fewer tsunamis?

He's full of it. With the exception of a high-profile Va Tech like event (Aramoana massacre), NZ had virtually no gun crime before gun control. So if "extremely successful" is defined as still having no gun crime after gun control, well... that's just silly.
Nor are guns in NZ actually banned, the private ownership of the estimated 1 million firearms in that nation of 4 million people is just strictly regulated.

So on the subject of bald-faced lies...

I was looking at the NZ crime stats from the government website, and they don't even list homicide separately. They just have a violent crime category. And from what I can tell, the crime rate really hasn't changed there in the past 40 years.

So yeah, I think he's full of crap.

Yeah, I did my own research about New Zealand for the past hour. It looks like they don't outright ban anything, but everything has to be approved by the police, and "scary guns" like assault rifles, pistols and machine guns have to be registered, while Class A firearms (everything that isn't scary) doesn't have to be registered, but still requires a license.

But permission to own semi-auto rifles and pistols is rarely given, there are no permits to carry handguns, and self-defense is not a permissable reason to own a firearm.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: freegeeks
be carefull what you wish for, Vic will start now a tirade that you are an anti-american communist-treehugging-sheephumping terrorist

I'm always the anti-american communist-treehugging-snail-eating surrender monkey

maybe we can start a club

Do we have to do this again? Maybe if you posted something else besides "Europe does everything right and America does everything wrong... "
As I've pointed out to you in the past, that is bad manners on your part, to come to an American forum and bash America all the time.

there is only one problem, I never made those statements you are talking about...
you keep accusing me of things I never said which is kind of sad

anyway we are not going to start all that crap again and as usual I give you the last word

happy eastern!!!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Let's see. People own guns, they have owned guns since they began colonizing this country 400 years ago. They put in the Bill of Rights that the people had the right to keep and bear arms.

Some idiot comes along and says, no you don't have the right to own guns and your too ignorant to understand why..... and don't question my qualifacations to make that determination either.


Too funny, most people couldn't act as ignorant as you if they were trying.

See my previous collection of just a few of your bon mots in this thread.

You didn't include the most pertinent one..... laughable.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Let's see. People own guns, they have owned guns since they began colonizing this country 400 years ago. They put in the Bill of Rights that the people had the right to keep and bear arms.

Some idiot comes along and says, no you don't have the right to own guns and your too ignorant to understand why..... and don't question my qualifacations to make that determination either.


Too funny, most people couldn't act as ignorant as you if they were trying.

See my previous collection of just a few of your bon mots in this thread.

You didn't include the most pertinent one..... laughable.

You twist and turn in an effort to appear knowledgeable, but in fact you're a know-nothing who claimed, among your other ridiculous posts, that to know constitutional legislative intent, one has only to look at centuries of history following its enactment. Enjoy your life-- I couldn't be happy being so desperately stupid.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Vic
Gun grabbing is an agenda whose time has come and gone. Those countries that have tried it have found it to be unsuccessful. Public sentiment is overwhelmingly pro-gun rights (65% in a recent CNN poll), although there is rational concern that reasonable regulation be in place.

Just to drag up a quote from earlier in the thread, I'd like to point out that in my country (New Zealand) and many others gun control has been extremely successful. I'm not saying it would necessarily work in USA and I personally don't give a hoot what happens one way or the other but I do take exception to Vic spreading bold-faced lies, whether intentional or not.

Could you explain to me how gun control has been extremely successful in your country? What sort of gun control is adopted, and what effects has it had? Less teenage pregnancies, bigger crop harvests and fewer tsunamis?

In New Zealand you can not own assault rifles, fully-automatic weapons or hand guns (except in special cases). To own a semi-automatic or non-automatic rifle or shotgun you must obtain a license, a process which entails sitting a written test on gun safety and a police background test. It has worked well because we have very, very low rates of gun deaths, both accidental and intentional.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Vic
Gun grabbing is an agenda whose time has come and gone. Those countries that have tried it have found it to be unsuccessful. Public sentiment is overwhelmingly pro-gun rights (65% in a recent CNN poll), although there is rational concern that reasonable regulation be in place.

Just to drag up a quote from earlier in the thread, I'd like to point out that in my country (New Zealand) and many others gun control has been extremely successful. I'm not saying it would necessarily work in USA and I personally don't give a hoot what happens one way or the other but I do take exception to Vic spreading bold-faced lies, whether intentional or not.

Could you explain to me how gun control has been extremely successful in your country? What sort of gun control is adopted, and what effects has it had? Less teenage pregnancies, bigger crop harvests and fewer tsunamis?

He's full of it. With the exception of a high-profile Va Tech like event (Aramoana massacre), NZ had virtually no gun crime before gun control. So if "extremely successful" is defined as still having no gun crime after gun control, well... that's just silly.
Nor are guns in NZ actually banned, the private ownership of the estimated 1 million firearms in that nation of 4 million people is just strictly regulated.

So on the subject of bald-faced lies...

I never said "banned" I used to words "gun control". Shove your strawmen up your ass Vic, I'm not interested in debating with someone as dishonest as you.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Vic
Gun grabbing is an agenda whose time has come and gone. Those countries that have tried it have found it to be unsuccessful. Public sentiment is overwhelmingly pro-gun rights (65% in a recent CNN poll), although there is rational concern that reasonable regulation be in place.

Just to drag up a quote from earlier in the thread, I'd like to point out that in my country (New Zealand) and many others gun control has been extremely successful. I'm not saying it would necessarily work in USA and I personally don't give a hoot what happens one way or the other but I do take exception to Vic spreading bold-faced lies, whether intentional or not.

Could you explain to me how gun control has been extremely successful in your country? What sort of gun control is adopted, and what effects has it had? Less teenage pregnancies, bigger crop harvests and fewer tsunamis?

He's full of it. With the exception of a high-profile Va Tech like event (Aramoana massacre), NZ had virtually no gun crime before gun control. So if "extremely successful" is defined as still having no gun crime after gun control, well... that's just silly.
Nor are guns in NZ actually banned, the private ownership of the estimated 1 million firearms in that nation of 4 million people is just strictly regulated.

So on the subject of bald-faced lies...

I was looking at the NZ crime stats from the government website, and they don't even list homicide separately. They just have a violent crime category. And from what I can tell, the crime rate really hasn't changed there in the past 40 years.

So yeah, I think he's full of crap.

Violent crime in New Zealand is a problem. No doubt about it. But the majority of violent crime over here is family abuse and drunken assaults, whereas gun deaths are very uncommon here.. I would go and look for some stats but I have to leave for work in 10 mins, so maybe i'll find some stats on gun deaths this afternoon.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Vic
Gun grabbing is an agenda whose time has come and gone. Those countries that have tried it have found it to be unsuccessful. Public sentiment is overwhelmingly pro-gun rights (65% in a recent CNN poll), although there is rational concern that reasonable regulation be in place.

Just to drag up a quote from earlier in the thread, I'd like to point out that in my country (New Zealand) and many others gun control has been extremely successful. I'm not saying it would necessarily work in USA and I personally don't give a hoot what happens one way or the other but I do take exception to Vic spreading bold-faced lies, whether intentional or not.

Could you explain to me how gun control has been extremely successful in your country? What sort of gun control is adopted, and what effects has it had? Less teenage pregnancies, bigger crop harvests and fewer tsunamis?

He's full of it. With the exception of a high-profile Va Tech like event (Aramoana massacre), NZ had virtually no gun crime before gun control. So if "extremely successful" is defined as still having no gun crime after gun control, well... that's just silly.
Nor are guns in NZ actually banned, the private ownership of the estimated 1 million firearms in that nation of 4 million people is just strictly regulated.

So on the subject of bald-faced lies...

I was looking at the NZ crime stats from the government website, and they don't even list homicide separately. They just have a violent crime category. And from what I can tell, the crime rate really hasn't changed there in the past 40 years.

So yeah, I think he's full of crap.

Yeah, I did my own research about New Zealand for the past hour. It looks like they don't outright ban anything, but everything has to be approved by the police, and "scary guns" like assault rifles, pistols and machine guns have to be registered, while Class A firearms (everything that isn't scary) doesn't have to be registered, but still requires a license.

But permission to own semi-auto rifles and pistols is rarely given, there are no permits to carry handguns, and self-defense is not a permissable reason to own a firearm.

Semi-auto weapons are allowed with a normal firearms license, provided it has a clip of less than 10(?) rounds. I could be wrong on the exact number.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Vic
Gun grabbing is an agenda whose time has come and gone. Those countries that have tried it have found it to be unsuccessful. Public sentiment is overwhelmingly pro-gun rights (65% in a recent CNN poll), although there is rational concern that reasonable regulation be in place. Even previously staunch anti-gun politicians (like Obama) no longer see the gun banning agenda as "politically feasible."

Just to drag up a quote from earlier in the thread, I'd like to point out that in my country (New Zealand) and many others gun control has been extremely successful. I'm not saying it would necessarily work in USA and I personally don't give a hoot what happens one way or the other but I do take exception to Vic spreading bold-faced lies, whether intentional or not.

Could you explain to me how gun control has been extremely successful in your country? What sort of gun control is adopted, and what effects has it had? Less teenage pregnancies, bigger crop harvests and fewer tsunamis?

He's full of it. With the exception of a high-profile Va Tech like event (Aramoana massacre), NZ had virtually no gun crime before gun control. So if "extremely successful" is defined as still having no gun crime after gun control, well... that's just silly.
Nor are guns in NZ actually banned, the private ownership of the estimated 1 million firearms in that nation of 4 million people is just strictly regulated.

So on the subject of bald-faced lies...

I never said "banned" I used to words "gun control". Shove your strawmen up your ass Vic, I'm not interested in debating with someone as dishonest as you.

That's because I said banned, [deleted]. I reinserted and bolded that part of my statement that you took out. And why did you do that, I wonder? :roll:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Let's see. People own guns, they have owned guns since they began colonizing this country 400 years ago. They put in the Bill of Rights that the people had the right to keep and bear arms.

Some idiot comes along and says, no you don't have the right to own guns and your too ignorant to understand why..... and don't question my qualifacations to make that determination either.


Too funny, most people couldn't act as ignorant as you if they were trying.

See my previous collection of just a few of your bon mots in this thread.

You didn't include the most pertinent one..... laughable.

You twist and turn in an effort to appear knowledgeable, but in fact you're a know-nothing who claimed, among your other ridiculous posts, that to know constitutional legislative intent, one has only to look at centuries of history following its enactment. Enjoy your life-- I couldn't be happy being so desperately stupid.

What are your qualifications?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
In New Zealand you can not own assault rifles, fully-automatic weapons or hand guns (except in special cases). To own a semi-automatic or non-automatic rifle or shotgun you must obtain a license, a process which entails sitting a written test on gun safety and a police background test. It has worked well because we have very, very low rates of gun deaths, both accidental and intentional.

And that's because NZ had "very, very" low rates of gun deaths prior to.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
there is only one problem, I never made those statements you are talking about...
you keep accusing me of things I never said which is kind of sad

anyway we are not going to start all that crap again and as usual I give you the last word

happy eastern!!!

Actually, I'm sure that I could search for and easily find 100 or so examples of you doing exactly what GodlessAstronomer is doing in this thread.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
In New Zealand you can not own assault rifles, fully-automatic weapons or hand guns (except in special cases). To own a semi-automatic or non-automatic rifle or shotgun you must obtain a license, a process which entails sitting a written test on gun safety and a police background test. It has worked well because we have very, very low rates of gun deaths, both accidental and intentional.

And that's because NZ had "very, very" low rates of gun deaths prior to.

Exactly. It's just like this rock I have that keeps tigers away. It's never failed me once.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer



Violent crime in New Zealand is a problem. No doubt about it. But the majority of violent crime over here is family abuse and drunken assaults, whereas gun deaths are very uncommon here.. I would go and look for some stats but I have to leave for work in 10 mins, so maybe i'll find some stats on gun deaths this afternoon.

GodlessAstronomer, I am not familiar with New Zealand's crime rates, but I have a question. Did you have a lot of gun crime before the gun control laws passed, or has the amount of crime remained about the same?

If it has changed, then it would be plausible to say that gun control helped with your crime and "worked." However, if crime remained unchanged, then gun control did nothing but restrict gun ownership. The point is that if gun crime did not change, the best you can claim is that without the regulation crime might have risen, but it is unfortunately not proof that the gun control stops crime.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Vic
Gun grabbing is an agenda whose time has come and gone. Those countries that have tried it have found it to be unsuccessful. Public sentiment is overwhelmingly pro-gun rights (65% in a recent CNN poll), although there is rational concern that reasonable regulation be in place. Even previously staunch anti-gun politicians (like Obama) no longer see the gun banning agenda as "politically feasible."

Just to drag up a quote from earlier in the thread, I'd like to point out that in my country (New Zealand) and many others gun control has been extremely successful. I'm not saying it would necessarily work in USA and I personally don't give a hoot what happens one way or the other but I do take exception to Vic spreading bold-faced lies, whether intentional or not.

Could you explain to me how gun control has been extremely successful in your country? What sort of gun control is adopted, and what effects has it had? Less teenage pregnancies, bigger crop harvests and fewer tsunamis?

He's full of it. With the exception of a high-profile Va Tech like event (Aramoana massacre), NZ had virtually no gun crime before gun control. So if "extremely successful" is defined as still having no gun crime after gun control, well... that's just silly.
Nor are guns in NZ actually banned, the private ownership of the estimated 1 million firearms in that nation of 4 million people is just strictly regulated.

So on the subject of bald-faced lies...

I never said "banned" I used to words "gun control". Shove your strawmen up your ass Vic, I'm not interested in debating with someone as dishonest as you.

That's because I said banned, [deleted]. I reinserted and bolded that part of my statement that you took out. And why did you do that, I wonder? :roll:

I only quoted the part of your post which was relevant to what I wanted to say. I don't give a toss what American anti-gun politicians think about the political feasibility of banning guns in America and it had nothing to do with my point. My point was that it was dishonest of you to claim that anti-gun legislation has been unsuccessful in every country that has tried it. As I said in a previous post, I am not concerned about whether or not USA decides to control gun ownership.

I don't think it's any of my business and because I have no stake in it I don't think it's even my right to impose an opinion one way or another onto American forum users. The point is that this thread is about gun control, not flat-out fun banning, so that is what I decided to address.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer



Violent crime in New Zealand is a problem. No doubt about it. But the majority of violent crime over here is family abuse and drunken assaults, whereas gun deaths are very uncommon here.. I would go and look for some stats but I have to leave for work in 10 mins, so maybe i'll find some stats on gun deaths this afternoon.

GodlessAstronomer, I am not familiar with New Zealand's crime rates, but I have a question. Did you have a lot of gun crime before the gun control laws passed, or has the amount of crime remained about the same?

If it has changed, then it would be plausible to say that gun control helped with your crime and "worked." However, if crime remained unchanged, then gun control did nothing but restrict gun ownership. The point is that if gun crime did not change, the best you can claim is that without the regulation crime might have risen, but it is unfortunately not proof that the gun control stops crime.

Point taken (yes Vic and Nebor, I know you made the point earlier. I tend to respond to the user who shows me at least a modicum of respect first). I can't say for sure that gun violence would have risen had gun controls not been in place, but I do know that gang violence has increased dramatically in this country and I'm 100% positive I wouldn't want to be here if these people had free access to pistols and automatic weapons.

I would like to reiterate that I don't care if USA bans guns and even though I'm a fan of gun control I would tend to agree with the pro-gun crowd that even if the decision was made that guns should be controlled in USA the practicality of putting said controls in place is far beyond what we faced in a small country like NZ. I would expect that if the US government tried to impose gun control in USA the outcome would be very violent indeed.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer



Violent crime in New Zealand is a problem. No doubt about it. But the majority of violent crime over here is family abuse and drunken assaults, whereas gun deaths are very uncommon here.. I would go and look for some stats but I have to leave for work in 10 mins, so maybe i'll find some stats on gun deaths this afternoon.

GodlessAstronomer, I am not familiar with New Zealand's crime rates, but I have a question. Did you have a lot of gun crime before the gun control laws passed, or has the amount of crime remained about the same?

If it has changed, then it would be plausible to say that gun control helped with your crime and "worked." However, if crime remained unchanged, then gun control did nothing but restrict gun ownership. The point is that if gun crime did not change, the best you can claim is that without the regulation crime might have risen, but it is unfortunately not proof that the gun control stops crime.

Point taken (yes Vic and Nebor, I know you made the point earlier. I tend to respond to the user who shows me at least a modicum of respect first). I can't say for sure that gun violence would have risen had gun controls not been in place, but I do know that gang violence has increased dramatically in this country and I'm 100% positive I wouldn't want to be here if these people had free access to pistols and automatic weapons.

I would like to reiterate that I don't care if USA bans guns and even though I'm a fan of gun control I would tend to agree with the pro-gun crowd that even if the decision was made that guns should be controlled in USA the practicality of putting said controls in place is far beyond what we faced in a small country like NZ. I would expect that if the US government tried to impose gun control in USA the outcome would be very violent indeed.

Those gangs do have access to pistols and automatic weapons. Do you think they follow your laws? Would you like to make a wager on whether or not I, as a foreign national, could fly into your country and obtain a handgun or "military style semi-automatic rifle"? Because I've been around the world, and I've never had a problem getting a gun in any of them, regardless of their laws.

 

[Satchel]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer



Violent crime in New Zealand is a problem. No doubt about it. But the majority of violent crime over here is family abuse and drunken assaults, whereas gun deaths are very uncommon here.. I would go and look for some stats but I have to leave for work in 10 mins, so maybe i'll find some stats on gun deaths this afternoon.

GodlessAstronomer, I am not familiar with New Zealand's crime rates, but I have a question. Did you have a lot of gun crime before the gun control laws passed, or has the amount of crime remained about the same?

If it has changed, then it would be plausible to say that gun control helped with your crime and "worked." However, if crime remained unchanged, then gun control did nothing but restrict gun ownership. The point is that if gun crime did not change, the best you can claim is that without the regulation crime might have risen, but it is unfortunately not proof that the gun control stops crime.

Point taken (yes Vic and Nebor, I know you made the point earlier. I tend to respond to the user who shows me at least a modicum of respect first). I can't say for sure that gun violence would have risen had gun controls not been in place, but I do know that gang violence has increased dramatically in this country and I'm 100% positive I wouldn't want to be here if these people had free access to pistols and automatic weapons.

I would like to reiterate that I don't care if USA bans guns and even though I'm a fan of gun control I would tend to agree with the pro-gun crowd that even if the decision was made that guns should be controlled in USA the practicality of putting said controls in place is far beyond what we faced in a small country like NZ. I would expect that if the US government tried to impose gun control in USA the outcome would be very violent indeed.

Those gangs do have access to pistols and automatic weapons. Do you think they follow your laws? Would you like to make a wager on whether or not I, as a foreign national, could fly into your country and obtain a handgun or "military style semi-automatic rifle"? Because I've been around the world, and I've never had a problem getting a gun in any of them, regardless of their laws.

Exactly. There is an obvious correlation between gun control in NZ and the "dramatically" increased gang activity. It's sad that anyone would think that restricting or possibly even banning the general public of gun ownership would somehow be a solution to violent crime in NZ. If laws are not a concern for those that commit violent crimes in NZ (ie: gang members/criminals) then laws regulating guns are obviously not a concern for them either. Which is apparent with the dramatic increase in gang related activity. The only true restriction with these laws is that of the average law-abiding citizen who is hindered in the manner in which he is able to defend himself against criminal attack. I wouldn't call that a success at all. I would even go so far as to say that Vic deserves an apology for the "bold-faced lies" comment about his claim that "countries that have tried it have found it to be unsuccessful." It's definitely not working in NZ.

 

[Brigandier]

I always like the quote, "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." My point of view on the whole gun debate is, if the government wants my guns it can try to take them.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer



Violent crime in New Zealand is a problem. No doubt about it. But the majority of violent crime over here is family abuse and drunken assaults, whereas gun deaths are very uncommon here.. I would go and look for some stats but I have to leave for work in 10 mins, so maybe i'll find some stats on gun deaths this afternoon.

GodlessAstronomer, I am not familiar with New Zealand's crime rates, but I have a question. Did you have a lot of gun crime before the gun control laws passed, or has the amount of crime remained about the same?

If it has changed, then it would be plausible to say that gun control helped with your crime and "worked." However, if crime remained unchanged, then gun control did nothing but restrict gun ownership. The point is that if gun crime did not change, the best you can claim is that without the regulation crime might have risen, but it is unfortunately not proof that the gun control stops crime.

Point taken (yes Vic and Nebor, I know you made the point earlier. I tend to respond to the user who shows me at least a modicum of respect first). I can't say for sure that gun violence would have risen had gun controls not been in place, but I do know that gang violence has increased dramatically in this country and I'm 100% positive I wouldn't want to be here if these people had free access to pistols and automatic weapons.

I would like to reiterate that I don't care if USA bans guns and even though I'm a fan of gun control I would tend to agree with the pro-gun crowd that even if the decision was made that guns should be controlled in USA the practicality of putting said controls in place is far beyond what we faced in a small country like NZ. I would expect that if the US government tried to impose gun control in USA the outcome would be very violent indeed.

So your country has instituted some strict gun control policies, gang violence has started to increase, and you are claiming that gun control has been successful?