Is New Zealand right to ban military style guns?

by ThomasCovenant 84 Replies latest jw friends

  • LoveUniHateExams

    He just felt like shooting and killing people because that's what normal people do - why do you assume him to be a psychopath?

    Are you a doctor who's had access to his psychiatric reports?

  • blondie

    I figure its their country, their government, their laws. I don't think I have a vote in this situation. Let the voters in NZ voice their opinions.

  • I believe in overlapping
    I believe in overlapping

    Are you a doctor who's had access to his psychiatric reports?

    No, but I have lots of family that are in the medical field, doctors, Psychiatrist, Nurses, and Paramedics and they know a lot more than you do, and they fill me in. Everything i said is basic 101 Psychology freshman course. I started going back to school for business and science double major, and will be joining the family in the medical field in the future. By the time I'm 30-35 I'll be a doctor. In the meantime, I'm enjoying my spring break.

  • Coded Logic
    Coded Logic
    And given that the gun lobby in the US is paid for by the gun industry, people repeating the talking points of the gun lobby are the sheeple following the people who want to sell them guns.


  • Incognigo Montoya
    Incognigo Montoya

    While correct, a semi automatic is no real defence against tanks and aircraft, it is still better than single action pistols and long guns. Semi autos would give any militia formed, a fighting chance, and the sheer number of citizens that would rise up in defense of this country, against a hostile domestic action would be huge. Many, if not most, military personnel would leave and join in the rebellion. Notice no other country has dared an invasion of the U.S. primarily because its citizens are armed better than most other countries militaries.

    "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".

    Reading and comprehending the meaning of this is key in being a sane and logical citizen of the U.S. You may choose not to own a gun, but it is the absolute truth. Only law abiding citizens would turn their guns in, if they were banned. That leaves the criminal element, who already break the law, still armed, amongst a sea of unarmed citizens, waiting to be victimized. Not to mention unchecked law enforcement and military. Live in a country that bans guns and feel secure because of it? You are in denial.

    I don't personally care for guns. I would love to live in a world where there are no guns. But that is never going to be a reality, and in the unfortunate event I am confronted, I for one would rather die on my feet, fighting, than on my knees begging for my life.

  • Incognigo Montoya
    Incognigo Montoya

    For the record; New Zealand, imo, should do what its citizens decide, by vote, to do. As my above statement says, I think it's a mistake to outlaw guns, but I dont live there and it's up to them to do what they think is best. Besides, the orcs and villains of middle earth are still using bronze age weaponry, so I think they'll be ok. 😉

  • Bungi Bill
    Bungi Bill

    There is much more involved in resisting tyranny than just everybody possessing an AR-15 or equivalent.

    Those with military experience would be quick to point out that "an army without organisation and discipline is nothing more than an armed mob."

    Much of the early successes in the American Revolutionary War came about because the American militias were often better trained and better disciplined than the British troops who were sent against them. Many of the British soldiers were little more than raw recruits, with little training and no experience of warfare. (That was particularly evident at Concorde and Lexington).

    The only situations in which a disorganised mob could overthrow a government are when the military either mutinies, or (as happened in the Iranian Revolution in 1978-1979) stays confined to barracks. Furthermore, as other posters have pointed out, whether that disorganised mob was armed or not would be of little consequence.

    To suggest that Hitler's successful mobile "Blitzkrieg" attacks of 1940 - involving careful coordination of tanks, aircraft, artillery and motorised infantry - could have been turned back by mobs French and Belgian citizens with small arms is surely stretching credibility?

    On the other hand, if one was looking for a medal for getting themselves shot, then I guess that would have been a good way to go about it!

    The only way an armed citizenry could successfully resist either tyranny or invasion is if they were part of a trained and properly organised militia (as in the case of Switzerland).

  • joey jojo
    joey jojo

    The cost of the freedom to bear arms is the risk of mass shootings of civilians.

  • Wasanelder Once
    Wasanelder Once

    It's not my country so I have no say. Its small enough they may get it done. Its the immigrants from the US that might be armed they may have to beware of. lol

  • Coded Logic
    Coded Logic

    We need to make it more difficult for people to get these high rate of fire / high penetration weapons (aka "assault rifles"). Police forces all across the US have used the easy acces to these weapons as a pretense for an arms race. The police have used it as an excuse to carry their own assault weapons in every single patrol car. To carry out search warrants in full tactical gear with body armor. They've used it as an excuse to carry grenades and drive around in APCs.

    Assault weapons are undermining our rights and are making the police more and more militaristic everyday. We need to get these weapons off the streets so the police no longer have an excuse to run around looking - and acting - like full blown militias all the time.

Share this