Is New Zealand right to ban military style guns? (page 6)

2+2=5

New Zealand will do what is right for New Zealand

I agree.

The gun laws that currently exist in NZ could have prevented this disaster if they were correctly applied, it seems the police failed on checks.

Criticising the NZ prime minister is poor form. This country averages 50 homicides a year, this fuckwit shot over 100 people in a few minutes and even children as young as 5 weren’t spared. It was horrendous even by the standards of the USA, but beyond comprehension that it happened in NZ, I can forgive the lady for being emotional.

Thomasdam, your summary on the .556 round was bullshit. It’s ideal for killing humans in numbers.

Besides the obvious harm, the worst thing about this massacre is the damage it will have on political conversations particularly over immigration reform in Australia and NZ. The constant grandstanding from the left is already unbearable.

joe134cd

The question is ? Why do you need a fully / semi automatic weapon. Here in NZ the political system is pretty stable and public servants are pretty much corruption free. This idea of high powered weaponry just in case is, just a conspiracy.

Bungi Bill

A bit of a straw man being slipped in here!

I never claimed that any one country defeated Nazi Germany, and that is why I used the term "Allied armies" - the "allies" including dozens of different countries, including the Soviet Union.

Bungi Bill

joe134cd,

In countries such as New Zealand, the ballot box has always been an effective way of getting rid of an unpopular government.

Thomasdam

No wonder your name is 2+2=5 you don't add things up right in your head. Those monkeys up there are not trained very well. You don't even give your backing for your BS. The 223 is not a particular deadly round. No more than many cartridges. The 7.62x39 has much more penetration, the 3006, is daughter the 308 are much more devastating than a 223. A 22lr can be very deadly that does not make it "ideal" for killing humans as you put it. Why is the 223/5.56 Ideal for killing? Its not. That is an arbitrary statement you can not back up because I doubt you know much about guns.

When the 5.56 was adopted by the US it was due to the idea that a lighter bullet could then allow a soldier to carry more. The most deadly caliber is useless in a fire fight when you are out of ammo.The Battle rifles of the day, the 303 British, the US 3006/308, the Russian 7.62 Russian were all large full on battle rifle ctgs. The guns that shot them were heavy, the M14, the Enfield, and the Mod 91 Russian were all long range battle rifles. The lessons learned in the seocnd world war were that a lighter less powerful rifle could be better in that most fire fights were done at shorter distances and the fire superiority theory. Enter the M16 the end result of the Armalite design. AR does not stand for assault rifle it stands for Armalite.

You don't know much about guns ammo or ballistics. There is no such thing and an "ideal gun" to kill people. If you want to shoot someone in a closet any long gun is almost a club you can not swing, A hand gun would be ideal, at 1500 yards the 223 would be like getting hit with a pellet gun. Now go look up coefficient and muzzle energy and how it drops.

Thomasdam

Joe when you say Fully Semi auto is like saying an automatic manual transmission. It shows you don't know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of. Guns are not death rays as the left would have you believe. I remember talking with one of the heads of Winchester ammo complaining to them in the 90 they were rolling over for the idiot left by taking off the Black Talon ammo off the market when Patric Moynihan on NBC showed a chart saying the bullet was designed to take out every major organ in the body. That was the dumbest shit I have heard. Well Winchester never did bring it back. Oh wait they did. Its called SXT which is Super Expanding Talon minus the black lubaloy, which was supposed to be a lube.

The defenses round has come a long way since then. The old Black Talon is old technology. We have many different round to choose from much better than the old BT. Although collectors still buy this up for their collections.

2+2=5

Thanks, I like you have a basic understanding of the ballistics. Every .556 he shot was potentially lethal. He wasn’t hunting a single person from 700m away. He packed as many rounds as possible, he was driving to another mosque.

Thomasdam

So how is the 223 more deadly than any other round he could have used? I think you are trying to say he had Standard capacity magazines I.E 30 rounds with deadly. Magazines that hold more than 10 rounds can be purchased for any gun that has a detachable magazine or most any gun. 22lr, to 3006. So you are saying a 30 round mag is deadly. It could have been just as deadly to use a 9mm Glock or similar type weapon with 33 round mags. But you can switch out mags fast so even a 10 round mag can be deadly if you know how to change them out fast. I don't know what point you are trying to make but I am not sure you do either.

Thomasdam

It boils down to liberals don't want the public to own guns period. They know how to use the knee jerk reaction of a tragedy to manipulate the public. Start with the so called assault rifles, then move to all semi autos, and to revolvers and shot guns. and finally 22 lr. Than you can regulate and or ban air guns and restrict water pistols and the world will all be holding hand and singing Kumbya.

2+2=5

The question is ? Why do you need a fully / semi automatic weapon

Eradicating feral animals from a helicopter, the semi-auto rifle is the ideal tool because repeated aimed shots are possible and often needed. Any property or business owners who have legitimate needs will have no problem.

. This idea of high powered weaponry just in case is, just a conspiracy.

I have noticed many gun lovers in the USA have weird combat fantasies.

Is New Zealand right to ban military style guns?

Share this