Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 75 posts

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#21

Post by mcphage »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #8

Isn't that exactly what the shooter wanted? They're playing right into his hands. They skipped the step where you negotiate with the terrorists and went straight to accepting his demands. I guess that doesn't matter when you need to be seen doing something. Edit: I mean that the shooter wanted NZ gun control as a means to the end he seeks. Not that it is the end he seeks.

> Isn't that exactly what the shooter wanted?

The shooter left a long manifesto. It contained quite a bit about white nationalism, but you’re the first person to suggest that it was secretly about gun control.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#22

Post by modest_sarcasm »

janpot wrote: post #13
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #8

Isn't that exactly what the shooter wanted? They're playing right into his hands. They skipped the step where you negotiate with the terrorists and went straight to accepting his demands. I guess that doesn't matter when you need to be seen doing something. Edit: I mean that the shooter wanted NZ gun control as a means to the end he seeks. Not that it is the end he seeks.

you think the shooter's intentions were to advocate for stricter gun laws?

1. Outlaw guns in New Zealand

2. Outlaw guns in the US

3. Race War 2020

4. ????

5. Profit

Pretty much the TLDR of this guy's manifesto.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#23

Post by dsfyu404ed »

janpot wrote: post #13
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #8

Isn't that exactly what the shooter wanted? They're playing right into his hands. They skipped the step where you negotiate with the terrorists and went straight to accepting his demands. I guess that doesn't matter when you need to be seen doing something. Edit: I mean that the shooter wanted NZ gun control as a means to the end he seeks. Not that it is the end he seeks.

you think the shooter's intentions were to advocate for stricter gun laws?

His plan can loosely be described as "shoot people in NZ --> NZ gun control --> US gun control --> 1776 Pt2 Electric Boogaloo --> White supremacist victory --> Europe follows suit."

Boogaloo in the US seems iffy because any gun control measures strong enough to touch it off would probably be a non-starter because if there's a civil war brewing (let alone a racially charged one) the people that make up the base of the party that usually pushes gun control would very much want to be armed. Boogaloo resulting in some sort of white supremacist victory is laughable. Europe copying either is just fantasy.

The fact that the NZ politicians are doing exactly what a terrorist asked for is what annoys me most here.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#25

Post by wallace_f »

HlessClaudesman wrote: post #15
cabaalis wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many bullets do you really need to hunt? In the US, this is the question used to neuter the second amendment. It isn't there to protect us from deer. The 2nd is meant to be used against people. The right that exists is the ability to protect your rights, life, and property, through force if necessary.

2nd amendment rights are in direct conflict with the right to be alive.

And cronies in government making insulin cost $750 a year, or the Red Cross stealing half a billion in charitable donations to victims, are even more directly in conflict with life. So where is the outrage? And I barely hear a peep from the media about this. Do you wonder why that is?

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#26

Post by mrmondo »

Simulacra wrote: post #12
mrmondo wrote: post #2

Also posted earlier today: ‘New Zealand PM announces ban on all assault rifles after Christchurch massacre’ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19449256

That post is dead and was flagged apparently.

Oh, strange - I wonder why? (mods feel free to message me so I can improve future posts if required), I don’t generally have a bad rep on HN and it was an uneditoritialised title etc... anyway - what matters is that people are aware of the news, not who posts a link to it.

—

Context as to why I posted earlier today: I was born, grew up and lived in Christchurch until 2012 when I moved to Melbourne.

I was there and working in the main hospitals (sysadmin / ops engineer running the primary patient management and some lab systems) and in that role during both of the two major earthquakes that levelled the city.

The emotional, mental and social stress of those two major ‘natural’ disasters were so incredibly deviststing and this this shooting has surely got to pile on for people still living there.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#27

Post by HlessClaudesman »

um_ya wrote: post #20
HlessClaudesman wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2nd amendment rights are in direct conflict with the right to be alive.

There's a reason why the second amendment comes right after freedom of speech. If the government doesn't uphold your rights as citizens, the citizens have the authority to hold their ground. Imagine Venezuela, but the citizens having guns. The government couldn't do what they're doing over there if the citizens had guns.

Reductio ad absurdum: Place 1 gun per square meter of the planet. Are we safer now?

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#28

Post by krapp »

modest_sarcasm wrote: post #19
blahblahthrow wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at it this way: if you're going to lead an illegal insurrection to overthrow what you think is a tyranical government, why do you care what the gun laws are?

Exactly, one can always rely on the general population to illegally stockpile guns and ammunition, just in case. That tyrant won't stand a chance!

>Exactly, one can always rely on the general population to illegally stockpile guns and ammunition, just in case.

I probably shouldn't reply to an obvious troll account but... yes.

That is exactly how revolutions happen throughout the world - with weapons procured through the black market or otherwise illegal means. It's only the US which insists that a right to revolution be legally defined and protected by the very government its people theoretically intends to revolt against... and yet even with the Second Amendment, domestic terrorism and revolt against the government is still illegal in the US.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#29

Post by modest_sarcasm »

HlessClaudesman wrote: post #27
um_ya wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a reason why the second amendment comes right after freedom of speech. If the government doesn't uphold your rights as citizens, the citizens have the authority to hold their ground. Imagine Venezuela, but the citizens having guns. The government couldn't do what they're doing over there if the citizens had guns.

Reductio ad absurdum: Place 1 gun per square meter of the planet. Are we safer now?

Less safe from the average kind of psychopath, but more safe from the magnificent supreme leader kind of psychopath.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#30

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

Simulacra wrote: post #18

I guess I can see both sides of the argument. I own multiple semi automatic rifles and enjoy them very much. At the same time no one "needs" to own one of these. I think anyone attempting to buy any type of firearm should have to: 1) Attend a safety training course; 2) Present some type of proof that they have met with a trained counselor, psychologist, whatever, that says they are not a danger to themselves or socie…

These are controversial because firearms are deeply ingrained in American culture, and it is easy to see how such reasonable-seeming measures could be abused or counterproductive. For instance, if I'm suffering from mental health issues I might decide not to see anyone about it for fear they'd take my guns away. Anything that could be used to allow the government to keep track of who owns what can be --and has been-- abused to harass people or preemptively confiscate weapons.

These don't seem like problems to people who don't have firearms as part of their culture, but they're important to those who do. I honestly don't know what a good solution would look like. I believe in the purpose of the second amendment, and I like knowing that I have the right and ability to defend myself, but it has become clear that society is not fit enough to handle the current state of things. I don't really know what a good solution looks like.

Post reply on HN