Live data from Hacker News

New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

reuters.com

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#31

China has how many Muslim Uighurs interned? Millions? Do you support the right to arms for Uighurs? 'At first I did not speak out because I did not believe they were coming for me.'

When you mention Neimoller's poem, 1984 or Brave New World in an internet comment not related to literary criticism, you automatically lose.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#32
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.

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?

You need to have guns to begin with to start the insurrection. In 1971, Pakistan started to massacre Bangladeshis as a result of an election in what was then east Pakistan. Civilians started an insurrection, using among other things stolen guns. This is where an already-armed populace would have come in handy.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#33
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?

Guns placed like fire alarms (Break glass for gun)? While it may sound absurd, it does follow the principle that there are more good people than bad. If one bad apple arises, finding the next gun to neutralize said apple would be pretty easy.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#34
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Guns placed like fire alarms (Break glass for gun)? While it may sound absurd, it does follow the principle that there are more good people than bad. If one bad apple arises, finding the next gun to neutralize said apple would be pretty easy.

One problem with the argument that "the only thing stopping a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun" is that "good" and "bad" people exist on a different axis than "people who can be trusted with guns in a crisis."

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#35

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--…

You have a point there, firearms and the idea of "you can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. I also think about those instances where we've had frightening scenarios of confiscation, such as Katrina. There's also the distrust of citizens in the government to both protect them, and protect their civil liberties, and freedom.

Recently I heard a quote that might add some to this discussion: The police are there to protect the government and society, not you. So if we put that together and apply it to this issue, without a gun of your own, you're left dependent upon the police who may not protect you, per se, but they will protect civil order and the government. Who decides what that civil order is?

I don't know the answer either but I accept the responsibility as a gun owner to come to the table, and find a solution.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#36
post #4

Thank God for the Second Amendment.

Its only modern purpose is to enable mass shootings and support gun owners pride.

It isn't about pride, it's about self-determination, a concept deeply rooted in American culture. Part of being responsible for one's self is being responsible for one's own defense. Lord knows the police are not fast enough, or brave enough for that matter, to protect us anyway. Americans look at the kind of thing that happened in France, where people waited to be executed in a theater, and they say to themselves "I'll go down fighting, thanks". Whether that's a realistic thing to prepare for or not, that is the mindset. We have a significant aversion to being helpless and relying on the state.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#37
post #34
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guns placed like fire alarms (Break glass for gun)? While it may sound absurd, it does follow the principle that there are more good people than bad. If one bad apple arises, finding the next gun to neutralize said apple would be pretty easy.

One problem with the argument that "the only thing stopping a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun" is that "good" and "bad" people exist on a different axis than "people who can be trusted with guns in a crisis."

How so? In our case, the police are the good people you describe. The question is, would there be more net good people with access to guns, when placed everywhere, or more bad people? It's a thought experiment.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#38
post #37
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem with the argument that "the only thing stopping a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun" is that "good" and "bad" people exist on a different axis than "people who can be trusted with guns in a crisis."

How so? In our case, the police are the good people you describe. The question is, would there be more net good people with access to guns, when placed everywhere, or more bad people? It's a thought experiment.

To me, I think it depends on whether a good person untrained to handle a gun properly in what amounts to a combat situation is still "good" if they decide they want to be a hero.

So whether or not we're safer in this situation is basically a dice roll.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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--…

You have a point there, firearms and the idea of "you can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. I also think about those instances where we've had frightening scenarios of confiscation, such as Katrina. There's also the distrust of citizens in the government to both protect them, and protect their civil liberties, and freedom. Recently I heard a quote that mi…

[deleted]

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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--…

You have a point there, firearms and the idea of "you can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. I also think about those instances where we've had frightening scenarios of confiscation, such as Katrina. There's also the distrust of citizens in the government to both protect them, and protect their civil liberties, and freedom. Recently I heard a quote that mi…

Let's not pretend all Americans, much less all American gun owners, subscribe to the "cold dead hands" mentality, are arming themselves against the government, or even oppose gun control. Despite what many people would say, it is even possible for Democrats, liberals and "leftists" to own guns for their own self-defense and to believe in the 2nd Amendment.

Yes, that ideology describes a lot of (if not the majority) of outspoken gun owners, but "outspoken gun owner" tends to be a self-selected filter for pro-NRA identity politics.

Post reply on HN