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

41–50 of 75 posts

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#41

Post by samfriedman »

mrmondo wrote: post #26
Simulacra wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wo…

FYI a lot of HN users flag non-tech/politics submissions wholesale. Either because they don't feel they fit the HN topic, or because these topics often devolve to flamewars.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#43

Post by samfriedman »

modest_sarcasm wrote: post #29
HlessClaudesman wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In that dichotomy I guess the question is: which type of psychopath is a more frequent & significant threat to the people? Frequent/significant is probably a trade-off in this case.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#44

Post by mrmondo »

samfriedman wrote: post #41
mrmondo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wo…

FYI a lot of HN users flag non-tech/politics submissions wholesale. Either because they don't feel they fit the HN topic, or because these topics often devolve to flamewars.

Yeah fair enough too - it isn’t tech related, while political I feel it’s more social but certainly not technical.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#45

Post by benjohnson »

samfriedman wrote: post #43
modest_sarcasm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In that dichotomy I guess the question is: which type of psychopath is a more frequent & significant threat to the people? Frequent/significant is probably a trade-off in this case.

My government has made complex weaponry to instantly kill half of the world's population with one push of a button. For me, that's a huge part of the equation.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#46

Post by modest_sarcasm »

krapp wrote: post #28
modest_sarcasm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Of course, I forgot that stricter gun control will create a thriving market for illegal firearms. I guess everything's fine then!

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#47

Post by jki275 »

Isamu wrote: post #11

I believe that writing legislation for assault rifles is trickier than for semi-autos, because the latter is a more properly defined type. That is, we talk about assault rifles as if they were easily defined but they can be functionally the same as sport rifles but with different grips, and the larger default magazines.

Assault rifle is a defined term, it comes from the German Sturmgewehr, and it has been used since WWII to mean a select fire military issue weapon.

As a side note, they’ve been heavily restricted in the US for civilian ownership since 1986, and manufacture for civilian ownership has been banned since 1986. As a result, the supply is very limited and the cost for a civilian legal M16, for instance, hovers around 20 thousand dollars. I believe one has been used in the commission of a crime in that time period since 1986, and the transfer and sale and even movement of them is also heavily restricted and subject to a BATF background check and a local sheriff approval.

Of course you’re misusing the word to mean anything that looks scary or looks like it might be a civilian legal non select fire rifle, but we’re scientists, we ought to do better. The 1994 “assault weapon ban” didn’t ban any assault weapons. It also catapulted the Republicans to power and destroyed the Democrat party for nearly 20 years as this is America and we don’t like people pretending parts of our Constitution don’t exist.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#48

Post by jki275 »

krapp wrote: post #31
wallace_f wrote: post #6

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.

Who made up that silly rule?

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#49

Post by NeedMoreTea »

cabaalis wrote: post #7
HlessClaudesman wrote: post #3

(New Zealander here) I was surprised that these weren't already banned. How many bullets do you really need to hunt? Some clarification on NZ's new gun laws: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/explainer-how-... The rest of the world sees that the US constantly ties itself in knots over the gun issue, and the horrific loss of lives. Hopefully NZ's swift response shows that things CAN change.

> 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.

As successfully reframed by the NRA in the 1970s. Prior to that your argument was not used. Thus it wasn't the intent of the amendment in the first place "within a well regulated militia".

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#50

Post by madeofpalk »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #36
ykevinator wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Citizens of other countries, who don't have such a weird constitutional attachment to gun ownership, don't have the concept of self-determination?
Post reply on HN