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

71–75 of 75 posts

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#71

Post by pariahHN »

nicolashahn wrote: post #52
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?

A necessary precondition for a tyrannical government is a power imbalance between the people and the government. Allowing citizens to own arms that are in the same league as what the government uses prevents this.

So, civilians owning tanks? Predator drones? Attack helicopters? Cruise missiles? Fighter jets? Biological or chemical weapons?

We don't live in a world where the people and the government can reasonably expect to have symmetrical physical warfare capabilities. This argument is irrelevant today.

The only area where the exists any form of symmetry would be cyber weapons, not physical.

Defending against other individuals is still a viable argument, and is the only reason I think we need to be careful about how far we go with regards to gun control, but that has some tight limits and I think we can find more effective solutions than guns if we put some effort into it and take it seriously.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#72

Post by Isamu »

kgunnar wrote: post #67
Isamu wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Assault rifle is a defined term It is not precise enough, that is my point. You can take an assault rifle and manufacture a sport version that removes military convenience features but is still as deadly. Not so with the auto or semi-auto designation. They are right to focus on magazine size in legislation. Also ammo type.

"Assault rifle" is a rather precise term that means it is capable of firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, has detachable magazines, and is chambered for an intermediate cartridge. If anything, it is more precise than "full auto" which encompasses other types of firearms as well. The ambiguity comes in from the more recently coined term "assault weapon" that is rather similar to "assault rifle…

I know the US Army has a precise definition for an assault rifle, but I'm not so sure there is a good legal definition, and that's what I'm talking about. This holds true for New Zealand. If anything the US Army definition is probably too precise and would cast a net probably not broad enough.

Also the "selective fire" of assault rifles means you can select either semi-auto or full auto, which I think should be preferred terms in legislation. That is, you ban weapons that are automatic or semi-automatic (or both.) And again, the particulars of the magazine.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#73

Post by NeedMoreTea »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #68
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

This isn't objectively true, as evidenced by the decision in US v. Miller. I (and many others) believe that decision to be flawed, but here it is: > In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the…

Yet pre-1970 the NRA itself was one of the staunchest advocates of licensing, gun control, and restriction of general ownership, whilst sticking to their original purpose - to improve marksmanship.

The NRA president testified to congress in 1939: “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

It was only much later they started lobbying against any and all control.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#74

Post by jki275 »

Isamu wrote: post #72
kgunnar wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Assault rifle" is a rather precise term that means it is capable of firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, has detachable magazines, and is chambered for an intermediate cartridge. If anything, it is more precise than "full auto" which encompasses other types of firearms as well. The ambiguity comes in from the more recently coined term "assault weapon" that is rather similar to "assault rifle…

I know the US Army has a precise definition for an assault rifle, but I'm not so sure there is a good legal definition, and that's what I'm talking about. This holds true for New Zealand. If anything the US Army definition is probably too precise and would cast a net probably not broad enough. Also the "selective fire" of assault rifles means you can select either semi-auto or full auto, which I think should be prefe…

Automatic weapons (and select fire weapons) have been heavily restricted in the US since 1986. It's not a US Army definition, it's been an internationally defined term whose use in this way dates to WWII. It's not a new thing.

Banning magazines is ridiculous. Banning cosmetic features as the "AWB" in 1994 did is even more ridiculous -- it's intellectually dishonest.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#75

Post by nicolashahn »

pariahHN wrote: post #71
nicolashahn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A necessary precondition for a tyrannical government is a power imbalance between the people and the government. Allowing citizens to own arms that are in the same league as what the government uses prevents this.

So, civilians owning tanks? Predator drones? Attack helicopters? Cruise missiles? Fighter jets? Biological or chemical weapons? We don't live in a world where the people and the government can reasonably expect to have symmetrical physical warfare capabilities. This argument is irrelevant today. The only area where the exists any form of symmetry would be cyber weapons, not physical. Defending against other individua…

> So, civilians owning tanks? Predator drones? Attack helicopters? Cruise missiles? Fighter jets? Biological or chemical weapons?

We don't need any of that stuff to keep the balance. Iraq, Afganistan, and Vietnam are proof of this. Insurgencies are extremely effective against our military. The only real requirement for them to exist is a sufficient quantity of small arms, and maybe some improvised explosives. The argument is still very much relevant. What's happening in Venezuela right now would not be possible without having first disarmed the populace.

Post reply on HN