Pfft bears

Here are the Cliff Notes:

BROmanceNZ: "I'm a stupid foreigner trying to tell Americans to ban guns."
Tigress: "People getting killed by guns in America is just a fact of life. Guns are a right, I won't change my mind."
KoHeartsGPA: "HURR DURR MY GREEN CRAYON TASTES LIKE GRASS!"

That's probably all you really need to know so far.

I'll try to keep responses brief for the sake of those playing at home (and apparently can't change the channel).



Great. Look, a number with no context, no examples. And it's good to know that the deaths of those in those nearly daily shootings in the US are justified because you're willing to risk your own life to have a gun.



You'll have to explain that to supporters of "Three Strikes" laws who believe that the threat of harsher sentencing is a deterrent to criminals.



So your solution is to do what? Have no checks?

Statistics quoted earlier suggest that more than 3 million people have been denied the purchase of a firearm since the inception of the law - would you rather those people have the weapons they were trying to buy?



If I can't buy a gun in one state because I fail a Federal background check and then the next state across also has a mandatory Federal background check, I'm not likely to get access to a firearm there either. So it stands to reason that if there are no states where the purchase of a firearm isn't run through a Federal background check, then it reduces the likelihood of guns falling into the hands of "Bad Guys" doesn't it?



Yeah, but if the law introduced withdraws my right to own a gun because I've been convicted of a felony - what's the problem? Laws don't stop everyone but having no laws stops exactly no one from "killing every person you have ever loved just for the firetruck of it".



Apply this to a convicted felon with a history of violent crimes and assault of other people. Should he still get the right to own a gun to defend his family, even though the likelihood that he might also use that gun to hurt others is higher than it is for people like you or Buch?

Or are we okay with that felon not having a gun, even if it means his innocent family members might die because another criminal is upset with him and wants to send a message via murdering his family?

Again, we're back to the boat holes scenario where you'd rather do nothing about the number of people dying by guns whilst waiting for your government to sort out the socio-economic factors that lead people to commit crimes, some of which are done with guns.

Facts are that creating mandatory Federal background checks in all states, for all purchases will absolutely reduce the number of guns transferring to the hands of "Bad Guys", with the likelihood of reducing the number of violent gun crimes across the country.

All the while, you can push for Trump to make his Border Wall a reality to create jobs for those criminals to do so they're not trying to figure out how else to murder or rob people without a gun, now that those Federal laws have kicked in.

See how simultaneous actions work better than putting blinkers on and being narrow-minded about a solution?

"Yeah, but if the law introduced withdraws my right to own a gun because I've been convicted of a felony - what's the problem? Laws don't stop everyone but having no laws stops exactly no one from "killing every person you have ever loved just for the firetruck of it".

The law is already on the books... exception some states still allow private sales:

let's call it the last domino for the good guys, because after this law is passed all "Good Guy" guns are registered.

our felon is more than willing to go and purchase his weapon from the black market i.e. gangs or even other individuals willing and able to acquire guns and selling them illegally. Your "Bad Guy" as demonstrated in you rhetoric is already in motion of breaking current laws. Are you truly trying to convince me our "Bad Guy", is somehow going to be scared away from breaking more laws, in acquiring their gun? oh it must be that last law you passed that did the trick. "Bad Guy" crying because the new law stopped him, just like Prohibition stopped Alcohol sales in America.

Meanwhile after your new shiny law passed, and all guns get registered, how many more massacres do you think it will take for all guns to be confiscated? One, maybe 20, or after another 100, proving your law was complete and utterly useless. Except it serves to we now know where to go to get 98-99% of all legally owned guns from the "Good Guys" who followed the law.

How about concentrating those formidable resources on getting illegal guns and those who provide them of the street. Oh oops that's right operations like Fast and Furious are much more lucrative for those proposing anti-gun laws.

So when do the "Good Guys" get their guns back in Australia and Britain? At the end of day the majority of the guns they got was from the "Good Guys". The "Bad Guys" sure as hell did not register their illegally acquired guns much less turn them in... so who has guns when it is all said and done? What are you going to say to the almost 1 million + victims per year, who if they had a gun could have prevented the crime in the first place, as they currently do today?

You should have pulled your knife out?
Why did you not have a bomb ready?
You should have jumped into your car?

Not "some". I'll let you do your data analysis counting skills:

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/...versal-background-checks/

The spread of gun control laws across the US are patchy coverage at best. There's absolutely no way anyone could say that there is more effective gun control than not.



Just because he doesn't care about breaking a law doesn't mean that he can. You've completely missed the point that if background check laws with their patchy, inconsistent application across the country can still stop 3 million bad guys from getting guns, how many do you think it would stop if it was universally applied nationwide? It's not rocket science and you don't need 20 years experience of data analysis to figure it out.

And if you can't just sell a gun to any old body in any state, then obviously the rate of guns being trafficked and falling into the illegal market reduces. So even if he does go to the black market, he's going to find that firearms are likely to be more expensive due to their scarcity for people like him, and his options aren't going to be as plentiful as they were previously.

Comparing the situation to Prohibition is fine until you realise that making hooch in your garage is far, far easier (even with the invention of the 3D printer, because how many "bad guys" can afford those?) than making your own firearm. Even if you could make your own, you're not about to make a modified semi-automatic that can fire full auto with 100-round drum mags, are you?



1. How many fewer massacres would you need to see before you'd accept that gun control can have a positive impact? Because, as far as data and statistics seem to suggest, that's the way things would go. If you've got any counter studies, feel free to provide them.
2. Erm, where has anyone ever suggested that the nationwide list of registered firearms and/or owners would be public? Never. Because that's a stupid idea.



Who makes money off of delivering stronger gun control?

Actually, here's an easier question: How much does the gun industry stand to lose if gun control increases?



https://www.bbc.com/.../world-australia-44105129

Australian's have guns though. While total gun ownership per capita has declined since the Port Arthur Massacres in 1996, those who already owned guns have since increased the number of guns that they own - and are registering them at a higher rate. Despite this, there have only been two mass shootings in Australia since 35 were gunned down in Tasmania. Gun-related crime was already on the decline prior to Port Arthur but statistics showed that the declined doubled in the years after.

https://www.ecnmy.org/...ers-than-you-might-think/

Similarly, Britain hasn't been completely disarmed. In fact, there are still some 1.3 million shotguns registered in the UK - which just shy of one in every 64 people. The culture of the UK is that guns are for sport or for hunting, and the article cites a YouGov poll that indicated that 30% of Brits wanted a complete ban on guns, while 38% wanted tougher restrictions.

I pointed out earlier that the firearm homicide rate is higher in the US than in the UK, by a considerable amount.

Looks like the good guys do have guns in the UK and in Australia and there are less bad guys with guns as well.



Look at Britain and Australian - there aren't 1 million+ victims of bad guys with guns. Not in a year, not even over a decade. Not even if you combine the two countries together.

I literally don't have to tell those people anything because they mostly don't exist.

You're going to need a better argument.

The current population of the United Kingdom is 67,597,264 as of Sunday, September 8, 2019,

The current population of Australia is 25,258,957

The current population of the United States of America is 329,430,157.

British and Aussie population combined is way less than 1/3 of US.

Turns out I attributed the claim of there being "1m+ victims " to Australia and the UK.

Even if you attribute it to the US, most studies of defensive gun uses tend to be far lower than 1 million. The often cited Kleck and Gertz study, that was heralded by pro-gun advocates as "proving" there are more than 2 million uses of a gun in self defense a year, has been roundly criticised for its methods and was even replicated by other researchers which found far lower instances of defensive gun use.

None of that matters anyway because people in both Britain and Australia, despite having had their gun laws tightened, still own guns legally. In the US, all of those people who are legal, responsible gun owners (like Buch) would still get to keep their guns, or have the right to purchase other guns.

So the claim that there would be 1m+ more victims because "laws took their guns away" makes the assumption that those people had their guns taken away. If gun control is done properly, there's no reason those people should be without a firearm unless they legally shouldn't have them under current laws anyway.

Besides. If 5 people shot dead in Alabama, 8 people killed in Odessa, 10 gunned down in Dayton, 22 in El Paso, etc etc aren't enough to bring about action to reduce the number of shootings, then 1m+ is surely nothing in comparison to the 329 million strong population of the US.

Just unfortunately collateral that comes with having a country that values the right of owning a gun above almost everything else.

You can't have our guns, not happening.

Seems you only want criminals to have them, that's exactly what happens when you take that right away from everyone.

how about working on attempting to enforce New Zealand laws, before trying to propose new laws for the USA?

Noncompliance Kneecaps New Zealand's Gun Control Scheme
As of last week, only around 700 weapons had been turned over.
J.D. TUCCILLE | 7.8.2019 12:48 PM
https://reason.com/...lands-gun-control-scheme/

Once again, responding to a horrendous crime by inflicting knee-jerk, authoritarian restrictions on innocent people proves to be an ineffective means of convincing people to obey. Specifically, New Zealand's government—which also stepped up censorship and domestic surveillance after bloody attacks on two Christchurch mosques earlier this year—is running into stiff resistance to new gun rules from firearms owners who are slow to surrender now-prohibited weapons and will probably never turn them in.


oh looky here

"
As of last week, only around 700 weapons had been turned over. There are an estimated 1.5 million guns—with an unknown number subject to the new prohibition on semiautomatic firearms—in the country overall.

Traditionally relaxed in its approach to firearms regulation, and enjoying a low crime rate, New Zealand has no firearms registration rule. That means authorities have no easy way of knowing what guns are in circulation or who owns them."

your own country has no registration rule, yet you come on this forum proposing all guns in the USA be registered???
--- how about selling your proposal to your own countrymen first, before trying to sell it to other countries???
--- A resounding success is defined as 700 out of 1.5 million guns turned in???

"These weapons are unlikely to be confiscated by police because they don't know of their existence," Philippa Yasbek of Gun Control NZ admitted. "These will become black-market weapons if their owners choose not to comply with the law and become criminals instead."

Yasbek's organization advocates registering all guns in private hands. But that won't help with gathering guns already in the possession of owners appalled by the government's attack on the rights of innocent people—government attacks, it's worth noting, that come in response to the crimes of one man who explicitly anticipated just such a response.

ummm... New Zealanders consider it a right and not a privilege... hmmm... I guess you still have lots of work to do in New Zealand before setting your sights on the USA. May I suggest a door to door campaign, to get signatures demonstrating the popularity of making gun rights a privilege among your own countrymen? It's easy to legislate from the comfort of city hall, it's much hard to gain compliance of hair-brained laws, designed to leave the average person defenseless.

On a side note omg crime rates are way down in Australia!!!

"In Australia it is estimated that only about 20% of all banned self-loading rifles have been given up to the authorities," wrote Franz Csaszar, professor of criminology at the University of Vienna, after Australia's 1996 compensated confiscation of firearms following a mass murder in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Csaszar put the number of illegally retained arms in Australia at between two and five million.

"Many members of the community still possess grey-market firearms because they did not surrender these during the 1996–97 gun buyback," the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission conceded in a 2016 report. "The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission continues to conservatively estimate that there are more than 260,000 firearms in the illicit firearms market."

80% of the guns were never turned in... obviously with so many keeping their guns and simply not registering them or talking about them, the drop in gun related crime had zilch to do with the new gun laws.

"And who can claim to be surprised? By refusing to comply with restrictions, New Zealand gun owners are just following in the footsteps of their counterparts in Australia, Europe, and the United States. In each of these places, and many more besides, gun owners ignored laws, kept their property out of sight, and frustrated efforts to disarm them.

If New Zealand's political class had looked to the history of gun control efforts they would have seen that they were walking a well-trodden path that leads to a dead end. But then again, if they had enough foresight to know that ill-considered restrictions on personal liberty are usually counterproductive and often breed rebellion, they probably wouldn't have gone into government."

just a little brutal truth, just like prohibition did not stop alcohol looks like the citizens are also defying gun control laws in Australia and New Zealand... /me wonders why...

I'm not proposing new laws for the US. I'm arguing about the effectiveness of certain types of gun control, and against stupid arguments against considering gun control.



First off, it's worth noting that this is not a New Zealand news source. It'll be important later.



https://www.newsroom.co.nz/...ack-a-fiasco-or-a-success
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/...d=1&objectid=12264562

Actually, the buy-back has seen more than 15,000 firearms returned, with more than 64,000 attachments being handed in. That's still shy of any estimates total affected firearms circulating around New Zealand. Still, the buy-back program has until December at this stage and New Zealand Government's are generally quite pragmatic; if it needs to be extended, then it will be.



Again, false numbers but I'll come to that later. Also, they aren't expected 1.5m guns to be handed in. You're right; we don't truly know how many should be handed back because there isn't a registry of firearms. One estimate is that there could be 170,000 banned guns needing to be handed in.

The Prime Minister has not indicated that a gun registration might be on the agenda but, again, we're a pragmatic nation. If we studies and examples of a law working elsewhere, we'll consider it. Like these:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26905895
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/3/184



You might not want to hang your hat on Gun Control NZ; they're a pragmatic group that is supportive of gun control laws where they're proven to be scientifically effective in reducing gun harm, whilst advocating on behalf of legitimate gun owners' ability to own and use firearms responsibly.

They're not the NRA. In fact, the NRA probably wouldn't like them.



Firstly, the claim that owners are "appalled by the government's attack on the rights of innocent people" isn't a quote attributed to Yasbeck. That's why it's not in quotation marks. It cleverly follows a sentence that includes Yasbeck's name, but the "right" to own a gun is the wording of the author.. who isn't a New Zealander.

In fact, Reason has been criticised in New Zealand media for misleading readers about the facts of New Zealand's changing gun laws and buy back facts:

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/...ts-nz-gun-buyback-efforts

---- From the article:

[Dr Catherine Strong, a senior journalism lecturer at Massey University] believed that was the goal of the articles - to portray New Zealand’s gun reform efforts as a fiasco. “They want it to look like it was a failure. This is going to really ramp up.”

She also thought gun lobby groups could well be behind the articles, saying they were known for spreading fake news.

According to Strong, political groups like the United States’ National Rifle Association use New Zealand “as a patsy".

"They can say a lot of things about New Zealand because there’s no way of really proving or disproving it."

----

https://www.abc.net.au/...ch-mass-shooting/10990632
https://www.stuff.co.nz/...uyback-event-in-southland
http://theconversation.com/...distrust-gun-lobby-121736
https://newsregister.com/...ture--1567830858--34432--

Regardless of the very anti-gun control narrative Reason is pushing, New Zealand isn't the US. In fact, that last link is an article written by an expat American living in New Zealand when the Christchurch shootings took place. He's pretty much hit the nail on the head; we benefit from our size and isolation, we don't buy into that "personal protection" bullfluff that the gun lobby in the US spoon feeds people and, as a result, we don't suffer from a paralyzing fear of taking pragmatic action in our laws when someone decided to shoot 51 people.

In fact, read the comments of that article written by the ex-physician of McMinnville, OR. Look at all the same poor arguments brought up by those clearly offended by the author being impressed with New Zealand and its gun control laws. Britain knife fights, lefty/commie control, "But cars!", all those same soundbites. Are you all reading from the same playbook?



What's interesting is that Franz Csaszar's quote was written in the year 2000, while the report itself was written in 2016 (misleading connections seems to be par for the course with Reason as a media outlet). Even with the estimate of 260,000 illegal firearms floating about in the illegal market, the Australian report also says that 640,000 firearms were handed back in during the 1996 buyback. The total number of recovered illegal firearms by 2016 was 1.16 million (some recovered where owners of both legal and illegal firearms reported only their legal firearms stolen, but the illegal ones were recovered by police at the same time). So even if Csaszar's claim of only 20% of firearms being recovered in the buy back in 1996 is true, Australia has recovered double that in 20 years - a period of time in which there were only two mass shootings that took place in the country.

And, as the cherry on top for the Australian report, it notes that many of the owners who received money from the buy back in 1996 used it to purchase new, legal firearms. So the Good Guys with guns weren't disarmed, they were simply driven to purchase different guns that complied with the laws of their country.

Definitely keeping studying Australia, however. You might learn something.



New Zealand's parliament passed the legislation 199 votes to 1. That's democracy. Those are the peoples' representatives making a clear statement about the direction the country goes in in the wake of the Christchurch shooting. That's almost unanimous support for the ban across four of NZ's five political parties (the one dissenting vote is a single member of his party).

If you're choosing to break the law, you're choosing to do so in the face of democracy.

Hurr durr no, I've never said I want to take away guns from every American.

Back to eating your crayons.

You're an idiot lol

Colour me unsurprised that you can eat an entire box of Crayola crayons and still only come up with an insult so bland as “You’re an idiot lol”.

I suppose it’s at least a small consolation that, as a gun owner, you’re never likely to be a threat to anyone but yourself.

He could have at least said your mom was a sheep... isn't that the norm in NZ?

Haha, yeah. For NZ and Wales, the sheep fluffer jokes are classic.

Heard it from an aus in afghanyland

Of course. He's just salty that their sheep don't put out.

My dad was in Afghanistan with the RNZAF. I remember trying on his kit before he flew out (minus the magazines but getting to hold his Glock and Steyr Aug). Was heavy enough without the extra weight of ammunition. Thought it was excessive given that he's an airman but, even though he'd spend most of his time in Bamiyan, we understood he wasn't going to be safe.

I'd actually love to visit the country one day, if it's ever safe to do so.

well I'll wait until all guns in New Zealand are registered, because as we all know now unregistered guns lead to massive gun violence. just like we are currently seeing in New Zealand due to their unregistered gun problem.

btw the USA is a republic not a democracy i.e mob rule, and congressmen and women are supposed to do what their constituents ask them to do. There are many many districts in the USA where a congressional representative could get themselves tarred and feathered if they ever vote yes on certain gun control measures. pitch forks and torches come to mind at times, when I hear some of these representative talk.

199 to 1, and according to you overwhelmingly accepted as needed by your countrymen.

If true, they should put a team together, and go door to door, and ask...
Do you have any guns in the house?
Would you like to voluntarily give those up now?
May we register any remaining guns you wish to keep in your home or elsewhere which you currently own?
Is it ok if we search your home with our canine unit for any guns you may have forgotten you owned?

while politicians and policy buffs like yourself love to throw out these favorable poll numbers

The true test is when they start going door to door, and asking those 4 simple questions. Perhaps even use the local community center to see who all really shows up. Money where your mouth is type approach, just how popular is it?

----------------------------------
Though New Zealand doesn’t require gun owners to register their weapons, local police have estimated there are somewhere between 1.2 and 1.5 million guns in circulation in the country.

A total of 11,511 firearms have been voluntarily turned in to the New Zealand government since the buyback began in mid July, according to police.

---------------------------------

rubber meets road ... 1% maybe 2% compliance... even if we say only 170K needs to be turned in it about 7%... I'm really not impressed.

It's a far cry of the supposedly high percentage numbers you are throwing out there claiming New Zealanders are in full support of this.

So New Zealand is ready and willing to throw millions of its own citizens in jail because 199 politicians who voted using their emotions did not get their way. What are those 199 politicians going to do when surrounded by a Democratic mob of millions demanding their heads be placed on a spike? How many fellow citizens getting thrown in jail do you think it will take to anger the local population. would outright riots and demonstrations prove the point... perhaps a good reason why the govs are not going door to door asking the 4 questions above.

No, an unstable person driven to murder based on ideological beliefs about "White Genocide" and "The Great Replacement" and other such bullfluff led to a seemingly one-off tragic mass murder in a nation that, despite its high rate of gun ownership, sees gun violence very rarely.

This is not a "currently seeing in New Zealand" situation. This is an exception, not a regular feature of New Zealand. If one instance is your measure of what constitutes a "current" "massive gun violence" issue, then the US is in an epidemic.

Yet your preferred plan of action is inaction. Funny that.



Both the US and New Zealand are representative democracies. The US is a republic with a codified constitution, a congress, and a President as your Head of State. New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy with a parliament, an uncodified constituion, and the Queen as the Head of State (represented in NZ by the Governor-General, though the Prime Minister is the head of the Government and the GG is generally a rubber-stamp position that gives Royal Ascent to any laws passed by Parliament).

Congress and Parliament both exist to serve the will of the people.



There were no pitchforks and torches following the announcement and subsequent passing of the legislation.



That would be an option *if* the government, police and people were seriously concerned about repeated similar incidents of gun violence.

As it is, all three probably accept that there's no need for ICE-level house raids to seize illegal guns and prosecute people. Things will happen as they happen.



With no real evidence to the contrary, it's nothing short of misleading to suggest that the poll numbers are anything but. Particularly as you probably far less about New Zealanders than I know about Americans.



There's no need for all that. They've already changed the law and they have a series of planned buyback sessions already scheduled. Again, the government are pragmatic and will reassess what needs to be done again after the Dec deadline. If they don't think they've been successful, they'll reevaluate their options.

That's what taking action looks like.



https://www.newsroom.co.nz/...ack-a-fiasco-or-a-success
https://www.newshub.co.nz/...olice-buyback-scheme.html

Again, the number is actually at 15,000 and has been a result of police-only run buyback events. A pilot is underway to allow gun owners to use national dealer, Gun City, to act as a buyback point for firearm owners who don't want to deal with the police. Gun City expects that this will likely increase the rate of firearms being turned in.

Either way, the Government has set its deadline as December - however, the biggest concern is that they haven't finalised the banned guns list yet. That is a fair and serious concern for gun owners whose firearms may be in limbo at the moment. If there's something the Government is dragging its heels on, it's this.



But New Zealanders largely are in support of moves to ban semi-automatics. In fact, many normal citizens interviewed in the wake of the Christchurch shooting exclaimed surprise that weapons that could kill that many people is so short of a space of time weren't banned already.

That's not to say that New Zealanders wouldn't support a petition to loosen those gun laws if they were found to be unfairly restricting legitimate owners (which, at the moment, the most legitimate case of disproportionate impact would be on sports shooters). They just need to make their case to the public, get support, and parliament would need to act.



https://www.stuff.co.nz/...ners-frustrated-by-police

Ridiculous. The country only has 4.7 million people. Only 300,000 people are estimated to be firearm owners and the rest of the country wouldn't accept the Government locking those people up unjustly.

And we wouldn't need firearms to force our Government's hand, either.



"Voted using their emotions" = Actually, voted due to the social climate gripping New Zealand following the shooting.



If millions of New Zealanders marches in response to a policy, the Government would be forced to take action. One, because we're a democracy. Two, because even a million is a quarter of our population.

What happens in the US when a million or more march and popular opinion changes?

https://news.gallup.com/...issatisfied-gun-laws.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Our_Lives

@BROmanceNZ

we've been going back and forth for a while now: here is my honest take on the problem, and the reason why I truly feel gun control would fail miserably in the USA. Also why I see it as much more of multi-faceted problem needing much more long term solutions than knee-jerk reactions of blaming guns.

First off:
The second amendment is to protect every US Citizen from a potential tyrannous government, in recognition of the revolution the founders had just fought. They recognized because their fellow countrymen had not turned in their weapons per the demands of the crown they were able to achieve their own independence. The second amendment has zilch to do with sports hunting or hunting for a livelihood, self protection from criminals, or wild animals. It is not about a right to have fun, or surviving in the wilderness, or killing the next would be mass shooter. It's about Americans having the ability to defend every other right being provided under our Constitution. This tyrannous government may never rear its ugly head, however being prepared really should not be seen as a bad thing.

1. short of declaring marshal law and going door to door like they did in Boston after the bombings there or in New Orleans after Katrina. The gov is not going to get a very high percentage of the actual guns out there.

2. It's more of a sociological problem linked to population density, upward mobility, personal opportunities, and an overall perception of fairness within a given subset of individual.

3. Lack of a localized strong force uniting communities into cohesive units toward common goals... see Los Angeles south central's community garden as a clear example of major violence reduction when local communities implement positive change. Providing an alternate set of goals and focus to the local community. No gun laws, no buyback programs, no mandatory surrender of weapons of any kind.

4. A strong need for a solution to poverty, homelessness, with outreach programs to identify those who need counseling, guidance and a direction in their life. Community based programs to take individuals out of the rut they are in and provide them with a clear set of achievable goals. Like hands on apprenticeship type training in various trades. Promote a sense of individual self-worth within local communities.

5. Stop all this BS divide and conquer rhetoric and propaganda being spewed out out by the mass media where your neighbor is dehumanized as a potentially a white supremacist Nazi, homophobic, xenophobe, deplorable human being. Although in reality they are a Second Generation Gay African American whose family immigrated to the USA from Nigeria less than 20 years ago. However you saw them wearing a MAGA hat so it must be true the media said so.

6. Start providing jobs locally vs. creating a scenario wherein people have to commute, creating a dissociation paradigm. It's ok to pollute the neighborhood your job is in, and people getting laid off in your own community is no longer relevant because the majority living in the local community works 60 miles away. This a part of the society we currently live in. Completely disconnected from the needs of those around us. Big Corp America is not all that dumb... but it does create major problems in the long run. Those factories moving over seas without much of a cry out of foul did not occur by accident.

7. A clear sense of fairness within the judicial system, wherein those who are rich are not given preferential treatment in the sense of how much of a lawyer can you afford, who will ensure every i is dotted and every t is crossed when it comes to your constitutional rights. versus some public defender who's goal is to clear court cases as expeditiously as possible, and looking to have you accept plea deals, so the justice system can simply move on to the next case. Americans are highly aware of the rigged system and not just with justice, but with just about everything the government has their hands in. education, social services, medical, politics, land rights and zoning laws...you name it and its heavily biased and corrupt. lead by example??

8. Get rid of affirmative action, whereas it may have been needed in the past it is no longer needed today. It needs to be recognized that in today's social structure it is divisive. it would be much more equal to erase the minority type statuses and apply the programs based on actual need from a position of those who have the power approve a person into a program are completely blind to whatever demographic the applicant may belong to. In actuality demographics are another ruse to divide and conquer. Socio-economic conditions of poverty does not magically stop with minorities, nor does privilege of an upper class existence exclusively belong to or stop with those considered to be non-minorities. We are all humans, and equality does not separate us along demographic lines as to who qualifies for what.

9. A generation that has lost the ability to be pragmatic, to take life's curved balls, and keep going. To accept and at least attempt to understand different points of view. If anything this is probably one of the greatest tragedies our academia has imposed upon us. Everyone wins no one loses, creating an atmosphere where a loss or not getting ones way is the worst possible offense that can be committed. Political Correctness completely out of control. People tend to notice when others are destroyed, over something they said or did 10+ years. hmm. Did I ever say or do something 10+ years ago that could get me fired, black listed, or worse make it so I can no longer work in my chosen profession? Boycotts being called out on companies, cities, and entire states. People on social media losing control of their emotions and unfriending and blocking ultimately Perma-banning life long friends and even immediate family over a difference of opinion. Riots and violent action being condoned and deemed acceptable against anyone who does not agree with their version of what the world should be like. I finally heard Oprah actually calling out Black listing, in full recognition that it is unacceptable, and their own names could end up on such a list someday. Much more of this is going to be needed if we ever choose to fix this country.

10. A major change in the past 30 years is the internet, and videos games, the dissociate nature of these has created something on a larger scale that is akin to a social apathy. Many have grown up with a complete lack of empathy or the ability to walk the mile in another person's shoes. The golden rule of do onto others as you would have done upon yourself is being left to the wayside. No society survives this, they eventually tear each other apart, over a chicken sandwich. People stop helping each other out, it becomes about personal gain, and in some cases what can be taken, thru force of muscle and/or mind. Others simply choose to withdraw, and escape from this reality around them. Some also notice how society attempts to deny them this escape, and a cornered animal can become highly vicious. Native Americans being put on reservations they could not escape from kinda proved this point. It took a literal genocide to stop the reaction to such imposed conditions. freedom of movement and allowing people to walk off the reservation if they see fit. Perhaps even help in providing a success pathway to such would ease major parts of the anxiety felt at a societal level. In many cases society is an oppressor of those who want out, or see things slightly differently. Non-inclusive to those who would change the status quo, or would simply prefer not to play by the rules of those who already have much more than they will ever need.

--------------------------------------------------------------

So based on the above i say fixing what is wrong, will take much more than banning a handful of guns, or getting people to line up to register their weapons. For that matter the problems above and their solutions have nothing to do with guns. However I would venture to say solving these would go a much greater distance in solving the underlying root cause of violence in general and across the board. Without the narrow minded all pervasive focus on the sliver being touted by the mass media as Gun-Related Violence. The solutions are not embedded in monumental efforts either, they are much more about local communities actually caring and the individuals within them reaching out toward each other to create inclusive spaces for people to engage in. To instill values in our children to accept a variety of opinions and differences and treat all those around them with the dignity and respect they deserve. Teach the golden rule and lead by example.

no need for gun control when those within a given community respect and value each other.

Last walloftext.jpg, I promise.



I truly do appreciate your point of view and your discussion, regardless of our differing views. Thank you.

I’ll respond to this section of your response directly, but the rest I’ll just bullet point.



I 100% accept and understand this. Owning guns is a right that your founders agreed was important to ensure that no tyrannical government could attempt to take their rights away.

That said, there doesn’t seem to be any practical relationship to things like open/concealed carry laws and the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. If the time comes for the people to take up arms against the US government, open/concealed carry laws won’t apply as standard laws will be suspended. The future, possible tyrannical government isn’t just going to jump out from behind a bush, nor are they going to pop up in a Walmart. The only practicable application of the 2nd Amendment in open/concealed carry laws is where an individual decides to kill a police officer they deem to be acting on behalf of a tyrannical government. I don’t know if anyone has ever tried or succeeded in justifying the shooting of a police officer under the 2nd Amendment, but it definitely feels like a can of worms.

Similarly, gun registries won’t necessarily make things easier for a tyrannical government to disarm people, nor do they violate the 2nd Amendment right. All the government will know is which citizens have weapons, but they’ll figure that out soon enough when those people on the registry turn their guns on them anyway. Unregistered guns will be the least of their problems. When the next American revolution starts, it won’t be people just sitting in their home waiting for the government to show up at their house so they can shoot them. What a registry will do in the meantime will be to assist in the tracking of firearms back to their owners when a crime takes place, and potentially create a disincentive for those thinking to sell their firearms on the black market (because they may become liable for prosecution if their shadily sold firearm ends up the murder weapon somewhere).

The argument can definitely be made that things like licensing and background checks do violate the 2nd Amendment, if you hold that the right to bear arms is universal and unable to be withheld to anyone - which would mean you’d have to allow felons and the mentally ill access to firearm ownership as well. If you’re okay with that, then arguing against licensing and background checks (which, essentially, categorise those who do and don’t have the right) as a violation of the 2nd Amendment makes sense. If you support restricting firearm ownership to some (like felons and the mentally ill), then licensing and background checks are a necessary part of ensuring that those people remain without access to firearm ownership.

Gun bans, however, are probably where I need to relent and agree that they are a 100% violation of the 2nd Amendment. While restriction to some weapons may make environments safer for all, if the intention is to be true to the 2nd Amendment, then banning any type of weapon is unconstitutional. That said, black markets in more dangerous weapons can’t really exist in any significant form without access to those weapons being legal for law abiding citizens. I wonder if that could also mean it’s possible to argue that the government restricting the publication and distribution of bomb making materials is unconstitutional as bombs would be just as useful to a citizen militia fighting a tyrannical government as a gun would be.



1. In America, that is likely to be very true.

2, 3 & 4. Those are extremely complex and controversial issues that aren’t going to be fixed overnight. Long term policies to fix sociological issues will help in the long term, gun control policies will help in the short. Victims of gun violence don’t have time to wait for things like poverty to be solved in order to protect their lives, same with the victims of other crimes that poverty has a significant impact on (like rape and property theft).

5. In much the same way that Trump-haters need to accept that he was voted in as President by the majority (arguments about popular vote/electoral college aside), gun rights activists might also need to accept that attitudes towards gun control are changing - that more people are becoming dissatisfied with current laws and an increasing amount of people would prefer tougher controls (I linked the Gallup poll previously). If you’re serious about creating less division, then reasonably accepting the truth needs to come from both sides.

6. This has very little to do with the gun control debate and everything to do with capitalism and economy. If you believe in capitalism, then you can’t really get upset when a corporation shifts jobs offshore because the capitalist thing to do is to maximise profit. If labour in the US is too expensive due to high salary and benefit expectations, it’s reasonable to expect companies to look overseas for cheaper labour. In fact, they have been doing that for decades. The smashing unions across the West was about trying to reduce the cost of labour so that businesses could stay in countries like the US but they still ended up leaving eventually. Now you have less jobs and salaries and benefits that are lagging behind the cost of living because you have no unions standing up for workers, and no companies to employ them.

7. Fixing the Justice *and* policing system would go a long way to reducing the persistent culture of distrust people have in the government. Agreed.

8. Affirmative action has no bearing on gun violence or gun control. This just feels like something you’re aggrieved about and decided to include. What is relevant is that your call for sociological problems to be resolved in order to fix the “root problem” of gun control also applies here. Affirmative action does a number of things wrong, but also does a number of things right - and those right things are to the benefit of those minority groups who are still waiting, like you, for solutions to sociological problems that will finally make them equal. You’re far more likely to earn a university degree if your parents have degrees. Women are undoubtedly still not valued equally to men in some professions, in spite of their high skill sets and experience. The younger generation are learning, through these affirmative action policies, that you can’t judge someone differently based on gender or race or whatever. That’s what long term change looks like.

9. This is a social learning period of people as a whole. We never knew we could cancel shows or shut down businesses by creating an online movement. We also didn’t expect that creating a database of information that exists forever would mean we’d find ourselves at the end of such cancel culture. It’s got nothing to do with people “not being able to take a joke” or “not understanding different points of view”. Some perspectives have been around long enough now that we can all agree that they’re dogfluff. Nazism, homophobia, and racism (even against whites). Deciding to put the boot into individuals, groups or companies that think slagging off gays, being sexist or dabbling in racism is okay isn’t an overblown response, it’s where we’ve come to as a society with the new technological means we have available to us.

10. I don’t really know what this point is really about.

End of the day, I’m just saying that gun control doesn’t have to hurt legitimate owners and Americans can still have the right to bear arms without having to irrationally oppose anything that doesn’t equate to free, unfettered gun ownership. As a foreigner, protecting the lives of innocent people seems more important than the right of some to carry around a firearm in public, sell it privately to anyone without any sort of good character check, or the right to not have to keep your gun locked and secure, away from those who should not have access to it. You could even deny government moves to ban any weapons if the right controls existed elsewhere to ensure that those owners are supported in keeping their firearms from falling into the wrong hands.

Good bye Bolton....next...

"Revolving Doors"

Revolving doors what have I done
Someone on the TV attempting love
Revolving doors what will I become
A redneck song

Paid up for seven
But he only got an eight now, now
I feel that I'm paused by all the pills
I see no wronging

On a foggy day
Revolving doors in London to a foggy day in Boston
Revolving doors in London to a foggy day in Boston...
I sit in a diner
And the Beatles play

I'm paid up for a seven
But I only got s.o-eight oh now

Revolving doors in London to a foggy day in Boston...
I feel that I'm paused by all the pills
I seem to run out here
Revolving doors
It's stormy on the eastern sea board
He got silver up his night

He paid up for three
But got only two

Revolving doors in London to a foggy day in Boston
Revolving doors in London to a foggy day in Boston...

Then he said
Seems I was born for this
Seems I was born to this
Revolving doors
Revolving doors
.

~consider this~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_Aq8ZIbDQQ

11:40 ^

pretty interesting channel, and well studied ... i like it for its honesty and thoughtful presentation.

TIM ALLEN - ON TRUMP ...
Whatever your feelings for Trump, these are some interesting points that Tim Allen makes. Put your hatred aside and think about these observations.
Tim Allen is credited with writing this.

From :Tim Allen
Here are some interesting points to think about prior to 2020, especially to my friends on the fence, like moderate Democrats, Libertarians and Independents and the never Trump Republicans and those thinking of "walking away" from the Democratic party.

Women are upset at Trump’s naughty words -- they also bought 80 million copies of 50 Shades of Gray.

Not one feminist has defended Sarah Sanders. It seems women’s rights only matter if those women are liberal.

No Border Walls. No voter ID laws. Did you figure it out yet? But wait... there's more.

Chelsea Clinton got out of college and got a job at NBC that paid $900,000 per year. Her mom flies around the country speaking out about white privilege.

And just like that, they went from being against foreign interference in our elections to allowing non-citizens to vote in our elections.

President Trump’s wall costs less than the Obamacare website. Let that sink in, America.

We are one election away from open borders, socialism, gun confiscation, and full-term abortion nationally. We are fighting evil.

They sent more troops and armament to arrest Roger Stone than they sent to defend Benghazi.

60 years ago, Venezuela was 4th on the world economic freedom index. Today, they are 179th and their citizens are dying of starvation. In only 10 years, Venezuela was destroyed by democratic socialism.

Russia donated $0.00 to the Trump campaign. Russia donated $145,600,000 to the Clinton Foundation. But Trump was the one investigated!

Nancy Pelosi invited illegal aliens to the State of the Union. President Trump Invited victims of illegal aliens to the State of the Union. Let that sink in.

A socialist is basically a communist who doesn’t have the power to take everything from their citizens at gunpoint ... Yet!

How do you walk 3000 miles across Mexico without food or support and show up at our border 100 pounds overweight and with a cellphone?

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wants to ban cars, ban planes, give out universal income and thinks socialism works. She calls Donald Trump crazy.

Bill Clinton paid $850,000 to Paula Jones To get her to go away. I don’t remember the FBI raiding his lawyer’s office.

I wake up every day and I am grateful that Hillary Clinton is not the president of the United States of America.

The same media that told me Hillary Clinton had a 95% chance of winning now tells me Trump’s approval ratings are low.

“The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”— Margaret Thatcher

Maxine Waters opposes voter ID laws; She thinks that they are racist. You need to have a photo ID to attend her town hall meetings.

President Trump said — "They’re not after me. They’re after you. I’m just in their way."
Read that again.

Interesting

Buch 2024

I agree 100% Buch

@BROmanceNZ

I will try to make it brief no guarantee though my brain tends to roam across a wide associative spectrum.

so as a focus point:

Similarly, gun registries won’t necessarily make things easier for a tyrannical government to disarm people
...
What a registry will do in the meantime will be to assist in the tracking of firearms back to their owners when a crime takes place, and potentially create a disincentive for those thinking to sell their firearms on the black market (because they may become liable for prosecution if their shadily sold firearm ends up the murder weapon somewhere).
...
7. Fixing the Justice *and* policing system would go a long way to reducing the persistent culture of distrust people have in the government. Agreed.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Whereas the government we have is untrustworthy on many issue and across many aspects of governance, on both domestic and foreign fronts and not just historically but in recent events also. This is not some unfounded sentiment it is a proven pattern thru many of the actions our government takes. Domestically with double standards grossly applied. When we see 30k emails deleted while under congressional subpoena and those responsible walk away, we have a problem. When governments are overthrown for the interests of multi-nationals using USA's military forces and intelligence agencies, again we have a problem.

Due to this well founded and rightly deserved sentiment, why in the world would the citizens trust this very same government with a registry that tracks our guns??? It's like the old lady trusting a venomous snake to take it across the river. When bitten the old lady asks why... because it is in my nature. This may be different in New Zealand.

Unfortunately the historical record of gun registries when truly enforced is horrifying, the guns are taken prior to a tyrannical government rearing up its ugly head. Usually thru the very same calls of "for the safety and security of the people" touted by a very popular leader who has the national interest in mind. Once the government feels secure about having disarmed its population all hell breaks loose. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, name any brutal regime in central or south america... where did the guns the people originally possess go? why were they unable to stop these regimes?

as a last note : "Long term policies to fix sociological issues will help in the long term, gun control policies will help in the short."

the problem here is the short term or short sighted solution leads to a disarmed population, wherein a highly corrupt justice system can reenact the Spanish Inquisition at will... think of the bible thumping politician someday deciding to truly round up all non-Christians and doing whatever it feels like to them. Who is going to stop them? Who has the guns and means to do so? the term "Gun related" is a slice and dice of the overall problem which is violence in general. A dead person does not care how they were killed. bottom line they are dead. The long term solutions address the overall problem of violence and mitigates it, does not divided into chunks of which type of violent act has precedence or should be seen as more deserving of our attention vis a vis other acts of violence. It's like plucking leaves off of a weed vs. uprooting it. Plucking the leaves is not going to kill the weed and make it go away. whereas uprooting it will have a definitive impact on its ability to survive.