NZ gun laws

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › NZ gun laws

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202122 19-Mar-2019 22:36

dejadeadnz:

QC who worked on the 1997 Thorp report on the missed opportunities

But what the hell does he know?

So thats a fact? QUOTE "Without access to semi-automatics and ammunition, I believe the attack would not have occurred, or would at least have been made much more difficult and less deadly."

I prefer to go by facts such as what the same rules were in AUS with the NFA in 1996. Deaths were declining well before the NFA, the rules we will enact now. Its a stretch to say Friday would not have occurred, that almost sick. As has been stated by others, guns are a low priority for terrorists. How many terrorist attacks use guns? Few to none.

But if you feel that banning semis is the holy grail, thats fine, thats your opinion. And it's wrong. Id prefer people are targeted, the ones that use the weapons of choice, which are not guns.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2202127 19-Mar-2019 22:40

You know, if you'd bother to read the whole article, you might have noticed what Simon Mount said around the influence of the gun lobby. It's a perspective from someone who's extremely learned (2 LLMs degrees, one from NYU; counsel assisting numerous important inquiries, including a Royal Commission) and absolutely one of the best criminal lawyers in NZ. Maybe just have a think about what he has to say, rather than immediately going on an unhinged rant and making it about me.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202130 19-Mar-2019 22:49

dejadeadnz:

I was not the one who raised any issues with the NFA. I am not interested in that debate. Here's the thing you don't get: when in a discussion forum, people are entitled to respond to what they like and, more importantly, the burden of proof on people making positive claims is on them. I've backed up all my claims and my contentions around gun laws do not rely on the reforms in Australia having been conclusively effective. If you can't handle this, go get yourself some professional counselling because the only thing you're succeeding with on your little campaign is sounding like a pathetic stalker.

Your problem is what is bolded, you cannot discuss, its an issue for you. You cannot discuss so you rant. So, you decide to disregard what actually was put into place over 20 years ago, which we will put in place in 10 days? Thats a big call. You prefer to reply on recommendations. And while thats fine you just don't want a bar of anything that doesn't fit your need.

So, part of my argument is the NFA. 1996. Same as what we will do. 22 years ago. And thats it relevant, or shall I say "do not rely on the reforms in Australia having been conclusively effective" But you are ok with recommendations. And a statement that Friday would not have occurred. Talk about hard evidence.

Stalker? To you? Yeah right.

Ban the semis. Problem solved. The former will happen, happy with that, the latter wont happen. Its the people

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18