Gun Control discussion

Forums › Politics › Gun Control discussion

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

5802 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2852

Reply # 1877658 5-Oct-2017 09:49

Pumpedd:

See....

Don't Even Think About It

and Tillerson called Trump a moron.....the whole Govt is full of morons.

Tillerson is an environmental saboteur and danger to the planet, but he just went up a little in my estimation.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/tillerson-s-fury-trump-required-intervention-pence-n806451

networkn

16507 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4608

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1877672 5-Oct-2017 09:57

MikeB4:

Your statement is too open. There are circumstances where nothing is needed and wont escalate a situation. Likewise a Taser may be the most appropriate, another time a Glock or Bushmaster the most appropriate. The Military will always be better armed the police and that is appropriate. I believe the level of gun use by our police is in general OK however I do feel that night patrols should be armed, except Pub rounds. Sole highway and country patrols should be armed.

You have misunderstood. I am saying where there is a requirement to be armed, then the police should be the most heavily armed. Perps should not outgun the police. Obviously, there are hundreds of situations where *no* guns are required to resolve a situation.

Military should be more heavily armed, but when would you expect the police to go up against the military? Never. Off duty military, as far as I understand it, do not have access to weapons.

Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software

Lias

3039 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1608

Subscriber

Reply # 1877729 5-Oct-2017 11:03

networkn:

Military should be more heavily armed, but when would you expect the police to go up against the military? Never. Off duty military, as far as I understand it, do not have access to weapons.

They don't necessarily have access to their "work" weaponry, but I know a few current and former members of the NZDF, vast majority of them have firearms licenses and a number of weapons, including E cat weaponry.

Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

Thinking about signing up to BigPipe? Get $20 credit with my referral link.

MikeB4

11894 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5519

Trusted

Reply # 1877737 5-Oct-2017 11:10

networkn:

MikeB4:

Your statement is too open. There are circumstances where nothing is needed and wont escalate a situation. Likewise a Taser may be the most appropriate, another time a Glock or Bushmaster the most appropriate. The Military will always be better armed the police and that is appropriate. I believe the level of gun use by our police is in general OK however I do feel that night patrols should be armed, except Pub rounds. Sole highway and country patrols should be armed.

You have misunderstood. I am saying where there is a requirement to be armed, then the police should be the most heavily armed. Perps should not outgun the police. Obviously, there are hundreds of situations where *no* guns are required to resolve a situation.

Military should be more heavily armed, but when would you expect the police to go up against the military? Never. Off duty military, as far as I understand it, do not have access to weapons.

Some do have access.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

Wiggum

957 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 363

Reply # 1877775 5-Oct-2017 11:27

networkn:

Military should be more heavily armed, but when would you expect the police to go up against the military? Never. Off duty military, as far as I understand it, do not have access to weapons.

Its happened before in South Africa (not up against the military, but different police units), but I guess thats where everything and anything is possible.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/2199545/South-African-police-forces-fire-on-each-other.html

The gun battle happened on the city's busy M2 urban motorway between members of the Metro police, Johannesburg's city force, and officers of the South African Police Services. The Metro police, whose primary function is traffic control, blocked access and off-ramps to the motorway during the main evening rush-hour on Wednesday as part of a protest against pay and conditions South African Police Services officers attempted to break up the demonstration by firing rubber bullets "Suddenly there was a proper gun fight, with live ammunition flying everywhere," said one of the many motorists who dived under his vehicle for cover "It is quite terrifying when our two law enforcement agencies battle each other as we try to come to terms with the fact that our city has one of the highest crimes rates in the world. Each force blamed the other.

This is why its useless us having these sorts of gun debates here in NZ. We are actually unable to grasp the complexity of some of these situations from our little isolated country. Most comments made here have no reference in the "real world", and are based mostly on our biased opinions of the real world, and how it works. Just because something works in NZ, does not mean its going to work elsewhere, and its certainly not a solution for the US.

Making the US gunfree, or forcing this on its citizens is only an option if the country is prepared to go to war with itself. Nothing really to debate here.

Edit: SA is now basically a "gun free" society, yet gun crimes remain the worst in the world. All its done is disarm the innocent, who are now mostly unable to protect themselves. Good luck to any political party/president that tries to implement this in the US, it will be political suicide.

networkn

16507 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4608

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1877779 5-Oct-2017 11:31

Wiggum:

Edit: SA is now basically a "gun free" society, yet gun crimes remain the worst in the world. All its done is disarm the innocent, who are now mostly unable to protect themselves. Good luck to any political party/president that tries to implement this in the US, it will be political suicide.

It's simple to find the fringe cases that prove the exception not the rule.

I am sure that once upon a time, ending segregation or allowing gay marriage was considered equally suicidal, yet it's here now and the world is still spinning.

Wiggum

957 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 363

Reply # 1877786 5-Oct-2017 11:41

networkn:

Wiggum:

Edit: SA is now basically a "gun free" society, yet gun crimes remain the worst in the world. All its done is disarm the innocent, who are now mostly unable to protect themselves. Good luck to any political party/president that tries to implement this in the US, it will be political suicide.

It's simple to find the fringe cases that prove the exception not the rule.

I am sure that once upon a time, ending segregation or allowing gay marriage was considered equally suicidal, yet it's here now and the world is still spinning.

Segregation/gay marriage etc has got nothing to do with the Bill of rights.

No president is going to be able to scrap the 2nd amendment without another civil war. Its that simple.

Geektastic

11030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3462

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1877892 5-Oct-2017 14:40

One person supports this post

Fred99:
Geektastic:

New Zealand only recently decided to pass regulations making being a gang member an automatic disqualification criteria for a FAL...

How do they define "gang" and thus "gang member"?

Someone who's involved in an organised crime syndicate?

Do people in organised crime syndicates have licensed or unlicensed guns?

Is the regulation just another politically expedient action that'll probably achieve nothing useful at all?

I have no idea how they define it. I'm sure Google will assist.

It struck me as odd that it had taken them so long to decide that being a patched Mongrel Mob Member should disqualify you from legally possessing guns...

gzt

9586 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1402

Reply # 1877903 5-Oct-2017 14:55

Nz does not need firearms proliferation.

MikeB4

11894 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5519

Trusted

Reply # 1877930 5-Oct-2017 15:18

Wiggum:

networkn:

Military should be more heavily armed, but when would you expect the police to go up against the military? Never. Off duty military, as far as I understand it, do not have access to weapons.

Its happened before in South Africa (not up against the military, but different police units), but I guess thats where everything and anything is possible.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/2199545/South-African-police-forces-fire-on-each-other.html

The gun battle happened on the city's busy M2 urban motorway between members of the Metro police, Johannesburg's city force, and officers of the South African Police Services. The Metro police, whose primary function is traffic control, blocked access and off-ramps to the motorway during the main evening rush-hour on Wednesday as part of a protest against pay and conditions South African Police Services officers attempted to break up the demonstration by firing rubber bullets "Suddenly there was a proper gun fight, with live ammunition flying everywhere," said one of the many motorists who dived under his vehicle for cover "It is quite terrifying when our two law enforcement agencies battle each other as we try to come to terms with the fact that our city has one of the highest crimes rates in the world. Each force blamed the other.

This is why its useless us having these sorts of gun debates here in NZ. We are actually unable to grasp the complexity of some of these situations from our little isolated country. Most comments made here have no reference in the "real world", and are based mostly on our biased opinions of the real world, and how it works. Just because something works in NZ, does not mean its going to work elsewhere, and its certainly not a solution for the US.

Making the US gunfree, or forcing this on its citizens is only an option if the country is prepared to go to war with itself. Nothing really to debate here.

Edit: SA is now basically a "gun free" society, yet gun crimes remain the worst in the world. All its done is disarm the innocent, who are now mostly unable to protect themselves. Good luck to any political party/president that tries to implement this in the US, it will be political suicide.

Bollocks, that is actually quite an insulting statement, many here travel, some probably from those nations, many can read and comprehend what they read. Last time i looked on a map or globe Aotearoa was part of the real world.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

Wiggum

957 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 363

Reply # 1877944 5-Oct-2017 15:46

MikeB4:

Bollocks, that is actually quite an insulting statement, many here travel, some probably from those nations, many can read and comprehend what they read. Last time i looked on a map or globe Aotearoa was part of the real world.

I would argue that most kiwis don't even know about the US bill of rights, or the 2nd amendment. Therefore its no good arguing against gun rules in the US without that insight. it does not matter if you have traveled there or not.

Fred99

5802 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2852

Reply # 1877945 5-Oct-2017 15:47

Geektastic:

I have no idea how they define it. I'm sure Google will assist.

It struck me as odd that it had taken them so long to decide that being a patched Mongrel Mob Member should disqualify you from legally possessing guns...

It's actually not odd.

It's a very difficult area of law to discriminate against individuals based on "guilt by association". Once that's allowed in principle, then those laws could be used against innocent people - and you're depending on benevolence of police officers whether or not to prosecute - which is a bad idea.

It's also probably futile in reality, as those patched gang members won't give a flying toss whether their firearms are legal or not and whether they're licensed or not.

It's a typical political move which will achieve basically nothing, designed to ease the fears of hand-wringers and pearl necklace clutchers, to make them believe that government is doing something to keep them safe.

Pumpedd

1473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 675

Reply # 1877946 5-Oct-2017 15:48

2 people support this post

MikeB4:

Wiggum:

networkn:

Military should be more heavily armed, but when would you expect the police to go up against the military? Never. Off duty military, as far as I understand it, do not have access to weapons.

Its happened before in South Africa (not up against the military, but different police units), but I guess thats where everything and anything is possible.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/2199545/South-African-police-forces-fire-on-each-other.html

The gun battle happened on the city's busy M2 urban motorway between members of the Metro police, Johannesburg's city force, and officers of the South African Police Services. The Metro police, whose primary function is traffic control, blocked access and off-ramps to the motorway during the main evening rush-hour on Wednesday as part of a protest against pay and conditions South African Police Services officers attempted to break up the demonstration by firing rubber bullets "Suddenly there was a proper gun fight, with live ammunition flying everywhere," said one of the many motorists who dived under his vehicle for cover "It is quite terrifying when our two law enforcement agencies battle each other as we try to come to terms with the fact that our city has one of the highest crimes rates in the world. Each force blamed the other.

This is why its useless us having these sorts of gun debates here in NZ. We are actually unable to grasp the complexity of some of these situations from our little isolated country. Most comments made here have no reference in the "real world", and are based mostly on our biased opinions of the real world, and how it works. Just because something works in NZ, does not mean its going to work elsewhere, and its certainly not a solution for the US.

Making the US gunfree, or forcing this on its citizens is only an option if the country is prepared to go to war with itself. Nothing really to debate here.

Edit: SA is now basically a "gun free" society, yet gun crimes remain the worst in the world. All its done is disarm the innocent, who are now mostly unable to protect themselves. Good luck to any political party/president that tries to implement this in the US, it will be political suicide.

Bollocks, that is actually quite an insulting statement, many here travel, some probably from those nations, many can read and comprehend what they read. Last time i looked on a map or globe Aotearoa was part of the real world.

Last time I looked it was called New Zealand on the world map.

MikeB4

11894 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5519

Trusted

Reply # 1877967 5-Oct-2017 16:19

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

Bollocks, that is actually quite an insulting statement, many here travel, some probably from those nations, many can read and comprehend what they read. Last time i looked on a map or globe Aotearoa was part of the real world.

I would argue that most kiwis don't even know about the US bill of rights, or the 2nd amendment. Therefore its no good arguing against gun rules in the US without that insight. it does not matter if you have traveled there or not.

You love making unfounded sweeping statements.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

networkn

16507 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4608

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1877973 5-Oct-2017 16:29

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

Bollocks, that is actually quite an insulting statement, many here travel, some probably from those nations, many can read and comprehend what they read. Last time i looked on a map or globe Aotearoa was part of the real world.

I would argue that most kiwis don't even know about the US bill of rights, or the 2nd amendment. Therefore its no good arguing against gun rules in the US without that insight. it does not matter if you have traveled there or not.

I understand the 2nd amendment, and I know how very much in love, a relatively small number of the US Population is, with their right to bear arms (I personally know a number of Citizens who are afronted by the fact they are not allowed to own tanks and RPG's and Nukes because they feel they should have access to the same weapons as the Government so they can defend themselves if the Govt should ever turn against them.). I don't agree with this sentiment. I think the 2nd amendment (and I know a LOT of Americans personally who feel this way too) was made when attacks like the ones on Sept 11, and this week in LV were present or common and I don't think it the constitution was made today there wouldn't be a wide sweeping 2nd amendment. Times change and laws and rights should change with them. Once upon a time Black people had no rights, today they do. This is society changing.

I think civil war is coming to the US over gun laws regardless of whether the leadership supports one position or another. Americans are tired of their innocents being killed by radicals and mentally ill. Might not be today or tomorrow, but it will happen. I believe in the foreseeable future, certainly within 4 presidents, there will be a President elected on his or her intention to modernize the 2nd amendment. Blood will be split as a result, but blood is being spilt now. I will also make a prediction that the President who passes that law, or who attempts to change it, will be assassinated or certainly attempts will be made. It would be a brave leader to stand up and make that call. Someone will though.

On another note I am not sure what makes you better qualified than some of us here, as to what is suitable for the USA?

When enough people object hard enough to a situation, that situation changes.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8