4 ms·

Ummm... you aren't allowed to have a nuclear powerplant or nuclear anything in the entire country. That's the only law peculiar to NZ that is at the top of my

by olympus 10y ago

Ummm... you aren't allowed to have a nuclear powerplant or nuclear anything in the entire country. That's the only law peculiar to NZ that is at the top of my mind.

gravypod 10y ago
Gun laws? They some how manage to be more restrictive then where I currently live (New Jersey). You can read up about the nonsensical requirements and categories that all, essentially mechanically similar, firearms fit into. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand
- tluyben2 10y ago
  Why is that a problem instead of a perk? Honest question; I am from the EU and I only read the news which shows more restrictive is better. And you seem to imply you could not live there because of this; curious why?
  - gravypod 10y ago
    > Why is that a problem instead of a perk [you] imply you could not live there because of this Well, it's because I like guns. Firearms are an amazing hobby. It teaches responsibility, maintenance of a fragile and precision machine, puts you in control of your personal safety, and can put dinner on your plate if you're ever up for a bit of hunting. I subscribe to a very Locke-esq philosophy of life. Where some group begins by regulating one freedom I enjoy, they will not simply stop. All governments will slowly etch away at freedoms that people have in the aim of securing more control over it's citizens (furthering the divide between the peasants and the ruling class). Firearms rights are a very good litmus test for my case since it quickly points to, in my opinion, if the population has given up their own rights to protect themselves and is ready to pack up their freedoms and hand them over to their ruling class. In my personal opinion, an unarmed populous is a completely ruled populous since the people have given up all hope of being in control of their own safety and government's actions. They do this not even for safety but for the illusion of such. I'd like to reverse the question to you. Rather then as "Why is that a problem instead of a perk" in relation to owning firearms, let me ask this about banning fire arms. The facts simply don't align with the assessment that banning fire arms will positively effect anyone. Firearms ownership simply does not correlate to crime. I'll agree that it does correlate with firearm related deaths since that is plainly evident in the data but those deaths are replaced with other means when firearms are taken out of the equation. There are very few recent studies about this on a federal level. This is largely due to the CDC being prohibited from researching firearms related topics. The 'best' source I have found was a source from '07. [0] An "ok" secondary "check" for this, that is by all accounts not a very good measure, is by looking at some charts wikipedia has made [1] [2]. If you go to those two pages you will see that the places with the most fire arms are seldom the most dangerous places. Now, if you change your comparison from Guns vs Intentional Homicide to % People Living Below Poverty Line vs Intentional Homicides you will see something interesting [3]. Once you have >10-20% of the people living below poverty there is a huge increase in homicides. I think if this is studied further that you will find that firearms are a single means to some crimes, not the only mean and that crime correlates to poverty, not firearms ownership. Personally, I don't want my rights to be taken away "just because;" I want a reason for rights being revoked. The plain fact of the matter is that there does not seem to be any reason to revoke the right of firearms ownership. [0] - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004723521400107X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235214... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentag...
    - tluyben2 10y ago
      So how about yesterday? That never happened if there were no guns. How can you justify that? It would not be 'replaced by other weapons' as you cannot get that close in.
    - peterashford 10y ago
      As a New Zealander, please stay where you are. New Zealanders use guns as tools but we don't need the kind of obsessive insistence on widespread gun ownership that people in the US are so maniacal about spreading. I like hunting but the almost religious passion for guns that some Americans have, I find very disturbing.
      - tluyben2 10y ago
        > almost religious I would remove the word almost: a whole beliefsystem, usually peppered with paranoia about the state-machine oppressor is built around the them.
      - gravypod 10y ago
        I am not sure if you have read my initial comment so I will write it again here: "I wish there were places like New Zealand and Australia with less restrictive laws. It's practically the most ideal place for a person like me to live except the local laws are alien and restrictive to me." > please stay where you are. I intent to do so. I never intended to move to NZ due to restrictions on things I like. > maniacal about spreading I never asked to spread my opinions to other countries. I have only attempted to give a fair depiction of how ineffective the restrictions on firearms ownership are. Please read this for my exact concerns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028162 > kind of obsessive insistence on widespread gun ownership [...] that some Americans have, I find very disturbing. (Nice you nicked the bit about it being religion before I had a go at it ;)) No I don't think I am being obsessive. I think if you read my original post you will understand better. I am saying "I don't want to go here because X". This boils down to: I have N places to choose to live in for retirement. In choice A I am allowed to do everything I want, in choice B I am not. Why move to choice B? That makes no sense to me. I also don't think that is an obsessive attitude. Edit: (I clicked reply a little too soon) I'm sorry to say, but New Zealand and Australia aren't the only safe and friendly countries in the world. I can move to many places other then there and get the same protection and standard of living (often for a cheaper price point) then in New Zealand.
- yongjik 10y ago
  > They some how manage to be more restrictive then where I currently live (New Jersey). Considering NJ is a part of USA, that sounds a bit like saying that New Zealand manages to have higher mountains than Limburg, Netherlands (which is apparently the highest part of Netherlands with a whopping 322.7 m hill). BTW, your link literally starts with: "About 230,000 licensed firearms owners own and use New Zealand's estimated 1.1 million firearms." That's supposed to be "nonsensical"?
  - gravypod 10y ago
    > Considering NJ is a part of USA, that sounds a bit like saying that New Zealand manages to have higher mountains than Limburg, Netherlands (which is apparently the highest part of Netherlands with a whopping 322.7 m hill). That makes no sense. I don't understand this comparison. I'm saying this because if I am going to move some place there needs to be a beneficial trade in outside factors that will make my life better. Moving to some place that will restrict me more will make my life worse. Therefor I will not move to such a place. Even given this, I can still acknowledge things I would like to have in my living situation (cheap homes and land). I don't see what you object to here. > BTW, your link literally starts with: "About 230,000 licensed firearms owners own and use New Zealand's estimated 1.1 million firearms." That's supposed to be "nonsensical"? It's not the amount of firearms that are important to me, it's the type. Quantity != quality. If there was a place with no firearms regulations and 0 firearms owned by the public, I'd not mind moving there! I'd buy the guns I want since there are no regulations. The volume of guns owned isn't important at all. It's important instead to have freedom to buy guns I want to own with features that please me.
    - peterashford 10y ago
      "The volume of guns owned isn't important at all. It's important instead to have freedom to buy guns I want to own with features that please me." See, you want to have the freedom to buy whichever guns you want. I want the freedom to not have to live with people like you. "Features that please you" is a matter of novelty. Not being surrounded by nutters with guns is a matter of personal safety. I find the latter more important. Stay in NJ.

by olympus 10y ago

Ummm... you aren't allowed to have a nuclear powerplant or nuclear anything in the entire country. That's the only law peculiar to NZ that is at the top of my mind.

gravypod 10y ago

Gun laws? They some how manage to be more restrictive then where I currently live (New Jersey). You can read up about the nonsensical requirements and categories that all, essentially mechanically similar, firearms fit into. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand

tluyben2 10y ago
Why is that a problem instead of a perk? Honest question; I am from the EU and I only read the news which shows more restrictive is better. And you seem to imply you could not live there because of this; curious why?
- gravypod 10y ago
  > Why is that a problem instead of a perk [you] imply you could not live there because of this Well, it's because I like guns. Firearms are an amazing hobby. It teaches responsibility, maintenance of a fragile and precision machine, puts you in control of your personal safety, and can put dinner on your plate if you're ever up for a bit of hunting. I subscribe to a very Locke-esq philosophy of life. Where some group begins by regulating one freedom I enjoy, they will not simply stop. All governments will slowly etch away at freedoms that people have in the aim of securing more control over it's citizens (furthering the divide between the peasants and the ruling class). Firearms rights are a very good litmus test for my case since it quickly points to, in my opinion, if the population has given up their own rights to protect themselves and is ready to pack up their freedoms and hand them over to their ruling class. In my personal opinion, an unarmed populous is a completely ruled populous since the people have given up all hope of being in control of their own safety and government's actions. They do this not even for safety but for the illusion of such. I'd like to reverse the question to you. Rather then as "Why is that a problem instead of a perk" in relation to owning firearms, let me ask this about banning fire arms. The facts simply don't align with the assessment that banning fire arms will positively effect anyone. Firearms ownership simply does not correlate to crime. I'll agree that it does correlate with firearm related deaths since that is plainly evident in the data but those deaths are replaced with other means when firearms are taken out of the equation. There are very few recent studies about this on a federal level. This is largely due to the CDC being prohibited from researching firearms related topics. The 'best' source I have found was a source from '07. [0] An "ok" secondary "check" for this, that is by all accounts not a very good measure, is by looking at some charts wikipedia has made [1] [2]. If you go to those two pages you will see that the places with the most fire arms are seldom the most dangerous places. Now, if you change your comparison from Guns vs Intentional Homicide to % People Living Below Poverty Line vs Intentional Homicides you will see something interesting [3]. Once you have >10-20% of the people living below poverty there is a huge increase in homicides. I think if this is studied further that you will find that firearms are a single means to some crimes, not the only mean and that crime correlates to poverty, not firearms ownership. Personally, I don't want my rights to be taken away "just because;" I want a reason for rights being revoked. The plain fact of the matter is that there does not seem to be any reason to revoke the right of firearms ownership. [0] - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004723521400107X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235214... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentag...
  - tluyben2 10y ago
    So how about yesterday? That never happened if there were no guns. How can you justify that? It would not be 'replaced by other weapons' as you cannot get that close in.
  - peterashford 10y ago
    As a New Zealander, please stay where you are. New Zealanders use guns as tools but we don't need the kind of obsessive insistence on widespread gun ownership that people in the US are so maniacal about spreading. I like hunting but the almost religious passion for guns that some Americans have, I find very disturbing.
    - tluyben2 10y ago
      > almost religious I would remove the word almost: a whole beliefsystem, usually peppered with paranoia about the state-machine oppressor is built around the them.
    - gravypod 10y ago
      I am not sure if you have read my initial comment so I will write it again here: "I wish there were places like New Zealand and Australia with less restrictive laws. It's practically the most ideal place for a person like me to live except the local laws are alien and restrictive to me." > please stay where you are. I intent to do so. I never intended to move to NZ due to restrictions on things I like. > maniacal about spreading I never asked to spread my opinions to other countries. I have only attempted to give a fair depiction of how ineffective the restrictions on firearms ownership are. Please read this for my exact concerns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028162 > kind of obsessive insistence on widespread gun ownership [...] that some Americans have, I find very disturbing. (Nice you nicked the bit about it being religion before I had a go at it ;)) No I don't think I am being obsessive. I think if you read my original post you will understand better. I am saying "I don't want to go here because X". This boils down to: I have N places to choose to live in for retirement. In choice A I am allowed to do everything I want, in choice B I am not. Why move to choice B? That makes no sense to me. I also don't think that is an obsessive attitude. Edit: (I clicked reply a little too soon) I'm sorry to say, but New Zealand and Australia aren't the only safe and friendly countries in the world. I can move to many places other then there and get the same protection and standard of living (often for a cheaper price point) then in New Zealand.
yongjik 10y ago
> They some how manage to be more restrictive then where I currently live (New Jersey). Considering NJ is a part of USA, that sounds a bit like saying that New Zealand manages to have higher mountains than Limburg, Netherlands (which is apparently the highest part of Netherlands with a whopping 322.7 m hill). BTW, your link literally starts with: "About 230,000 licensed firearms owners own and use New Zealand's estimated 1.1 million firearms." That's supposed to be "nonsensical"?
- gravypod 10y ago
  > Considering NJ is a part of USA, that sounds a bit like saying that New Zealand manages to have higher mountains than Limburg, Netherlands (which is apparently the highest part of Netherlands with a whopping 322.7 m hill). That makes no sense. I don't understand this comparison. I'm saying this because if I am going to move some place there needs to be a beneficial trade in outside factors that will make my life better. Moving to some place that will restrict me more will make my life worse. Therefor I will not move to such a place. Even given this, I can still acknowledge things I would like to have in my living situation (cheap homes and land). I don't see what you object to here. > BTW, your link literally starts with: "About 230,000 licensed firearms owners own and use New Zealand's estimated 1.1 million firearms." That's supposed to be "nonsensical"? It's not the amount of firearms that are important to me, it's the type. Quantity != quality. If there was a place with no firearms regulations and 0 firearms owned by the public, I'd not mind moving there! I'd buy the guns I want since there are no regulations. The volume of guns owned isn't important at all. It's important instead to have freedom to buy guns I want to own with features that please me.
  - peterashford 10y ago
    "The volume of guns owned isn't important at all. It's important instead to have freedom to buy guns I want to own with features that please me." See, you want to have the freedom to buy whichever guns you want. I want the freedom to not have to live with people like you. "Features that please you" is a matter of novelty. Not being surrounded by nutters with guns is a matter of personal safety. I find the latter more important. Stay in NJ.