4 ms·

The thing is there's no real need for self defence to that degree in New Zealand. You can carry pepper spray and you'll be more armed than anyone trying to atta

The thing is there's no real need for self defence to that degree in New Zealand. You can carry pepper spray and you'll be more armed than anyone trying to attack you. I understand people from the US feel they have the right for protection/whatever, but if you're unwilling to trade that "freedom" for everything else the country has to offer.. I think you need to review your priorities. If you're a hobbyist you can join a club and apply for permits for various forms of firearm. We do obviously restrict some forms from civilians as they're deemed to dangerous for those who don't use them in their line of work (ie military, NZ's version of "SWAT") - just as you'd limit people from performing surgery or practicing law without a license.

gravypod 10y ago
> The thing is there's no real need for self defence to that degree in New Zealand So you would say that if someone is in your house and taking your things when you come home, you'd not try and stop them? You'd call and wait for police to arrive rather then going in at that instant and stop them? That makes no sense to me. > if you're unwilling to trade that "freedom" for everything else the country has to offer Every country is essentially the same. Sure there is different food, different people, and different views there are essentially a few basic things that exist in any country I'd consider living in: Some sort of currency, some sort of government, and some sort of community formation (shops, bars, people). I can get that from almost any major country whether it be New Zealand or the United States. Why would I go to New Zealand if I loose some privileges that already have here? Is part of your priority to restrict your own freedom for no tangible gain? If so, I think you need to evaluate your priorities once more. Really, what does NZ do that is horribly different from the US (beside telecom monopolies being worse and everything being far more expensive over in the land down under ;))? Both countries have their problems and their benefits and their detraction from my quality of life, but I loose something that provides myself with action-ability on my own safety. > If you're a hobbyist you can join a club and apply for permits for various forms of firearm Ah yes! The "not currently used by military" rule as well as quite a few other restrictions. These restrictions on ownership make no sense. I can fully understand not wanting automatic firearms within a country. I get it, I'd be fine with that. But please, point out the difference to me between banned and unbanned guns in NZ? This is what qualifies a gun to be classified as being a "military style firearm" - A folding or telescopic butt - A bayonet lug - A military pattern free-standing pistol grip - A flash suppressor - A magazine that holds more than 7 rounds (magazines holding a maximum of 10 rounds may be modified internally to hold only 7 as per legislation) excepting rimfire, where the limit is 15 rounds per magazine. - A detachable magazine that appears to hold more than 10 rounds (excepting rimfire; 15 rounds). So let me boil down my complains with these into their own sections. - A folding or telescopic butt With this you are only banning comfort and ease of storage. I cannot fathom how in the world this helps anyone. - A bayonet lug So this bans archaic technology? You are banning attaching a knife to a very long stick? How in the hell does this make a gun a "military style rifle"? Are we back in the middle age where militarizes fight with joust? If so, where do I enlist, that sounds cool!? This basically bans one of my more favorite rifles, the SKS [0]...... a 71 year old rifle.... that has become classified as a "military firearm". - A military pattern free-standing pistol grip You are again banning comfort. There is no benefit to peoples safety from this. Here is an example of how people get around a similar regulation in New York. [1] The top constitutes a spooky and evil rifle who's only purpose is to kill while the other one is fine! That makes no sense! They are the exact same gun, except one has a protruding pistol grip and the other doesn't. - A flash suppressor This is a "flash suppressor" [2]. It is used to make it easier for the operator of a firearm to see after shooting. It is very useful in rifles who's cartridge is backed by a lot powder (.223, 5.56, etc). This is because there is a large flash at the muzzle. This is mitigated by this. It does not remove the report of the flash, just makes it less annoying. - A magazine that holds more than 7 rounds (magazines holding a maximum of 10 rounds may be modified internally to hold only 7 as per legislation) excepting rimfire, where the limit is 15 rounds per magazine. - A detachable magazine that appears to hold more than 10 rounds (excepting rimfire; 15 rounds). While some say this protects people, I'd say that is not the case. I can reload fairly quickly (we aren't using revolves any more Toto). There is also no proof that magazine bans lower crimes in any way. Again, this is just annoying and there is absolutely no evidence that this helps anything. There is also a side effect of these laws that is just the icing on the cake for me. If you live in a place that enforces mag-cap laws, you need to buy capped magazines. This might not sound like a big problem but this can in many cases double the cost of magazines! All at no real benefit to society. > just as you'd limit people from performing surgery or practicing law without a license That is a horrible analogy. Owning a firearm is nothing like brain surgery and you can 'practice' law without having a law degree (I am using practice loosely here). You don't really need years of training to handle a firearm, you just need a little bit of practice and some good supervision. Nothing special. It's what you'd find any any decent firearms range. In short, if you want to take things away from civilians, at least have a good reason to. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS [1] - http://i.imgur.com/2fyop0q.jpg http://i.imgur.com/2fyop0q.jpg [2] - http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/343/343064.jpg http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/343...
- Mandatum 10y ago
  > So you would say that if someone is in your house and taking your things when you come home, you'd not try and stop them? You'd call and wait for police to arrive rather then going in at that instant and stop them? > That makes no sense to me. I think this is the crux of the issue. If they attack me, I agree physically defending myself is obviously an option. But why instigate violence against someone who isn't assaulting, or attempting to assault you? Why not call and wait for the police, or follow them as they escape whilst on the phone to police, rather than physically putting your life and safety at risk? For what? Objects and possessions of economic value? > Really, what does NZ do that is horribly different from the US (beside telecom monopolies being worse and everything being far more expensive over in the land down under ;))? We had telco monopolies.. In the 90's. The government broke them up. We have fibre in 30% of our main city centres and we're aiming for 80% of NZ households by 2022. Mobile data, calling and SMS is very cheap in comparison to the US. We aren't locked into contracts like you are. In fact, all major telcos offer far cheaper prepaid plans in comparison plans to any US carrier I've seen. Our internet is on average better than the US except in parts of Silicon Valley, where Google fibre rollouts are already in place and some major city centres. However that's changing very rapidly with fibre rollouts and 4G mobile data plans lowering each quarter. Then I could go on about our excellent healthcare, welfare and social systems, the fact this is the easiest country in the world to start a business and support yourself/family due to small-business friendly laws and economic concessions.. Maybe I've been drinking too much of the American left-wing kool-aid, but in a country where children die because parents don't have health insurance, mass-shootings happen several times a year, and homelessness is a massive problem.. I just don't believe your people are more "free". > That is a horrible analogy. Owning a firearm is nothing like brain surgery and you can 'practice' law without having a law degree (I am using practice loosely here). > You don't really need years of training to handle a firearm, you just need a little bit of practice and some good supervision. Nothing special. It's what you'd find any any decent firearms range. .. It might just be me, but I think operating a weapon or machine that has the ability to maim, kill and disable other people should require a significant amount of time invested and reviewed before they're able to do so on their own. Licensing makes sense. It does for cars, it does for trucks, it does for heavy machinery. All of these things have one thing in common. You could potentially hurt other people very easily, if you're not trained. However I don't see us coming to any sort of agreement on this given the length, detail and tone of your response. We're not taking away, we're simply saying prove that you're not going to be an idiot. Also I think you're confusing New Zealand with Australia for all of your points. Their internet sucks, their political climate is far more right. You're right about things being expensive here, but maybe it's something to do with the things that matter being free (housing, healthcare) that makes New Zealand one of the happiest places to live in the world? And probably the happiest place to live that doesn't have oil money.

gravypod 10y ago

> The thing is there's no real need for self defence to that degree in New Zealand So you would say that if someone is in your house and taking your things when you come home, you'd not try and stop them? You'd call and wait for police to arrive rather then going in at that instant and stop them? That makes no sense to me. > if you're unwilling to trade that "freedom" for everything else the country has to offer Every country is essentially the same. Sure there is different food, different people, and different views there are essentially a few basic things that exist in any country I'd consider living in: Some sort of currency, some sort of government, and some sort of community formation (shops, bars, people). I can get that from almost any major country whether it be New Zealand or the United States. Why would I go to New Zealand if I loose some privileges that already have here? Is part of your priority to restrict your own freedom for no tangible gain? If so, I think you need to evaluate your priorities once more. Really, what does NZ do that is horribly different from the US (beside telecom monopolies being worse and everything being far more expensive over in the land down under ;))? Both countries have their problems and their benefits and their detraction from my quality of life, but I loose something that provides myself with action-ability on my own safety. > If you're a hobbyist you can join a club and apply for permits for various forms of firearm Ah yes! The "not currently used by military" rule as well as quite a few other restrictions. These restrictions on ownership make no sense. I can fully understand not wanting automatic firearms within a country. I get it, I'd be fine with that. But please, point out the difference to me between banned and unbanned guns in NZ? This is what qualifies a gun to be classified as being a "military style firearm" - A folding or telescopic butt - A bayonet lug - A military pattern free-standing pistol grip - A flash suppressor - A magazine that holds more than 7 rounds (magazines holding a maximum of 10 rounds may be modified internally to hold only 7 as per legislation) excepting rimfire, where the limit is 15 rounds per magazine. - A detachable magazine that appears to hold more than 10 rounds (excepting rimfire; 15 rounds). So let me boil down my complains with these into their own sections. - A folding or telescopic butt With this you are only banning comfort and ease of storage. I cannot fathom how in the world this helps anyone. - A bayonet lug So this bans archaic technology? You are banning attaching a knife to a very long stick? How in the hell does this make a gun a "military style rifle"? Are we back in the middle age where militarizes fight with joust? If so, where do I enlist, that sounds cool!? This basically bans one of my more favorite rifles, the SKS [0]...... a 71 year old rifle.... that has become classified as a "military firearm". - A military pattern free-standing pistol grip You are again banning comfort. There is no benefit to peoples safety from this. Here is an example of how people get around a similar regulation in New York. [1] The top constitutes a spooky and evil rifle who's only purpose is to kill while the other one is fine! That makes no sense! They are the exact same gun, except one has a protruding pistol grip and the other doesn't. - A flash suppressor This is a "flash suppressor" [2]. It is used to make it easier for the operator of a firearm to see after shooting. It is very useful in rifles who's cartridge is backed by a lot powder (.223, 5.56, etc). This is because there is a large flash at the muzzle. This is mitigated by this. It does not remove the report of the flash, just makes it less annoying. - A magazine that holds more than 7 rounds (magazines holding a maximum of 10 rounds may be modified internally to hold only 7 as per legislation) excepting rimfire, where the limit is 15 rounds per magazine. - A detachable magazine that appears to hold more than 10 rounds (excepting rimfire; 15 rounds). While some say this protects people, I'd say that is not the case. I can reload fairly quickly (we aren't using revolves any more Toto). There is also no proof that magazine bans lower crimes in any way. Again, this is just annoying and there is absolutely no evidence that this helps anything. There is also a side effect of these laws that is just the icing on the cake for me. If you live in a place that enforces mag-cap laws, you need to buy capped magazines. This might not sound like a big problem but this can in many cases double the cost of magazines! All at no real benefit to society. > just as you'd limit people from performing surgery or practicing law without a license That is a horrible analogy. Owning a firearm is nothing like brain surgery and you can 'practice' law without having a law degree (I am using practice loosely here). You don't really need years of training to handle a firearm, you just need a little bit of practice and some good supervision. Nothing special. It's what you'd find any any decent firearms range. In short, if you want to take things away from civilians, at least have a good reason to. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS [1] - http://i.imgur.com/2fyop0q.jpg http://i.imgur.com/2fyop0q.jpg [2] - http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/343/343064.jpg http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/343...

Mandatum 10y ago
> So you would say that if someone is in your house and taking your things when you come home, you'd not try and stop them? You'd call and wait for police to arrive rather then going in at that instant and stop them? > That makes no sense to me. I think this is the crux of the issue. If they attack me, I agree physically defending myself is obviously an option. But why instigate violence against someone who isn't assaulting, or attempting to assault you? Why not call and wait for the police, or follow them as they escape whilst on the phone to police, rather than physically putting your life and safety at risk? For what? Objects and possessions of economic value? > Really, what does NZ do that is horribly different from the US (beside telecom monopolies being worse and everything being far more expensive over in the land down under ;))? We had telco monopolies.. In the 90's. The government broke them up. We have fibre in 30% of our main city centres and we're aiming for 80% of NZ households by 2022. Mobile data, calling and SMS is very cheap in comparison to the US. We aren't locked into contracts like you are. In fact, all major telcos offer far cheaper prepaid plans in comparison plans to any US carrier I've seen. Our internet is on average better than the US except in parts of Silicon Valley, where Google fibre rollouts are already in place and some major city centres. However that's changing very rapidly with fibre rollouts and 4G mobile data plans lowering each quarter. Then I could go on about our excellent healthcare, welfare and social systems, the fact this is the easiest country in the world to start a business and support yourself/family due to small-business friendly laws and economic concessions.. Maybe I've been drinking too much of the American left-wing kool-aid, but in a country where children die because parents don't have health insurance, mass-shootings happen several times a year, and homelessness is a massive problem.. I just don't believe your people are more "free". > That is a horrible analogy. Owning a firearm is nothing like brain surgery and you can 'practice' law without having a law degree (I am using practice loosely here). > You don't really need years of training to handle a firearm, you just need a little bit of practice and some good supervision. Nothing special. It's what you'd find any any decent firearms range. .. It might just be me, but I think operating a weapon or machine that has the ability to maim, kill and disable other people should require a significant amount of time invested and reviewed before they're able to do so on their own. Licensing makes sense. It does for cars, it does for trucks, it does for heavy machinery. All of these things have one thing in common. You could potentially hurt other people very easily, if you're not trained. However I don't see us coming to any sort of agreement on this given the length, detail and tone of your response. We're not taking away, we're simply saying prove that you're not going to be an idiot. Also I think you're confusing New Zealand with Australia for all of your points. Their internet sucks, their political climate is far more right. You're right about things being expensive here, but maybe it's something to do with the things that matter being free (housing, healthcare) that makes New Zealand one of the happiest places to live in the world? And probably the happiest place to live that doesn't have oil money.