5 ms·

> I think this is the crux of the issue. If they attack me, I agree physically defending myself is obviously an option. That's again the problem. Intent to sel

> I think this is the crux of the issue. If they attack me, I agree physically defending myself is obviously an option. That's again the problem. Intent to self defend isn't protected in New Zealand or Australia. You could in fact go to jail if the court can prove you intended to do this. That is unacceptable to me. > We had telco monopolies [...] 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. This was more of a small joke, not the content of my argument. > 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. You mean cars? Cars here only require ~6hr of practice to obtain. More people are killed by cars then guns in the US and I'm assuming in Aus and NZ. Is 6hr needed to obtain a gun? How many hours? What kind of training? I am a very responsible gun owner. I do comply with all municipal, state, and federal regulations. I can easily say that I can get any person to my position in under 1hr. Define a time, otherwise your point is very much invalid as it is open to shifting of your goal post. It is not very difficult: - Don't point it at anything you don't want to destroy. - Don't leave your finger on the trigger. - Don't load your firearm until you are in a position to fire. You also need to prove that there is a decrease in crime or accidents for this law to be necessary otherwise I would not support this. > We're not taking away, we're simply saying prove that you're not going to be an idiot I don't think that there has been a single place where that has held true for very long. Even recently in CA, they recently passed a confiscation bill for previously grandfathered & registered magazines. Confiscation is, in the mind of all the gun owners, the next step after any form of registration. > Licensing makes sense. I personally have absolutely no problem with this. It's the specific laws, not the idea of some form of licensing. I'll definitely be able to pass any licensing requirements. I'm mentally healthy, I'm only interested in sport and self defense, and I have absolutly no background of criminal activity. > 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. I thoroughly hope that I will not need to rely on these systems for retirement. I want to be self sufficient. I think that's a good goal in life. So no, health care and subsidized housing won't make me personally happy so it is in fact irrelevant to me. I don't really care that your country has socialized a large portion of public needs because I will likely still rather rely in privatized means of maintaining my heath and home. Also, "other people are happy with this" isn't a really good argument. I'm not going to move to some place to make other people happy, I'm going to move to a place that will make me happy. The fact of the matter is that not having guns will make me very unhappy. My issue is with banning the look and feel of rifles instead actually banning things that matter. I also dislike the assumption that these frivolousness bans actually help anything. I'd like to counter your "side"'s statement that "gun laws make us safer because they protect us from firearms crimes" with saying the Patriot Act in America "makes us safer because it protects us from terrorist crimes". I'd say that both are antithetical to the freedoms I desire and that these laws don't really do anything other then make us feel good.

Mandatum 10y ago
> You could in fact go to jail if the court can prove you intended to do this. > That is unacceptable to me. Sure, the last time that happened a guy stabbed a 14 year old to death for spray painting his wall. The guy was sent to prison. Our laws and justice system is very lenient for mistakes, but if you panic and kill someone because you're scared - the situation has to be VERY bad for you to get off lightly. "Life" is 10-15 years (unless you're deemed unfit to go back into society). > I don't really care that your country has socialized a large portion of public needs because I will likely still rather rely in privatized means of maintaining my heath and home. I think you're looking for the word "nationalize", rather than "socialize". This is a good example of explaining the differences[0]: > A nationalized hospital, for example, will set its budget, its policies, and the way that it operates according to a plan set nationally, usually by a congress of representatives from many different regions. A socialized hospital, however, will organize itself according to the ideas and principles decided upon by those who work there. In one case, it is the nation that obtains the industry, controlled by governors, and in the other case, it is the people that obtain the industry, controlled by the workers. Good, that's the idea. They're fall-back options which the majority of the country use. Cut your arm open doing some DIY at home? Save yourself a $2000 excess and goto the ER. > Also, "other people are happy with this" isn't a really good argument. That's not the argument. The argument that people on average are very happy here. > I'd like to counter your "side"'s statement that "gun laws make us safer because they protect us from firearms crimes" with saying the Patriot Act in America "makes us safer because it protects us from terrorist crimes". I'd like to point you to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r... I'm a fan of guns myself. I regularly hunt, hold a license with P endorsements (pistols, though you don't hunt with them hopefully), however an E is available to use MSSA's and shotguns. But not being able to fire RPG's and AK47's isn't the end of the world to me, and I find it very strange that that is a make-or-break decision for you. [0]: http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/nationalize_the_economy_or_socialize_the_economy.html http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/nationalize_the_economy_o...
- gravypod 10y ago
  > the situation has to be VERY bad for you to get off lightly. The problem is that self-defense is not explicitly protected. Feasably if someone pulls a knife on me in my home, I manage to get a gun and shoot them (assuming I've managed to tackle the 500 locks the NZ Police mandate you have on them), and shoot back I feasibly be sent to jail. I personally don't like that. > I think you're looking for the word "nationalize", rather than "socialize". I think the root of the problem is the different connotations of the words from your country to mine. When medicine is "socialized" to me it means that it is funded by public funds. > Save yourself a $2000 excess and goto the ER. What if instead of a nasty gash I need a surgery that is not covered by your health care? I still need to pay the hefty fee. I'd rather just go with a private insurance company like I always have here in the States. I've always gotten great care from my parents plans and from plans I've gotten through the college I'm attending. > The argument that people on average are very happy here. Well I can say that about almost anything. The problem is that you have not proven direct correlation between these two statistics. I could also say that Switzerland has high gun ownership and people there are happy! But I would be being disingenuous about this. It is not because of the gun ownership, it is a combination of many factors. All of which I cannot specifically exclude or attribute this characteristic to. > I'd like to point you to: I would very much like it if you could read through my post here so we can discuss this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028025 > But not being able to fire RPG's and AK47's RPGs and AKs are very different. A semi automatic AK is almost completely identical in mechanical operation to a M1 Garand (or better yet the M1A1 carbine). The only reason why I'd assume you are ok with one and not ok with the other is the look of the rifle. Functionally they are the same. It is stupid to ban something's looks. Ban, or make it extremely difficult to obtain, functionality that makes sense to regulate such as full auto. For example: ban the use of nitrus tanks in cars, don't ban hotwheel flame stickers. One makes something very fast and the other just makes something look like it moves fast. It is smart to regulate one, and it stupid to regulate the other.

Mandatum 10y ago

> You could in fact go to jail if the court can prove you intended to do this. > That is unacceptable to me. Sure, the last time that happened a guy stabbed a 14 year old to death for spray painting his wall. The guy was sent to prison. Our laws and justice system is very lenient for mistakes, but if you panic and kill someone because you're scared - the situation has to be VERY bad for you to get off lightly. "Life" is 10-15 years (unless you're deemed unfit to go back into society). > I don't really care that your country has socialized a large portion of public needs because I will likely still rather rely in privatized means of maintaining my heath and home. I think you're looking for the word "nationalize", rather than "socialize". This is a good example of explaining the differences[0]: > A nationalized hospital, for example, will set its budget, its policies, and the way that it operates according to a plan set nationally, usually by a congress of representatives from many different regions. A socialized hospital, however, will organize itself according to the ideas and principles decided upon by those who work there. In one case, it is the nation that obtains the industry, controlled by governors, and in the other case, it is the people that obtain the industry, controlled by the workers. Good, that's the idea. They're fall-back options which the majority of the country use. Cut your arm open doing some DIY at home? Save yourself a $2000 excess and goto the ER. > Also, "other people are happy with this" isn't a really good argument. That's not the argument. The argument that people on average are very happy here. > I'd like to counter your "side"'s statement that "gun laws make us safer because they protect us from firearms crimes" with saying the Patriot Act in America "makes us safer because it protects us from terrorist crimes". I'd like to point you to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r... I'm a fan of guns myself. I regularly hunt, hold a license with P endorsements (pistols, though you don't hunt with them hopefully), however an E is available to use MSSA's and shotguns. But not being able to fire RPG's and AK47's isn't the end of the world to me, and I find it very strange that that is a make-or-break decision for you. [0]: http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/nationalize_the_economy_or_socialize_the_economy.html http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/nationalize_the_economy_o...

gravypod 10y ago
> the situation has to be VERY bad for you to get off lightly. The problem is that self-defense is not explicitly protected. Feasably if someone pulls a knife on me in my home, I manage to get a gun and shoot them (assuming I've managed to tackle the 500 locks the NZ Police mandate you have on them), and shoot back I feasibly be sent to jail. I personally don't like that. > I think you're looking for the word "nationalize", rather than "socialize". I think the root of the problem is the different connotations of the words from your country to mine. When medicine is "socialized" to me it means that it is funded by public funds. > Save yourself a $2000 excess and goto the ER. What if instead of a nasty gash I need a surgery that is not covered by your health care? I still need to pay the hefty fee. I'd rather just go with a private insurance company like I always have here in the States. I've always gotten great care from my parents plans and from plans I've gotten through the college I'm attending. > The argument that people on average are very happy here. Well I can say that about almost anything. The problem is that you have not proven direct correlation between these two statistics. I could also say that Switzerland has high gun ownership and people there are happy! But I would be being disingenuous about this. It is not because of the gun ownership, it is a combination of many factors. All of which I cannot specifically exclude or attribute this characteristic to. > I'd like to point you to: I would very much like it if you could read through my post here so we can discuss this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028025 > But not being able to fire RPG's and AK47's RPGs and AKs are very different. A semi automatic AK is almost completely identical in mechanical operation to a M1 Garand (or better yet the M1A1 carbine). The only reason why I'd assume you are ok with one and not ok with the other is the look of the rifle. Functionally they are the same. It is stupid to ban something's looks. Ban, or make it extremely difficult to obtain, functionality that makes sense to regulate such as full auto. For example: ban the use of nitrus tanks in cars, don't ban hotwheel flame stickers. One makes something very fast and the other just makes something look like it moves fast. It is smart to regulate one, and it stupid to regulate the other.