9 ms·
New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoIsn't that exactly what the shooter wanted? They're playing right into his hands. They skipped the step where you negotiate with the terrorists and went straight to accepting his demands. I guess that doesn't matter when you need to be seen doing something. Edit: I mean that the shooter wanted NZ gun control as a means to the end he seeks. Not that it is the end he seeks.
- janpot 8y agoyou think the shooter's intentions were to advocate for stricter gun laws?
- modest_sarcasm 8y ago1. Outlaw guns in New Zealand 2. Outlaw guns in the US 3. Race War 2020 4. ???? 5. Profit Pretty much the TLDR of this guy's manifesto.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoHis plan can loosely be described as "shoot people in NZ --> NZ gun control --> US gun control --> 1776 Pt2 Electric Boogaloo --> White supremacist victory --> Europe follows suit." Boogaloo in the US seems iffy because any gun control measures strong enough to touch it off would probably be a non-starter because if there's a civil war brewing (let alone a racially charged one) the people that make up the base of the party that usually pushes gun control would very much want to be armed. Boogaloo resulting in some sort of white supremacist victory is laughable. Europe copying either is just fantasy. The fact that the NZ politicians are doing exactly what a terrorist asked for is what annoys me most here.
- modest_sarcasm 8y agoPerpetrator: "Joke's on you guys, I wanted to go to jail for the rest of my life!" Judge: "Your wish shall be denied. Release this man!"
- mcphage 8y ago> Isn't that exactly what the shooter wanted? The shooter left a long manifesto. It contained quite a bit about white nationalism, but you’re the first person to suggest that it was secretly about gun control.
- LyndsySimon 8y agoHave you read it? He specifically says that he chose firearms in hopes that it would cause gun control to be passed in the US, which he believes would cause enough internal strife to reduce or eliminate the role of the US in international conflict.
- modest_sarcasm 8y agoI already feel safer, knowing that gun-law-abiding terrorists will now have to reload after a mere seven shots. Furthermore, I am confident that the lack of "military style" will actively hurt both their already fragile egos and their aiming skills.
- wallace_f 8y agoChina has how many Muslim Uighurs interned? Millions? Do you support the right to arms for Uighurs? 'At first I did not speak out because I did not believe they were coming for me.'
- krapp 8y agoWhen you mention Neimoller's poem, 1984 or Brave New World in an internet comment not related to literary criticism, you automatically lose.
- jki275 8y agoWho made up that silly rule?
- krapp 8y agoAnalogies to the Nazis (which Neimoller's poem is, implying a slippery slope to mass graves or something equally terrible) and dystopian fiction have become so tedious and banal at this point that I group them together with Godwin's Law as examples of arguments with negative intellectual value. If a commenter is resorting to these, it's evidence they have little of value to add to the conversation beyond concern trolling. > Who made up that silly rule? I guess I did. But I can't be the only one sick of seeing these low effort memes pop up around here.
- jki275 8y agoGodwin's law doesn't say what you think it does. It's not a "low effort meme", it's appropriate sometimes.
- CompanionCuuube 8y agoPeople who end up on the wrong side of it too frequently.
- mrmondo 8y agoAlso posted earlier today: ‘New Zealand PM announces ban on all assault rifles after Christchurch massacre’ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19449256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19449256
- Simulacra 8y agoThat post is dead and was flagged apparently.
- mrmondo 8y agoOh, strange - I wonder why? (mods feel free to message me so I can improve future posts if required), I don’t generally have a bad rep on HN and it was an uneditoritialised title etc... anyway - what matters is that people are aware of the news, not who posts a link to it. — Context as to why I posted earlier today: I was born, grew up and lived in Christchurch until 2012 when I moved to Melbourne. I was there and working in the main hospitals (sysadmin / ops engineer running the primary patient management and some lab systems) and in that role during both of the two major earthquakes that levelled the city. The emotional, mental and social stress of those two major ‘natural’ disasters were so incredibly deviststing and this this shooting has surely got to pile on for people still living there.
- samfriedman 8y agoFYI a lot of HN users flag non-tech/politics submissions wholesale. Either because they don't feel they fit the HN topic, or because these topics often devolve to flamewars.
- mrmondo 8y agoYeah fair enough too - it isn’t tech related, while political I feel it’s more social but certainly not technical.
- OscarTheGrinch 8y ago(New Zealander here) I was surprised that these weren't already banned. How many bullets do you really need to hunt? Some clarification on NZ's new gun laws: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/explainer-how-are-new-zealands-gun-laws-changing https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/explainer-how-... The rest of the world sees that the US constantly ties itself in knots over the gun issue, and the horrific loss of lives. Hopefully NZ's swift response shows that things CAN change.
- cabaalis 8y ago> How many bullets do you really need to hunt? In the US, this is the question used to neuter the second amendment. It isn't there to protect us from deer. The 2nd is meant to be used against people. The right that exists is the ability to protect your rights, life, and property, through force if necessary.
- blahblahthrow 8y agoLook at it this way: if you're going to lead an illegal insurrection to overthrow what you think is a tyranical government, why do you care what the gun laws are?
- modest_sarcasm 8y agoExactly, one can always rely on the general population to illegally stockpile guns and ammunition, just in case. That tyrant won't stand a chance!
- krapp 8y ago>Exactly, one can always rely on the general population to illegally stockpile guns and ammunition, just in case. I probably shouldn't reply to an obvious troll account but... yes. That is exactly how revolutions happen throughout the world - with weapons procured through the black market or otherwise illegal means. It's only the US which insists that a right to revolution be legally defined and protected by the very government its people theoretically intends to revolt against... and yet even with the Second Amendment, domestic terrorism and revolt against the government is still illegal in the US.
- rayiner 8y agoThank God for the Second Amendment.
- ykevinator 8y agoIts only modern purpose is to enable mass shootings and support gun owners pride.
- rayiner 8y agoIs 1971 “modern?” That’s when my home country had to fight for its independence from Pakistan by stealing guns from the other side. Having a Second Amendment would’ve saved a lot of lives. We do not live in a time past the end of history. Killing people has always been the last but necessary recourse in protecting freedom and self determination. A disarmed populace is free only at the whim of the people with arms.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoIt isn't about pride, it's about self-determination, a concept deeply rooted in American culture. Part of being responsible for one's self is being responsible for one's own defense. Lord knows the police are not fast enough, or brave enough for that matter, to protect us anyway. Americans look at the kind of thing that happened in France, where people waited to be executed in a theater, and they say to themselves "I'll go down fighting, thanks". Whether that's a realistic thing to prepare for or not, that is the mindset. We have a significant aversion to being helpless and relying on the state.
- madeofpalk 8y agoCitizens of other countries, who don't have such a weird constitutional attachment to gun ownership, don't have the concept of self-determination?
- LyndsySimon 8y agoI would argue that this is exactly the case. The governments of other countries are generally based on the concept that they decide what their citizens may do. The US federal government is based on the concept that they decide what citizens may not do, and the Bill of Rights is designed to set limits on even that "negative" power. The Second Amendment does not apply to citizens. None of the BoR do; they are restrictions on governmental power.
- Isamu 8y agoI believe that writing legislation for assault rifles is trickier than for semi-autos, because the latter is a more properly defined type. That is, we talk about assault rifles as if they were easily defined but they can be functionally the same as sport rifles but with different grips, and the larger default magazines.
- jki275 8y agoAssault rifle is a defined term, it comes from the German Sturmgewehr, and it has been used since WWII to mean a select fire military issue weapon. As a side note, they’ve been heavily restricted in the US for civilian ownership since 1986, and manufacture for civilian ownership has been banned since 1986. As a result, the supply is very limited and the cost for a civilian legal M16, for instance, hovers around 20 thousand dollars. I believe one has been used in the commission of a crime in that time period since 1986, and the transfer and sale and even movement of them is also heavily restricted and subject to a BATF background check and a local sheriff approval. Of course you’re misusing the word to mean anything that looks scary or looks like it might be a civilian legal non select fire rifle, but we’re scientists, we ought to do better. The 1994 “assault weapon ban” didn’t ban any assault weapons. It also catapulted the Republicans to power and destroyed the Democrat party for nearly 20 years as this is America and we don’t like people pretending parts of our Constitution don’t exist.
- Isamu 8y ago>Assault rifle is a defined term It is not precise enough, that is my point. You can take an assault rifle and manufacture a sport version that removes military convenience features but is still as deadly. Not so with the auto or semi-auto designation. They are right to focus on magazine size in legislation. Also ammo type.
- jki275 8y agoAll guns are deadly. That's what they're designed to be. Guns are not a sport toy, their purpose is to kill things. That's what makes them useful. The problem is not "how deadly" a gun is.
- Simulacra 8y agoI guess I can see both sides of the argument. I own multiple semi automatic rifles and enjoy them very much. At the same time no one "needs" to own one of these. I think anyone attempting to buy any type of firearm should have to: 1) Attend a safety training course; 2) Present some type of proof that they have met with a trained counselor, psychologist, whatever, that says they are not a danger to themselves or society (tricky! I know, very, very tricky); 3) Limited to how many they can purchase in a given time frame; 4) Waiting period of 2 weeks or some definitive cooling off period. That's all going to be very, very controversial. Personally, I don't want it, any of it, but as a responsible owner of high capacity, semi automatic rifles, I'm willing to at least meet the other side halfway. I love going out to the range and blasting away at old cars and crap, but I don't think an outright ban is the answer. We have to find a middle ground.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoThese are controversial because firearms are deeply ingrained in American culture, and it is easy to see how such reasonable-seeming measures could be abused or counterproductive. For instance, if I'm suffering from mental health issues I might decide not to see anyone about it for fear they'd take my guns away. Anything that could be used to allow the government to keep track of who owns what can be --and has been-- abused to harass people or preemptively confiscate weapons. These don't seem like problems to people who don't have firearms as part of their culture, but they're important to those who do. I honestly don't know what a good solution would look like. I believe in the purpose of the second amendment, and I like knowing that I have the right and ability to defend myself, but it has become clear that society is not fit enough to handle the current state of things. I don't really know what a good solution looks like.
- Simulacra 8y agoYou have a point there, firearms and the idea of "you can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. I also think about those instances where we've had frightening scenarios of confiscation, such as Katrina. There's also the distrust of citizens in the government to both protect them, and protect their civil liberties, and freedom. Recently I heard a quote that might add some to this discussion: The police are there to protect the government and society, not you. So if we put that together and apply it to this issue, without a gun of your own, you're left dependent upon the police who may not protect you, per se, but they will protect civil order and the government. Who decides what that civil order is? I don't know the answer either but I accept the responsibility as a gun owner to come to the table, and find a solution.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- madeofpalk 8y agoPlease don't quote or share this.
- identity-haver 8y agoSo we should just ignore the terrorist's clearly stated strategy, and then go right along with it?
- CompanionCuuube 8y agoNo, what we should do is use the tragedy to push through the regulations that the lobbyists wanted already.