Drugs and alcohol kill more people than guns and are not protected by the constitution, make the case to not ban them.

1. I'd argue about that where I live labor jobs pay more. To many degrees no one wants to work with their hands

2. Banning guns won't fix anything. Heroin is illegal. Why is there an opioid crisis. Meth is illegal. Same thing. It's illegal to kill someone people will find a way to do it no matter what bomb plane car etc.

3. I pay $80 a month for health insurance. Doubt the government would do it for cheaper. And ya it might make big pharma rich but at least they do their job lol

And the new green deal is a dream that will cost alot of money and will never work.

Umm twice. One attempt failed.

Even with them being outlawed our border is not secure. Wouldn't take much to run some in.

War on drugs hasn't seemed to work. War on guns wont either.

Apples and oranges again, mate. Drugs are heavily regulated, and drug deaths are overdoses. When drugs are responsible for the deaths of others are violent crimes involving.. guns. And knives. Etc.

Alcohol similarly is regulated but you can’t ban it because alcohol is ingrained in almost all adult cultures (save for strict Muslim nations, for example). Alcohol deaths are also generally related to illness developed by excessive use, or due to accidents occurring under the influence (e.g. car accidents). Mostly killing the user, but obviously alcohol users can and do kill others intentionally or unintentionally.

Banning either drugs or alcohol, or both, outright might help reduce some gun related deaths (e.g. suicides) but how will it reduce mass shootings? The strange thing about using other causes of death as a defense to tighter gun regulations is that you’re not saying gun control doesn’t work - you’re being childish and saying “Well, if I have to then those kids have to too!”

And, weirdly, you’re arguing in favour of tighter regulation by demanding the same treatment of drugs and alcohol. I don’t really think you mean to say that.

So..you made my point, no matter how much you regulate something dangerous it still finds its way to those who want to do harm, how does a gun ban stop gun violence when it is criminals doing it? Criminals don't follow rules, so your solution is even more dangerous because you are disarming those who do follow the rules and creating no resistance to criminals.

1. If we’re talking about specific areas, like the regions, then of course you’re probably right. But the statistics, on average, suggest that those with post-secondary can and do earn more over their lifetime. That’s true if we’re talking university degrees or including vocational/trade training. I don’t know your area and I don’t know the makeup of your unemployed but those with degrees and no job have better prospects than those without.

2. Of course banning guns will work. Americans will just be upset as its built into your social fabric that guns are a right.

3. I’m gonna merge two points together and lol a bit about your concern about the opioid crisis and support of Big Pharma “doing its job”. And then acknowledge that you actually don’t mind paying for other peoples’ healthcare, you just don’t like paying for government spending.

Just don't come to the US and you won't have to worry about guns.

You’re looking at it backwards. It’s because of regulation that deaths from those causes aren’t worse.

I’m also not saying, nor is anyone saying, that all guns should be banned. Not all alcohol and not all drugs are banned. But neither are they completely unregulated.

Show me where criminals follow gun laws and I'll agree with you.

That feels like if “Honest Trailers” took over US tourism marketing. Lol.

Do mass shooters who legally obtain their firearms count? What about legal owners who aren’t mass shooters but do murder people?

What’s the ratio of gun deaths with legally obtained firearms vs deaths from illegally obtained ones?

They shot up places that guns are illegal in, you lose.

Thanks for playing though :-)

Seems convenient that they don’t count the minute the commit criminal acts.

Maybe we should ban guns so they don’t get the opportunity to commit those acts and become criminals.

Pointless, look up illegal gun purchases, how are you going to stop that from happening?

Fun fact, did you know that in all the states where marijuana was legalized all the laws preventing the things they said they were created to prevent has been broken? Now we see a spike on pot in schools in every state that it was legalized with heavy regulation.

Again, how do you stop illegal purchases of firearms by those who don't have regard for the law to begin with?

Please tell me.

Good thing is where I live the sheriffs won't enforce and gun buy backs or confiscatiot

Many won't. And i think one of the only states that's enforeced a rule so far (i want to say maryland? Something like that...) had an hours long standoff with police. Was like gun number 3 tried to confiscate. Americans are pretty serious about that fluff.

Think their law was like immediate family members or doctors are the only one's allowed to decide you shouldn't have guns but police have to go get them. Its only happened like a dozen times so far since police don't get to make the decision on it tho.

White people bout to feel the same way about the police as black people by the end of this one hahaha

Nah the police is friend like I said they will reject your hippie policies too.

Says a white guy in rural Minnesota LOL

Not my problem you live in big city with hippie police

I hope some day you can travel some and experience other places different from yours.

I travel plenty haha. Just don't enjoy big cities. Rude and self centered people. And entitled.

You should come to Portland Oregon, you'll wish a huge earthquake swallows that fluff LOL

Alternately try any major coastal city in California,

c'mon on down and see for yourself the miles and miles of homeless encampments socialist/elitist policies of the last 20 years has created.

Many are just starting to wake up to the nightmare they created by voting for their liberal/progressive points of view. maybe just maybe they will begin to vote using a bit of common sense vs. pie in the sky, if I can wish it and dream it laws.

The one good part about the homeless crisis is that it has gotten so out of control that it is no longer limited to contained ghetto areas, and moving into the ritzy sanctuaries of the rich and famous. When it affects these social circles and the rich begin to feel the pain, things usually get expedited for solutions.

as for gun laws they should seriously try to enforce the current laws and once this is done if they truly need more comeback and make the case as to why more laws are needed. guns are and have been heavily regulated for quite some time now.

for those in favor of gun bans -- read it carefully and get your facts straight vs, mass media knee jerk, reactionary pull my heart strings, something has gotta be done type of oh my emotions decision process
https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

a sample set of facts

Of 1,662 murders committed in New York City during 2003 to 2005, more than 90% of the known killers were people with criminal records.[44]

* In 2015, when Baltimore, Maryland, experienced the highest per-capita murder rate in its history:

77% of the homicide suspects identified by police had prior criminal records.
the average homicide suspect had been previously arrested more than nine times.

federal law prohibits those with a criminal background from purchasing firearms, ... yet the above somehow still occurred.

Oh cool where have you been recently?

I would never step foot in California.

Yellowstone

Go to Canada every year

Heading to Alaska next year.

Cities aren't pretty nor do they offer anything fun or exciting to do.

How could a country tackle illegal gun purchases? First is comprehensively knowing what and where the problems are. You can't make good laws based on little or bad information. For example:

1. If you know that states with strong gun laws are often undermined by states with weak gun laws (where guns purchased in weak states are found to be used in crimes committed in strong states) then you know the disparity in gun laws between jurisdictions are a problem.

2. If you know that the biggest channel of trafficking of guns into the illegal market comes from negligent or corrupt retailers, then you know that laws relating to who can sell guns and how they sell them is a problem.

3. If you know that potentially 40% of all gun sales in your country come from unlicensed dealers who aren't required to perform background checks on the purchasers, then you might assume that this comes with a risk of increasing guns on the illegal market and know that this is a problem.

How could America stop illegal gun purchases? It doesn't. You don't want to, and you can't. It's just not in your culture to be able to do that.



In a roundabout way, this confirms that outright banning something reduces the likelihood of it showing up where we deem it outright shouldn't be vs legalising it for some people and trying to regulate against it being used by others.

-- In any case, this debate on gun control is beyond the original discussion point of gun control being supposedly "socialist policy" (which it's not).

Under federal law:

It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison for the following people to receive, possess, or transport any firearm or ammunition:
someone convicted of or under indictment for a felony punishable by more than one year in prison, someone convicted of a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years in prison, a fugitive from justice, an unlawful user of any controlled substance, someone who has been ruled as mentally defective or has been committed to any mental institution, an illegal alien, someone dishonorably discharged from the military, someone who has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship, someone subject to certain restraining orders, or someone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.[77] [78] [79] [80]
It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison to sell or transfer any firearm or ammunition to someone while “knowing” or having “reasonable cause to believe” this person falls into any of the prohibited categories listed above.[81] [82]
It is illegal to “engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms” without a federal license to do so.[83] [84] [85]
It is illegal for any federally licensed firearms business to sell or transfer any firearm without first conducting a background check to see if the buyer/recipient falls into any of the prohibited categories listed above.[86] [87]
It is illegal for anyone except a federally licensed firearms business to sell, buy, trade, or transfer a firearm across state lines.[88]
* Under federal law, private individuals are not required to a conduct a background check before selling or transferring a firearm to someone who lives in the same state, but it is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison for a private individual to sell or transfer a firearm while “knowing” or having “reasonable cause to believe” that the recipient falls into one of the prohibited categories above.[89] [90]

* Some states such as California require background checks for all firearms transactions, including those conducted between private individuals.[91] [92] [93]

https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Tigress, earlier you said:



Then, above, you've quoted (I removed the relevant background check points to focus on the point about private sales):

[quote poster=Tigress; 47627; 911870] Under federal law:

* Under federal law, private individuals are not required to a conduct a background check before selling or transferring a firearm to someone who lives in the same state, but it is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison for a private individual to sell or transfer a firearm while “knowing” or having “reasonable cause to believe” that the recipient falls into one of the prohibited categories above.[89] [90]

https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp [/quote]

That might not account for every case of a firearm obtained by someone who wouldn't pass a Federal background check but it's definitely a risk area.

I'm a truck driver, I see many roadside tent cities along the entire west coast metropolitan areas, it is disgusting especially knowing these are blue states where they claim to care about the needy.

I find it funny that BROmanceNZ wants Americans to bend over for the criminals to have their way vs an unarmed populous, so stupid in so many levels, then again he lives in kiwiland....wait didnt you guys have a mass shooting recently? I thought guns were illegal down there....what happened?

I actually live in Hong Kong but I'm sure you've already got your picture painted about who it is I am, what I believe in and all that.

I've also not said that I support the banning of guns in the US, only that I believe that gun bans work. Would they work in America? I've clearly said "No" but that's not the fault of gun laws and regulations, that's because the US has let this issue get so far away from being solved by simple legislation - the country would need a culture overhaul. That's unlikely.

As for the Christchurch shooting, that was a significant tragedy but the shooter bought his weapons legally. I don't know what you're expecting me to do - justify and defend New Zealand's gun laws? Most of the country was pretty supportive of some sort of legislative change to close whatever loopholes existed to allow the shooter to build a weapon capable of killing 51 people so quickly. Hunters, who make the the majority of New Zealand gun owners, don't need high capacity magazines and bump stock-type attachments to make firing faster. In the handful of hunts I've been on, we wouldn't have fired much more than 3-5 rounds each time. We're not playing Call of Duty.

The ban on semi-automatic military-style weapons isn't meant to stop mass shooters from murdering people - but they are meant to force them to find an alternative. If that's a bomb, we assume our intelligence agencies will do what they can to prevent that. If it's a knife, then I doubt the Christchurch mosque shooter could have killed 51 people with a knife. The gun bans in New Zealand will probably work to reduce the likelihood of a person being able to kill as quickly as the Christchurch shooter did.

It doesn't eliminate murder but it should make murdering so many less easy. The logic doesn't seem like rocket science, does it?

But I have an AR 15. They're fun easy to maintain and they're good for shooting coyotes. Where the multiple rounds come in handy.
And as for the military style weapons what is that?
The way it look or how will you classify that?

For the ignorant … I think folks buy them because they look cool. I have much more powerful weapons, that I use for hunting and target shooting only. They would come in handy for self protection but, I don't lose sleep thinking about it.

https://www.ammoland.com/...-time-line/#axzz5yNXGZNku

Buch 2024

[quote poster=BROmanceNZ; 47627; 911873]Tigress, earlier you said:



Then, above, you've quoted (I removed the relevant background check points to focus on the point about private sales):

[quote poster=Tigress; 47627; 911870] Under federal law:

* Under federal law, private individuals are not required to a conduct a background check before selling or transferring a firearm to someone who lives in the same state, but it is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison for a private individual to sell or transfer a firearm while “knowing” or having “reasonable cause to believe” that the recipient falls into one of the prohibited categories above.[89] [90]

https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp [/quote]

That might not account for every case of a firearm obtained by someone who wouldn't pass a Federal background check but it's definitely a risk area. [/quote]


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

the crazy part about this is that the guns used in mass shootings in most cases were purchased legally and other than the person technically stealing the gun(s) from a household they had access to the purchase went thru a background check.

ffs we are talking about 10ths of a percentage point, in the neighborhood of six sigma enforcement.

I mean seriously, when Britain is actually considering a knife ban, it should be a clear indicator banning or heavily regulating weapons is not going to stop rampage killing anytime soon. Does France need to ban trucks? After the Boston bombings should we be looking into banning or heavily regulating pressure cookers? Japan with Sarin gas, China with swords, Europe and the Middle East with bombs.

There are much larger issues at play here than the weapons being used to carry out these atrocities. Mass/Rampage killing is not limited to the USA, the weapon(s) used are different based on country and region. Saying guns in the USA are the issue is misleading and obfuscating what is clearly a global problem.

Some random person on the planet wakes up one morning and decides to use whatever it is they have at their disposal to kill as many people as they can in the period of time it takes for someone else to stop them. <--- this is the actual issue we are looking at.

Yeah, my .20 shotgun can do way more damage than the AR-15, it spreads it's love lol

I second this

Derrick is a self proclaimed coke head why you even bother arguing with stupid retards

I don't disagree; I enjoy shooting. Doing pest control on farms is honest work. There's entirely a case to be made for higher capacity magazines where pest control is required (and I'm fairly sure New Zealand law allows for exemption applications on pest control grounds).

As for "military-style", the NZ legislation describes them as semi-automatic firearms (except for pistols) where a number of listed attachments are included (such as higher capacity magazines, bump stock-like attachments, flash suppressors etc). Based on news reports, there have been mixed responses to this with some gun owners willingly handing in their firearms, while some have declared that they're disproportionately affected by the gun bans on their legitimate firearms (e.g. WWII firearm collectors, sport shooters, etc). Whether or not this is the right move for America isn't relevant, it's New Zealand and most people seem to be supportive of the new laws. The hope is that they work and, if they don't (either for reducing the risk of shooting massacres or because they truly unfairly impact legitimate firearm enthusiasts), then we'll simply re-look at our laws and amend them again.

We're privileged to have a fairly quick legislative body that can make laws fast if needed (we had a Prime Minister once who boasted he could have a policy idea while brushing his teeth and have it become law by the time he had dinner that night), with an electoral system that's proportionally representative and can be outright punishing to political parties/governments that go against the will of the people (although, fatigue and fairness sometimes strike governments down in favour of another party).

I get the point you're probably leading to: a bolt action .22 can kill people the same as an AR-15 can. It doesn't much matter whether or not the gun looks "meaner" than others, they're deadly weapons. In New Zealand, I think the difference is that we see firearms as a privilege - not a right.

A baseball bat is a deadly weapon, ban them!

Plus you're on an island. It does help with enforcing the laws passed. That's why Chicago with strict gun laws has been a fail.

The US govt. Is very slow with passing and enforcing laws. There is a fair amount of lobbying going on and neither side wants to work with each other.

https://www.texastribune.org/...xas-gov-greg-abbott-says/

This seems to suggest that the Odessa shooter had failed a background check before and that the firearm used in the shooting on Saturday was allegedly not one purchased where a background check would be required (e.g. private sale). I don't know about you but this says to me that there are glaring holes in gun sale laws that aren't to do with background checks but more to do with private sales etc.

https://www.bjs.gov/...tent/pub/pdf/bcft15st.pdf

In fact, statistics say that more than 3 million applicants were denied between 1994 and 2015, with more than 40% failing for having a felony conviction and 19% failing for having a fugitive status. If the background checks can catch those people, why are they not catching all people?

Is it because of a disparity between gun purchasing laws state-to-state? Is it because some sales are exempt from background checks (e.g. private sales)? Is it because there are problems with corrupt licensed firearm dealers who knowingly supply firearms to buyers without performing the necessary checks to keep the public safe?

The Odessa article above, if the truth, suggests that it's not the background checks that failed this time.



You are right. Mass shootings, while horribly tragic, don't make the majority of gun crimes in the US. I agree it doesn't even make up a significant minority. But you do have an excessively high amount of homicides including firearms. In 2017, gun-related killings made up 73% of your homicides for the year: https://www.bbc.com/...world-us-canada-41488081. Suicides by firearms are higher than homicide deaths as well (outnumbering them 2:1), and yet there's some pretty solid research to suggest that reduced access to firearms would reduce the number of suicides a year: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/...agazine/guns-and-suicide/



Let's take your Britain example.

https://www.euronews.com/...do-the-us-and-uk-compare-

2016 gun murders in the US were 34.03 per million of population. In the UK, that number was 0.48. But we're talking knife crimes? Because knives are the equivalent replacement for guns in the UK, right?

2016 knife murders in the UK was 3.26 per million of population. That's a lot more than their gun murder rate of 0.48. They clearly have a knife crime problem.

But the US knife murder rate in 2016, per million of population, was 4.96?

In the UK, certain types of knives are banned too: https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives, whereas knife ownership laws in the US (like gun laws) depend on the state you're in. They can be strict, or they can be lax.

Because of the heightened focus on terrorism post-9/11, global intelligence agencies have focused quite heavily on the detection and prevention of bomb attack plots. The possible reason for an increase in vehicle attacks, according to an FBI memo, is because they allow terrorists with “limited access to explosives or weapons” the ability to conduct an attack with “minimal prior training or experience." https://www.counterextremism.com/...cles-as-weapons-of-terror



Gun deaths are clearly a very American problem, however. For a developed, civilised nation, you constantly win the Gold, Silver and probably Bronze medals when it comes to gun deaths, either by suicide or homicide, and no other Western country has mass shootings as often as you do.

It's baffling to suggest that the US cannot do anything about it's gun issues until Britain tackles it's knife crime issue, France it's vehicular terrorism, and whatever other random China swords (lol whut?), Japan Sarin gas (happened in 1995), Middle East bombing (do US drone strikes count?) stuff you mentioned.

That's like America is standing in front of it's burning house and refusing to do anything about it until his British neighbour waters their dying plants, the French neighbour washes his car, and the Japanese guy down the road drowns himself in the sorrow a tragedy that befell him and his household more than 20 years ago.



You wake up one morning, feeling cute, thinking about killing a bunch of people, and you've got three options in front of you:

1. A pile of bomb making ingredients
2. A knife
3. A semi automatic firearm

Obviously, time is of the essence. You don't want to spend too much time preparing to kill people otherwise you might talk yourself out of it. So that's the bomb discounted as an option, plus it's illegal to publish/obtain bomb making instructions.

The knife is a quiet option but, really, then you have to get up close to your victims and there's the possibility they might over power you. A knife still requires that you be decently strong and fit, otherwise you're stabbing one or two people max before you possibly get swarmed. Plus, good guys with guns might just shoot you.

Better take the gun. It's quick, you can kill from a distance, and it should scare most people away from you. If good guys show up, you have just as much opportunity to shoot them as they do you.

Now, if laws were to take one of those options away - which do you reckon would probably reduce the risk of a random going on a murder spree?

Agreed. The situation in the US is far more difficult politically and culturally than in New Zealand.

Well, if you want to be childish then maybe you can take your crayons and colouring book to the corner while the adults talk.

You're taking the ball and going home now?

I'm happy to have a discussion about the different aspects of the gun control debate, what is and isn't socialism, the differences in national cultures, etc. Particularly when you've got something useful or insightful to contribute.

But I'm not your 1st grade teacher. I'm not here to teach you how to read.

bonus

http://www.msn.com/...led/ar-AAGIcE9?ocid=ientp

SMH you did say deadly weapon and I'm simply pointing out that anything can become a deadly weapon, it's not my fault you keep moving the goal line.

@BROmanceNZ I will get back to you some time tonite gotta go to work for now.

in the meantime I would like you to think of a way you could kill 2 billion people with a stick of bubble gum and a paperclip.

my daughter solved this in three minutes when she was 10 years old.

That you made an incorrect assumption before, then ignored the reply, then cherry picked one mention of “deadly weapon” from a reply directed at someone else, probably suggests that you’ve probably reached the end of what you can intelligently contribute.

Like, if I told you it was hypocritical to be accusing me of “moving the goal line” I doubt you’d get it. But in the off chance you do, why don’t you see if you can rack up more kills than the 2017 Las Vegas shooter using a baseball bat?

If you still don’t get it, then maybe work out the percentages of homicide victims involving firearms vs blunt objects (unfortunately, baseball bats are not significant enough to warrant their own category and are lumped in with all other “blunt objects”) using FBI statistics:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/...ded-homicide-data-table-8

I’ll give you this for free: if you want to shift the argument away from “baseball bats are deadly weapons too!” to pointing out the low number of annual firearm homicide victims in relation to the total US population - that’s moving the goal posts ;)