Guns Because

[Gallstones]

People are pretty much the same the world over, aren't they?

There are some 4,000 Firearms offences each year, a level which is higher than was the case prior to 1980, but has not increased over the past six years.

I don't understand, with all the "sensible" and "reasonable" restrictions on firearms in NZ, how can there be any firearm offences, doesn't having laws fix that problem?

[Gallstones]

[Svartalf]

The functioning of a kalash? how anti American

[Seth]

Seth

Re the armed police.
Here in NZ, we have very few murders after the police are called. Mostly, murders happen before, and even then, such murders are not often carried out with firearms, and almost never with hand guns.

How nice. Still, the victim of each and every one of those murders would probably have liked to be allowed to make the choice whether or not to be armed with a handgun in order to defend their lives I would think. It's immoral and unethical for you, or anyone else, to interfere with any potential victim's right to arm themselves with effective tools of self defense just because you think that murders are rare and not often committed with firearms. It doesn't matter to the victim whether their murderer uses a baseball bat, a kitchen knife or a semi-automatic sporting rifle with a 100 round magazine. They are dead because idiot hoplophobes can't get it through their thick heads that the right to armed self defense is both universal and individual, and that no one, including the government, has the right to reduce the individual to a statistic in a morbid and disgusting calculus of hoplophobia.

An armed offender, when accosted by our elite police, knows damn well that it is over. He will often hole up in a 'secure' place. Mostly that results in a long wait. Our police are not trigger happy thugs, but highly trained professionals who try to avoid loss of life. Their best tool is words and intelligence. Using those tools, they generally get their man with no further shooting.

Good for them. But then why do they have guns if they are so expertly persuasive. Oh, wait, it's because they might need to shoot the perp to protect their or another's life. Imagine that.

However, on the rare occasions where shooting is required, they use rifles, and they are very, very accurate with them. A shooting of an innocent by stander by NZ police is a rare event. Not unknown, but rare. Any person shot by the police leads to a protracted legal investigation, and the shooter will be grilled without mercy.

Hard to use a rifle you don't have in a non-barricade situation like the street shooting in NYC we're talking about. In that case (which you are abysmally ignorant about) the perp had already gone to two separate offices and shot people and was walking along the street when a witness told the police what happened. The two police officers attempted to apprehend him and he pulled his pistol and started firing. They returned fire in the split-second they had to do so. Had they not been armed, the perp would have shot them dead and escaped while they bled to death and the SWAT team, with their highly accurate rifles, tried to figure out where in a city of 12 million people the perp had gone.

You're completely ignorant of police operations and tactics, so you should shut up and learn from the experts, like me, who actually do know what the fuck they are talking about.

On your paranoid belief that we need to be armed to avoid a corrupt government.

It's not paranoia, it's common sense, as our Founders said. You see, peace-loving New Zealanders with their non-corrupt government could be armed to the teeth with fully-automatic assault rifles and they would not be responsible for ANY criminal violence, as is the case in Switzerland, where there's a machine gun in almost every household. This is because the Swiss, like Americans, understand that law-abiding citizens are not a danger to the public, but are a danger to despots and criminals, as they should be.

It is, and always has been a bullshit idea.

Only to morons who have no understanding of history.

First, there is no sign that any of the advanced western nations are heading in that direction.

Fallacy. You attempt to bolster your argument by limiting the scope of consideration to "advanced western nations." That's intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. And you're also wrong. EVERY socialist state in Europe which disarms its citizens is heading in that direction, and it's only a matter of time and economics until despotism and tyranny take over. It's as inevitable as entropy. I'd take the time to explain why, but I've done so many times and you're simply too opaque to be capable of understanding the argument, so I won't bother.

Second, no government can become despotic without the support of the military, which is very unlikely in any advanced democracy.

Unlikely as in Venezuela or Wiemar Germany? And there you go again trying to fallaciously limit the scope of your claim to avoid having to face the hard truth that EVERYONE on the planet, whether they live in an "advanced democracy" or not, is entitled to self defense, which includes defense against despotism and tyranny by their (or any other) government.

Third, if it ever happened, and armed insurrection was needed, the weapons involved would become available by a range of means, as the IRA so clearly demonstrated.

Tell it to the Jews of Weimar Germany. Or the Gypsies. Or the French. You are an historical ignoramus.

There is absolutely no need for citizenry to be armed.

Until there is.

In addition, in any such situation, large parts of the armed forces would join the insurrection, and bring their weapons with them.

Which didn't help the Jews a bit, did it?

Besides which, it is hand guns that need to be banned, and hand guns would be of very limited value in such an insurrection.

Which fails to explain why every US special-operations soldier in Afghanistan carries one, and why the Allies air-dropped tens of thousands of single-shot .45 "Liberty pistols" to the Partisans in France and other places in Occupied Europe.

You really know absolutely nothing about either self-defense or military tactics do you?

You should probably shut the fuck up until you learn some actual facts.

[Seth]

Speaking of militias, have you ever wondered if perhaps the brownshirts and later on the blackshirts were crucial to Hitler's rise to power?

No, I haven't. It's because Hitler was a despotic, tyrannical genius who knew exactly what he was doing and how to accomplish his goals, and then he came within a gnat's whisker of accomplishing all of it. Had it not been for us violent Americans and our armament factories, and ships, and soldiers, everybody in Europe would be speaking German and heiling the thousand year Reich.

And the VERY FIRST THING Hitler did was to disarm the populace...specifically the Jews.

Then he armed his loyal troops and murdered 12 million unarmed people.

Had the population of Europe been as heavily armed as we are here in the US when Hitler tried to take over the world, he wouldn't have lasted long at all, and he certainly never would have blitzkrieged his way through Poland and the rest of Europe with the ease that he did, which is what consolidated his power and made it so much harder to root him out and destroy him.

But, the idiots of Europe thought like you, mistakenly believing that they would be safer if they banned guns for the ordinary law-abiding citizen, and thus they were ill-prepared to fight off the German army.

And we here in the US made the stupid mistake of sending our own personal arms to the Home Guard in England, by donation, because the idiots in the UK had long before banned any sort of effective military arms. We should have let them be overrun, as a lesson to the future.

[Seth]

I love that GIF. Where did you find it?

[Gallstones]

I love that GIF. Where did you find it?

On teh internet.

Mezmerizing ain't it?





From one of my facebook friends Michael Z Williamson. I think you'd like him. He writes a blog, The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse.

[Gallstones]

The Founders could only have know of muskets eh?

The Puckle gun

(also known as the Defence gun) was invented in 1718 by James Puckle (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer.
It is a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder. It was intended for shipboard use to prevent boarding. The barrel was 3 feet (0.91 m) long with a bore of 1.25 inches (32 mm). It had a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in seven minutes—this at a time when the standard soldier's musket could at best be loaded and fired three times per minute.

The Second Amendment was ratified with the rest of the Bill of Rights December 15, 1791, 73 years later.

[Gallstones]

The functioning of a kalash? how anti American

Way too cool to hold that against it.

[Gallstones]

[Collector1337]

DI and Piston, nice!

I have both.

[Rum]

Speaking of militias, have you ever wondered if perhaps the brownshirts and later on the blackshirts were crucial to Hitler's rise to power?

No, I haven't. It's because Hitler was a despotic, tyrannical genius who knew exactly what he was doing and how to accomplish his goals, and then he came within a gnat's whisker of accomplishing all of it. Had it not been for us violent Americans and our armament factories, and ships, and soldiers, everybody in Europe would be speaking German and heiling the thousand year Reich.

And the VERY FIRST THING Hitler did was to disarm the populace...specifically the Jews.

Then he armed his loyal troops and murdered 12 million unarmed people.

Had the population of Europe been as heavily armed as we are here in the US when Hitler tried to take over the world, he wouldn't have lasted long at all, and he certainly never would have blitzkrieged his way through Poland and the rest of Europe with the ease that he did, which is what consolidated his power and made it so much harder to root him out and destroy him.

But, the idiots of Europe thought like you, mistakenly believing that they would be safer if they banned guns for the ordinary law-abiding citizen, and thus they were ill-prepared to fight off the German army.

And we here in the US made the stupid mistake of sending our own personal arms to the Home Guard in England, by donation, because the idiots in the UK had long before banned any sort of effective military arms. We should have let them be overrun, as a lesson to the future.

Silly man.

[Gallstones]

Assembly of the Colt 1911 .45

[Gallstones]

[Seth]

The Founders could only have know of muskets eh?

The Puckle gun

(also known as the Defence gun) was invented in 1718 by James Puckle (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer.
It is a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder. It was intended for shipboard use to prevent boarding. The barrel was 3 feet (0.91 m) long with a bore of 1.25 inches (32 mm). It had a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in seven minutes—this at a time when the standard soldier's musket could at best be loaded and fired three times per minute.

The Second Amendment was ratified with the rest of the Bill of Rights December 15, 1791, 73 years later.

Wow! I never heard of the Puckle Gun. Amazing. Thanks for posting that Gallstones, you learn something new all the time. Predecessor to the Mini-Gun and the Vulcan.