Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic
weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre) for “sporting”
purposes.

What kind of “sport” needs the ability to mow down lots of
victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htargets in a single shooting spree?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic
>weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre) for “sporting”
>purposes.
Hmm - that is a lie, talk about cognitive failure - she and the government have
said it is part of the discussion, not that they want it done. The difference
is rather too subtle for some but not for those of us that listen with an open
mind.
>
>What kind of “sport” needs the ability to mow down lots of
>victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htargets in a single shooting spree?

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:10:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style
>>semi-automatic weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre)
>>for “sporting”
>>purposes.
>
> Hmm - that is a lie, talk about cognitive failure - she and the
> government have said it is part of the discussion ...

So which part of “talking about” would you say is the “lie”, here?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:10:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style
>>>semi-automatic weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre)
>>>for “sporting”
>>>purposes.
>>
>> Hmm - that is a lie, talk about cognitive failure - she and the
>> government have said it is part of the discussion ...
>
>So which part of “talking about” would you say is the “lie”, here?
Your meaning was clear and a lie - she was questioned, she said nothing was off
the table. Your inference was a lie.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:10:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic
>>weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre) for “sportingâ€?
>>purposes.
>Hmm - that is a lie, talk about cognitive failure - she and the government have
>said it is part of the discussion, not that they want it done. The difference
>is rather too subtle for some but not for those of us that listen with an open
>mind.

From:
https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/02/28/semi-automatic-weapons-on-the-table-in-shake-up-of-gun-laws/

"Also on the table is allowing competitive shooters to use
semi-automatics for sport. The only current exemptions are pest
control and (disabled) collector's items.

"Over 5000 people, deemed to have a proper purpose, already have a
licence for centre-fire semi-automatic firearms. Under the rewrite of
the Arms Act, a person would still need a legitimate reason to have a
centre-fire semi-automatic firearm," McKee said.

"Meanwhile, higher security and storage requirement would be required
and large capacity magazines would continue to be unavailable to those
without the proper, vetted endorsement."

Lawmakers near-unanimously supported an amendment to ban
semi-automatics after the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings.

It was these restrictions that propelled McKee into politics and she
was now spearheading the complete rewrite of our gun laws.

"I'm hoping that we can find a middle ground where we ensure we have
good public safety but we also stop treating licensed firearms owners
like they're nothing more than common criminals."

McKee wants to roll back what she described as "rushed" and
"knee-jerk" legislation so regulations were less onerous on firearms
owners.

"Gun ownership is a normal way of life. Now, everyone thinks that it's
used just as a weapon, rather than as a sporting tool or a way to put
food on the table," she said."
________________

From that article, the summary saying "Nicole McKee is talking about
re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic weapons (of the kind used
in the Ides of March massacre) for ''sporting'' purposes." seems
quite accurate - she did not just raise the issue, but suggested
changes to security and storage requirements, and proper vetting
processes. If there is a lie or cognitive failure it appears most
likely to be from Tony rather than Lawrence, but perhaps Tony was
speaking from memory of a verbal exchange and merely did not correctly
recall detail . . .. Of concern to others will be the statement "If
you think about what the Christchurch terrorist did five years ago, he
did that in about 17 minutes. He reached two locations, was able to
kill 51 people, bullet wound more than 40 and then impact all those
who were present for the rest of their lives." - and in that case I
understand he gained access to the semi-automatic firearms through
being a member of a gun club . . .

>>
>>What kind of “sportâ€? needs the ability to mow down lots of
>>victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htargets in a single shooting spree?

There are very limited circumstances where they are currently
available - for professional pest control. Also from the article
above: "A scientific review of 130 studies in 10 countries showed
relaxing firearms restrictions typically led to increased gun deaths."

Not covered in the discussion so far are the number of firearms that
appear to not be registered, or to not be held by the owner recorded
by police. A review is needed - to ensure that every firearm has a
unique identifier; similar to a vehicle number plate in intent - so
that for insurance purposes, and proof of ownership every forearm can
be identified with an owner - there can then be a requirement for
reporting of transfer of ownership, and possession of a firearm other
than those registered to an individual should be a serious offence.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:55:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:10:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style
>>>>semi-automatic weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre)
>>>>for “sportingâ€?
>>>>purposes.
>>>
>>> Hmm - that is a lie, talk about cognitive failure - she and the
>>> government have said it is part of the discussion ...
>>
>>So which part of “talking aboutâ€? would you say is the “lieâ€?, here?
>Your meaning was clear and a lie - she was questioned, she said nothing was off
>the table. Your inference was a lie.

Most would read a statement that nothing is off the table as meaning
that an issue which she not only introduced and gave reasons for it
being concluded, but also included detail of other regulation to
follow such an inclusion was a clear indication that it was being
taken seriously - she did not for example say that any proposals she
raised may be taken off the table . . .

So no lie, Tony, just your bias in favour of more forearms in our
community. You are of course entitled to your opinion.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:55:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:10:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style
>>>>>semi-automatic weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre)
>>>>>for “sporting�?
>>>>>purposes.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm - that is a lie, talk about cognitive failure - she and the
>>>> government have said it is part of the discussion ...
>>>
>>>So which part of “talking about�? would you say is the “lie�?, here?
>>Your meaning was clear and a lie - she was questioned, she said nothing was
>>off
>>the table. Your inference was a lie.
>
>Most would read a statement that nothing is off the table as meaning
>that an issue which she not only introduced and gave reasons for it
>being concluded, but also included detail of other regulation to
>follow such an inclusion was a clear indication that it was being
>taken seriously - she did not for example say that any proposals she
>raised may be taken off the table . . .
>
>So no lie, Tony, just your bias in favour of more forearms in our
>community. You are of course entitled to your opinion.
I am not biased - you are. And your analysis is garbage. Lawrence lied by
infrenece.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:10:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic
>>>weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre) for “sporting�?
>>>purposes.
>>Hmm - that is a lie, talk about cognitive failure - she and the government
>>have
>>said it is part of the discussion, not that they want it done. The difference
>>is rather too subtle for some but not for those of us that listen with an
>>open
>>mind.
>
>From:
>https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/02/28/semi-automatic-weapons-on-the-table-in-shake-up-of-gun-laws/
>
>"Also on the table is allowing competitive shooters to use
>semi-automatics for sport. The only current exemptions are pest
>control and (disabled) collector's items.
>
>"Over 5000 people, deemed to have a proper purpose, already have a
>licence for centre-fire semi-automatic firearms. Under the rewrite of
>the Arms Act, a person would still need a legitimate reason to have a
>centre-fire semi-automatic firearm," McKee said.
>
>"Meanwhile, higher security and storage requirement would be required
>and large capacity magazines would continue to be unavailable to those
>without the proper, vetted endorsement."
>
>Lawmakers near-unanimously supported an amendment to ban
>semi-automatics after the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings.
>
>It was these restrictions that propelled McKee into politics and she
>was now spearheading the complete rewrite of our gun laws.
>
>"I'm hoping that we can find a middle ground where we ensure we have
>good public safety but we also stop treating licensed firearms owners
>like they're nothing more than common criminals."
>
>McKee wants to roll back what she described as "rushed" and
>"knee-jerk" legislation so regulations were less onerous on firearms
>owners.
>
>"Gun ownership is a normal way of life. Now, everyone thinks that it's
>used just as a weapon, rather than as a sporting tool or a way to put
>food on the table," she said."
>________________
>
>From that article, the summary saying "Nicole McKee is talking about
>re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic weapons (of the kind used
>in the Ides of March massacre) for ''sporting'' purposes." seems
>quite accurate - she did not just raise the issue, but suggested
>changes to security and storage requirements, and proper vetting
>processes. If there is a lie or cognitive failure it appears most
>likely to be from Tony rather than Lawrence, but perhaps Tony was
>speaking from memory of a verbal exchange and merely did not correctly
>recall detail . . .. Of concern to others will be the statement "If
>you think about what the Christchurch terrorist did five years ago, he
>did that in about 17 minutes. He reached two locations, was able to
>kill 51 people, bullet wound more than 40 and then impact all those
>who were present for the rest of their lives." - and in that case I
>understand he gained access to the semi-automatic firearms through
>being a member of a gun club . . .
>
>>>
>>>What kind of “sport�? needs the ability to mow down lots of
>>>victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htargets in a single shooting spree?
>
>There are very limited circumstances where they are currently
>available - for professional pest control. Also from the article
>above: "A scientific review of 130 studies in 10 countries showed
>relaxing firearms restrictions typically led to increased gun deaths."
>
>Not covered in the discussion so far are the number of firearms that
>appear to not be registered, or to not be held by the owner recorded
>by police. A review is needed - to ensure that every firearm has a
>unique identifier; similar to a vehicle number plate in intent - so
>that for insurance purposes, and proof of ownership every forearm can
>be identified with an owner - there can then be a requirement for
>reporting of transfer of ownership, and possession of a firearm other
>than those registered to an individual should be a serious offence.
Meaningless diversion.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 02:27:28 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

> ... perhaps [Ranty McRantFace] was speaking from memory of a verbal
> exchange and merely did not correctly recall detail . . ..

Responding to the voices in his head, in other words. I’ve noticed that
more than once.

> ... and in that case I understand [Shooty McShootFace] gained access to
> the semi-automatic firearms through being a member of a gun club . . .

Pro-gun lobbyists like to talk about being “law-abiding”, yet most mass
shooters get their weapons legally.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 18:59:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:55:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:10:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style
>>>>>>semi-automatic weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre)
>>>>>>for “sportingâ€?
>>>>>>purposes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm - that is a lie, talk about cognitive failure - she and the
>>>>> government have said it is part of the discussion ...
>>>>
>>>>So which part of “talking aboutâ€? would you say is the “lieâ€?, here?
>>>Your meaning was clear and a lie - she was questioned, she said nothing was
>>>off
>>>the table. Your inference was a lie.
>>
>>Most would read a statement that nothing is off the table as meaning
>>that an issue which she not only introduced and gave reasons for it
>>being concluded, but also included detail of other regulation to
>>follow such an inclusion was a clear indication that it was being
>>taken seriously - she did not for example say that any proposals she
>>raised may be taken off the table . . .
>>
>>So no lie, Tony, just your bias in favour of more firearms in our
>>community. You are of course entitled to your opinion.
>I am not biased - you are. And your analysis is garbage. Lawrence lied by
>infrenece.

No lies at all - McKee did not just raise the possibility of
re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic weapons (of the kind used
in the Ides of March massacre) for "sporting" purposes; she also gave
her thoughts on the conditions for such a license. That made it a
specific proposal, Tony, as well as part of the discussion. A
discussion does consistent of "talking about" things - so Lawrence was
absolutely correct, and you were trying to hide behind incorrect
semantics.

The coalition government has shown that they are prepared to push some
legislation through Parliament with as little discussion as possible;
we should be grateful that in this case she appears to be prepared to
have some discussion before legislation is put to a vote.

Most New Zealanders would probably prefer to keep the ban on these
semi-automatic weapons, but if the government has the numbers they
have shown that they will act. Suggestions have been made that among
the conditions for such weapons be that they be stored and used at gun
club premises only, only used under supervision to suitably
experienced users, and that there be heavy penalties for them not
being at those premises. Clearly that is not ideal, but it may be
sufficient for the three parties to agree. A majority of New
Zealanders may dislike the proposals, but at least she has been honest
about her abhorrent proposals, unlike you with your claim that she was
not.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 19:00:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:10:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic
>>>>weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre) for “sportingâ€?
>>>>purposes.
>>>Hmm - that is a lie, talk about cognitive failure - she and the government
>>>have
>>>said it is part of the discussion, not that they want it done. The difference
>>>is rather too subtle for some but not for those of us that listen with an
>>>open
>>>mind.
>>
>>From:
>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/02/28/semi-automatic-weapons-on-the-table-in-shake-up-of-gun-laws/
>>
>>"Also on the table is allowing competitive shooters to use
>>semi-automatics for sport. The only current exemptions are pest
>>control and (disabled) collector's items.
>>
>>"Over 5000 people, deemed to have a proper purpose, already have a
>>licence for centre-fire semi-automatic firearms. Under the rewrite of
>>the Arms Act, a person would still need a legitimate reason to have a
>>centre-fire semi-automatic firearm," McKee said.
>>
>>"Meanwhile, higher security and storage requirement would be required
>>and large capacity magazines would continue to be unavailable to those
>>without the proper, vetted endorsement."
>>
>>Lawmakers near-unanimously supported an amendment to ban
>>semi-automatics after the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings.
>>
>>It was these restrictions that propelled McKee into politics and she
>>was now spearheading the complete rewrite of our gun laws.
>>
>>"I'm hoping that we can find a middle ground where we ensure we have
>>good public safety but we also stop treating licensed firearms owners
>>like they're nothing more than common criminals."
>>
>>McKee wants to roll back what she described as "rushed" and
>>"knee-jerk" legislation so regulations were less onerous on firearms
>>owners.
>>
>>"Gun ownership is a normal way of life. Now, everyone thinks that it's
>>used just as a weapon, rather than as a sporting tool or a way to put
>>food on the table," she said."
>>________________
>>
>>From that article, the summary saying "Nicole McKee is talking about
>>re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic weapons (of the kind used
>>in the Ides of March massacre) for ''sporting'' purposes." seems
>>quite accurate - she did not just raise the issue, but suggested
>>changes to security and storage requirements, and proper vetting
>>processes. If there is a lie or cognitive failure it appears most
>>likely to be from Tony rather than Lawrence, but perhaps Tony was
>>speaking from memory of a verbal exchange and merely did not correctly
>>recall detail . . .. Of concern to others will be the statement "If
>>you think about what the Christchurch terrorist did five years ago, he
>>did that in about 17 minutes. He reached two locations, was able to
>>kill 51 people, bullet wound more than 40 and then impact all those
>>who were present for the rest of their lives." - and in that case I
>>understand he gained access to the semi-automatic firearms through
>>being a member of a gun club . . .
>>
>>>>
>>>>What kind of “sportâ€? needs the ability to mow down lots of
>>>>victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htargets in a single shooting spree?
>>
>>There are very limited circumstances where they are currently
>>available - for professional pest control. Also from the article
>>above: "A scientific review of 130 studies in 10 countries showed
>>relaxing firearms restrictions typically led to increased gun deaths."
>>
>>Not covered in the discussion so far are the number of firearms that
>>appear to not be registered, or to not be held by the owner recorded
>>by police. A review is needed - to ensure that every firearm has a
>>unique identifier; similar to a vehicle number plate in intent - so
>>that for insurance purposes, and proof of ownership every forearm can
>>be identified with an owner - there can then be a requirement for
>>reporting of transfer of ownership, and possession of a firearm other
>>than those registered to an individual should be a serious offence.
>Meaningless diversion.

The topic is related to whether very dangerous weapons should be able
to be owned by other than our military or professionals for purposes
such as pest control. Adequate controls on ownership, if allowed, are
a legitimate part of that discussion.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 18:59:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:55:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:10:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style
>>>>>>>semi-automatic weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre)
>>>>>>>for “sporting�?
>>>>>>>purposes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm - that is a lie, talk about cognitive failure - she and the
>>>>>> government have said it is part of the discussion ...
>>>>>
>>>>>So which part of “talking about�? would you say is the “lie�?, here?
>>>>Your meaning was clear and a lie - she was questioned, she said nothing was
>>>>off
>>>>the table. Your inference was a lie.
>>>
>>>Most would read a statement that nothing is off the table as meaning
>>>that an issue which she not only introduced and gave reasons for it
>>>being concluded, but also included detail of other regulation to
>>>follow such an inclusion was a clear indication that it was being
>>>taken seriously - she did not for example say that any proposals she
>>>raised may be taken off the table . . .
>>>
>>>So no lie, Tony, just your bias in favour of more firearms in our
>>>community. You are of course entitled to your opinion.
>>I am not biased - you are. And your analysis is garbage. Lawrence lied by
>>infrenece.
>
>No lies at all - McKee did not just raise the possibility of
>re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic weapons (of the kind used
>in the Ides of March massacre) for "sporting" purposes; she also gave
>her thoughts on the conditions for such a license. That made it a
>specific proposal, Tony, as well as part of the discussion. A
>discussion does consistent of "talking about" things - so Lawrence was
>absolutely correct, and you were trying to hide behind incorrect
>semantics.
No you are both absolutely wrong.
>
>The coalition government has shown that they are prepared to push some
>legislation through Parliament with as little discussion as possible;
>we should be grateful that in this case she appears to be prepared to
>have some discussion before legislation is put to a vote.
Off tolpic.
>
>Most New Zealanders would probably prefer to keep the ban on these
>semi-automatic weapons, but if the government has the numbers they
>have shown that they will act. Suggestions have been made that among
>the conditions for such weapons be that they be stored and used at gun
>club premises only, only used under supervision to suitably
>experienced users, and that there be heavy penalties for them not
>being at those premises. Clearly that is not ideal, but it may be
>sufficient for the three parties to agree. A majority of New
>Zealanders may dislike the proposals, but at least she has been honest
>about her abhorrent proposals, unlike you with your claim that she was
>not.
Bullshit as usual.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 19:00:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:10:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic
>>>>>weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre) for
>>>>>“sporting�?
>>>>>purposes.
>>>>Hmm - that is a lie, talk about cognitive failure - she and the government
>>>>have
>>>>said it is part of the discussion, not that they want it done. The
>>>>difference
>>>>is rather too subtle for some but not for those of us that listen with an
>>>>open
>>>>mind.
>>>
>>>From:
>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/02/28/semi-automatic-weapons-on-the-table-in-shake-up-of-gun-laws/
>>>
>>>"Also on the table is allowing competitive shooters to use
>>>semi-automatics for sport. The only current exemptions are pest
>>>control and (disabled) collector's items.
>>>
>>>"Over 5000 people, deemed to have a proper purpose, already have a
>>>licence for centre-fire semi-automatic firearms. Under the rewrite of
>>>the Arms Act, a person would still need a legitimate reason to have a
>>>centre-fire semi-automatic firearm," McKee said.
>>>
>>>"Meanwhile, higher security and storage requirement would be required
>>>and large capacity magazines would continue to be unavailable to those
>>>without the proper, vetted endorsement."
>>>
>>>Lawmakers near-unanimously supported an amendment to ban
>>>semi-automatics after the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings.
>>>
>>>It was these restrictions that propelled McKee into politics and she
>>>was now spearheading the complete rewrite of our gun laws.
>>>
>>>"I'm hoping that we can find a middle ground where we ensure we have
>>>good public safety but we also stop treating licensed firearms owners
>>>like they're nothing more than common criminals."
>>>
>>>McKee wants to roll back what she described as "rushed" and
>>>"knee-jerk" legislation so regulations were less onerous on firearms
>>>owners.
>>>
>>>"Gun ownership is a normal way of life. Now, everyone thinks that it's
>>>used just as a weapon, rather than as a sporting tool or a way to put
>>>food on the table," she said."
>>>________________
>>>
>>>From that article, the summary saying "Nicole McKee is talking about
>>>re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic weapons (of the kind used
>>>in the Ides of March massacre) for ''sporting'' purposes." seems
>>>quite accurate - she did not just raise the issue, but suggested
>>>changes to security and storage requirements, and proper vetting
>>>processes. If there is a lie or cognitive failure it appears most
>>>likely to be from Tony rather than Lawrence, but perhaps Tony was
>>>speaking from memory of a verbal exchange and merely did not correctly
>>>recall detail . . .. Of concern to others will be the statement "If
>>>you think about what the Christchurch terrorist did five years ago, he
>>>did that in about 17 minutes. He reached two locations, was able to
>>>kill 51 people, bullet wound more than 40 and then impact all those
>>>who were present for the rest of their lives." - and in that case I
>>>understand he gained access to the semi-automatic firearms through
>>>being a member of a gun club . . .
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What kind of “sport�? needs the ability to mow down lots of
>>>>>victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htargets in a single shooting spree?
>>>
>>>There are very limited circumstances where they are currently
>>>available - for professional pest control. Also from the article
>>>above: "A scientific review of 130 studies in 10 countries showed
>>>relaxing firearms restrictions typically led to increased gun deaths."
>>>
>>>Not covered in the discussion so far are the number of firearms that
>>>appear to not be registered, or to not be held by the owner recorded
>>>by police. A review is needed - to ensure that every firearm has a
>>>unique identifier; similar to a vehicle number plate in intent - so
>>>that for insurance purposes, and proof of ownership every forearm can
>>>be identified with an owner - there can then be a requirement for
>>>reporting of transfer of ownership, and possession of a firearm other
>>>than those registered to an individual should be a serious offence.
>>Meaningless diversion.
>
>The topic is related to whether very dangerous weapons should be able
>to be owned by other than our military or professionals for purposes
>such as pest control. Adequate controls on ownership, if allowed, are
>a legitimate part of that discussion.
Meaningless diversion.
As for Lawrence and his babyish insults.
He is a joke. And always has been. But unlike you he can't help it.

HAMILTON N.Z.

RAPID FIRE FEM-BOT HAMILTON ROCKY HORROR MASSACRE.
TRANSVESTITE STATUE WITH GUNS -- PSYCHO MOVIE --
TIME TO WATCH THAT AGAIN.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 05:54:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic
>weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre) for “sporting”
>purposes.
>
>What kind of “sport” needs the ability to mow down lots of
>victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htargets in a single shooting spree?

I read some of the blather earlier about banning gang patches.

If you want to solve the gang problem, punish the gangsters severely
when they break the law, and I mean severely. Put them in jail for a
short time but make that time so damn unpleasant that none of them
would dare risk a repeat of the experience. Make sure they suffer
enough that their balls are broken by the time they are let out.

Anyone who believe that criminals, patches or no patches, would hand
over their guns just because the government tells them to is a fool,
particularly with the soft on crime attitude that currently prevails,
so now seems a good time to repost an updated version something that
was posted shortly after the Christchurch mosque attacks.

STICK TO YOUR GUNS.

In their hasty response to the act of terrorism committed in
Christchurch in March 2019, the government decided, by decree, that
all semi automatic "military style" weapons were to be confiscated. No
process, no consultation, nothing. The gun grabbing had started even
before the bodies had been buried.

Nowhere in the mainstream media was it even hinted that there might be
a problem with this. The crime that took place in Christchurch that
day was always going to happen in this country because NZ is among the
softest of targets. Multiple murderers always target areas where
people are defenceless.

Whenever these brutal killings are carried out, the media can't shut
up about it for days, weeks and even months afterwards, labouring
their own talking points to the exclusion of all others and giving the
perpetrator what he so desperately craves, publicity and notoriety.

If the government believes that disarming the people will discourage
further incidents of multiple murder, they are sadly mistaken. The
greatest number of people killed by a terrorist with a gun was 69 (as
far as I know), by Anders Brevik in liberal Norway (plus another eight
with a fertilizer bomb) in 2011. That is fewer than the Nice attack in
France in which 86 people were killed using a truck. The 9/11
terrorists killed almost 3000 people without a single shot being
fired. The Oklahoma bomber murdered 168 people without a gun.

It is therefore quite plain that if someone is determined to to murder
as many people as possible, guns and ammo would not be the first items
on their shopping list.

What the media never reports is those incidents when some lunatic bent
on shooting up a town is stopped by a good guy with a gun. The
mainstream media and the politicians will not be diverted from their
own narrative in which they would have everyone believe that fewer
guns make for a safer society.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Gun confiscation works only on compliant, law abiding people. Taking
guns away from good citizens won't make a damn bit of difference to
gun crime. Criminals will not be surrendering their firearms to the
authorities, and that means that only the bad guys and the government
will be packing heat.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed".

So reads the second amendment of the US Constitution. The
constitution, being binding on the federal government, essentially
codifies the principle that self defence is a fundamental human right
and that the government has no business violating that right.

Personal self defence is not the only reason for the second amendment.
In fact it is not even the main reason. The constitutional right to
keep and bear arms was primarily contrived to enable the people to
defend themselves against their own government. The framers understood
that a well armed citizenry would serve as a significant deterrent to
any potential tyrant.

It is also worth noting that every brutal dictator who has ever
bludgeoned his way to absolute power, kicked off his campaign of
murder and torture by first promising to "help out the little guy",
and then later taking steps to disarm the population. The gun
confiscation legislation that the Ardern government enacted should not
surprise anyone who is familiar with the behaviour of past dictators.
All this happened with the approval of the weak and gutless
opposition.

DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAY
COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.

Bill.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 18:13:30 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>If the government believes that disarming the people will discourage
>further incidents of multiple murder, they are sadly mistaken. The
>greatest number of people killed by a terrorist with a gun was 69 (as
>far as I know), by Anders Brevik in liberal Norway (plus another eight
>with a fertilizer bomb) in 2011

Islamist terror attack, 13 November 2015, Paris:
A car stops in front of the nearby Bataclan concert hall. Several
gunmen enter the theater during a concert (of the Eagles of Death
Metal rock group) and shoot indiscriminately at the crowd, killing
around 89 people and wounding many.

Agree your post entirely, KEEP YOUR GUNS.

On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 18:13:30 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 05:54:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic
>>weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre) for “sporting”
>>purposes.
>>
>>What kind of “sport” needs the ability to mow down lots of
>>victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htargets in a single shooting spree?
>
>I read some of the blather earlier about banning gang patches.
>
>If you want to solve the gang problem, punish the gangsters severely
>when they break the law, and I mean severely. Put them in jail for a
>short time but make that time so damn unpleasant that none of them
>would dare risk a repeat of the experience. Make sure they suffer
>enough that their balls are broken by the time they are let out.
>
>Anyone who believe that criminals, patches or no patches, would hand
>over their guns just because the government tells them to is a fool,
>particularly with the soft on crime attitude that currently prevails,
>so now seems a good time to repost an updated version something that
>was posted shortly after the Christchurch mosque attacks.
>
>STICK TO YOUR GUNS.
>
>In their hasty response to the act of terrorism committed in
>Christchurch in March 2019, the government decided, by decree, that
>all semi automatic "military style" weapons were to be confiscated. No
>process, no consultation, nothing. The gun grabbing had started even
>before the bodies had been buried.
>
>Nowhere in the mainstream media was it even hinted that there might be
>a problem with this. The crime that took place in Christchurch that
>day was always going to happen in this country because NZ is among the
>softest of targets. Multiple murderers always target areas where
>people are defenceless.
>
>Whenever these brutal killings are carried out, the media can't shut
>up about it for days, weeks and even months afterwards, labouring
>their own talking points to the exclusion of all others and giving the
>perpetrator what he so desperately craves, publicity and notoriety.
>
>If the government believes that disarming the people will discourage
>further incidents of multiple murder, they are sadly mistaken. The
>greatest number of people killed by a terrorist with a gun was 69 (as
>far as I know), by Anders Brevik in liberal Norway (plus another eight
>with a fertilizer bomb) in 2011. That is fewer than the Nice attack in
>France in which 86 people were killed using a truck. The 9/11
>terrorists killed almost 3000 people without a single shot being
>fired. The Oklahoma bomber murdered 168 people without a gun.
>
>It is therefore quite plain that if someone is determined to to murder
>as many people as possible, guns and ammo would not be the first items
>on their shopping list.
>
>What the media never reports is those incidents when some lunatic bent
>on shooting up a town is stopped by a good guy with a gun. The
>mainstream media and the politicians will not be diverted from their
>own narrative in which they would have everyone believe that fewer
>guns make for a safer society.
>
>Nothing could be further from the truth.
>
>Gun confiscation works only on compliant, law abiding people. Taking
>guns away from good citizens won't make a damn bit of difference to
>gun crime. Criminals will not be surrendering their firearms to the
>authorities, and that means that only the bad guys and the government
>will be packing heat.
>
>"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>state, the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be
>infringed".
>
>So reads the second amendment of the US Constitution. The
>constitution, being binding on the federal government, essentially
>codifies the principle that self defence is a fundamental human right
>and that the government has no business violating that right.
>
>Personal self defence is not the only reason for the second amendment.
>In fact it is not even the main reason. The constitutional right to
>keep and bear arms was primarily contrived to enable the people to
>defend themselves against their own government. The framers understood
>that a well armed citizenry would serve as a significant deterrent to
>any potential tyrant.
>
>It is also worth noting that every brutal dictator who has ever
>bludgeoned his way to absolute power, kicked off his campaign of
>murder and torture by first promising to "help out the little guy",
>and then later taking steps to disarm the population. The gun
>confiscation legislation that the Ardern government enacted should not
>surprise anyone who is familiar with the behaviour of past dictators.
>All this happened with the approval of the weak and gutless
>opposition.
>
>DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAY
>COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.
>
>Bill.
Where did you get that article, BR? It gives a very USA -centric view.
New Zealand was slow to follow the changes made in Australia after a
mass shooting there, but I don't think they have experienced an
increase in shootings there. They do have a gang problem, though, and
some of our current problems come from Australia having exported quite
a few of those who had been in Australian gangs to New Zealand.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 18:13:30 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 05:54:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic
>>>weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre) for �sporting�
>>>purposes.
>>>
>>>What kind of �sport� needs the ability to mow down lots of
>>>victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htargets in a single shooting spree?
>>
>>I read some of the blather earlier about banning gang patches.
>>
>>If you want to solve the gang problem, punish the gangsters severely
>>when they break the law, and I mean severely. Put them in jail for a
>>short time but make that time so damn unpleasant that none of them
>>would dare risk a repeat of the experience. Make sure they suffer
>>enough that their balls are broken by the time they are let out.
>>
>>Anyone who believe that criminals, patches or no patches, would hand
>>over their guns just because the government tells them to is a fool,
>>particularly with the soft on crime attitude that currently prevails,
>>so now seems a good time to repost an updated version something that
>>was posted shortly after the Christchurch mosque attacks.
>>
>>STICK TO YOUR GUNS.
>>
>>In their hasty response to the act of terrorism committed in
>>Christchurch in March 2019, the government decided, by decree, that
>>all semi automatic "military style" weapons were to be confiscated. No
>>process, no consultation, nothing. The gun grabbing had started even
>>before the bodies had been buried.
>>
>>Nowhere in the mainstream media was it even hinted that there might be
>>a problem with this. The crime that took place in Christchurch that
>>day was always going to happen in this country because NZ is among the
>>softest of targets. Multiple murderers always target areas where
>>people are defenceless.
>>
>>Whenever these brutal killings are carried out, the media can't shut
>>up about it for days, weeks and even months afterwards, labouring
>>their own talking points to the exclusion of all others and giving the
>>perpetrator what he so desperately craves, publicity and notoriety.
>>
>>If the government believes that disarming the people will discourage
>>further incidents of multiple murder, they are sadly mistaken. The
>>greatest number of people killed by a terrorist with a gun was 69 (as
>>far as I know), by Anders Brevik in liberal Norway (plus another eight
>>with a fertilizer bomb) in 2011. That is fewer than the Nice attack in
>>France in which 86 people were killed using a truck. The 9/11
>>terrorists killed almost 3000 people without a single shot being
>>fired. The Oklahoma bomber murdered 168 people without a gun.
>>
>>It is therefore quite plain that if someone is determined to to murder
>>as many people as possible, guns and ammo would not be the first items
>>on their shopping list.
>>
>>What the media never reports is those incidents when some lunatic bent
>>on shooting up a town is stopped by a good guy with a gun. The
>>mainstream media and the politicians will not be diverted from their
>>own narrative in which they would have everyone believe that fewer
>>guns make for a safer society.
>>
>>Nothing could be further from the truth.
>>
>>Gun confiscation works only on compliant, law abiding people. Taking
>>guns away from good citizens won't make a damn bit of difference to
>>gun crime. Criminals will not be surrendering their firearms to the
>>authorities, and that means that only the bad guys and the government
>>will be packing heat.
>>
>>"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>>state, the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be
>>infringed".
>>
>>So reads the second amendment of the US Constitution. The
>>constitution, being binding on the federal government, essentially
>>codifies the principle that self defence is a fundamental human right
>>and that the government has no business violating that right.
>>
>>Personal self defence is not the only reason for the second amendment.
>>In fact it is not even the main reason. The constitutional right to
>>keep and bear arms was primarily contrived to enable the people to
>>defend themselves against their own government. The framers understood
>>that a well armed citizenry would serve as a significant deterrent to
>>any potential tyrant.
>>
>>It is also worth noting that every brutal dictator who has ever
>>bludgeoned his way to absolute power, kicked off his campaign of
>>murder and torture by first promising to "help out the little guy",
>>and then later taking steps to disarm the population. The gun
>>confiscation legislation that the Ardern government enacted should not
>>surprise anyone who is familiar with the behaviour of past dictators.
>>All this happened with the approval of the weak and gutless
>>opposition.
>>
>>DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAY
>>COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.
>>
>>Bill.
>Where did you get that article, BR? It gives a very USA -centric view.
>New Zealand was slow to follow the changes made in Australia after a
>mass shooting there, but I don't think they have experienced an
>increase in shootings there. They do have a gang problem, though, and
>some of our current problems come from Australia having exported quite
>a few of those who had been in Australian gangs to New Zealand.
Completely irrelevant - this is about New Zealand - nowhere else. Overseas
experiences come from vastly different dynamics and comparisons make no sense
(just like you).

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 01:46:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 18:13:30 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 05:54:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic
>>>>weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre) for “sporting”
>>>>purposes.
>>>>
>>>>What kind of “sport” needs the ability to mow down lots of
>>>>victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htargets in a single shooting spree?
>>>
>>>I read some of the blather earlier about banning gang patches.
>>>
>>>If you want to solve the gang problem, punish the gangsters severely
>>>when they break the law, and I mean severely. Put them in jail for a
>>>short time but make that time so damn unpleasant that none of them
>>>would dare risk a repeat of the experience. Make sure they suffer
>>>enough that their balls are broken by the time they are let out.
>>>
>>>Anyone who believe that criminals, patches or no patches, would hand
>>>over their guns just because the government tells them to is a fool,
>>>particularly with the soft on crime attitude that currently prevails,
>>>so now seems a good time to repost an updated version something that
>>>was posted shortly after the Christchurch mosque attacks.
>>>
>>>STICK TO YOUR GUNS.
>>>
>>>In their hasty response to the act of terrorism committed in
>>>Christchurch in March 2019, the government decided, by decree, that
>>>all semi automatic "military style" weapons were to be confiscated. No
>>>process, no consultation, nothing. The gun grabbing had started even
>>>before the bodies had been buried.
>>>
>>>Nowhere in the mainstream media was it even hinted that there might be
>>>a problem with this. The crime that took place in Christchurch that
>>>day was always going to happen in this country because NZ is among the
>>>softest of targets. Multiple murderers always target areas where
>>>people are defenceless.
>>>
>>>Whenever these brutal killings are carried out, the media can't shut
>>>up about it for days, weeks and even months afterwards, labouring
>>>their own talking points to the exclusion of all others and giving the
>>>perpetrator what he so desperately craves, publicity and notoriety.
>>>
>>>If the government believes that disarming the people will discourage
>>>further incidents of multiple murder, they are sadly mistaken. The
>>>greatest number of people killed by a terrorist with a gun was 69 (as
>>>far as I know), by Anders Brevik in liberal Norway (plus another eight
>>>with a fertilizer bomb) in 2011. That is fewer than the Nice attack in
>>>France in which 86 people were killed using a truck. The 9/11
>>>terrorists killed almost 3000 people without a single shot being
>>>fired. The Oklahoma bomber murdered 168 people without a gun.
>>>
>>>It is therefore quite plain that if someone is determined to to murder
>>>as many people as possible, guns and ammo would not be the first items
>>>on their shopping list.
>>>
>>>What the media never reports is those incidents when some lunatic bent
>>>on shooting up a town is stopped by a good guy with a gun. The
>>>mainstream media and the politicians will not be diverted from their
>>>own narrative in which they would have everyone believe that fewer
>>>guns make for a safer society.
>>>
>>>Nothing could be further from the truth.
>>>
>>>Gun confiscation works only on compliant, law abiding people. Taking
>>>guns away from good citizens won't make a damn bit of difference to
>>>gun crime. Criminals will not be surrendering their firearms to the
>>>authorities, and that means that only the bad guys and the government
>>>will be packing heat.
>>>
>>>"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>>>state, the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be
>>>infringed".
>>>
>>>So reads the second amendment of the US Constitution. The
>>>constitution, being binding on the federal government, essentially
>>>codifies the principle that self defence is a fundamental human right
>>>and that the government has no business violating that right.
>>>
>>>Personal self defence is not the only reason for the second amendment.
>>>In fact it is not even the main reason. The constitutional right to
>>>keep and bear arms was primarily contrived to enable the people to
>>>defend themselves against their own government. The framers understood
>>>that a well armed citizenry would serve as a significant deterrent to
>>>any potential tyrant.
>>>
>>>It is also worth noting that every brutal dictator who has ever
>>>bludgeoned his way to absolute power, kicked off his campaign of
>>>murder and torture by first promising to "help out the little guy",
>>>and then later taking steps to disarm the population. The gun
>>>confiscation legislation that the Ardern government enacted should not
>>>surprise anyone who is familiar with the behaviour of past dictators.
>>>All this happened with the approval of the weak and gutless
>>>opposition.
>>>
>>>DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAY
>>>COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.
>>>
>>>Bill.
>>Where did you get that article, BR? It gives a very USA -centric view.
>>New Zealand was slow to follow the changes made in Australia after a
>>mass shooting there, but I don't think they have experienced an
>>increase in shootings there. They do have a gang problem, though, and
>>some of our current problems come from Australia having exported quite
>>a few of those who had been in Australian gangs to New Zealand.
>Completely irrelevant - this is about New Zealand - nowhere else.
Just the point I was making, Tony. The USA Constitution was based on
conditions well before the Treaty of Waitangi. and for different
purposes that are largely irrelevant today. Many scholars believe that
it was intended to authorise local militia, not individuals, and that
it is being badly mis-interpreted by the gun lobby there.

>Overseas
>experiences come from vastly different dynamics and comparisons make no sense
>(just like you).
Australia is however closer to us in terms of laws and criminal
experience - read about the result of those changes here:
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365
John Howard (Liberal Prime Minister) did well to get agreement from
other parties and each of the State parliaments to make a fairly quick
change. We have been slower to follow, but the changes made under the
leadership of Jacinda Ardern were widely supported. Unfortunately we
now have the Three Stooges deciding what parliament will agree to -
and ACT are strongly supporting "Freedumb" policies - for tobacco that
will mean increased deaths from emphysema and other horrible results
of smoking tobacco; with firearms they may well result in more mass
killings - and all of it based on who has best funded the policies
they want - there is no honour in any of the three parties in
government.

You may have a different view of course, Tony . . .

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 01:46:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 18:13:30 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 05:54:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic
>>>>>weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre) for �sporting�
>>>>>purposes.
>>>>>
>>>>>What kind of �sport� needs the ability to mow down lots of
>>>>>victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htargets in a single shooting spree?
>>>>
>>>>I read some of the blather earlier about banning gang patches.
>>>>
>>>>If you want to solve the gang problem, punish the gangsters severely
>>>>when they break the law, and I mean severely. Put them in jail for a
>>>>short time but make that time so damn unpleasant that none of them
>>>>would dare risk a repeat of the experience. Make sure they suffer
>>>>enough that their balls are broken by the time they are let out.
>>>>
>>>>Anyone who believe that criminals, patches or no patches, would hand
>>>>over their guns just because the government tells them to is a fool,
>>>>particularly with the soft on crime attitude that currently prevails,
>>>>so now seems a good time to repost an updated version something that
>>>>was posted shortly after the Christchurch mosque attacks.
>>>>
>>>>STICK TO YOUR GUNS.
>>>>
>>>>In their hasty response to the act of terrorism committed in
>>>>Christchurch in March 2019, the government decided, by decree, that
>>>>all semi automatic "military style" weapons were to be confiscated. No
>>>>process, no consultation, nothing. The gun grabbing had started even
>>>>before the bodies had been buried.
>>>>
>>>>Nowhere in the mainstream media was it even hinted that there might be
>>>>a problem with this. The crime that took place in Christchurch that
>>>>day was always going to happen in this country because NZ is among the
>>>>softest of targets. Multiple murderers always target areas where
>>>>people are defenceless.
>>>>
>>>>Whenever these brutal killings are carried out, the media can't shut
>>>>up about it for days, weeks and even months afterwards, labouring
>>>>their own talking points to the exclusion of all others and giving the
>>>>perpetrator what he so desperately craves, publicity and notoriety.
>>>>
>>>>If the government believes that disarming the people will discourage
>>>>further incidents of multiple murder, they are sadly mistaken. The
>>>>greatest number of people killed by a terrorist with a gun was 69 (as
>>>>far as I know), by Anders Brevik in liberal Norway (plus another eight
>>>>with a fertilizer bomb) in 2011. That is fewer than the Nice attack in
>>>>France in which 86 people were killed using a truck. The 9/11
>>>>terrorists killed almost 3000 people without a single shot being
>>>>fired. The Oklahoma bomber murdered 168 people without a gun.
>>>>
>>>>It is therefore quite plain that if someone is determined to to murder
>>>>as many people as possible, guns and ammo would not be the first items
>>>>on their shopping list.
>>>>
>>>>What the media never reports is those incidents when some lunatic bent
>>>>on shooting up a town is stopped by a good guy with a gun. The
>>>>mainstream media and the politicians will not be diverted from their
>>>>own narrative in which they would have everyone believe that fewer
>>>>guns make for a safer society.
>>>>
>>>>Nothing could be further from the truth.
>>>>
>>>>Gun confiscation works only on compliant, law abiding people. Taking
>>>>guns away from good citizens won't make a damn bit of difference to
>>>>gun crime. Criminals will not be surrendering their firearms to the
>>>>authorities, and that means that only the bad guys and the government
>>>>will be packing heat.
>>>>
>>>>"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>>>>state, the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be
>>>>infringed".
>>>>
>>>>So reads the second amendment of the US Constitution. The
>>>>constitution, being binding on the federal government, essentially
>>>>codifies the principle that self defence is a fundamental human right
>>>>and that the government has no business violating that right.
>>>>
>>>>Personal self defence is not the only reason for the second amendment.
>>>>In fact it is not even the main reason. The constitutional right to
>>>>keep and bear arms was primarily contrived to enable the people to
>>>>defend themselves against their own government. The framers understood
>>>>that a well armed citizenry would serve as a significant deterrent to
>>>>any potential tyrant.
>>>>
>>>>It is also worth noting that every brutal dictator who has ever
>>>>bludgeoned his way to absolute power, kicked off his campaign of
>>>>murder and torture by first promising to "help out the little guy",
>>>>and then later taking steps to disarm the population. The gun
>>>>confiscation legislation that the Ardern government enacted should not
>>>>surprise anyone who is familiar with the behaviour of past dictators.
>>>>All this happened with the approval of the weak and gutless
>>>>opposition.
>>>>
>>>>DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAY
>>>>COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.
>>>>
>>>>Bill.
>>>Where did you get that article, BR? It gives a very USA -centric view.
>>>New Zealand was slow to follow the changes made in Australia after a
>>>mass shooting there, but I don't think they have experienced an
>>>increase in shootings there. They do have a gang problem, though, and
>>>some of our current problems come from Australia having exported quite
>>>a few of those who had been in Australian gangs to New Zealand.
>>Completely irrelevant - this is about New Zealand - nowhere else.
>Just the point I was making, Tony. The USA Constitution was based on
>conditions well before the Treaty of Waitangi. and for different
>purposes that are largely irrelevant today. Many scholars believe that
>it was intended to authorise local militia, not individuals, and that
>it is being badly mis-interpreted by the gun lobby there.
Irrelevant as I said before and if you agree (and you said you did) why do you
continue to post off topic nonsense.
>
>>Overseas
>>experiences come from vastly different dynamics and comparisons make no sense
>>(just like you).
>Australia is however closer to us in terms of laws and criminal
>experience - read about the result of those changes here:
>https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365
>John Howard (Liberal Prime Minister) did well to get agreement from
>other parties and each of the State parliaments to make a fairly quick
>change. We have been slower to follow, but the changes made under the
>leadership of Jacinda Ardern were widely supported. Unfortunately we
>now have the Three Stooges deciding what parliament will agree to -
>and ACT are strongly supporting "Freedumb" policies - for tobacco that
>will mean increased deaths from emphysema and other horrible results
>of smoking tobacco; with firearms they may well result in more mass
>killings - and all of it based on who has best funded the policies
>they want - there is no honour in any of the three parties in
>government.
Off topic as previously stated - but repeated by Rich the fool.
>
>You may have a different view of course, Tony . . .
You stole my opinion . No surprise however, you don't think for yourself.

On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 11:37:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>>DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAY
>>COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.
>>
>>Bill.
>Where did you get that article, BR?

Why does that matter?

>It gives a very USA -centric view.

And?

>New Zealand was slow to follow the changes made in Australia after a
>mass shooting there, but I don't think they have experienced an
>increase in shootings there.

Did the gun confiscation lead to a reduction in gun crime?

>They do have a gang problem, though, and some of our current problems
>come from Australia having exported quite a few of those who had been in
>Australian gangs to New Zealand.

So what should be done about it?

Bill.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 07:52:25 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 11:37:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAY
>>>COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.
>>>
>>>Bill.
>>Where did you get that article, BR?
>
>Why does that matter?
Just interest. Are you ashamed of the source of your post?

>
>>It gives a very USA -centric view.
>
>And?
>
>>New Zealand was slow to follow the changes made in Australia after a
>>mass shooting there, but I don't think they have experienced an
>>increase in shootings there.
>
>Did the gun confiscation lead to a reduction in gun crime?

Yes. You appear to have snipped the link I gave:
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365

>>They do have a gang problem, though, and some of our current problems
>>come from Australia having exported quite a few of those who had been in
>>Australian gangs to New Zealand.
>
>So what should be done about it?
Normal policing, reducing poverty, and reducing unemployment. Sadly
the current government has made it clear that increasing poverty and
unemployment are their strategy for trying to reduce wages - that
creates more poverty, and helps the gangs recruit new members.

It would also be helpful for reducing gun crime if our gun laws were
stronger, by requiring every firearm to have a unique identifier, and
police able to know where all registered firearms are stored.

>
>Bill.

On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 16:40:30 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Many scholars believe that
>it was intended to authorise local militia, not individuals, and that
>it is being badly mis-interpreted by the gun lobby there.

The wording is simple. It says: "The right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed". Not the right of the government, or
local militia or anybody else.

How could anybody misunderstand that?

Bill.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 08:19:41 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 16:40:30 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Many scholars believe that
>>it was intended to authorise local militia, not individuals, and that
>>it is being badly mis-interpreted by the gun lobby there.
>
>The wording is simple. It says: "The right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and
>bear arms shall not be infringed". Not the right of the government, or
>local militia or anybody else.
"The People" does not refer to an individual person, but to a
collection of people - for example a community of people, a militia,
an army. It may refer to the government, or local militia, but does
not refer to any person. That is all irrelevant to New Zealand
however - we do not have a constitution or laws that use those terms.
>
>How could anybody misunderstand that?
I really do not know why you misunderstood that, Bill, sorry I cannot
help there.
>
>Bill.

Discussion has however drifted off the Subject of the thread though,
which is "Why Do You Want Semi-Automatics For Sport?"

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 07:52:25 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 11:37:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAY
>>>>COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.
>>>>
>>>>Bill.
>>>Where did you get that article, BR?
>>
>>Why does that matter?
>Just interest. Are you ashamed of the source of your post?
>
>>
>>>It gives a very USA -centric view.
>>
>>And?
>>
>>>New Zealand was slow to follow the changes made in Australia after a
>>>mass shooting there, but I don't think they have experienced an
>>>increase in shootings there.
>>
>>Did the gun confiscation lead to a reduction in gun crime?
>
>Yes. You appear to have snipped the link I gave:
>https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365
Not here in NZ.
>
>>>They do have a gang problem, though, and some of our current problems
>>>come from Australia having exported quite a few of those who had been in
>>>Australian gangs to New Zealand.
>>
>>So what should be done about it?
>Normal policing, reducing poverty, and reducing unemployment. Sadly
>the current government has made it clear that increasing poverty and
>unemployment are their strategy for trying to reduce wages - that
>creates more poverty, and helps the gangs recruit new members.
>
>It would also be helpful for reducing gun crime if our gun laws were
>stronger, by requiring every firearm to have a unique identifier, and
>police able to know where all registered firearms are stored.
It didn't work last time.
>
>>
>>Bill.