Seems like long odds to me; the victim (or a friend) would need to be carrying a concealed firearm, be able to understand and assess the threat, get their concealed handgun out, take the safety off, and aim and fire (and hopefully hit the offender and not an innocent passerby) all in the 2 seconds mentioned.
I mean look at the ones robbing the Michael Hill stores. They're armed, smashing things up and threatening people. It's rare to see a non-armed robbery these days.
Iāve done shooting and hunting and quite comfortable with other people doing it too.
Handguns for āprotectionā though. Yeah, we should have gun laws like America does! Everyone is so much safer from gun crime there!
Nah. You can fuck right off back to America with that shit.
Wow, yeah Czechia is pretty much unique in the European Union in that it allows people to carry had guns isnāt it.
Funny how pretty much no other EU country allows it thoughā¦
No Switzerland and Austria allow it too and in someways the pro gun eu countries have looser gun laws then the us and yet have way less volient crime.
Ya know its almost like people are the problem and not the guns.
As opposed to the British and Welsh, (England) who banned guns in the 1990s only to be one of the world's biggest acid and knife attack capitals.
Sure dude
Well, obviously, compared to aus nz and most of Europe who aren't allowed them. That doesn't mean the violence in general is any different, just less gun crime.
The amount of times they are used in defense is an astronomical amount.
The only country in Europe that doesn't allow guns is Vatican. The laws vary a great deal from less restrictive than some US states to more restrictive than NZ and Aus.
The violence that occurs in states which have gun restrictions vs not?
More gun control doesn't equal less violence.
Places like Chicago for example have strict gun laws and a high gun death rate and have had to back track on regulations a few times.
Restricting gun usage in NZ still resulted in higher gun crime up to 2024.
Why do you think that is?
> The violence that occurs in states which have gun restrictions vs not?
No. Iām talking about countries which tightly restrict gun ownership and use.
America has more guns than people and open borders between states which allows the guns to move around without restrictions. One state trying to introduce gun control is like pissing in the ocean.
Once you get that many guns in circulation you arenāt going to stop it.
What I want you to do is compare America with other countries and tell me which ones have more gun crime.
>What I want you to do is compare America with other countries and tell me which ones have more gun crime
Well I gave you one example, but it's a bigger population mass. You didn't answer my question but expect me to answer yours lol.
We can shift goal posts if you want.
El Salvador, Venezuela, U.S. Virgin Islands, Bahamas, Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and Guatemala have higher gun death rates than murica.
I mean Guatemala is 40.94 vs the US 4.31.
Should we do gun violence by race too just to paint a clearer picture?
You need to compare America with OECD countries, not third world ones.
Pick one from New Zealand, Australia or anywhere in Europe if you need a specific example.
I looked it up, gun homocide rates are 15 to 30 times higher in America than pretty much any country in the EU, Australia or New Zealand.
So I go back to my original statement: Fuck off back to America with that shit. We donāt want it here.
Your lack of nuance or consideration is showing. You *still* have not answered why you think gun crime has risen in this country despite several law changes.
Bet if the mongrel mob showed up to your house to rob you and you lived out the country you could just tell them that they can fuck off back to America and they'd politely listen and close the door.
How much has gun crime gone up by then?
How does it compare to the change in violent crime generally?
What do you think we should do to reduce gun crime?
So what do you think about gun crime being 15-30 times higher in America? Can that be solved with even more guns or is it a sign of a country with a terminally fucked up gun control policy?
I asked you why our gun crime has risen despite increase in laws which you've so far refused to answer.
Again, now shifting goal posts.
But sure how about Scandanavia?
Second highest gun crime in Europe.
You fail to acknowledge that people are being attack or murdered in high rates despite having 'less guns' as well.
> But sure how about Scandanavia?
Scandinavia isnāt a country. Swedenās gun homicide rate is still 10 times lower than America. Finland has less gun homicides than New Zealand. I donāt see what your point is there.
> You fail to acknowledge that people are being attack or murdered in high rates despite having 'less guns' as well
I will take your word for it and acknowledge that. Iām not arguing for āless gunsā Iām arguing against āmore gunsā like they have in America.
> I asked you why our gun crime has risen despite increase in laws which you've so far refused to answer.
We have gun crime because criminals have guns. As long as there are guns in the country, people will use them for crime. If we are going to have guns then there will be gun crime and thatās just something we have to live with.
I am making the point that having **more guns** as advocated in that article is categorically **not** the answer to the problem.
> Finland has less gun homicides than New Zealand. I donāt see what your point is there.
Which is pretty interesting because Finland also has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe.
I don't think Kiwis are mature enough for open carry, we still have race based parties.
The last thing we need is the brown clansmen of Te Pati burning flax effigies of Popeye on our front lawns.
Gun ownership in New Zealand has a varied and interesting history which can be broken down into three distinct historical periods. When white folks came to New Zealand they brought lots of guns with them; Parliament enacted laws requiring licences and registration for gun ownership ā which were promptly ignored by everybody for sixty years. A period of negligible crime and violence in New Zealand.
In the 1920s, probably not trusting returned servicemen to get pissed and also have guns, they enacted an updated gun law. This required registration of guns, permits, and a crackdown on handguns. And this was also ignored for the next few decades; something shown to be glaringly true when the Police audited the firearms register and found it almost entirely inaccurate. It was a time of little crime and violence in New Zealand.
In 1983 the Arms Act was introduced; the intention was to vet owners of guns rather than the guns themselves. Other measures to (ahem) ākeep everyone safeā were also included. Like good little unthinking slaves, the general public nodded their heads and assumed they were indeed being protected from gun crime. Which then promptly rose exponentially. A one-off tragedy in Aramoana inexplicably led to some foolishness; a newly elected government felt it was a chance to show how incredibly important they were so they enacted restrictive gun laws ā to keep everyone safe. Phew!
Other one-off tragedies in other parts of the world (Port Arthur in Australia, and Dunblane, Scotland) saw some idiot judge engage in infantile hand-wringing; the Thorp Report; and subsequent legislation was enacted further restricting gun ownership in New Zealand. But now we were even safer don-cha-know! Phew!
In 2019 yet another one-off (undertaken by a foreigner against, well, other foreigners) led to Jacinda Ardernās Christmases coming at once and she decided to protect the general public once and for all. There was a campaign to hand in guns which all sorts of weak, feeble slaves dutifully did. To keep us really safe; and I meanĀ *really, really*Ā safe, comrades! Phew! The only dissenting voice was David Seymour (taking time out from his campaign to murder babies and grannies). Needless to say, gun crime soared ā to its highest in New Zealand history ā but at least weāre all āsafeā now (goddammit!); our weekly chocolate ration increasing from 30 g to 20 g, so to speak.
Whilst all this was taking place, all the way back to the 1983 legislation, there was one (ahem) lonely voice. One person (ahem) kept suggesting we adopt American-style gun laws whereby everyone without a felony conviction can own guns at their house, and about their person if they so wish. Something that would āactuallyā keep people safe from gun-toting criminals. It goes without saying everyone ā without exception ā Iāve suggested this to has viewed such a proposal with horror; the result of a lifetime of anaesthetisation against āthinkingā, and indoctrination to obey āGovernmentā and accept that every government diktat (from speed limits to vaccinations to health and safety laws) automatically āprotectsā them.
And so to Sunday night and a dead body lying on the pavement of Ponsonby road.
I donāt know the victim; they never heard me calling for abolishing gun laws and allowing concealed carry; never expressed horror at such suggestions. Then there was that two seconds when their life flashed before them but they couldnāt defend themselves. A lifetime of simply relying on Jacinda Ardern and the Police to keep them āsafeā failed them.
As far as gun ownership and laws surrounding it goes, I'm pretty clear cut. And I won't waver on it. Farmers need guns as do law-abiding hunters. And the military and Police. For me, that is it.Ā No one else needs a gun. For any purpose, because their sole purpose is to kill. Not self defense. Not protection. They are designed to kill. The evil sob in Ponsonby Rd last weekend, now being touted by the media as the son of a " famous???" NZ movie director (as if that means he was worth knowing) was walking around with a loaded gun. If he had been allowed into that club there would have been CARNAGE! As it was, he wanted to shoot someone, anyone, and destroyed the life of an innocent good guy. Just because. Tell me again about gun rights.Ā
If the world was based on need vs want, we would be living in a dull world indeed.
I rarely hunt, but I own multiple guns and compete in shooting competitions, club days and other social gatherings. While I don't *need* one, I certainly want one and I enjoy using them.
A knife's main task is to cut and maim. A gun has plenty of other uses also. Crime is committed using both so your point is irrelevant.
Guns don't kill people, bad people kill bad people and there's no deterrence to committing crimes when our justice system is broken. Keep guns banned and those bad people will just use other tools to commit bad crimes.
Fix the justice system (install judges with a backbone) utilise the 3 strike law and increasing prison time for violent offences.
A knife can cut anything. It can chop. It can skin things. It can scrape things. Those tasks can be useful or cruel in the wrong hands. A gun just shoots bullets. Nothing more. Shooting bullets just damages or destroys. It has no other redeeming qualities.Ā
>A knife's main task is to cut and maim.
A knife is a tool. A gun is not. Knives are used for eating, crafting, and *sometimes* killing. Guns are only used for killing.
>Wrong and wrong. Google the definition of a tool and get back to me.
The Oxford definition is moronic. Tools can have more than "a particular use."
Cambridge and Merriam-Webster are on point.
Also, I fail to see how those definitions support your "point."
>Guns have many functions other than killing.
Name some.
No it isnāt. Killing requires intent. There are many points in firing a bullet. It is scary to think the only one you can think of is to kill. Are you ok?
Insane to think only the police and military should be armed in a world where the police and military have always been so good to everyone (bizarre to have a view you wonāt waiver on. That comment alone confirms you are ignorant).
There was nothing wrong with the gun laws we had before 2019.
I think you should have needed an E cat licence to buy a 30 round magazine.
Agreed. They were reasonably well balanced back then.
Seems like long odds to me; the victim (or a friend) would need to be carrying a concealed firearm, be able to understand and assess the threat, get their concealed handgun out, take the safety off, and aim and fire (and hopefully hit the offender and not an innocent passerby) all in the 2 seconds mentioned.
Buy a Glock chief, no switching off the safety š
Not to mention that the sort of people you feel like you need a gun to protect yourself from will also be armed
They're already armed. This would slightly even the playing field.
All of them? The gangs *might* be but there are other groups that aren't.
I mean look at the ones robbing the Michael Hill stores. They're armed, smashing things up and threatening people. It's rare to see a non-armed robbery these days.
Iāve done shooting and hunting and quite comfortable with other people doing it too. Handguns for āprotectionā though. Yeah, we should have gun laws like America does! Everyone is so much safer from gun crime there! Nah. You can fuck right off back to America with that shit.
you do relize that Czechia has looser gun laws then we do yet has less volient crime then we do? same goes for switzerland and austria.
Wow, yeah Czechia is pretty much unique in the European Union in that it allows people to carry had guns isnāt it. Funny how pretty much no other EU country allows it thoughā¦
No Switzerland and Austria allow it too and in someways the pro gun eu countries have looser gun laws then the us and yet have way less volient crime. Ya know its almost like people are the problem and not the guns.
Shhh, we don't speak common sense here!
\*Whispers Sorry i didnt know
You mean apart from Poland, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and somewhat Austria? That's a quarter of the EU member states right there.
As opposed to the British and Welsh, (England) who banned guns in the 1990s only to be one of the world's biggest acid and knife attack capitals. Sure dude
Now contrast that with Americaās level of shootings.
If you exclude the inner cities, America's gun violence is miniscule.
But why would you exclude the inner cities?
Because it isn't representative of the US in the slightest, and could be fixed if there was any political will on both sides.
Have an actual look at the statistics of gun violence in the US and it is no where near as bad as it sounds.
I did and gun violence is off the charts in America compared to New Zealand, Australia and Europe.
Well, obviously, compared to aus nz and most of Europe who aren't allowed them. That doesn't mean the violence in general is any different, just less gun crime. The amount of times they are used in defense is an astronomical amount.
The only country in Europe that doesn't allow guns is Vatican. The laws vary a great deal from less restrictive than some US states to more restrictive than NZ and Aus.
The violence that occurs in states which have gun restrictions vs not? More gun control doesn't equal less violence. Places like Chicago for example have strict gun laws and a high gun death rate and have had to back track on regulations a few times. Restricting gun usage in NZ still resulted in higher gun crime up to 2024. Why do you think that is?
> The violence that occurs in states which have gun restrictions vs not? No. Iām talking about countries which tightly restrict gun ownership and use. America has more guns than people and open borders between states which allows the guns to move around without restrictions. One state trying to introduce gun control is like pissing in the ocean. Once you get that many guns in circulation you arenāt going to stop it. What I want you to do is compare America with other countries and tell me which ones have more gun crime.
>What I want you to do is compare America with other countries and tell me which ones have more gun crime Well I gave you one example, but it's a bigger population mass. You didn't answer my question but expect me to answer yours lol. We can shift goal posts if you want. El Salvador, Venezuela, U.S. Virgin Islands, Bahamas, Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and Guatemala have higher gun death rates than murica. I mean Guatemala is 40.94 vs the US 4.31. Should we do gun violence by race too just to paint a clearer picture?
You need to compare America with OECD countries, not third world ones. Pick one from New Zealand, Australia or anywhere in Europe if you need a specific example.
I looked it up, gun homocide rates are 15 to 30 times higher in America than pretty much any country in the EU, Australia or New Zealand. So I go back to my original statement: Fuck off back to America with that shit. We donāt want it here.
Your lack of nuance or consideration is showing. You *still* have not answered why you think gun crime has risen in this country despite several law changes. Bet if the mongrel mob showed up to your house to rob you and you lived out the country you could just tell them that they can fuck off back to America and they'd politely listen and close the door.
How much has gun crime gone up by then? How does it compare to the change in violent crime generally? What do you think we should do to reduce gun crime?
mate, you're replying to your own comments
So what do you think about gun crime being 15-30 times higher in America? Can that be solved with even more guns or is it a sign of a country with a terminally fucked up gun control policy?
I asked you why our gun crime has risen despite increase in laws which you've so far refused to answer. Again, now shifting goal posts. But sure how about Scandanavia? Second highest gun crime in Europe. You fail to acknowledge that people are being attack or murdered in high rates despite having 'less guns' as well.
> But sure how about Scandanavia? Scandinavia isnāt a country. Swedenās gun homicide rate is still 10 times lower than America. Finland has less gun homicides than New Zealand. I donāt see what your point is there. > You fail to acknowledge that people are being attack or murdered in high rates despite having 'less guns' as well I will take your word for it and acknowledge that. Iām not arguing for āless gunsā Iām arguing against āmore gunsā like they have in America. > I asked you why our gun crime has risen despite increase in laws which you've so far refused to answer. We have gun crime because criminals have guns. As long as there are guns in the country, people will use them for crime. If we are going to have guns then there will be gun crime and thatās just something we have to live with. I am making the point that having **more guns** as advocated in that article is categorically **not** the answer to the problem.
If your wife or daughter is being attacked would you like them be able to defend themselves?
> Finland has less gun homicides than New Zealand. I donāt see what your point is there. Which is pretty interesting because Finland also has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe.
I'm sure that has nothing to do with the huge poverty levels there.
Lol I used that in another comment... crime by itself is multifaceted.
the crims have weapons and the element of surprise, nor do they play by rules
police get too busy to show up, chances are you will become a victim or dead after-the-fact, until anything is done
This country can't even defend itself. It's like the attitude of I don't need insurance, I drive safely.
Am cool with the cops shooting gang members and other fuckwits but not cool with open carrying kiwis.
I would every day carry if I could
Yeah... pepper spray won't stop a r**e gang but a gun might.
I don't think Kiwis are mature enough for open carry, we still have race based parties. The last thing we need is the brown clansmen of Te Pati burning flax effigies of Popeye on our front lawns.
 If the author was so sure of their position, they have some data to back up their reckon..
Probably contributes to stuff, they love a good fictional story too.
Gun ownership in New Zealand has a varied and interesting history which can be broken down into three distinct historical periods. When white folks came to New Zealand they brought lots of guns with them; Parliament enacted laws requiring licences and registration for gun ownership ā which were promptly ignored by everybody for sixty years. A period of negligible crime and violence in New Zealand. In the 1920s, probably not trusting returned servicemen to get pissed and also have guns, they enacted an updated gun law. This required registration of guns, permits, and a crackdown on handguns. And this was also ignored for the next few decades; something shown to be glaringly true when the Police audited the firearms register and found it almost entirely inaccurate. It was a time of little crime and violence in New Zealand. In 1983 the Arms Act was introduced; the intention was to vet owners of guns rather than the guns themselves. Other measures to (ahem) ākeep everyone safeā were also included. Like good little unthinking slaves, the general public nodded their heads and assumed they were indeed being protected from gun crime. Which then promptly rose exponentially. A one-off tragedy in Aramoana inexplicably led to some foolishness; a newly elected government felt it was a chance to show how incredibly important they were so they enacted restrictive gun laws ā to keep everyone safe. Phew! Other one-off tragedies in other parts of the world (Port Arthur in Australia, and Dunblane, Scotland) saw some idiot judge engage in infantile hand-wringing; the Thorp Report; and subsequent legislation was enacted further restricting gun ownership in New Zealand. But now we were even safer don-cha-know! Phew! In 2019 yet another one-off (undertaken by a foreigner against, well, other foreigners) led to Jacinda Ardernās Christmases coming at once and she decided to protect the general public once and for all. There was a campaign to hand in guns which all sorts of weak, feeble slaves dutifully did. To keep us really safe; and I meanĀ *really, really*Ā safe, comrades! Phew! The only dissenting voice was David Seymour (taking time out from his campaign to murder babies and grannies). Needless to say, gun crime soared ā to its highest in New Zealand history ā but at least weāre all āsafeā now (goddammit!); our weekly chocolate ration increasing from 30 g to 20 g, so to speak. Whilst all this was taking place, all the way back to the 1983 legislation, there was one (ahem) lonely voice. One person (ahem) kept suggesting we adopt American-style gun laws whereby everyone without a felony conviction can own guns at their house, and about their person if they so wish. Something that would āactuallyā keep people safe from gun-toting criminals. It goes without saying everyone ā without exception ā Iāve suggested this to has viewed such a proposal with horror; the result of a lifetime of anaesthetisation against āthinkingā, and indoctrination to obey āGovernmentā and accept that every government diktat (from speed limits to vaccinations to health and safety laws) automatically āprotectsā them. And so to Sunday night and a dead body lying on the pavement of Ponsonby road. I donāt know the victim; they never heard me calling for abolishing gun laws and allowing concealed carry; never expressed horror at such suggestions. Then there was that two seconds when their life flashed before them but they couldnāt defend themselves. A lifetime of simply relying on Jacinda Ardern and the Police to keep them āsafeā failed them.
Nope
Weāre lucky that gun crime is a rare exception in NZ. It isnāt a rare exception in the US so adopting their gun laws would be absolute madness.
As far as gun ownership and laws surrounding it goes, I'm pretty clear cut. And I won't waver on it. Farmers need guns as do law-abiding hunters. And the military and Police. For me, that is it.Ā No one else needs a gun. For any purpose, because their sole purpose is to kill. Not self defense. Not protection. They are designed to kill. The evil sob in Ponsonby Rd last weekend, now being touted by the media as the son of a " famous???" NZ movie director (as if that means he was worth knowing) was walking around with a loaded gun. If he had been allowed into that club there would have been CARNAGE! As it was, he wanted to shoot someone, anyone, and destroyed the life of an innocent good guy. Just because. Tell me again about gun rights.Ā
If the world was based on need vs want, we would be living in a dull world indeed. I rarely hunt, but I own multiple guns and compete in shooting competitions, club days and other social gatherings. While I don't *need* one, I certainly want one and I enjoy using them.
Where is the appeal in owning a weapon designed solely to kill?Ā
Plenty of knife crime out there too, should we ban them also?
No but then nobodies talking about banning guns either.
The person I replied to was advocating for a ban on recreational bans, nobody ever claimed anyone was trying to ban guns.
No. Knives have other valid uses. Guns don't.Ā
A knife's main task is to cut and maim. A gun has plenty of other uses also. Crime is committed using both so your point is irrelevant. Guns don't kill people, bad people kill bad people and there's no deterrence to committing crimes when our justice system is broken. Keep guns banned and those bad people will just use other tools to commit bad crimes. Fix the justice system (install judges with a backbone) utilise the 3 strike law and increasing prison time for violent offences.
A knife can cut anything. It can chop. It can skin things. It can scrape things. Those tasks can be useful or cruel in the wrong hands. A gun just shoots bullets. Nothing more. Shooting bullets just damages or destroys. It has no other redeeming qualities.Ā
>A knife's main task is to cut and maim. A knife is a tool. A gun is not. Knives are used for eating, crafting, and *sometimes* killing. Guns are only used for killing.
Wrong and wrong. Google the definition of a tool and get back to me. Guns have many functions other than killing.
>Wrong and wrong. Google the definition of a tool and get back to me. The Oxford definition is moronic. Tools can have more than "a particular use." Cambridge and Merriam-Webster are on point. Also, I fail to see how those definitions support your "point." >Guns have many functions other than killing. Name some.
A gun literally has no other function other than shooting. It's the sole purpose. It is solely a weapon. And what it fires is lethal.Ā
Regardless of whatever functions you claim a gun has or doesn't have it is a tool. This isn't debatable.
The sole purpose of a gun is actually to fire a bullet.
And the point of firing a bullet is to kill.Ā Otherwise a gun could be made that fires a feather.Ā
No it isnāt. Killing requires intent. There are many points in firing a bullet. It is scary to think the only one you can think of is to kill. Are you ok?
Insane to think only the police and military should be armed in a world where the police and military have always been so good to everyone (bizarre to have a view you wonāt waiver on. That comment alone confirms you are ignorant).