Author Topic: Gun Control: US and Global II  (Read 21423 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 364,426
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,482
Gun Control: US and Global II
« on: August 27, 2018, 04:40:58 »
Quote
David Hogg, gun control advocates march on Smith & Wesson headquarters, demand $5 million donation[


https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/26/david-hogg-gun-control-advocates-march-smith-wesso/

Seems typical of that group. The only thing missing is the usual attempts at blackmail.


As with most anti-gun politicians, celebrities and spokes people, Mr Hogg is quite happy to employ armed security.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/5/david-hogg-employed-armed-security-nra-protest-org/

There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 57,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,643
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2019, 08:23:15 »
New Zealand bans “military style” assault guns after mosque attacks: https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/after-mosque-attacks-new-zealand-quickly-bans-assault-weapons-1.4345293

Looks like the ban is quite broad, is immediate to prevent stockpiling, and includes even “accessories” to weapons. There will be a buy back, but the price tag looks minimal. The law for it all, apparently, will come later.
... Move!! ...

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 49,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,133
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2019, 10:51:51 »
Did some reading on what they consider an MSSA; got this from wikipedia, but it's pulled from the legislation.  Apparently an MSSA is anything that has;

    Folding or telescopic butt
    Magazine that holds, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 15 cartridges (for .22 rimfire)
    Magazine that holds more than 7 cartridges, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges (for other than a .22 rimfire)
    Bayonet lug
    Pistol grip as defined by regulation
    Flash suppressor

So you could buy something legally under their A class license, and easily swap out a part and have it meet the definition of an MSSA.  So it sounds like they are banning the various modular rifles and large magazines, as well as buying them back from the legal owners.  I know a lot of people won't like it, but it seems like a fairly reasonable approach that balances the needs of hunters, farmers etc against the increasing risk from fringe lunatics going on killing sprees.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -7995.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 283,532
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,682
    • Army.ca
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2019, 12:00:58 »
Gun confiscation worked in Britain.

Year old stats, but I don't think they'll be much change once the new ones are compiled.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5251268/london-stabbings-2018-clapham-shepherds-bush-crouch-hill-kingsland-hammersmith-greenwich-latest/

<snip>
Quote
Figures from London's Metropolitan police showed that knife crime has surged by 16 per cent in the capital — as Britain's crime epidemic continues.

Excluding those killed in terror attacks like London Bridge, Westminster and Manchester, there was still a 12 per cent rise in murders — the highest numbers in a decade.The total number of offences involving a knife or bladed instrument that have been recorded by cops in the year to March 2018 rose to 40,147, a seven-year-high.

There were 1,299 stabbings in London up to the end of April, according to official statistics from the Met Police.
<snip>

Near as I can tell, this is just London.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline AbdullahD

    update status.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 36,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 583
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2019, 12:36:45 »
Did some reading on what they consider an MSSA; got this from wikipedia, but it's pulled from the legislation.  Apparently an MSSA is anything that has;

    Folding or telescopic butt
    Magazine that holds, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 15 cartridges (for .22 rimfire)
    Magazine that holds more than 7 cartridges, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges (for other than a .22 rimfire)
    Bayonet lug
    Pistol grip as defined by regulation
    Flash suppressor

So you could buy something legally under their A class license, and easily swap out a part and have it meet the definition of an MSSA.  So it sounds like they are banning the various modular rifles and large magazines, as well as buying them back from the legal owners.  I know a lot of people won't like it, but it seems like a fairly reasonable approach that balances the needs of hunters, farmers etc against the increasing risk from fringe lunatics going on killing sprees.

That would literally be my entire collection gone... such an arbitrary set of qualifiers 😡

I feel bad for NZ gun owners :(

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 330,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,828
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2019, 12:59:33 »
Gun confiscation worked in Britain.

Year old stats, but I don't think they'll be much change once the new ones are compiled.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5251268/london-stabbings-2018-clapham-shepherds-bush-crouch-hill-kingsland-hammersmith-greenwich-latest/

<snip><snip>

Near as I can tell, this is just London.

At the risk of playing too fast and loose with regards to correlation versus causality, Britain has also seen a reduction of 21,000 police officers since 2010. London Met has seen a decrease of somewhere around 10%- they lost about 3000.

I'll try to succinctly contextualize this and then give the 'so what?'. A police service will always have two personnel overheads: A certain amount have to be on the road taking all the calls coming in, from the mundane to the serious. Generally they will be pretty fully occupied doing these things. Call volume can be diverted with things like online and telephone report centers and such, but in any major municipality the cops on the road are nearly always fully busy. They aren't in a position to do much proactive, like knocking on doors to make sure offenders are abiding by curfews and release conditions, or running surveillance, doing undercover drug buys, and writing search warrants. Think of these units as your pioneers, your mortars, your direct fire support platoon. You lose too many troops, your battalion doesn't get to have these nice things because otherwise the rifle companies are empty.

A certain amount of officers will have to be in the office- managers, administrators who require specific policing experience and skills... You invariably lose some 'roadable' this way.

You take every other officer, and that's your support units. That's your investigative support sections. Your robbery unit. Your sex crimes unit. Your domestic violence unit. Your major crimes / homicide units. Your auto theft unit. Your probation/parole/conditions enforcement unit. Your drug teams. Your surveillance teams. Your prolific offender enforcement units. These units all work in concert. There are a lot of ways bad guys are taken off the street.

Traffic units adequately resourced to do enforcement will pull over stupid drivers (which a lot of gang types are). Those stupid drivers will get tickets. Eventually ones who are stupid enough may lose their licenses and get hit with suspensions- then you get them caught driving suspended, and from stops like that you see drugs and guns being seized from vehicles that are searched incidental to arrest; you see passengers IDed where they otherwise wouldn't be, and guys out on probation or interim release who have enforceable conditions get breached.

Prolific offender units will pcik a few of the known problem eprsonalities. They'll do surveillance, they'll do door knocks to check up on probation conditions. They'll actively investigate reported breaches (e.g., don't hang out with criminals, don't consume alcohol, abide by a 10pm to 7am curfew, etc). They'll learn who's stealing what and who they're selling it to and attack those networks.

Drug teams will start with street level undercover buys and will work their way up a network. They'll identify dealers at whatever level they're targeting, and they'll do the necessary surveillance to get search warrants. Once those doors get kicked, violent people go to jail, drugs and crime guns are found and off the street. Criminal networks are disrupted.

Your auto theft units will do surveillance and work GPS enabled bait cars. The people who steal cars tend to have other stuff going on- when they're caght, often they have conditions, or are on parole or probation. They may have weapons, they often have drugs. They may be accompanied by other criminal associates who can be IDed and action taken. These operations get them in jail for a while.

So when police services get stripped of people, the positions necessarily hit the proactive units the hardest. The units that *aren't* stuck going call to call, and who are able to specifically target certain offenders, areas, or problem patterns. Because the people who are going around sticking knives into people are almost invariably living the kind of lifestyle where these sorts of units will encounter them, and on the aggregate, more of them will come off the street and end up in jail for a while, making patrol officers more able to respond adequately to stuff as it comes in, and maybe do a bit of proactive work themselves, such as doing foot patrols around drinking establishments and entertainment districts, and other stuff to deter crimes of opportunity or drunken stupidity. It's really the same problems we've seen in Canadian cities as populations have grown and police services haven't- just that Britain went through massive cuts.

So essentially they're now running very short staffed and are struggling to do anything other than just go to the emergency calls that come in. That leaves a lot of not great people on the street who are basically 'left alone' until something bad enough to make it through call triage has already been committed.

So bear all that in mind when attempting to make univariate comparisons of things like changed gun laws and crime levels. It's a gross oversimplification that really doesn't look at the larger problem in any real depth at all.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 364,426
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,482
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2019, 13:04:46 »
Did some reading on what they consider an MSSA; got this from wikipedia, but it's pulled from the legislation.  Apparently an MSSA is anything that has;

    Folding or telescopic butt
    Magazine that holds, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 15 cartridges (for .22 rimfire)
    Magazine that holds more than 7 cartridges, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges (for other than a .22 rimfire)
    Bayonet lug
    Pistol grip as defined by regulation
    Flash suppressor

So you could buy something legally under their A class license, and easily swap out a part and have it meet the definition of an MSSA.  So it sounds like they are banning the various modular rifles and large magazines, as well as buying them back from the legal owners.  I know a lot of people won't like it, but it seems like a fairly reasonable approach that balances the needs of hunters, farmers etc against the increasing risk from fringe lunatics going on killing sprees.

Can you please explain to me how whether a firearm has a flash hider or not will save lives and prevent mass shootings?
Has there been many bayonet inflicted deaths during mass shootings?

Reading the above a magazine that holds 7 cartridges would be okay but something that is pinned to 2 rounds but looks like it holds 8 would be banned?


What might really have saved lives is allowing the NZ government to arbitrarily access private message on forums, access private email accounts and access text messages and conversations. They could run programs that red flag anything remotely close to hate speech (or dislike speech or fear?) and arrest them.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,554
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2019, 13:09:21 »
It's not based on logic, it's being seen to be "doing something"

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 255,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,227
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2019, 13:17:27 »
At the risk of playing too fast and loose with regards to correlation versus causality, Britain has also seen a reduction of 21,000 police officers since 2010. London Met has seen a decrease of somewhere around 10%- they lost about 3000.

I'll try to succinctly contextualize this and then give the 'so what?'. A police service will always have two personnel overheads: A certain amount have to be on the road taking all the calls coming in, from the mundane to the serious. Generally they will be pretty fully occupied doing these things. Call volume can be diverted with things like online and telephone report centers and such, but in any major municipality the cops on the road are nearly always fully busy. They aren't in a position to do much proactive, like knocking on doors to make sure offenders are abiding by curfews and release conditions, or running surveillance, doing undercover drug buys, and writing search warrants. Think of these units as your pioneers, your mortars, your direct fire support platoon. You lose too many troops, your battalion doesn't get to have these nice things because otherwise the rifle companies are empty.

A certain amount of officers will have to be in the office- managers, administrators who require specific policing experience and skills... You invariably lose some 'roadable' this way.

You take every other officer, and that's your support units. That's your investigative support sections. Your robbery unit. Your sex crimes unit. Your domestic violence unit. Your major crimes / homicide units. Your auto theft unit. Your probation/parole/conditions enforcement unit. Your drug teams. Your surveillance teams. Your prolific offender enforcement units. These units all work in concert. There are a lot of ways bad guys are taken off the street.

Traffic units adequately resourced to do enforcement will pull over stupid drivers (which a lot of gang types are). Those stupid drivers will get tickets. Eventually ones who are stupid enough may lose their licenses and get hit with suspensions- then you get them caught driving suspended, and from stops like that you see drugs and guns being seized from vehicles that are searched incidental to arrest; you see passengers IDed where they otherwise wouldn't be, and guys out on probation or interim release who have enforceable conditions get breached.

Prolific offender units will pcik a few of the known problem eprsonalities. They'll do surveillance, they'll do door knocks to check up on probation conditions. They'll actively investigate reported breaches (e.g., don't hang out with criminals, don't consume alcohol, abide by a 10pm to 7am curfew, etc). They'll learn who's stealing what and who they're selling it to and attack those networks.

Drug teams will start with street level undercover buys and will work their way up a network. They'll identify dealers at whatever level they're targeting, and they'll do the necessary surveillance to get search warrants. Once those doors get kicked, violent people go to jail, drugs and crime guns are found and off the street. Criminal networks are disrupted.

Your auto theft units will do surveillance and work GPS enabled bait cars. The people who steal cars tend to have other stuff going on- when they're caght, often they have conditions, or are on parole or probation. They may have weapons, they often have drugs. They may be accompanied by other criminal associates who can be IDed and action taken. These operations get them in jail for a while.

So when police services get stripped of people, the positions necessarily hit the proactive units the hardest. The units that *aren't* stuck going call to call, and who are able to specifically target certain offenders, areas, or problem patterns. Because the people who are going around sticking knives into people are almost invariably living the kind of lifestyle where these sorts of units will encounter them, and on the aggregate, more of them will come off the street and end up in jail for a while, making patrol officers more able to respond adequately to stuff as it comes in, and maybe do a bit of proactive work themselves, such as doing foot patrols around drinking establishments and entertainment districts, and other stuff to deter crimes of opportunity or drunken stupidity. It's really the same problems we've seen in Canadian cities as populations have grown and police services haven't- just that Britain went through massive cuts.

So essentially they're now running very short staffed and are struggling to do anything other than just go to the emergency calls that come in. That leaves a lot of not great people on the street who are basically 'left alone' until something bad enough to make it through call triage has already been committed.

So bear all that in mind when attempting to make univariate comparisons of things like changed gun laws and crime levels. It's a gross oversimplification that really doesn't look at the larger problem in any real depth at all.

Not sure of your point here. There could be four million cops on the payroll, they’re almost never where murders or violent crimes happen till after the fact, then it’s the same statistic. Maybe they respond faster, but almost all policing is reactive rather than proactive, especially in rural areas.
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 330,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,828
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2019, 13:36:55 »
Not sure of your point here. There could be four million cops on the payroll, they’re almost never where murders or violent crimes happen till after the fact, then it’s the same statistic. Maybe they respond faster, but almost all policing is reactive rather than proactive, especially in rural areas.

OK, sorry man, I didn't break it down enough. I'll try again.

Firstly- I'm not talking about flushing the streets with cops so that there is one coincidentally on scene when a knife comes out able to instantly respond. I'm talking about prevention in a couple of different ways. I will preface by strongly disagreeing that police is almost purely reactive. That's the case in a poorly resourced organization, absolutely, but a ton of proactive work can be and is done.

One: There *is* a deterrent effect to some extent. When bars close and people pile out onto the street in an entertainment district, fights will be prevented in many cases merely by police being visible. The kind of situations that lead to some drunk idiot pulling a knife or gun on someone. Some people will still have more sense if they see police or know them to be around.

Two: I'm talking more about 'disabling' criminal behaviour. The types of people who commit violent offences are generally involved in a whole host of different criminal behaviours. Stealing cars, trafficking in drugs and stolen property... They tend to spend significant periods bound by parole / probation / bail conditions aimed at curbing behaviour, stuff like stay in your house at night, don't drink alcohol, etc. These are things that proactive police units can engage. Like I mentioned, the auto theft units who will run bait cards; the prolific offender units who will do door knocks and curfew checks, and breach and return to jail people who violate conditions.The drug units who will proactively investigate and execute search and arrest warrants. Stuff like that. All this proactive work gets criminals off the street and either in jail or on bail conditions that make it harder for them to do stuff. Fewer criminals are able to be in a situation where they can or choose to commit acts of violence.

Even modest numbers in police resources in a community can allow for the stand up or expansion of proactive units that can have a disproportionately positive effect on that particular crime patterns they're targeting. Conversely, reducing police numbers disproportionately hits those units first because other priorities have to be maintained for first response. You start taking resources away form these units, and criminals are able to carry on with much greater impunity- which invariably will lead to more things like robberies/carjackings gone wrong, drug binges, and the other sorts of shenanigans where violence occurs.

All that to say- simply looking at 'gun laws vs crime stats' as a simple comparison is utterly meaningless when there are much more significant big picture things happening.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 364,426
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,482
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2019, 13:53:46 »



https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/police-announce-process-hand-over-reclassified-mssas?nondesktop&fbclid=IwAR0SmG7X6Nqw6Y26aM3KE-bqE1KlcLlENb30YUUg_IleDcANLnInQi9qSr4

Quote
Last Friday, our country was shocked by a brutal and senseless attack. We recognise our world has changed.

Police focus is on ensuring the immediate safety and peace of mind of our communities.

Today, the Government has made immediate changes to classifications in the Arms Act which will mean some firearms are going to be reclassified as military style semi-automatic firearms (MSSAs).

At 3pm today, changes have been by an Order in Council under section 74A(c) of the Arms Act came into force adding two more groups of semi-automatics under the MSSA definition:

• a semi-automatic firearm that is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch or less rimfire cartridges) that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges; and

• a semi-automatic firearm that is a shotgun and is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges.

As a result of these changes many people who, up until now have owned these firearms legally, will no longer be able to possess them on their current licence conditions.

This means for many people, you will now be in unlawful possession of your firearm.

Given this is an immediate change, there is an amnesty to allow the notification and hand in their firearms to Police.

To organise the hand in of your firearm, you will need to complete a form on the Police website. Those who are unable to do so can call Police on 0800 311 311.

When the form is submitted Police will be notified you are in possession of a firearm that needs to be handed in. We will contact you to organise a suitable time and place for you to hand over your firearm. This may mean you bring it to Police at an allocated time, or a Police employee comes to you directly to collect the firearm.

I can’t emphasise enough that in the current environment, it is important you do not take your now-unlawful firearm anywhere without notifying Police. It is absolutely vital that we manage the safe and organised transport of all firearms into Police custody.

There is clear information on our website around what firearms are affected by the change and what to do if your firearm if affected.

The Government has signalled there will be further changes made over the coming weeks to ban all military style semi-automatics and assault rifles permanently.

While legislation is being finalised, the Government in the interim has acted to restrict the potential stock-piling of these guns, parts and high-capacity magazines, prevent additional purchases and encourage people to notify Police about their intention to hand in their firearms.

We will continue to update the public and especially the firearms community as required.

ENDS

Issued by Police Media Centre

So by the sounds of it a bunch of guns were made illegal over night. Doesn't appear to be much talk about compensation or a by back for these semi-autos. Just turn them into the police. I wonder what kind of compliance they'll get.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 176,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,367
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2019, 13:54:14 »
All that to say- simply looking at 'gun laws vs crime stats' as a simple comparison is utterly meaningless when there are much more significant big picture things happening.

Interesting look at the knife phenomenon in the UK in particular the youth aspect where knife violence seems to be more prevalent.

It is long but does support what you are saying Brihard.

Cuts to social services, mental health resources and increased poverty are some of the factors.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/28/beyond-the-blade-the-truth-about-knife-in-britain

The real test is whether or not gun laws keep gun crimes from happening. 
Optio

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 330,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,828
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2019, 13:58:50 »
Interesting look at the knife phenomenon in the UK in particular the youth aspect where knife violence seems to be more prevalent.

It is long but does support what you are saying Brihard.

Cuts to social services, mental health resources and increased poverty are some of the factors.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/28/beyond-the-blade-the-truth-about-knife-in-britain

The real test is whether or not gun laws keep gun crimes from happening.

Absolutely those things come into play as well.

When I was policing in a mid sized community (urban/suburban centre, large rural catchment), whenever fluctuating resources and call volume allowed we would do what proactive stuff we could. It made an observable difference, particularly when we could work certain known violent or prolific offenders. Now that's very small scale, but the reasoning scales upwards easily. We also saw the impact that inadequate resources for youths and mental health in particular had.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 302,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,600
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2019, 14:12:35 »
Can you please explain to me how whether a firearm has a flash hider or not will save lives and prevent mass shootings?
Has there been many bayonet inflicted deaths during mass shootings?

Reading the above a magazine that holds 7 cartridges would be okay but something that is pinned to 2 rounds but looks like it holds 8 would be banned?


What might really have saved lives is allowing the NZ government to arbitrarily access private message on forums, access private email accounts and access text messages and conversations. They could run programs that red flag anything remotely close to hate speech (or dislike speech or fear?) and arrest them.

Allowing governments to arbitrarily access private messages truly is an invasion of privacy that effects all of us. Who then decides what constitutes "hate" speech? Is it CNN's reporting of the stuff Trump says? That's truly a slippery slope.

Let me give you just a brief viewpoint on why bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and thirty round magazines are being used as guidepoints. It's primarily because such things are frequently the functions attached to military high powered rifles whose primary use is the killing of people. You do not need any of those things for legitimate hunting or even home defence. Many people are of the view that people who need/want to own modern military firearms are displaying worrisome personality disorders and that it an unreasonable step in society to make such highly destructive weapons readily available.

Here's a quick opinion of one columnist:

Quote
...Doesn’t it seem clear that anyone who feels the need for an AR-15 is already displaying abundant evidence of disordered thinking? If you are paranoid enough to think you need so much firepower for home protection, that’s more paranoia than sanity can contain.

If you say you need an AR-15 to go deer hunting, that’s preposterous. And if you think that you and your patriotic buddies, armed with a small arsenal of semi-automatic rifles converted to full-auto with bump stocks, can resist an American government supported by the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force, then that’s clear evidence of lunacy....

https://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-no-one-needs-an-ar15

I know that I'm venturing into risky ground because many people on this forum are strong advocates of owning military firearms. Hell, I own two myself; one a hundred and forty year old single shot lever action British military rifle in 450/570 calibre the other a seventy-five year old German 8mm Mauser with a five round internal magazine (both have bayonet lugs [and bayonets], are high powered but neither has flash suppressors or a high capacity magazine). I haven't fired either in over fifty years.

Let's face facts. The vast majority of society--even in the US--is of the view that there needs to be much stricter gun control and that military firearms, and pseudo-military firearms, are unnecessary and undesirable in a free and democratic society and further that people who defend and encourage their continued proliferation have something wrong with them. Try to remember that the Heller decision in the USSC in 2008 that interpreted the 2nd amendment broadly on the grounds of self defence was only a five to four ruling and that it did indicate that limitations were acceptable on a case by case basis.

This issue is just another one of those that highlights the strata that our society is divided into. Neither side will ever admit that their views may be unreasonable or that there is any valid justification for their opponents views. Personally, I think that semi-automatic is semi-automatic regardless of whether it's wrapped up in an AR-15 style body or a Ruger Mini-14. I also believe that 5 round magazines and strict background check and registration requirements are reasonable limits to their ownership. The former, alas, all to easy to get around. The aim of the game is to make the majority of society feel safe and comfortable in their lives. What works here might not work in South Africa or Afghanistan. Conditions differ. NZ has been gobsmacked and what is being done there now is to make the people feel good that the government is taking action on their collective behalf. That matters and is, IMHO, worth so much more than the usual bullsh*t "thoughts and prayers" for the victims of gun violence that the US political leadership takes after these events.

 :2c:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline cld617

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 139
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2019, 14:13:03 »


https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/police-announce-process-hand-over-reclassified-mssas?nondesktop&fbclid=IwAR0SmG7X6Nqw6Y26aM3KE-bqE1KlcLlENb30YUUg_IleDcANLnInQi9qSr4

So by the sounds of it a bunch of guns were made illegal over night. Doesn't appear to be much talk about compensation or a by back for these semi-autos. Just turn them into the police. I wonder what kind of compliance they'll get.

Ridiculous. Considering Quebec has seen about a 17% compliance with their registry, I wouldn't suspect NZ's compliance will be that much larger. Similar societal types in possession of arms, and you certainly don't foster attitudes of understanding by telling someone they're a criminal with the stroke of a pen.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 49,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,133
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2019, 14:35:16 »
Can you please explain to me how whether a firearm has a flash hider or not will save lives and prevent mass shootings?
Has there been many bayonet inflicted deaths during mass shootings?

Reading the above a magazine that holds 7 cartridges would be okay but something that is pinned to 2 rounds but looks like it holds 8 would be banned?


What might really have saved lives is allowing the NZ government to arbitrarily access private message on forums, access private email accounts and access text messages and conversations. They could run programs that red flag anything remotely close to hate speech (or dislike speech or fear?) and arrest them.

Those are the current regs, I think they are looking at a hard cap of 5 rounds for any magazine/tube etc (maybe higher for the 22LR varmint guns).

I don't think banning any of these will do anything to prevent a mass shooting, but can see limiting them to just small magazines limiting the damage (just from the logistics of carrying a bunch of mags and swapping them out every few seconds). The bayonet one is kind of random, but if they are limiting long gun ownership to uses relating to hunting, domestic farm usage etc is there any good reason to have flash suppressors or pistol grips? I can't think of any, but not a big gun guy.

 Targeting some of the underlying mental health issues, economic disparity and monitoring extremism  would be actual preventative measures. Those are a lot harder to do effectively, but hopefully that's something they look at once the shock wears off.

Don't really know if this will make any real difference, but they did seem to look at it, realize they aren't happy with it, and decide to take action and change it (while allowing some exceptions for hunting, farming and recreational use). They are guesstimating about $200m for a buyback, so don't think this is a case of turn it in for nothing, but it is refreshing to see a democratic government make a reasoned decision and take quick action instead of voicing platitudes and empty thoughts and prayers.

Really don't think a massive privacy invasion by the police is in order though. For one, if they had carte blanch access, you are now in a needle in a haystack situation wading through the volume of bs, and anyone with half a brain that wants to avoid it will come up with a work around.  Getting tips from concerned citizens is still probably your best bet for effectively focusing on actual threats, and that requires public trust. You lose that pretty quickly when you are worried about them scanning all your online activities.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 364,426
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,482
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2019, 14:47:04 »
Quote from: FJAG
Allowing governments to arbitrarily access private messages truly is an invasion of privacy that effects all of us. Who then decides what constitutes "hate" speech? Is it CNN's reporting of the stuff Trump says? That's truly a slippery slope.

Why is your privacy more important than the lives of children? Think of the children ;)

I totally agree but the "think of the children"/"if it saves just one life" premise has long been a mantra by gun control advocates.

Being honest you don't really care either way really about firearms, that's cool. I wouldn't expect you to get too emotional over those old guns you mentioned that you haven't shot in 50 years (aside from an heirloom sort of thing).

Perhaps if you're an imbiber of alcohol you would be more bothered by the "saves just one life" mantra if the government was looking at severely restricting alcohol ownership/possession or out right banning it.

That's why I bring up computers and privacy. Maybe it's apples and oranges but the privacy thing I mentioned (along with no alcohol, no smoking) would surely save some lives and that's enough for some people to support it.

Maybe in a couple years the government going through our PMs and Email "to save lives" will be the next fight.

Quote from: FJAG
Let me give you just a brief viewpoint on why bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and thirty round magazines are being used as guidepoints. It's primarily because such things are frequently the functions attached to military high powered rifles whose primary use is the killing of people.

Okay, what constitutes high powered? Is it the size and power of the bullet? If so the 5.56mm bullet that the AR15 isn't very powerful compared to common hunting calibers like .308s, 30-06 and such. There's often arguments that the AR15s 5.56 caliber is under powered.


Quote from: FJAG
You do not need any of those things for legitimate hunting or even home defence. Many people are of the view that people who need/want to own modern military firearms are displaying worrisome personality disorders and that it an unreasonable step in society to make such highly destructive weapons readily available.

I'm not a hunter but I think trying to decide whats needed and whats not for hunting seems very subjective. I've heard that line a lot, you don't need such and such a gun for hunting, often from non-hunters. I think that may be like me with my legal background of 1x PLQ PO check saying you don't need a lawyer if you're not guilty. Right?

A Remington 700 bolt action rifle and Remington 870 pump-action shotgun are probably the most widely known,owned and used "hunting" guns. At least in North America but all over the world too I suspect.  Would you care to take a guess at how many people have been killed with those guns by the police and military? 700 makes a hell of a sniper rifle. Police have been using the 870 forever.

One could say hunters don't need the same guns snipers use to kill people and police use to shoot criminals.

As for home defense, are you suggesting that the AR15 rifle isn't good for defending your house? We use them for self-defense in the military and to protect our country. I can't really think of many better guns for home defense than an AR15.

Quote
https://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-no-one-needs-an-ar15
Doesn’t it seem clear that anyone who feels the need for an AR-15 is already displaying abundant evidence of disordered thinking? If you are paranoid enough to think you need so much firepower for home protection, that’s more paranoia than sanity can contain.
Some might argue believing in an invisible being in the sky is evidence of disordered thinking. Begging an invisible person for help if someone is attacking you? Might work.  I'd stick with an AR myself  ;D


Quote from: FJAG
I know that I'm venturing into risky ground because many people on this forum are strong advocates of owning military firearms.

I'll say! Your posts are always awesome though, I thoroughly enjoy them. Even if you think I have some kind of disorder  :Tin-Foil-Hat:
 
Quote from: FJAG
Let's face facts. The vast majority of society--even in the US--is of the view that there needs to be much stricter gun control and that military firearms, and pseudo-military firearms, are unnecessary and undesirable in a free and democratic society and further that people who defend and encourage their continued proliferation have something wrong with them. Try to remember that the Heller decision in the USSC in 2008 that interpreted the 2nd amendment broadly on the grounds of self defence was only a five to four ruling and that it did indicate that limitations were acceptable on a case by case basis.

This issue is just another one of those that highlights the strata that our society is divided into. Neither side will ever admit that their views may be unreasonable or that there is any valid justification for their opponents views. Personally, I think that semi-automatic is semi-automatic regardless of whether it's wrapped up in an AR-15 style body or a Ruger Mini-14. I also believe that 5 round magazines and strict background check and registration requirements are reasonable limits to their ownership. The former, alas, all to easy to get around. The aim of the game is to make the majority of society feel safe and comfortable in their lives. What works here might not work in South Africa or Afghanistan. Conditions differ. NZ has been gobsmacked and what is being done there now is to make the people feel good that the government is taking action on their collective behalf. That matters and is, IMHO, worth so much more than the usual bullsh*t "thoughts and prayers" for the victims of gun violence that the US political leadership takes after these events.

 :2c:

Good points for sure. Going after guns is easy and low hanging fruit. It's a bandaid solution that will make people in the moment feel better and safer- catnip for politicians.

I have 100% confidence that anyone here with our Mariomike mentored research skills could make some wicked IEDs, pipebombs and chemical weapons in our houses. Anyone with access to the net can download the know how (Maybe a great example of stricter police powers and anti-privacy laws eh?)

Say we get rid of privately owned firearms, maybe we'll see a drop in crime and someone might have to work harder to kill a bunch of people. Who do we blame when guns are gone and someone does a chemical attack (Japan) or daisy chains a bunch of pipe bombs to children? Do we look at banning more stuff or do we take a look at whats radicalizing people, the process and ways to bring people back. Ways for people to be constructive rather than destructive.

Pretty sure firearm owners realize our days are numbered.  lt is what it is but I don't think it will solve any problems. If anything it will probably succeed in accomplishing exactly what the NZ shooter wanted. I think we should look for better solutions than going for a kill count of 7 instead of 17.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 16:44:02 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 364,426
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,482
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2019, 14:52:43 »
Quote from: Navy_Pete
They are guesstimating about $200m for a buyback, so don't think this is a case of turn it in for nothing, but it is refreshing to see a democratic government make a reasoned decision and take quick action instead of voicing platitudes and empty thoughts and prayers.

Have a read of the memo from the NZ Police I posted. It doesn't appear that there is any sort of compensation for the over-night illegal guns that need to be turned in. Maybe owners will get lucky and the government will pay them out afterwards.

When the RCMP and Canadian government just attempted the same thing a couple years ago there was no discussion of compensation for the guns that were deemed illegal.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 57,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,643
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2019, 15:38:47 »

Pretty sure firearm owners realize our days are numbered.  lt is what it is but I don't think it will solve any problems. If anything it will probably succeed in accomplishing exactly what the NZ shooter wanted.

I also think they are quite numbered, we might be surprised by just how fast things could happen.*  All that money invested in the hardware in the gun porn threads, can now be spent on paying carbon taxes.
* The one issue that I see is who is going to step onto the first nation reserves and disarm that particular population of every soon to be prohibited weapon, or will they all be given trappers licenses so they can keep sidearms.
... Move!! ...

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 56,273
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,100
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2019, 16:09:42 »


https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/police-announce-process-hand-over-reclassified-mssas?nondesktop&fbclid=IwAR0SmG7X6Nqw6Y26aM3KE-bqE1KlcLlENb30YUUg_IleDcANLnInQi9qSr4

So by the sounds of it a bunch of guns were made illegal over night. Doesn't appear to be much talk about compensation or a by back for these semi-autos. Just turn them into the police. I wonder what kind of compliance they'll get.

I think I am missing something becuase it sounds to me like mag load restrictions vice all out platform bans.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 364,426
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,482
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2019, 16:47:29 »
I think I am missing something becuase it sounds to me like mag load restrictions vice all out platform bans.

The NZ PM said the gun the shooter used will be banned.

I don't know if that means a Smith and Wesson MP15 AR 15 or all AR15s, easy to presume the latter.

As for the mag restrictions I didn't spend too much time looking at it but I get the feeling it's written to basically ban any gun that accepts magazines larger than a standard 5 round style magazine you would see in a Browning semi-auto. Basically anything that can be suggested to "look armyish".
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 17:04:04 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 57,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,643
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2019, 17:18:20 »
Take a look at the attached list. Any firearm that is semi automatic and has a detachable magazine greater than 5 rounds is now illegal to own in NZ. Any firearm that  falls within the definition below is also immediately banned from private possession and must be turned in:

New Zealand Arms Act 1983: Public Act 1983 No 44: (as 01 October 2018)

military style semi-automatic firearm means a firearm (other than a pistol) that is—
(a) a semi-automatic firearm having 1 or more of the following features:
      (i) a folding or telescopic butt:
      (ii) a magazine designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges that—
             (A) is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges; or
             (B)is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges:
      (iii)a magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges) that—
             (A) is capable of holding more than 7 cartridges; or
             (B) is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 10 cartridges:
      (iv) bayonet lugs:
      (v) a flash suppressor:
      (vi) a component of a kind defined or described by an order under section 74A as a pistol grip for the purposes of this definition; or
(b)a semi-automatic firearm of a make and model declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(c)a semi-automatic firearm of a description declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(d)a semi-automatic firearm that has a feature of a kind defined or described in an order under section 74A as a feature of military style semi-automatic firearms for the purposes of this Act
... Move!! ...

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 56,273
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,100
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2019, 17:25:57 »
Take a look at the attached list. Any firearm that is semi automatic and has a detachable magazine greater than 5 rounds is now illegal to own in NZ. Any firearm that  falls within the definition below is also immediately banned from private possession and must be turned in:

New Zealand Arms Act 1983: Public Act 1983 No 44: (as 01 October 2018)

military style semi-automatic firearm means a firearm (other than a pistol) that is—
(a) a semi-automatic firearm having 1 or more of the following features:
      (i) a folding or telescopic butt:
      (ii) a magazine designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges that—
             (A) is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges; or
             (B)is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges:
      (iii)a magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges) that—
             (A) is capable of holding more than 7 cartridges; or
             (B) is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 10 cartridges:
      (iv) bayonet lugs:
      (v) a flash suppressor:
      (vi) a component of a kind defined or described by an order under section 74A as a pistol grip for the purposes of this definition; or
(b)a semi-automatic firearm of a make and model declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(c)a semi-automatic firearm of a description declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(d)a semi-automatic firearm that has a feature of a kind defined or described in an order under section 74A as a feature of military style semi-automatic firearms for the purposes of this Act

Interesting. I wonder if they differentiate between a flash suppressor and a muzzle break.

I find the mag restriction portions confusing.  So why cant they just buy 5 or 4 round mags ? 

That would knock out my M305, SKS and DA Grizzly (MF) ... and it comes damn close to taking out my No.5 JC too... phew for bolt actions!
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 255,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,227
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #23 on: March 21, 2019, 18:12:16 »
There go the SKSs I suppose.
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 302,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,600
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #24 on: March 21, 2019, 19:01:57 »
Take a look at the attached list. Any firearm that is semi automatic and has a detachable magazine greater than 5 rounds is now illegal to own in NZ. Any firearm that  falls within the definition below is also immediately banned from private possession and must be turned in:

New Zealand Arms Act 1983: Public Act 1983 No 44: (as 01 October 2018)

military style semi-automatic firearm means a firearm (other than a pistol) that is—
(a) a semi-automatic firearm having 1 or more of the following features:
      (i) a folding or telescopic butt:
      (ii) a magazine designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges that
             (A) is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges; or
             (B)is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges:
      (iii)a magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges) that
             (A) is capable of holding more than 7 cartridges; or
             (B) is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 10 cartridges:
      (iv) bayonet lugs:
      (v) a flash suppressor:
      (vi) a component of a kind defined or described by an order under section 74A as a pistol grip for the purposes of this definition; or
(b)a semi-automatic firearm of a make and model declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(c)a semi-automatic firearm of a description declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(d)a semi-automatic firearm that has a feature of a kind defined or described in an order under section 74A as a feature of military style semi-automatic firearms for the purposes of this Act

Just a technical comment. The above provisions appear vague and uncertain insofar as when you are dealing with a detachable magazine, does the detachable magazine in excess of the limits have to be present with the rifle for the rifle to be illegal or does the mere existence somewhere in the world of such a magazine make the weapon illegal?

In Canada the magazine itself is regulated. Firearms are regulated specifically on the inherent characteristics of the firearm and not the characteristics of a magazine that might be attached to it. It's little things like this that keep lawyers employed. My guess is this law will be amended when there is time for reflection.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/