New Zealand to change gun laws

Rob Roy said:

What initiates violence, "offensive force" is a person(s).

A gun is an inanimate object and gathers dust until a person uses it. A sword is an inanimate object. A lead filled dildo is an inanimate object (do they even have those? )

The guy who starts shooting at you could be a cop or a thug, but I repeat myself.
He's shooting at you, because he has made an inanimate object into a weapon of offensive force.

Putting competent people in an incompetent system to carry out contradictory things will not change the nature of what is really happening.

Truly peaceful people would not use guns to disarm peaceful people. A pacifist is a statistic waiting to be tallied.

Click to expand...

Again, i’m not saying you will not “feel” safe by owning guns but what actually makes you feel unsafe is the guns to begin with. So you see more guns cannot be an answer to this problem. Thats the way i see it.

"I've spent a long time watching other people"

Roger A. Shrubber said:

they're like that whether they're aware i'm there or not...i've spent a long time watching other people, and as far as i can tell, about 50% of people aren't worth pissing on if they're on fire...it's just hard to tell which 50% until you get to know them.

Click to expand...

"I've spent a long time watching other people"
I'm sure you have Roger!!
And you own a gun i suppose??

crimsonecho said:

No threat of of violence, starts the violence. If you have no reason to feel threatened you don’t need to initiate violence.

Personally, i believe killing another human is a choice so i don’t feel any compassion for soldiers. Who are professional murderers. Nothing more.

I have been tear gassed and severely beaten by the police. Several times. And i’m still a pacifist.

Human nature is a blanket excuse to cover how despicable we have become. Most of our acts don’t relate to nature in anyway. We actually spent centuries trying to distance ourselves from the animals. At the point we arrived, we are not superior in anyway and actually we have become the lowest form of existence besides our technological advancements. This is a reversible process in my opinion. We should lift the threat of violence and the need for violence and work towards a better world. Thats my view on the subject.

Click to expand...

When you use the word violence it would be helpful if you described whether the violence was an initiation of force, offensive force, or if the violence was used to repel offensive force, ie, defensive force.

You seem okay with cops being armed, and presumably you are okay with cops initiating violence to take guns from people.

You are not a pacifist since you are advocating violence. If you want to work towards a better world, start with yourself and stop advocating offensive force.

crimsonecho said:

Just elect good people so they can mend the gap between the poor and the rich.

Click to expand...

GIVE ME SOME TO VOTE FOR....please

crimsonecho said:

Again, i’m not saying you will not “feel” safe by owning guns but what actually makes you feel unsafe is the guns to begin with. So you see more guns cannot be an answer to this problem. Thats the way i see it.

Click to expand...

What makes a person feel unsafe is when other people threaten or use offensive force and the person being threatened has no adequate means to defend themselves.

The way you see it, is factually wrong. For example you claim to be a pacifist on one hand, but on the other you advocate for police to carry out violence. Pacifists don't' advocate violence by anyone whether it is offensive or defensive force.

crimsonecho said:

Again, i’m not saying you will not “feel” safe by owning guns but what actually makes you feel unsafe is the guns to begin with. So you see more guns cannot be an answer to this problem. Thats the way i see it.

Click to expand...

no, it's not guns that make me feel unsafe...although it's quite apparent they scare the shit out of you...
people make me feel unsafe...put me in a room with a gun and i can guarantee you i'm not going to get hurt...put me in a room with a person, and i can't give you that same guarantee...
i get your point...i see where you're trying to go...i just don't agree with you at all on this point...you think if you get rid of guns the world will become a peaceful place, and that is a load of horseshit. the only way to make the world a peaceful place is the get rid of the people in it...because people use weapons, they don't use themselves...
your premise is flawed...take away guns, and they'll use bows, take away bows, and they'll use spears, take away spears and they'll use rocks, take away rocks and they'll use their bare hands.....so, take away their hands? then they can't hold any weapons, and the world will be at peace.....¿

Roger A. Shrubber said:

this makes no sense...no one killed each other before they had firearms? so the crusades were fought with nerf swords, and the 1.7 million that died in the first crusade laughed themselves to death? the cavemen who got beaten to death with antelope thigh bones, they actually died choking, and those other cavemen were trying to knock the piece of meat loose with the antelope bone?
people start violence, they've done it forever, and they'll do it for a good site longer before we grow out of it...and it makes no difference what we're holding in our hands when we do it...a fist, or a rock, or a spear, or a pitchfork, or a sword, or a gun...its the hand holding it, not what's in the hand....

Click to expand...

Man, the thing that starts the violence is the threat of violence. If you see a bear and pick up a stick its either gonna attack you or it’ll run away. Now both outcomes are related to your threat of inducing violence against that creature or its perception about your actions. This is not related to your weapon of choice but the action you choose. You can ignore the bear, you can run away from the bear, you can try to climb to a tree to run away from the bear, you can try to feed the bear and you can sing lullabies to the bear etc etc. There are many course of action you can take which doesn’t indicates a threat of violence. Every choice will bring a different outcome. Some will be catastrophic some you will emerge triumphant, in that you will survive. Anyway i know this hasn’t been the perfect analogy but its just a spontaneous thing. But i think you can see how the threat of violence brings forth the violence itself. Its just too easy to make the threat when you have a gun in your hand. For the most at least. So they need to go.

crimsonecho said:

If a person has guns, how can that person be considered as peaceful? Truly peaceful people dont need guns.

Click to expand...

No, that's not true.
My family grew up on a farm in Ireland and always had a rifle (well regulated) to shoot predators (fox), nuisance animals (rats) and empty beer bottles (lot's of fun, you should try it).
I consider myself a pacifist and yet at this point I own 2 shotguns and 2 rifles (no handgun, useless for what I want) for the simple reason that I liked to hunt deer, bear, goose, grouse, pheasant and sometimes when I was lucky, a partridge sitting in a pear tree
Point being, mankind needs guns, for many reasons, like to eat in rural areas (ever have venison from a humanly killed dear, or are you an herbivore?)
Unlimited access to deadly weapons is the real issue, and that definitely needs to be addressed in this country, and I know that bullshit that we already have gun control laws is coming, well to that I say fuck you, they ain't working, the system is broken and lets get real about fixing it here in THIS country. (no more open sell gun shows for example).
There's work to be done like devoting more money to fund mental health programs designed to assist those on the cusp of doing harm to themselves or others, or simply identifying them and preventing extreme actions.
Tough situation to deal with, isn't it.

Rob Roy said:

What makes a person feel unsafe is when other people threaten or use offensive force and the person being threatened has no adequate means to defend themselves.

The way you see it, is factually wrong. For example you claim to be a pacifist on one hand, but on the other you advocate for police to carry out violence. Pacifists don't' advocate violence by anyone whether it is offensive or defensive force.

Click to expand...

I have been beaten severely and tear gassed countless times by the police. I’m not advocating for the police to carry guns or induce violence. What i said was, if the need to take down crime organizations arise the only people that should handle this is the police. Not civilians. Thats why they are their.

crimsonecho said:

So they need to go.

Click to expand...

good luck with that, won't stand in your way, but i'm sure as fuck not standing anywhere close to you..a lot of the people you're trying to disarm aren't that good a shot.....

Roger A. Shrubber said:

no, it's not guns that make me feel unsafe...although it's quite apparent they scare the shit out of you...
people make me feel unsafe...put me in a room with a gun and i can guarantee you i'm not going to get hurt...put me in a room with a person, and i can't give you that same guarantee...
i get your point...i see where you're trying to go...i just don't agree with you at all on this point...you think if you get rid of guns the world will become a peaceful place, and that is a load of horseshit. the only way to make the world a peaceful place is the get rid of the people in it...because people use weapons, they don't use themselves...
your premise is flawed...take away guns, and they'll use bows, take away bows, and they'll use spears, take away spears and they'll use rocks, take away rocks and they'll use their bare hands.....so, take away their hands? then they can't hold any weapons, and the world will be at peace.....¿

Click to expand...

Ok let them use bows. I’m almost completely sure you cannot kill 50 people in the matter of minutes with a bow. Civilians don’t need guns. Thats my view. World doesn’t need guns but people are just idiots and countries elect the stupidest politicians possible. So armies are still a thing. And we wont adress the injustice in the society so the police is still a thing.

crimsonecho said:

I have been beaten severely and tear gassed countless times by the police. I’m not advocating for the police to carry guns or induce violence. What i said was, if the need to take down crime organizations arise the only people that should handle this is the police. Not civilians. Thats why they are their.

Click to expand...

where you from man? just curious.

crimsonecho said:

Ok let them use bows. I’m almost completely sure you cannot kill 50 people in the matter of minutes with a bow. Civilians don’t need guns. Thats my view.

Click to expand...

a good longbow man can fire 20 shafts a minute...ask the french survivors of Agincourt...oh wait....nm...there weren't any....
people killing people with the tools available...take away guns, and they'll find different tools...

crimsonecho said:

I have been beaten severely and tear gassed countless times by the police. I’m not advocating for the police to carry guns or induce violence. What i said was, if the need to take down crime organizations arise the only people that should handle this is the police. Not civilians. Thats why they are their.

Click to expand...

How will this be done?

Will Police blow bad people until they succumb (hey! that was a double entendre...if you think about it) to the non gun toting Police "handling" of crimes?

What if the bad guys are threatening to use a lead filled dildo in a violent way and simply don't go along with the Police non gun oral persuasion ?

I think @Roger A. Shrubber would be okay with people owning lead filled dildoes, but he'd probably say none can be over 12", because nobody needs one bigger than that. He's big on compromise.

Roger A. Shrubber said:

a good longbow man can fire 20 shafts a minute...ask the french survivors of Agincourt...oh wait....nm...there weren't any....

Click to expand...

Man, come on. Lets not even talk about the dedication and the composure it takes to become an excellent archer. Even if you hit every time you will no kill with every arrow. You cannot compare the lethality of bullets to arrows imo and indoors with constricted movement? Come on you cannot honestly say that if this terrorist haven’t had any acces to firearms he could commit the same crime using a bow and arrow.

instead of trying to take away guns, and probably starting an uncivil war...how about a compromise?
no more high capacity magazines, no more full auto kits, no more bump stocks, no more assault weapons, no more armor piercing rounds....no stealth designed holsters, no open carry. the only people given hidden carry licenses should have an actual use for them, they should carry valuable goods, sensitive information, something of great value that justifies the need for protection...or they may work in a dangerous area where its likely they may be attacked...whatever the criteria, feeling threatened by someones skin color shouldn't be a valid reason to carry a gun.
everyone has to pass a thorough background check, and any felonies, and some misdemeanors will disqualify you...same for a history of mental illness...
all weapons have to be registered, and you must immediately report a stolen weapon...

i think that would put a stop to a lot of the shit that's been happening...without resulting in thousands of dead citizens and law enforcement officers...

I stand for the flag and the second admend, too many countrys have fallen to an unarmed citzinship dont want same to thing to happen here! yes still have my old mil dress bayonet it now has new elk antler handle.

crimsonecho said:

Man, come on. Lets not even talk about the dedication and the composure it takes to become an excellent archer. Even if you hit every time you will no kill with every arrow. You cannot compare the lethality of bullets to arrows imo and indoors with constricted movement? Come on you cannot honestly say that if this terrorist haven’t had any acces to firearms he could commit the same crime using a bow and arrow.

Click to expand...

no, he would have had to use multiple weapons, probably would have set the place on fire, had some explosives...we are talking about a killer, they would use the means available at the time....
yes, a gun made it easier, but never underestimate the tenacity of human beings....we've had a long time to perfect killing each other....

they killed 3000 and wounded another 6000 at the world trade center without firing one shot

Roger A. Shrubber said:

where you from man? just curious.

Click to expand...

Dadsbag

dont like it here try travel in south america or any number of other countrys,most times you will be met with bad mean people with no tolerance because of your skin color