Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

What do you think of New Zealand banning assault rifles?

Poll - Total Votes: 36
The right move to try prevent repeat attacks
The wrong move to prevent repeat attacks
Don't care
They are doomed without the protection of the almighty assault rifle!!!!!!!!!
Show Results
You can only vote on one answer.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Reading the comments below. Classic hopolophobic remarks. "No one needs an assault rifle, or military style weapon. NRA has blood on their hands. Designed to kill people very quickly." Heard 'em all before. Based on emotions, not on facts.

First off - try to purchase an assault rifle. Go ahead. You can't purchase them at all if manufactured from 1986 or later - they are flat out banned. Pre '86, you have to submit an application to BATFE, and IF approved, you'll pay around $25K and up for a vintage M-16. You see, the AR-15 that y'all love calling an assault rifle lacks the select fire capabilities to actually qualify as per the Department of Defense. Basically, assault rifles are machine guns. AR-15s are not.

Of course, you may re-qualify it by referring to it as a military style rifle. Yes - the look the same. But think about what you are saying. Every single type of gun civilians can own, are, or have been used by the military. Military personnel carry semi-automatic pistols. They use pump action, and semi-auto shotguns. Snipers use bolt action rifles. And think about this...no AR-15 has actually been deployed by the military. But a civilian can go to a gun store and purchase a Colt 1911 .45 ACP, or a Beretta 9mm, or a Benelli semi-auto shotgun or a Mossberg pump action shotgun...just like the ones used by the military.

But the AR-15 is designed to kill as many people as possible very quickly. Every gun is designed to kill. So is the AR-15 magically more lethal? Hmmm...the so called "assault weapon" accounts for less than 1% of all firearm homicides annually. Handguns, however, account for about 90% of all firearm homicides. Check the FBI's Uniform Crime Report database. Oh...but what about mass shootings? There again, the AR-15 does not corner the market here. Check Mother Jones - which claims to be THE source of truth on mass shootings. About 70% of mass shootings involve handguns. Magazine capacity? Irrelevant when no one is shooting back at you. It takes 2-3 seconds to swaps magazines. The worst school shooting in US history was at Virginia Tech. Shooting used Glock 9mm handguns. Emptied 17, ten round magazines before turning the gun on himself.

And of course, when all else fails, blame someone other than the shooter, i.e. the NRA. You never want to blame the shooter as you might find out they are left-wing Bernie Sander lovers.

Other famous inaccuracies...can't hunt with an AR-15. Actually, the platform is used in hunting all the time as long as it is chambered in the appropriate caliber.

Not good for self defense. Possibly the most incorrect statement out there. What makes them bad? The .223 or 5.56 mm bullet fragments when it strikes a solid object at 2500 feet/sec. That means in a home defense situation that if you miss, the bullet is not as likely to go through the walls of your home and strike an unintended target - like your neighbor. BTW - if I am in a situation at home where I may have to use lethal force to defend myself or my family - I don't just want a level playing field. I want an overwhelming advantage. My sincere hope is to never have to defend myself with a firearm. But if I did, I would hope that the mere sight of an AR-15 would send the would be assailant running in the other direction.

No need for a gun like that? Given the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights - not the bill of needs, no one really has to justify this. But just to play this out...what else do we NOT NEED. Well, except for oxygen, shelter, food and water (maybe medication) people don't need a whole lot. Do you really want our government dictating what you can and cannot have based on what someone else thinks you need? This is the danger of the single payer health care concept.

And BTW - I'm not someone that thinks we do not need any gun laws. I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals, terrorists, and the mentally ill. I think training is necessary (just not regulated by government). Securing your firearms when not in use is important to prevent children from accessing them. I'm not unreasonable.

I also know you cannot legislate away evil, hate or mental illness. And gun laws have a tendency to be ignored by those in the previous sentence.