i wonder what it feels like to live in a country where people actually pass gun control laws after mass shootings take place. what is this revolutionary new concept? that said, this is probably...
i wonder what it feels like to live in a country where people actually pass gun control laws after mass shootings take place. what is this revolutionary new concept?
that said, this is probably where the buck will stop. i doubt anybody is going to try and address the underlying problems that create people like this, which unfortunately means that probably in the future if someone wanted to do this, they're just going to use a car or something instead (or maybe go more sophisticated and use a bomb). maybe it's because i live in america, but i think people get very caught up in the notion that just restricting guns will solve a lot of those problems, which is not the case. it might make it harder in the future to commit similar massacres, but it's obviously not about to deradicalize the people who would do that in the first place, and until that becomes a part of the conversation, i don't think we're going to make much progress on preventing terrorism of this sort.
to be clear, i still support gun control and it is is generally a positive as far as reducing the suicide rate in the general population, which is part of what contributes to gun violence going...
I think you're right. Everybody blames guns when something like this happens, but it's our system overall that is making people mentally ill. All you need to do is go look at the mental health statistics, the suicides, the opioid crisis, and declining standard of living, the feeling of hopelessness for the future. People are demoralized and lack meaning. So, yeah, we can go ahead and ban guns but it's not going to stop people from lashing out at a society that has left them behind.
to be clear, i still support gun control and it is is generally a positive as far as reducing the suicide rate in the general population, which is part of what contributes to gun violence going down when gun control is implemented (and usually in cases like this implementing it also makes it much harder to do damage of this sort). it's just that you can't only use gun control to solve problems like that. you need to also in tandem address the mental health crisis in that case, or in the OP case you also need to take steps to reduce the ability of groups like white nationalists from recruiting and radicalizing people, many of whom incidentally are are victims of mental health or feel as though they've been left behind by society since those people tend to be easier to radicalize. otherwise, you essentially just paper over the larger problem--which still exists, it's just not able to materialize in the form of someone killing themselves with a gun or blowing away 50 muslims in a mosque.
I honestly have no faith that banning guns in the US would do so much as make a dent in the problem - if anything, in our current stigmatized climate, it would only further fuel the exact type of...
I honestly have no faith that banning guns in the US would do so much as make a dent in the problem - if anything, in our current stigmatized climate, it would only further fuel the exact type of people who are liable to go on a shooting spree anyway. Illegal firearms are not hard to acquire in the US by any stretch of the imagination, whether it's a black market in a city, an under the table deal at a gun show, simply stealing them, or buying them off a neighbor or friend. If you do any kind of research at all, getting a weapon of any kind short of a rocket launcher is not difficult.
I recently moved from city, california to rural, tennessee, and its important to understand that firearms are a fundamental part of the culture for a LOT of americans. Though I'm otherwise as socialist and liberal as they come, the idea of american gun control is almost always built on ignorance. Itd be tantamount to banning alcohol, and solve about as many problems.
Gun control in the United States is a difficult topic because of how many crimes are committed in the country with illegally obtained weapons as well as how many weapons already are in...
Gun control in the United States is a difficult topic because of how many crimes are committed in the country with illegally obtained weapons as well as how many weapons already are in circulation. It is an engrained part of American culture, and is not as simple as just outright banning assault rifles or magazines that hold more than 12 bullets.
i didn't say it was a case of new zealand producing people like this, nor do i think it's really even national issues that do so. it is very much a transnational problem. the dude could have said...
i didn't say it was a case of new zealand producing people like this, nor do i think it's really even national issues that do so. it is very much a transnational problem. the dude could have said the same shit and done the same thing in america and his manifesto would have had basically no changes. that's (part of) why modifying gun laws won't really change anything. people aren't exactly getting to the root of the problem, they're just making it harder for people to act.
I'm at a loss as to what WILL change anything. Why are mass shootings happening so much more frequently than ever before? The advent of more powerful assault rifles? I think that definitely plays...
I'm at a loss as to what WILL change anything. Why are mass shootings happening so much more frequently than ever before? The advent of more powerful assault rifles? I think that definitely plays a part. People have always been racist and violent, it just seems like now they can do so much more damage. And after this attack and others it's really obvious the internet plays a huge part in pulling these like minded people together and intensifying their beliefs/violence.
[citation needed] I'm pretty sure we can own guns if we either have a hunting license or we're registered sport shooters. And if you're thinking of the guns members of Heimevern have in their...
[citation needed]
I'm pretty sure we can own guns if we either have a hunting license or we're registered sport shooters.
And if you're thinking of the guns members of Heimevern have in their homes, they're missing the bolt, which is stored in a military compound until needed.
i don't believe it was, and in any case breivik went to the effort of demonstrating everything he needed to legally acquire ammunition and the firearms he did (in addition to legally acquiring the...
i don't believe it was, and in any case breivik went to the effort of demonstrating everything he needed to legally acquire ammunition and the firearms he did (in addition to legally acquiring the things he used to build his bomb and being put on a watchlist for that by norway), so it seems like there isn't much more that could have been done on that front.
It doesn’t really matter what you believe. I’m not here to provide anti-gun or pro-gun stuff. There’s no gun-laws that’s been changed due to Breivik. Mostly because we didn’t allow guns in the...
It doesn’t really matter what you believe. I’m not here to provide anti-gun or pro-gun stuff. There’s no gun-laws that’s been changed due to Breivik. Mostly because we didn’t allow guns in the first place.
After a massacre here in Australia in 1996, in which one man shot and killed 35 people, the Australian federal government worked with all state and territory governments to pass nationally...
After a massacre here in Australia in 1996, in which one man shot and killed 35 people, the Australian federal government worked with all state and territory governments to pass nationally consistent laws to ban all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and to introduce a system of licensing and ownership controls. The laws were passed within a couple of weeks of the massacre.
In india its pretty impossible for a normal person to own a gun. Civilians are only allowed to purchase Non-prohibited Bore category guns which means bolt action guns and semi automatic guns are...
In india its pretty impossible for a normal person to own a gun. Civilians are only allowed to purchase Non-prohibited Bore category guns which means bolt action guns and semi automatic guns are prohibited. Getting a license is also very tedious process it can take months with lot of verification process including personal background checking.
As someone from there I have never seen a gun in my entire life (except from one that the cops carry around ofc).
I’m curious what the practical effect of this would be. I don’t think a sufficiently practiced person would be slowed down that much by having to turn a bolt or crank a lever. I think most spree...
I’m curious what the practical effect of this would be. I don’t think a sufficiently practiced person would be slowed down that much by having to turn a bolt or crank a lever. I think most spree shooters have been aiming and firing rather than just raking across a crowd if I’m not mistaken?
If something isn’t done about this sort of thing though, the purported right to bear arms is going to be fizzling out soon enough. It seems inescapable in the states now, but once the ball gets rolling I think it’ll be hard to hold it back. The NRA has played themselves by preventing any kind of regulation for so long. It’s like how our overactive fire prevention in national parks and forests has left incredible amounts of dry tinder laying around leading to crazy explosive firestorms. We could have had some reasonable or sane gun laws, but instead I think we’ll end up burning it all away.
This guy would have killed many less people if he didn't have this semi-auto. That's a very practical effect. He was obviously a very practiced person and even still it is obvious he would have...
This guy would have killed many less people if he didn't have this semi-auto. That's a very practical effect. He was obviously a very practiced person and even still it is obvious he would have been stopped. One man tried to charge him. If the killer hadn't had the speed of this semi-auto, people would have fought back and eventually won.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I’ve really ONLY ever fired lever and bolt action rifles so I wasn’t sure how much more effective semi-autos could be. The idea of just spitting a ton of rounds...
Thanks for the detailed reply. I’ve really ONLY ever fired lever and bolt action rifles so I wasn’t sure how much more effective semi-autos could be. The idea of just spitting a ton of rounds downrange never actually seemed all that fun to me compared to target shooting.
A sufficiently practiced person probably won’t be slowed too much but there’s still a significant difference in being able to simply pull a trigger and empty 20-30 rounds in a few seconds versus...
A sufficiently practiced person probably won’t be slowed too much but there’s still a significant difference in being able to simply pull a trigger and empty 20-30 rounds in a few seconds versus how quickly you could do the same with a pump shotgun or bolt action rifle which, generally speaking as there are exceptions, are only capable of holding 4-5 rounds in a magazine/chamber.
It’s part of the reason why rifles like the AR-15 are the chosen weapon of mass shooters. They spit out a lot of bullets very quickly, are light, accurate, and are quick to reload.
Majority of pump shotguns take a few seconds to load and shotguns are, typically, a close range weapon with effective ranges much lower than a rifle. They cannot be fired as fast or as accurately, and at least in my shooting experience, have a good deal more recoil making accurate shooting more difficult and slow.
Bolt action rifles are much the same. They generally fire larger rounds than something like an AR-15, slower and with greater recoil and smaller magazines. That being said, they’re effective from considerably longer ranges and can be incredibly accurate at those ranges which is why we have had mass shootings from towers. Those larger rounds also mean much more stopping, and killing, power.
So no, I don’t think a sufficiently practiced person will be slowed down too much but I do think they would be slowed down and in a mass shooting event, every extra second saved means lives saved.
For the sake of the children I haven’t had yet, I hope you’re right. I’ve tried arguing with many of my Pro 2A friends/family that the only reason many of them are so callous about the 2A is because they haven’t been personally victimized by it yet. It’s easy to crow about your right to own a gun when you haven’t had to bury your child.
This country is paying for the 2A with the blood of innocents and the NRA/GOP can only offer “thoughts and prayers” as if somehow a grieving parent or sibling is going to be comforted by it.
i wonder what it feels like to live in a country where people actually pass gun control laws after mass shootings take place. what is this revolutionary new concept?
that said, this is probably where the buck will stop. i doubt anybody is going to try and address the underlying problems that create people like this, which unfortunately means that probably in the future if someone wanted to do this, they're just going to use a car or something instead (or maybe go more sophisticated and use a bomb). maybe it's because i live in america, but i think people get very caught up in the notion that just restricting guns will solve a lot of those problems, which is not the case. it might make it harder in the future to commit similar massacres, but it's obviously not about to deradicalize the people who would do that in the first place, and until that becomes a part of the conversation, i don't think we're going to make much progress on preventing terrorism of this sort.
to be clear, i still support gun control and it is is generally a positive as far as reducing the suicide rate in the general population, which is part of what contributes to gun violence going down when gun control is implemented (and usually in cases like this implementing it also makes it much harder to do damage of this sort). it's just that you can't only use gun control to solve problems like that. you need to also in tandem address the mental health crisis in that case, or in the OP case you also need to take steps to reduce the ability of groups like white nationalists from recruiting and radicalizing people, many of whom incidentally are are victims of mental health or feel as though they've been left behind by society since those people tend to be easier to radicalize. otherwise, you essentially just paper over the larger problem--which still exists, it's just not able to materialize in the form of someone killing themselves with a gun or blowing away 50 muslims in a mosque.
I honestly have no faith that banning guns in the US would do so much as make a dent in the problem - if anything, in our current stigmatized climate, it would only further fuel the exact type of people who are liable to go on a shooting spree anyway. Illegal firearms are not hard to acquire in the US by any stretch of the imagination, whether it's a black market in a city, an under the table deal at a gun show, simply stealing them, or buying them off a neighbor or friend. If you do any kind of research at all, getting a weapon of any kind short of a rocket launcher is not difficult.
I recently moved from city, california to rural, tennessee, and its important to understand that firearms are a fundamental part of the culture for a LOT of americans. Though I'm otherwise as socialist and liberal as they come, the idea of american gun control is almost always built on ignorance. Itd be tantamount to banning alcohol, and solve about as many problems.
Gun control in the United States is a difficult topic because of how many crimes are committed in the country with illegally obtained weapons as well as how many weapons already are in circulation. It is an engrained part of American culture, and is not as simple as just outright banning assault rifles or magazines that hold more than 12 bullets.
My understanding is that the gunman didn't come from NZ, so this isn't a case of NZ "producing" people like this.
i didn't say it was a case of new zealand producing people like this, nor do i think it's really even national issues that do so. it is very much a transnational problem. the dude could have said the same shit and done the same thing in america and his manifesto would have had basically no changes. that's (part of) why modifying gun laws won't really change anything. people aren't exactly getting to the root of the problem, they're just making it harder for people to act.
I'm at a loss as to what WILL change anything. Why are mass shootings happening so much more frequently than ever before? The advent of more powerful assault rifles? I think that definitely plays a part. People have always been racist and violent, it just seems like now they can do so much more damage. And after this attack and others it's really obvious the internet plays a huge part in pulling these like minded people together and intensifying their beliefs/violence.
Have any other countries done this before? It seems like Japan has the strictest gun laws and I don't think they've completely banned semi-automatics.
I’m from Norway and we don’t allow guns. If you’ve been in the military you can have a gun, but you can’t get any bullets.
[citation needed]
I'm pretty sure we can own guns if we either have a hunting license or we're registered sport shooters.
And if you're thinking of the guns members of Heimevern have in their homes, they're missing the bolt, which is stored in a military compound until needed.
Was this in effect before the July 22 attack?
Yeah, it’s «always been this way» for me. I’m 26yo so maybe it was differnt before.
i don't believe it was, and in any case breivik went to the effort of demonstrating everything he needed to legally acquire ammunition and the firearms he did (in addition to legally acquiring the things he used to build his bomb and being put on a watchlist for that by norway), so it seems like there isn't much more that could have been done on that front.
It doesn’t really matter what you believe. I’m not here to provide anti-gun or pro-gun stuff. There’s no gun-laws that’s been changed due to Breivik. Mostly because we didn’t allow guns in the first place.
After a massacre here in Australia in 1996, in which one man shot and killed 35 people, the Australian federal government worked with all state and territory governments to pass nationally consistent laws to ban all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and to introduce a system of licensing and ownership controls. The laws were passed within a couple of weeks of the massacre.
In india its pretty impossible for a normal person to own a gun. Civilians are only allowed to purchase Non-prohibited Bore category guns which means bolt action guns and semi automatic guns are prohibited. Getting a license is also very tedious process it can take months with lot of verification process including personal background checking.
As someone from there I have never seen a gun in my entire life (except from one that the cops carry around ofc).
Semi-automatics are nearly all guns (including revolvers). What will be left is pump shotguns and bolt-action rifles.
I’m curious what the practical effect of this would be. I don’t think a sufficiently practiced person would be slowed down that much by having to turn a bolt or crank a lever. I think most spree shooters have been aiming and firing rather than just raking across a crowd if I’m not mistaken?
If something isn’t done about this sort of thing though, the purported right to bear arms is going to be fizzling out soon enough. It seems inescapable in the states now, but once the ball gets rolling I think it’ll be hard to hold it back. The NRA has played themselves by preventing any kind of regulation for so long. It’s like how our overactive fire prevention in national parks and forests has left incredible amounts of dry tinder laying around leading to crazy explosive firestorms. We could have had some reasonable or sane gun laws, but instead I think we’ll end up burning it all away.
This guy would have killed many less people if he didn't have this semi-auto. That's a very practical effect. He was obviously a very practiced person and even still it is obvious he would have been stopped. One man tried to charge him. If the killer hadn't had the speed of this semi-auto, people would have fought back and eventually won.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I’ve really ONLY ever fired lever and bolt action rifles so I wasn’t sure how much more effective semi-autos could be. The idea of just spitting a ton of rounds downrange never actually seemed all that fun to me compared to target shooting.
Thank you for this in depth response.
They don't have a "right to bear arms" in New Zealand. That's a specifically American clause in the US Constitution.
A sufficiently practiced person probably won’t be slowed too much but there’s still a significant difference in being able to simply pull a trigger and empty 20-30 rounds in a few seconds versus how quickly you could do the same with a pump shotgun or bolt action rifle which, generally speaking as there are exceptions, are only capable of holding 4-5 rounds in a magazine/chamber.
It’s part of the reason why rifles like the AR-15 are the chosen weapon of mass shooters. They spit out a lot of bullets very quickly, are light, accurate, and are quick to reload.
Majority of pump shotguns take a few seconds to load and shotguns are, typically, a close range weapon with effective ranges much lower than a rifle. They cannot be fired as fast or as accurately, and at least in my shooting experience, have a good deal more recoil making accurate shooting more difficult and slow.
Bolt action rifles are much the same. They generally fire larger rounds than something like an AR-15, slower and with greater recoil and smaller magazines. That being said, they’re effective from considerably longer ranges and can be incredibly accurate at those ranges which is why we have had mass shootings from towers. Those larger rounds also mean much more stopping, and killing, power.
So no, I don’t think a sufficiently practiced person will be slowed down too much but I do think they would be slowed down and in a mass shooting event, every extra second saved means lives saved.
For the sake of the children I haven’t had yet, I hope you’re right. I’ve tried arguing with many of my Pro 2A friends/family that the only reason many of them are so callous about the 2A is because they haven’t been personally victimized by it yet. It’s easy to crow about your right to own a gun when you haven’t had to bury your child.
This country is paying for the 2A with the blood of innocents and the NRA/GOP can only offer “thoughts and prayers” as if somehow a grieving parent or sibling is going to be comforted by it.
I didn't know guns were allowed there at all. Now sure why I had that mistaken idea.
Maybe because a lot of countries don't obsess over their guns while still having them?