{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/15/2019 2:04:42 PM
21
-
由Uncanny_Vale编辑： 3/15/2019 8:30:43 PMNew Zealand has lax gun laws. Maybe you’re thinking of Australia? https://www.refinery29.com/amp/en-ca/2019/03/227154/new-zealand-gun-control-laws-vs-us-2019-mass-shooting [quote]New Zealand's relatively lax gun laws are facing scrutiny after a white nationalist gunman opened fire at a mosque in Christchurch, killing at least 49 people and injuring dozens of others. "New Zealand is almost alone with the United States in not registering 96% of its firearms, and those are its most common firearms, the ones most used in crimes," Alpers said. "There are huge gaps in New Zealand law even if some of its laws are strong." Unlike the U.K. or Australia — but like the U.S. — New Zealand doesn't have a ban on semi-automatic, military-style weapons. But semiautomatic weapons do require a special license and can only be bought one at a time. [/quote]
-
由albinomachina编辑： 3/15/2019 8:23:27 PMWell, lets see ... this is the first mass shooting I can remember ever occurring in New Zealand in the 43 years I've been alive. We Americans average one a month. I'd say their laws are working pretty well (demonstrably better than the "hope a good guy with a gun shows up and saves you like an 80's action movie hero" approach we Americans have been forced to adopt by the NRA). By your "logic," we should stop requiring seat belts and airbags in cars because they're obviously ineffective since they don't prevent 100% of all fatalities in every car accident that occurs right?
-
[quote]Yes, no constitution to protect the rights of the individual[/quote] Yea that’s one amendment. Not every country has a focus on gun laws. I don’t mind guns but just because another country doesn’t more lax gun laws doesn’t mean it’s lacking freedom.
-
[quote][quote]An excellent example of how strict gun laws stop shootings[/quote] New zealand still has lower shootings per capita than some of the [i]least[/i] violent cities in the US.[/quote] They also have less people able to defend themselves as well. Uganda has fewer hospital related deaths per capita than we do. Lets ban hospitals.
-
Probably because they have less things to defend themselves against? If there's less violence that usually means there's less need to defend yourself. It's like if you punch a toddler and you claim toddlers need guns to protect themselves against dudes who punch toddlers even though you're the only one who's ever punched a toddler there
-
由ECCHO SIERRA编辑： 3/15/2019 9:22:35 PM[quote]Probably because they have less things to defend themselves against? If there's less violence that usually means there's less need to defend yourself. It's like if you punch a toddler and you claim toddlers need guns to protect themselves against dudes who punch toddlers even though you're the only one who's ever punched a toddler there[/quote] Your point is irrelevant: Guns are used defensively more often than they are used in crimes, here. It stands to reason the case would be as well there. If they werent heavily restricted. Which coincidentally, didn't seem to work. New Zealand has strict gun control. Really saved the day didnt it? "If theres less violence theres less reason to defend yourself". This an absurd view of how self defense works. If YOU are being assaulted it doesnt matter if the rate of violent assaults per capita is 1 per 100k or 99k per 100k. Fact is YOU need to defend yourself. Imagine if I said: [quote]the rate of identity theft in your area is low. Therefore, there is no reason for your credit card and other personal information to be encrypted. Or for you or anyone else to take any steps to protect their information. [/quote]
-
[quote][quote]Probably because they have less things to defend themselves against? If there's less violence that usually means there's less need to defend yourself. It's like if you punch a toddler and you claim toddlers need guns to protect themselves against dudes who punch toddlers even though you're the only one who's ever punched a toddler there[/quote] Your point is irrelevant: Guns are used defensively more often than they are used in crimes, here. It stands to reason the case would be as well there. If they werent heavily restricted. Which coincidentally, didn't seem to work. New Zealand has strict gun control. Really saved the day didnt it? "If theres less violence theres less reason to defend yourself". This an absurd view of how self defense works. If YOU are being assaulted it doesnt matter if the rate of violent assaults per capita is 1 per 100k or 99k per 100k. Fact is YOU need to defend yourself. Imagine if I said: [quote]the rate of identity theft in your area is low. Therefore, there is no reason for your credit card and other personal information to be encrypted. Or for you or anyone else to take any steps to protect their information. [/quote][/quote] Strict gun laws aren’t full proof but do obviously help. If country X has 5 gun related shootings (obviously not real number) and country Y with lax gun laws has 20 than that’s definitely an improvement.
-
That’s possibly the worst analogy I’ve seen from you. If you want to approach gun violence like identity theft, we’d be doing everything we could to keep gun violence from happening (ie GUN CONTROL). We don’t fight identity theft by giving people the tools to steal other people’s identity. I mean, the analogy is fine, if you are arguing for us to get rid of guns entirely.
-
So i guess the moral of the story is that everyone should live in constant fear and preparation in case 4chan comes to life and wants to murder them, and when there's no threat you should always have a gun and you should always feel threatened
-
[quote]So i guess the moral of the story is that everyone should live in constant fear and preparation in case 4chan comes to life and wants to murder them, and when there's no threat you should always have a gun and you should always feel threatened[/quote] But you're right about one thing. You should definitely ONLY have a gun when there is a threat. Thankfully, criminals are required to give 24 hours notice before breaking the law and hurting anybody. That way you get a chance to prepare yourself.
-
[quote]So i guess the moral of the story is that everyone should live in constant fear and preparation in case 4chan comes to life and wants to murder them, and when there's no threat you should always have a gun and you should always feel threatened[/quote] That's a pretty good example of hyperbole and straw man you got there. Who said anything about "constantly living in fear"? Does owning a fire extinguisher mean I'm [i]constantly living in fear of a fire?[/i] Does having more than the legal minimum amount of auto insurance mean I'm constantly living in fear of a wreck, or vehicle theft? Does having money in a savings account mean I'm [i]constantly living in fear[/i] of running out of money? Come on now. Besides, you cant have it both ways: A mass shooting can happen anywhere at anytime therefore we need to ban guns. You have to be paranoid to own a gun. There is such a thing as having a gun and not being paranoid you know.
