New Zealand to change gun laws

[Jimdamick]

I would like to formally thank Ireland and it's native residents for influencing the greatest band in American history.

We love to fight, but you made it an art. Bless.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

The laws are the morality of the people who created them. Universal law, domestic law. These are not entities that exist seperate from humanity. These laws are not everlasting and are in no way placed by a fictional character like god. We humans thru ages distilled a brew which we call civilization. The concept of civilization includes in itself, our sense of right and wrong.

You know no action in the world is inherently right of wrong. The universe and everything in it just exists. When people tried to create some order out of this chaos they created rules. These rules are the morality of that community. I’m really talkin about morality in a much broader sense. Morality is made up but, after a lot of generations and great philosopher and shitty politicians and countless atrocities, we arrived at a definition of what civilization is so, if we want to live in a truly civilized world we should lift the treat of violence over the people. That should be the next step. Thats my views on the subject.

HOW?

"if we want to live in a truly civilized world we should lift the treat of violence over the people. That should be the next step. Thats my views on the subject."

first, add that H to treat...close but very different words....
how do you propose to lift the threat of violence over the people? who is threatening the people? what are they threatening them with? more vague answers that don't answer anything...think about it before you reply...exactly what threat of violence to the people are you talking about? who is making that threat, why are they making that threat? how would you make them stop? because that's all way too vague for me to just figure it out...
are they threatening each other? is it other country's governments threatening them? is it their own governments threatening them? is it the illuminatti? the subterranean mole people?
once we identify who is making the threat, can we define exactly what it is they are threatening to do? are they going to kill us all? some of us? are they just going to go around poking people with sticks?.....?
then, how do you propose to make them stop? if it is indeed governments making this threat, what is a common man supposed to do about it? if it's vague unidentified people in general...how do you find and deal with vague unidentified people?

so basically..if we could identify the unidentifiable, and define the undefinable, we probably still wouldn't have the ability to do a fucking thing about it....

we have at least one more evolutionary step to take before what you suggest even enters the realm of the possible...people have to want to get along with each other, before they'll even think about trying. right now we're still way too competitive, way too oriented to win at any cost, way too eager to take pleasure from the misfortune of others, to ever stop what we're doing now...

 

[Herb & Suds]

Skillful(!) retort

But accurate

 

[crimsonecho]

HOW?

"if we want to live in a truly civilized world we should lift the treat of violence over the people. That should be the next step. Thats my views on the subject."

first, add that H to treat...close but very different words....
how do you propose to lift the threat of violence over the people? who is threatening the people? what are they threatening them with? more vague answers that don't answer anything...think about it before you reply...exactly what threat of violence to the people are you talking about? who is making that threat, why are they making that threat? how would you make them stop? because that's all way too vague for me to just figure it out...
are they threatening each other? is it other country's governments threatening them? is it their own governments threatening them? is it the illuminatti? the subterranean mole people?
once we identify who is making the threat, can we define exactly what it is they are threatening to do? are they going to kill us all? some of us? are they just going to go around poking people with sticks?.....?
then, how do you propose to make them stop? if it is indeed governments making this threat, what is a common man supposed to do about it? if it's vague unidentified people in general...how do you find and deal with vague unidentified people?

so basically..if we could identify the unidentifiable, and define the undefinable, we probably still wouldn't have the ability to do a fucking thing about it....

we have at least one more evolutionary step to take before what you suggest even enters the realm of the possible...people have to want to get along with each other, before they'll even think about trying. right now we're still way too competitive, way too oriented to win at any cost, way too eager to take pleasure from the misfortune of others, to ever stop what we're doing now...

Bro you will not understand what i am saying. I’m talkin about the implication of violence. In an armed society, the threat of violence is always there. Man really i gave up we are just to different. Our views about the world is too different and i cannot explain what i read for 10-15 years in a post. First of all you dont agree that having guns causes the implication of gun violence but i know it does. If no one has guns then there wont be this threat of violence. This includes police, military, militia and personal gun ownership. Some of these like military, police and militia could be considered as repressive state apparatuses. They are there to threaten the citizens to obey the laws of the state. This is done by the implication of violence and imprisonment. Personal gun ownership is the same threat but on a personal level. It extends this repressive apparatus and this threat of violence as an armed person has a right to kill the ones who dont obey the laws. Really this is a very complicated and long subject you can start by reading althusser if you havent.

Sorry i wrote treat instead of threat but for some, violence is a treat so..

 

[Fogdog]

i get part of the cartoon...the press and government focusing on an incident in one part of the country while ignoring the rest.....
what do the mountains and snow signify? what they should be looking at? ....¿...did anyone kill a shit load of people in the mountains?

Blaze's idiotic cartoon claimed that "liberal media" put all of its attention on the molehill of white terrorism while ignoring the mountains of Islamic terrorism. White crybabies bawl their heads off when the act of a white person is called what it is -- a terrorist act. They want to reserve that term for nonwhites. Justification for Trump's travel ban and all that.

Trump called the terrorist a "troubled person". Yeah,Trump is a white supremacist. To the bone.

 

[scumrot derelict]

Blaze's idiotic cartoon claimed that "liberal media" put all of its attention on the molehill of white terrorism while ignoring the mountains of Islamic terrorism. White crybabies bawl their heads off when the act of a white person is called what it is -- a terrorist act. They want to reserve that term for nonwhites. Justification for Trump's travel ban and all that.

Trump called the terrorist a "troubled person". Yeah,Trump is a white supremacist. To the bone.

I love you so much. <3

 

[Fogdog]

Bro you will not understand what i am saying. I’m talkin about the implication of violence. In an armed society, the threat of violence is always there. Man really i gave up we are just to different. Our views about the world is too different and i cannot explain what i read for 10-15 years in a post. First of all you dont agree that having guns causes the implication of gun violence but i know it does. If no one has guns then there wont be this threat of violence. This includes police, military, militia and personal gun ownership. Some of these like military, police and militia could be considered as repressive state apparatuses. They are there to threaten the citizens to obey the laws of the state. This is done by the implication of violence and imprisonment. Personal gun ownership is the same threat but on a personal level. It extends this repressive apparatus and this threat of violence as an armed person has a right to kill the ones who dont obey the laws. Really this is a very complicated and long subject you can start by reading althusser if you havent.

Sorry i wrote treat instead of threat but for some, violence is a treat so..

Yes, yes. If nobody had guns then nobody would be able to threaten others with one. This is a very simple concept and quite understandable. "Just" take them all away.

There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong. (Menken)

 

[Fogdog]

I love you so much. <3

Your voice of unreason was sorely missed.

 

[scumrot derelict]

Your voice of unreason was sorely missed.

We should get butt nekked and do it. I submit. You can be the top.

Darwin's rolling over in his coffin
The fittest are surviving much less often
Now everything seems to be reversing, and it's worsening
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool
Now angry mob mentality's no longer the exception, it's the rule
And I'm starting to feel a lot like Charlton Heston
Stranded on a primate planet
Apes and orangutans that ran it to the ground
With generals and the armies that obeyed them
Followers following fables
Philosophies that enable them to rule without regard

 

[Lucky Luke]

And even the music, you owe to the Irish.

All bands listed have Irish roots, and fuck the English

What shit bands.. Colin Hay is Scottish btw, Peter Garett is Australian and Michael Hutchence is also Australian. .Cold Chisal and ACDC are Australia's iconic bands. And they are Scottish roots.But music was done well before the criminals and pedos came to our shores. River dancing or whatever weird thing the Irish contributed to world music isn't very popular here..
Didgeridoo is Irish? Who knew?

Aboriginal men fished and hunted all day whilst the women did all the work. Only the English and the Irish are silly enough to think they could improve on that.

 

[crimsonecho]

Yes, yes. If nobody had guns then nobody would be able to threaten others with one. This is a very simple concept and quite understandable. "Just" take them all away.

There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong. (Menken)

No this is not the solution. I’m only telling you, that the civilization as we call it, is not a voluntary process in most cases. It should be. Otherwise, you will not get too far with banning stuff. Banning weapons is just a symptomatic treatment. Not a cure. The cure, in my opinion is to build a non violent society from the ground up. A society based on the idea of total equality. This is not achievable at the moment.

A truly civilized world should be a world in which you don’t need guns to feel safe. Thats all i’m saying. And you propose human nature as a counter argument. If we are not able to break our shackles that holds us back then we don’t deserve to live peacefully anyway. This is a choice, there is no such thing as human nature. All humans are different but also humans can reason and they have ethics. This gives us the ability to shape our society in a way that we would be happy to live in it or not. Morality, ethics, law.. all human constructs. Nothing more. All can be re-written.

My methods do not include forcing people into changing. As i said, true civilization is voluntary. This thing we call civilization at the moment is a prison we built. Constant threat of violence, constant oppression, constant surveillance, constant paranoia. This is not a society, its a prison. So you should do as you please and arm yourself if you choose to do so because you will not feel safe in this system.

 

[Lucky Luke]

If you were Black while Driving in America and committed that infraction, you probably would have been shot dead upon exiting your vehicle.

yea, Muricans are crazy eh?

 

[Lucky Luke]

So you are saying that the enactment of a law carries such mystical power that once the law is on the books it becomes self enforcing and guns will never be used to enforce the law ?

That's really cute.

If a criminal chooses to point a weapon at a police officer or at other people then they deserve the end result they seek.

And laws are mostly self enforcing.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

No this is not the solution. I’m only telling you, that the civilization as we call it, is not a voluntary process in most cases. It should be. Otherwise, you will not get too far with banning stuff. Banning weapons is just a symptomatic treatment. Not a cure. The cure, in my opinion is to build a non violent society from the ground up. A society based on the idea of total equality. This is not achievable at the moment.

A truly civilized world should be a world in which you don’t need guns to feel safe. Thats all i’m saying. And you propose human nature as a counter argument. If we are not able to break our shackles that holds us back then we don’t deserve to live peacefully anyway. This is a choice, there is no such thing as human nature. All humans are different but also humans can reason and they have ethics. This gives us the ability to shape our society in a way that we would be happy to live in it or not. Morality, ethics, law.. all human constructs. Nothing more. All can be re-written.

My methods do not include forcing people into changing. As i said, true civilization is voluntary. This thing we call civilization at the moment is a prison we built. Constant threat of violence, constant oppression, constant surveillance, constant paranoia. This is not a society, its a prison. So you should do as you please and arm yourself if you choose to do so because you will not feel safe in this system.

are you rob roy?......do you know him? you two should talk....

you just don't get it that people make the world, people ARE society...the world isn't sick, society isn't sick...people are sick....so everything else is too...it's not the world fucking up people...it's not society fucking up people...it's not weapons fucking up people...it's people fucking up EVERYTHING...and not one fucking thing is going to get fixed till people start to fix themselves. which they aren't going to do in the immediate future.
so we keep plodding along, trying to improve things in what ever way we can. if we can vote in a more progressive, intelligent, thoughtful politician, i vote for them. if we can get rid of insane laws and the people who made them to begin with, i do what i can to make that happen. i let people know if i'm happy about things or not. and why.
that's about all i can realistically expect people to do...but if enough of us do it, all the time, every day, day in and day out...things will get that minuscule bit better each day, until one day, it's actually made a difference....
because the alternative is to start a war...pretty much every suggestion you've made, to make things "more peaceful" would cause unbelievable civil unrest...implement your suggestions, and you'll see that uncivil war...

 

[Fogdog]

No this is not the solution. I’m only telling you, that the civilization as we call it, is not a voluntary process in most cases. It should be. Otherwise, you will not get too far with banning stuff. Banning weapons is just a symptomatic treatment. Not a cure. The cure, in my opinion is to build a non violent society from the ground up. A society based on the idea of total equality. This is not achievable at the moment.

A truly civilized world should be a world in which you don’t need guns to feel safe. Thats all i’m saying. And you propose human nature as a counter argument. If we are not able to break our shackles that holds us back then we don’t deserve to live peacefully anyway. This is a choice, there is no such thing as human nature. All humans are different but also humans can reason and they have ethics. This gives us the ability to shape our society in a way that we would be happy to live in it or not. Morality, ethics, law.. all human constructs. Nothing more. All can be re-written.

My methods do not include forcing people into changing. As i said, true civilization is voluntary. This thing we call civilization at the moment is a prison we built. Constant threat of violence, constant oppression, constant surveillance, constant paranoia. This is not a society, its a prison. So you should do as you please and arm yourself if you choose to do so because you will not feel safe in this system.

Jeezus. You've attributed words to me that I've never said. Why do I feel like I've just had an argument with my nutty girlfriend?

I told you before. I don't own a gun. I don't want one. I support regulations like what other 1st world countries have because I want this country to have the very low rates of gun violence found in those countries -- ours is an order of magnitude higher. I said somebody who owns a gun for hunting or to control predators that threaten their livestock has a right to do if they follow rational gun safety precautions and other precautions meant to keep the gun out of the black market. There is no good reason to take a gun away from a safe, peaceable and responsible person who has a valid use for it.

Your last sentence represents nothing of what I said. I never said that I would not feel safe without a gun. Contrary to what some gun owners say, they do not make people safer quite the opposite.

Let's bear down on that for a moment as an example of how a false belief causes bad public policy. Many gun owners say they feel safer when they carry. Not all but enough do. Experience shows that this is false. In fact, gun ownership makes the gun owner and the people around them much less safe even if we factor out suicide. In the US, people holding that false belief have influenced public policy. US laws reflecting that belief have been enacted with the result of making this society less safe. This is why good public policy is based upon facts and good reasons, not belief and morality.

If you want to believe that humans are something other than what our history shows us to be, I think that's just fine. On the other hand, denying the fact that we've never been completely at peace with each other would be false. So, it's all good to have your aspiration but it would be a terrible basis for public policy.

 

[crimsonecho]

Jeezus. You've attributed words to me that I've never said. Why do I feel like I've just had an argument with my nutty girlfriend?

I told you before. I don't own a gun. I don't want one. I support regulations like what other 1st world countries have because I want this country to have the very low rates of gun violence found in those countries -- ours is an order of magnitude higher. I said somebody who owns a gun for hunting or to control predators that threaten their livestock has a right to do if they follow rational gun safety precautions and other precautions meant to keep the gun out of the black market.

Your last sentence represents nothing of what I said. I never said that I would not feel safe without a gun. Contrary to what some gun owners say, they do not make people safer quite the opposite.

So, let's bear down on that for a moment as an example of how a false belief causes bad public policy. Many gun owners say they feel safer when they carry. Not all but enough do. Experience shows that this is false. In fact, gun ownership makes the gun owner and the people around them much less safe even if we factor out suicide. In the US, people holding that false belief have influenced public policy and US laws reflecting that belief have been enacted with the result of making this society less safe. This is why good public policy is based upon facts and good reasons, not belief and morality.

If you want to believe that humans are something other than what our history shows us to be, I think that's just fine. On the other hand, denying the fact that we've never been completely at peace with each other would be false. So, it's all good to have your aspiration but it would be a terrible basis for public policy.

Again, i know you said you don’t own guns and i know you said that we need laws that regulates ownership extensively. And it is a false sense of security you feel when you own a gun. Now i agree with these. We differentiate when it comes to the solution. I don’t believe anything about humans, the past should teach us and we should built a better community from what we have learned. My better community is a very utopian one at the moment and with the current trends of rising racism and fascism. But i do believe we can be better. If we don’t have dreams to shape our futures than what do we have? All these public policies were created by aspirations of humans to make a change and build a better community.

 

[crimsonecho]

are you rob roy?......do you know him? you two should talk....

you just don't get it that people make the world, people ARE society...the world isn't sick, society isn't sick...people are sick....so everything else is too...it's not the world fucking up people...it's not society fucking up people...it's not weapons fucking up people...it's people fucking up EVERYTHING...and not one fucking thing is going to get fixed till people start to fix themselves. which they aren't going to do in the immediate future.
so we keep plodding along, trying to improve things in what ever way we can. if we can vote in a more progressive, intelligent, thoughtful politician, i vote for them. if we can get rid of insane laws and the people who made them to begin with, i do what i can to make that happen. i let people know if i'm happy about things or not. and why.
that's about all i can realistically expect people to do...but if enough of us do it, all the time, every day, day in and day out...things will get that minuscule bit better each day, until one day, it's actually made a difference....
because the alternative is to start a war...pretty much every suggestion you've made, to make things "more peaceful" would cause unbelievable civil unrest...implement your suggestions, and you'll see that uncivil war...

Ok. Now you say, people are sick. Yes, they are. You think this is a disease that people carry inherently. But my answer is that this sickness is created by constant threat of violence amongst other things, like lack of proper education, lack of true equality, lack of a classless society.. if these ideas can be completely implemented as a society, voluntarily, then we can see if people are really sick or not.

 

[Aussieaceae]

Again, i know you said you don’t own guns and i know you said that we need laws that regulates ownership extensively. And it is a false sense of security you feel when you own a gun. Now i agree with these. We differentiate when it comes to the solution. I don’t believe anything about humans, the past should teach us and we should built a better community from what we have learned. My better community is a very utopian one at the moment and with the current trends of rising racism and fascism. But i do believe we can be better. If we don’t have dreams to shape our futures than what do we have? All these public policies were created by aspirations of humans to make a change and build a better community.

New Zealand arguably has one of the best examples of democracy in the world.

With that considered, why would putting heavier restrictions on firearms be a bad thing?

In a civil society, with a very civil majority. Why would the society as a whole, object to stricter gun laws after what happened?

Maybe i'll end up eating my words, but i really can see them successfully implementing positive changes. They are a great democracy after all.

The issue with your belief, is some people DO need guns, as a tool.
Also some people are just bad people, through and through. Nothing will change what some believe, but we can certainly make it harder for them to carry through with things like mass shootings.

 

[Fogdog]

Again, i know you said you don’t own guns and i know you said that we need laws that regulates ownership extensively. And it is a false sense of security you feel when you own a gun. Now i agree with these. We differentiate when it comes to the solution. I don’t believe anything about humans, the past should teach us and we should built a better community from what we have learned. My better community is a very utopian one at the moment and with the current trends of rising racism and fascism. But i do believe we can be better. If we don’t have dreams to shape our futures than what do we have? All these public policies were created by aspirations of humans to make a change and build a better community.

I don't think your last line is true.

In any case, you don't like hunting, other people do. If you don't like hunting, then don't hunt. Imposing your belief that people who hunt with a rifle should be stopped from doing so is where you go too far.

That "should" word is a tricky one. That's the basis of reasons zealots give for doing terrible things.

 

[crimsonecho]

I don't think your last line is true.

In any case, you don't like hunting, other people do. If you don't like hunting, then don't hunt. Imposing your belief that people who hunt with a rifle should be stopped from doing so is where you go too far.

That "should" word is a tricky one. That's the basis of reasons zealots give for doing terrible things.

Dude, this is a voluntary process. Tho it will not happen until people get equal, unbiased education. Most people you see around you are numb. They born into this system and see this system as the only way to be. The way i see it a better world can be constructed. This utopia does not sit at the end of a bayonet. Don’t worry, i am not imposing anything on you.

Also i find hunting an arcaic practice and i find the act of killing a despicable one. This is just my view.

Now when it comes to gun control. I think all should go. This is my view also. You just gotta learn to live with it. Also this should be a voluntary process too.