Well, it's because I like guns. Firearms are an amazing hobby. It teaches responsibility, maintenance of a fragile and precision machine, puts you in control of your personal safety, and can put dinner on your plate if you're ever up for a bit of hunting. I subscribe to a very Locke-esq philosophy of life. Where some group begins by regulating one freedom I enjoy, they will not simply stop. All governments will slowly etch away at freedoms that people have in the aim of securing more control over it's citizens (furthering the divide between the peasants and the ruling class). Firearms rights are a very good litmus test for my case since it quickly points to, in my opinion, if the population has given up their own rights to protect themselves and is ready to pack up their freedoms and hand them over to their ruling class.
In my personal opinion, an unarmed populous is a completely ruled populous since the people have given up all hope of being in control of their own safety and government's actions. They do this not even for safety but for the illusion of such.
I'd like to reverse the question to you. Rather then as "Why is that a problem instead of a perk" in relation to owning firearms, let me ask this about banning fire arms.
The facts simply don't align with the assessment that banning fire arms will positively effect anyone. Firearms ownership simply does not correlate to crime.
I'll agree that it does correlate with firearm related deaths since that is plainly evident in the data but those deaths are replaced with other means when firearms are taken out of the equation.
There are very few recent studies about this on a federal level. This is largely due to the CDC being prohibited from researching firearms related topics.
The 'best' source I have found was a source from '07. [0]
An "ok" secondary "check" for this, that is by all accounts not a very good measure, is by looking at some charts wikipedia has made [1] [2]. If you go to those two pages you will see that the places with the most fire arms are seldom the most dangerous places. Now, if you change your comparison from Guns vs Intentional Homicide to % People Living Below Poverty Line vs Intentional Homicides you will see something interesting [3]. Once you have >10-20% of the people living below poverty there is a huge increase in homicides. I think if this is studied further that you will find that firearms are a single means to some crimes, not the only mean and that crime correlates to poverty, not firearms ownership.
Personally, I don't want my rights to be taken away "just because;" I want a reason for rights being revoked. The plain fact of the matter is that there does not seem to be any reason to revoke the right of firearms ownership.
[0] - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235214... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentag...
I guess that last part needs citation as I do not really buy that. Other weapons are far harder to use: knifes etc need you to come up close which means a far greater step. And also collateral damage from bad aim and bullets bouncing around make guns messy in crime. Orlando shooter with a knife would not have been news at all and all that.
And by restrictions I would not necessarely mean your rights taken away to own them but requiring you to have proper training (the heavier the arm the more years of mandatory training) and yearly psych evals. People who won't pass or refuse to take those two are the people I would not want to see with guns in the first place.
Not sure what the correlation is but here you need to pass tests like that to own a gun yearly and there is no gun crime to speak off. Replacement is hard to test; one would need to either do the reverse in the US or here to test it. Research will not give much insigh imho due to the different dynamic of the weaponry.
Did you finish reading the entire post, because I do provide sources for that? One in a academic journal and one a basic sanity check using open data from Wikipedia.
> Other weapons are far harder to use: knifes etc need you to come up close which means a far greater step
Not really as many other weapons would have given a hire kill count and damage to the surrounding to the Orlando case.
Get some drain cleaner and some other miscellaneous items and you can kill far more people then with a gun.
Again, if you remove one method for an attack, people will just shift to another.
Even in gang conflicts there are acceptable replacements: machetes and molotov cocktails.
> And by restrictions I would not necessarely mean your rights taken away to own them but requiring you to have proper training (the heavier the arm the more years of mandatory training) and yearly psych evals
How many years is necessary? Please define a number as I have not ever heard one.
Please read this for a rebuttal to this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028400
In short, it makes no sense to mandate a multi-year training period because the requirements for safe operation are extremely simple.
> Not sure what the correlation is but here you need to pass tests like that to own a gun yearly and there is no gun crime to speak off
Well actually if you are in New Zealand, yes there are firearms deaths. [0]
No, just because you remove firearms from law abiding citizens, they do not go away.
> People who won't pass or refuse to take those two are the people I would not want to see with guns in the first place.
So people who think a law is stupid is someone who should not own a gun? Honestly, all of these 'training course' are asinine. Please, go to youtube and find a video of these courses (some of them have been recorded. I'm not sure if NZ is one of these videos). They teach you nothing.
The main reason I see for the courses is to charge people money and make an extra "step" to getting a firearm (or spooky scary baby killer as many people from the far-left call it).
> Research will not give much insigh imho due to the different dynamic of the weaponry.
What different dynamic of the weaponry? All of the weaponry I any many other would like to own operate on one of 3 types of actions: gas-piston, direct impingement, or blow-back.
These are the "different dynamics", outside of this you are banning looks. In my opinion that makes no sense and I break it down in this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028162
It is worth a read if you would like to see my opinion of these laws that are enacted in your country.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
I like hunting but the almost religious passion for guns that some Americans have, I find very disturbing.
> please stay where you are.
I intent to do so. I never intended to move to NZ due to restrictions on things I like.
> maniacal about spreading
I never asked to spread my opinions to other countries. I have only attempted to give a fair depiction of how ineffective the restrictions on firearms ownership are.
Please read this for my exact concerns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028162
> kind of obsessive insistence on widespread gun ownership [...] that some Americans have, I find very disturbing.
(Nice you nicked the bit about it being religion before I had a go at it ;))
No I don't think I am being obsessive. I think if you read my original post you will understand better. I am saying "I don't want to go here because X".
This boils down to: I have N places to choose to live in for retirement. In choice A I am allowed to do everything I want, in choice B I am not. Why move to choice B?
That makes no sense to me. I also don't think that is an obsessive attitude.
Edit: (I clicked reply a little too soon)
I'm sorry to say, but New Zealand and Australia aren't the only safe and friendly countries in the world. I can move to many places other then there and get the same protection and standard of living (often for a cheaper price point) then in New Zealand.
I would remove the word almost: a whole beliefsystem, usually peppered with paranoia about the state-machine oppressor is built around the them.
That all goes for having a domestic dog as well and that is a lot less harmful (probably will actually help) if you ever have a psychotic episode.
Considering NJ is a part of USA, that sounds a bit like saying that New Zealand manages to have higher mountains than Limburg, Netherlands (which is apparently the highest part of Netherlands with a whopping 322.7 m hill).
BTW, your link literally starts with: "About 230,000 licensed firearms owners own and use New Zealand's estimated 1.1 million firearms." That's supposed to be "nonsensical"?
That makes no sense. I don't understand this comparison.
I'm saying this because if I am going to move some place there needs to be a beneficial trade in outside factors that will make my life better. Moving to some place that will restrict me more will make my life worse. Therefor I will not move to such a place.
Even given this, I can still acknowledge things I would like to have in my living situation (cheap homes and land).
I don't see what you object to here.
> BTW, your link literally starts with: "About 230,000 licensed firearms owners own and use New Zealand's estimated 1.1 million firearms." That's supposed to be "nonsensical"?
It's not the amount of firearms that are important to me, it's the type.
Quantity != quality.
If there was a place with no firearms regulations and 0 firearms owned by the public, I'd not mind moving there! I'd buy the guns I want since there are no regulations.
The volume of guns owned isn't important at all. It's important instead to have freedom to buy guns I want to own with features that please me.
See, you want to have the freedom to buy whichever guns you want. I want the freedom to not have to live with people like you. "Features that please you" is a matter of novelty. Not being surrounded by nutters with guns is a matter of personal safety. I find the latter more important. Stay in NJ.
Please read this to understand my objections: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028162
Nonsensical roughly means "having no meaning; making no sense." (from google's `define nonsensical` query)
The laws fit those criteria for me. They have no meaning in a safety context and they don't really make sense.
I would love to hear your opinions on my other post (linked in the comment you replied to).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand