The problem is that self-defense is not explicitly protected. Feasably if someone pulls a knife on me in my home, I manage to get a gun and shoot them (assuming I've managed to tackle the 500 locks the NZ Police mandate you have on them), and shoot back I feasibly be sent to jail. I personally don't like that.
> I think you're looking for the word "nationalize", rather than "socialize".
I think the root of the problem is the different connotations of the words from your country to mine. When medicine is "socialized" to me it means that it is funded by public funds.
> Save yourself a $2000 excess and goto the ER.
What if instead of a nasty gash I need a surgery that is not covered by your health care? I still need to pay the hefty fee. I'd rather just go with a private insurance company like I always have here in the States.
I've always gotten great care from my parents plans and from plans I've gotten through the college I'm attending.
> The argument that people on average are very happy here.
Well I can say that about almost anything. The problem is that you have not proven direct correlation between these two statistics.
I could also say that Switzerland has high gun ownership and people there are happy! But I would be being disingenuous about this. It is not because of the gun ownership, it is a combination of many factors. All of which I cannot specifically exclude or attribute this characteristic to.
> I'd like to point you to:
I would very much like it if you could read through my post here so we can discuss this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028025
> But not being able to fire RPG's and AK47's
RPGs and AKs are very different. A semi automatic AK is almost completely identical in mechanical operation to a M1 Garand (or better yet the M1A1 carbine). The only reason why I'd assume you are ok with one and not ok with the other is the look of the rifle. Functionally they are the same.
It is stupid to ban something's looks. Ban, or make it extremely difficult to obtain, functionality that makes sense to regulate such as full auto.
For example: ban the use of nitrus tanks in cars, don't ban hotwheel flame stickers. One makes something very fast and the other just makes something look like it moves fast.
It is smart to regulate one, and it stupid to regulate the other.
... Really? It's one lock and they make you bolt it to the floor so people can't just pick up the safe and go. You can get them for <$200.
> and shoot back I feasibly be sent to jail. I personally don't like that.
.. But you wouldn't. Because he was brandishing a knife.
> What if instead of a nasty gash I need a surgery that is not covered by your health care
It covers anything that hinders your livelihood. We fly people to other countries for experimental cancer treatments and to Australia that we don't have an available specialist to perform.
Our tax, if you're earning 100K is almost the same as yours. 33%. And we include all the healthcare and social assistance programs that comes with it. You pay what, 28% on federal income and 6-7% on state (for New Jersey)? In fact for 100K ours is less, and if you're earning a lot more - 33% is our TOP tax bracket.
In regards to your other post which I read:
> 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.
Or the populace feels they have evolved past the point where physical violence is required for their own safety and government control. We don't believe we'll need to physically harm or protect ourselves from the government.
New Zealand is a very small country.
You know the saying that the world is 6 degrees separation from each other, ie you know someone who knows someone.. .. who knows someone who knows Obama. In New Zealand it's 2 degrees. For example; I know someone, who knows my prime minister. I actually know a few people who know him. Because of this I think, a lot of the population here feel a lot of politicians and people in power - no matter how out of touch with reality at times we believe they are, are somewhat still down to earth and will look after our self interests. And if we stop believing that, we vote them out of office (a bit like Australia does every so often).
I agree with you on banning based on the "looks" of a firearm. And I agree that there are a lot of people who could responsibly own any gun. There's also a lot of people who could responsibly own nuclear materials, butterfly knives and high powered lasers. And you can own those things.. With proper reason and licensing and registration to do so.
But you're focusing on such a small part of life. You're deciding a country isn't suitable for you because a certain firearm is prohibited in that country.
To me, that's nuts. And I can't even begin to see from your point of view. Even if it's about "the principle".
I'd love to chat with you over a beer. We've got such opposing views and I don't think either of us can see why the other thinks the way we do.
It was more of a joke. I personally keep more locks on my firearms then would be mandated by the NZ Police. (One in the action, on on my ammo container, and one on the room storing them)
> .. But you wouldn't. Because he was brandishing a knife.
> It covers anything that hinders your livelihood. We fly people to other countries for experimental cancer treatments and to Australia that we don't have an available specialist to perform.
I have to say, you do have me on those two accounts.
> Or the populace feels they have evolved past the point where physical violence is required for their own safety and government control. We don't believe we'll need to physically harm or protect ourselves from the government.
I don't feel that firearms being regulated is evolution in the right direction. What I feel is evolution in the right direction is evidently your social programs. That represents one of the things I'd call "the right evolution". I feel that you could create a country just as safe, if not safer, if you had all of the social programs of your country with most of the firearms laws remove.
> I agree with you on banning based on the "looks" of a firearm. And I agree that there are a lot of people who could responsibly own any gun. There's also a lot of people who could responsibly own nuclear materials, butterfly knives and high powered lasers. And you can own those things.. With proper reason and licensing and registration to do so.
From what I understand is that you are focusing on the licensing side of things. Again, I can pass any licensing criteria needed (no criminal history, no mental health background, I am interested in this as a profession and as a hobby). I also have absolutely no problem with licensing on ownership and background checks. What I do have a problem with is their implementation.
My idea scenario:
- Join a club and go through their mandatory safety course (every range has one of these in the States) (Usually free)
- Log 1hr with rifles and 1hr with pistols at a range while being supervised by the RSO (must have a sign off by the RSO). (~160 USD)
- Get printed by the police and have them run a background check (~100 USD)
- Wait for check to clear (current system takes anywhere from 1 minute to 1 week from personal experience)
- If you come up clean, get a modified drivers license that says "certified for firearms purchasing and ownership" (5 USD for DMV to print a new ID)
In my mind, why would I go to the range for training with their guns when I can just buy my own! And bam! Now I'm not a safe firearms owner and instead I am a statistic for Aggregate Negligent Discharges.
I am fine, 100% with needing licensing and printing, and proper safes for firearms ownership. I will never make an argument against that because (and this is the crux of the issue) that makes complete sense! I agree with those practices as those save lives! So yes I am fine with gun laws as long as I can own rifles that look "scary" yet function identically to any other firearm that you are allowed to own.
> But you're focusing on such a small part of life. You're deciding a country isn't suitable for you because a certain firearm is prohibited in that country.
It is very small. A very very small point in life. But it is relaxing, enjoyable, and one of my many many hobbies I hold close to myself. (Along side software engineering, alcohol brewing, hiking, gaming, debate, and soon electrical engineering and design).
If any one of these were removed from the equation I wouldn't move to a place because they are all things I enjoy.
Not only that, but I don't have to move to NZ or Australia. I can move to many places.
This comes down to: You can move to two places, A and B. A fits all of your personal requirements for a a living space. B does not fit all of your personal requirements for a living space.
I would rather move to A than B.
(It is for this reason that I consider Alaska and the Czech Republic to be better contenders for retirement destinations)
> I'd love to chat with you over a beer. We've got such opposing views and I don't think either of us can see why the other thinks the way we do.
I'd love to. If you're ever in the east coast shoot me an e-mail! I live in Northern NJ currently (<20 minutes from NYC). If you are ever here I'd love to take you to the range and then to a bar to talk (never in the reverse order for safety reasons).
I'm always up to talk to people with opposing view points. That is really the only reason I read HN: people are mostly up to talk about things they are not comfortable with.
But I think I'll be taking the advice of the many NZ-citizens on this forum: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12029424
It seems they don't want me much! Haha. But yes, the offer is on the table.
> That is unacceptable to me.
Sure, the last time that happened a guy stabbed a 14 year old to death for spray painting his wall. The guy was sent to prison. Our laws and justice system is very lenient for mistakes, but if you panic and kill someone because you're scared - the situation has to be VERY bad for you to get off lightly. "Life" is 10-15 years (unless you're deemed unfit to go back into society).
> I don't really care that your country has socialized a large portion of public needs because I will likely still rather rely in privatized means of maintaining my heath and home.
I think you're looking for the word "nationalize", rather than "socialize".
This is a good example of explaining the differences[0]:
> A nationalized hospital, for example, will set its budget, its policies, and the way that it operates according to a plan set nationally, usually by a congress of representatives from many different regions. A socialized hospital, however, will organize itself according to the ideas and principles decided upon by those who work there. In one case, it is the nation that obtains the industry, controlled by governors, and in the other case, it is the people that obtain the industry, controlled by the workers.
Good, that's the idea. They're fall-back options which the majority of the country use. Cut your arm open doing some DIY at home? Save yourself a $2000 excess and goto the ER.
> Also, "other people are happy with this" isn't a really good argument.
That's not the argument. The argument that people on average are very happy here.
> I'd like to counter your "side"'s statement that "gun laws make us safer because they protect us from firearms crimes" with saying the Patriot Act in America "makes us safer because it protects us from terrorist crimes".
I'd like to point you to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
I'm a fan of guns myself. I regularly hunt, hold a license with P endorsements (pistols, though you don't hunt with them hopefully), however an E is available to use MSSA's and shotguns. But not being able to fire RPG's and AK47's isn't the end of the world to me, and I find it very strange that that is a make-or-break decision for you.
[0]: http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/nationalize_the_economy_o...