Re:New Zealand town with too many jobs offering packages of ...
by gravypod on Monday July 04, 2016 @01:08PM
(#12031832)
> I guess that last part needs citation as I do not really buy that
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.
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.
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...