Trying not to think about New Zealand

[theflashunc]

Apparently this has turned into a USA gun NRA thread. It's a shame it just couldn't stay about New Zealand. Good for them for doing what they feel is best for their own country.

While it's easy to make the NRA the big bad boogieman, consider its membership represents less than 8 percent of American gun owners. So before everyone starts condemning that single organization, consider your family members, friends, co-workers, politicians, doctors, teachers, firefighters, etc etc who legally own guns and do not support the NRA.

Many quietly own guns and support the right to do so. And those voters, that 92%-I propose, matter a bit more to the politicians than the NRA contribution$.

It's simply easier to make the NRA the bad guy, than your friends (who you may not realize) who own guns. But if that makes you sleep better, blame the boogieman.

New Zealanders have had the strength, compassion and conviction to understand that poisonous rhetoric about a group of people based on their religion, and firearms meant more for the battlefield than civilian use (much like the rest of the industrialized world), have no place in the public square. They've responded to an unspeakable national tragedy with a strength based in love and community, not pandering and fear.

It seems a lovely place run by sensible people. The US could learn a thing or two from them.

[vvv321]

Apparently this has turned into a USA gun NRA thread. It's a shame it just couldn't stay about New Zealand. Good for them for doing what they feel is best for their own country.

While it's easy to make the NRA the big bad boogieman, consider its membership represents less than 8 percent of American gun owners. So before everyone starts condemning that single organization, consider your family members, friends, co-workers, politicians, doctors, teachers, firefighters, etc etc who legally own guns and do not support the NRA.

Many quietly own guns and support the right to do so. And those voters, that 92%-I propose, matter a bit more to the politicians than the NRA contribution$.

It's simply easier to make the NRA the bad guy, than your friends (who you may not realize) who own guns. But if that makes you sleep better, blame the boogieman.

Only about 25% of Americans own a gun, less so own a military style weapon. Frankly you are misrepresenting things.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.94d5ac907b01

[Corso]

Only about 25% of Americans own a gun, less so own a military style weapon. Frankly you are misrepresenting things.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.94d5ac907b01

In order to misrepresent, I would have had to make a statement of how many Americans own guns, which I did not.

If you are to believe that article, 25% own guns. What it does not state, is how many of the remaining 75% believe in the constitutional right to own them. Just because you do not own a gun, doesn't mean you don't feel others should not. I have no idea on that figure.

But considering we still have that right, I'm assuming not all 75% are "anti-legal gun ownership"--if 3/4 of the country were against it (again, voters)--laws may be different.

Frankly, if you believe I've misrepresented, perhaps you have also.

[vvv321]

In order to misrepresent, I would have had to make a statement of how many Americans own guns, which I did not.

Yes indeed you just made sweeping and useless statements about things such as "Many quietly own guns and support the right to do so." And "It's simply easier to make the NRA the bad guy, than your friends (who you may not realize) who own guns. "

If you are to believe that article, 25% own guns. What it does not state, is how many of the remaining 75% believe in the constitutional right to own them. Just because you do not own a gun, doesn't mean you don't feel others should not. I have no idea on that figure.

Using the same "logic", just because you own a gun, doesn't mean others should, especially a military style weapon. Plus a little Ad hominem thrown at Dr. Josyln.

But considering we still have that right, I'm assuming not all 75% are "anti-legal gun ownership"--if 3/4 of the country were against it (again, voters)--laws may be different.

Most people don't vote....... Again more sweeping statements and assumptions.

Frankly, if you believe I've misrepresented, perhaps you have also.

I suppose since you mostly made sweeping statements, you have me on technicality, however I doubt you thought/think only 25% of Americans "quietly own guns and support the right to do so."

[Corso]

I suppose since you mostly made sweeping statements, you have me on technicality, however I doubt you thought/think only 25% of Americans "quietly own guns and support the right to do so."

Well, if my post are nothing but sweeping statements, I fail to see where you have pinpointed why (if a minority of the country are gun owners) we still have the right to them.

Please, explain it to me. Explain why the Constitution has not been changed. I'll even accept a "sweeping statement".

And actually, 25% is higher than I thought. But those are only the registered guns. So, add a few more percentage points.

[Corso]

Yes indeed you just made sweeping and useless statements about things such as "Many quietly own guns and support the right to do so." And "It's simply easier to make the NRA the bad guy, than your friends (who you may not realize) who own guns. "
"

"Useless statements"...really? Wake up and smell the coffee. 25% of people you know own guns. By your quoted statistics.

[Blue Jays]

When random "pollsters" call on the phone, most Americans do not divulge if they own firearms, expensive diamonds, or collection of handbuilt bicycles.

[dgaddis]

They've responded to an unspeakable national tragedy with a strength based in love and community, not pandering and fear.

You could easily make the argument they did in fact respond out of fear.

It’s hard to compare the US and New Zealand. The state of GA alone has more than twice the population of the entire country of New Zealand.

[theflashunc]

You could easily make the argument they did in fact respond out of fear.

It’s hard to compare the US and New Zealand. The state of GA alone has more than twice the population of the entire country of New Zealand.

And what argument would that be? That they're afraid of this happening again and took a sensible course of policy to try to prevent it from happening? That the Prime Minister and broader government responded with acceptance and aid to the Muslim community, rather than propogating divisive rhetoric and policy that demonizes a particular religion as an other and an enemy?

[dgaddis]

And what argument would that be? That they're afraid of this happening again and took a sensible course of policy to try to prevent it from happening? That the Prime Minister and broader government responded with acceptance and aid to the Muslim community, rather than propogating divisive rhetoric and policy that demonizes a particular religion as an other and an enemy?

The argument is that one asshole did something awful and now everyone is losing a right they previously had. They're using the fear and emotions of that event to take rights away from people.

Me personally - I have no use in an AK/AR style rifle, and I don't see the need for anyone else to have them either. But realistically, looking at statistics, they're not a huge problem in the grand scheme of things. Handguns kill may more people every year than rifles. Banning rifles (of any type) is an emotional reaction, not a logical one IMO. I just get an uneasy feeling about banning something just because I don't like it.

And I'm not downplaying or minimizing the horror of what this guy did - he's scum of the earth and I hope NZ has the death penalty and puts him down like he deserves.

EDIT to add, I have no idea what the gun culture of NZ is like. I know their neighbors Australia don't really have a gun culture, and there's even pretty heavy restrictions on pocket knives.

In 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the United States, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.[9] In 2012, 64% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides.[10] In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.[11] In 2010, 358 murders were reported involving a rifle while 6,009 were reported involving a handgun; another 1,939 were reported with an unspecified type of firearm.[12]

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia

[King Of Dirk]

Several people have murdered several people with a gun several times. Many people believe it is sensible to ban guns, or at least to require robust background checks to purchase one - fail the background check, no gun purchase for you. I can see the logic.

What if several people crossed the United States border illegally several times and murdered several people? Would it make sense to ban illegal entry into the United States, or at least to require robust background checks to enter? Fail the background check, no entry for you. I can see the logic.

I guess it's okay for innocent people to die, as long as they don't die from something aligned with one's political beliefs. If they die as a result of policies supported by the other party, well, that's completely unacceptable.

I believe the left and the right have some explaining to do. Neither has the honesty or the backbone to do it. Which just makes all the posturing and grandstanding even more pathetic.

[Matthew Strongin]

Several people have murdered several people with a gun several times. Many people believe it is sensible to ban guns, or at least to require robust background checks to purchase one - fail the background check, no gun purchase for you. I can see the logic.

What if several people crossed the United States border illegally several times and murdered several people? Would it make sense to ban illegal entry into the United States, or at least to require robust background checks to enter? Fail the background check, no entry for you. I can see the logic.

I guess it's okay for innocent people to die, as long as they don't die from something aligned with one's political beliefs. If they die as a result of policies supported by the other party, well, that's completely unacceptable.

I believe the left and the right have some explaining to do. Neither has the honesty or the backbone to do it. Which just makes all the posturing and grandstanding even more pathetic.

Illegal entry into the US is already banned. It's illegal. And residents of many countries are required to obtain a Visa, which ostensibly includes a background check of sorts. There are also other legal pathways for refugees and asylum seekers. But very few people on the side you're calling out regarding immigration actually think anyone should be allowed to enter without restriction or regulation. In fact, if we were to implement gun laws and background checks as stringent as the visa/immigration policies, I think it would be a great start.

[King Of Dirk]

Illegal entry into the US is already banned. It's illegal. And residents of many countries are required to obtain a Visa, which ostensibly includes a background check of sorts. There are also other legal pathways for refugees and asylum seekers. But very few people on the side you're calling out regarding immigration actually think anyone should be allowed to enter without restriction or regulation. In fact, if we were to implement gun laws and background checks as stringent as the visa/immigration policies, I think it would be a great start.

Thank you for pointing out my error; you are of course correct. To be more clear, I am disappointed with the lack of enforcement of the regulations you mention. Would you say law enforcement agencies should be allowed to ignore strict enforcement of laws regarding illegal gun ownership with the same impunity as those which ignore strict enforcement of laws regarding illegal entry into the United States?

Would you be okay with an "ostensible" background check "of sorts" for gun ownership?

A citizen's ownership of a firearm for self defense is a fundamental right in the United States. A non-citizen's crossing of the border isn't. I don't believe abridgment of a fundamental right should be less controversial than requiring strict enforcement of immigration laws, despite the fact that I believe both types of laws need revision. Then again I grew up in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, where the immigration violations make the Mariel boatlift seem quaint.

[marley]

Our right to bear arms was meant to protect the country not to kill each other

At the end of the day and I am sure it has been stated by others it is the NRA/money - lobbying and political donations. Politicians and the public are to blame for inaction. If something like Sandy Hook happening with twenty (20) - six and seven year old children getting massacred in their school with no action then we are doomed and this happened in 2012 . I am losing sympathy and feelings towards mass shootings - remember when Columbine was news worthy - I have already forgot about the Parkland and the Las Vegas mass shootings.

You would think that some change would have come when the wacko shot up the congresspeople at their softball game but even then that was a whatever and an opportunity for the piggies that suckle the teet of NRA to say how brave they are and even more determine to fight for gun rights.

[King Of Dirk]

Politicians and the public are to blame for inaction. If something like Sandy Hook happening with twenty (20) - six and seven year old children getting massacred in their school with no action then we are doomed and this happened in 2012 . I am losing sympathy and feelings towards mass shootings - remember when Columbine was news worthy - I have already forgot about the Parkland and the Las Vegas mass shootings.

You would think that some change would have come when the wacko shot up the congresspeople at their softball game but even then that was a whatever and an opportunity for the piggies that suckle the teet of NRA to say how brave they are and even more determine to fight for gun rights.

Charles Whitman. 15 people killed, another 31 injured, on a college campus. Two more, his wife and his mother, at their homes. Coming up on 53 years ago.

Politicians aren't serious about safety. They're serious about votes.

[David Tollefson]

New Zealand Speaks.

And they're saying something else entirely.

[Matthew Strongin]

Thank you for pointing out my error; you are of course correct. To be more clear, I am disappointed with the lack of enforcement of the regulations you mention. Would you say law enforcement agencies should be allowed to ignore strict enforcement of laws regarding illegal gun ownership with the same impunity as those which ignore strict enforcement of laws regarding illegal entry into the United States?

Would you be okay with an "ostensible" background check "of sorts" for gun ownership?

A citizen's ownership of a firearm for self defense is a fundamental right in the United States. A non-citizen's crossing of the border isn't. I don't believe abridgment of a fundamental right should be less controversial than requiring strict enforcement of immigration laws, despite the fact that I believe both types of laws need revision. Then again I grew up in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, where the immigration violations make the Mariel boatlift seem quaint.

I would argue that law enforcement agencies already ignore strict enforcement of laws regarding illegal gun ownership. I also wouldn't normally compare the two directly as an approach to policy. I was just commenting on the general idea of more thorough laws for gun ownership since you brought the two policy issues up in comparison.

I specifically chose the word ostensible because I don't have time today to thoroughly research the extent of background check rigor for visas or other immigration requests. I hope background checks are reasonable and thorough when necessary. I do know the hoops my many hispanic, naturalized citizen friends had to jump through to get citizenship and if that's what gun background checks looked like, I'd be thrilled.

I also don't know why you would imply debates around the second amendment are less controversial than debates around strictness of enforcement of immigration laws. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many policy debates more controversial than the right to bear arms and what to do about the second amendment. Most of the immigration related debates I see, hear, participate in are only superficially controversial because people have a tendency to argue in bad faith. It's not like most democrats are in favor of open borders, despite what Fox News says. The problem with the gun issue in the US is that lobbyists and special interests make it so gun regulations never really come up for a vote so the will of the people is not being represented.

As for your Mariel boatlift comment, was that some kind of attempt to claim your immigration problem in Texas is bigger than mine in Miami so you have more weight in this policy debate? The Mariel boatlift brought a little over 100K Cubans to Miami. Our hispanic population is somewhere around 1.9 million. I guess by comparison to the rest of the immigrants that came here, we could call it quaint, too. The thing, though, is we don't generally think of immigration as a problem in Miami. We thank it for turning this sleepy seaside town into one of the most vibrant cities around. Immigrants made Miami, literally and figuratively. Hispanic and Caribbean contributions to Miami far outnumber those of native-born Americans. And I say that as a white second generation native. My wife would agree and her family has been here longer than most. Where we do have a problem, though, is all the effing guns.

[King Of Dirk]

As for your Mariel boatlift comment, was that some kind of attempt to claim your immigration problem in Texas is bigger than mine in Miami so you have more weight in this policy debate?

Nope. Though your location did make me think of it. I remember the evening news (back when I got four channels) making a really big deal out of the boatlift. Times change.

Of course you don't think of immigration as a problem in Miami. That's because it isn't. It isn't a problem in Texas, either, but illegal immigration certainly is. Are you really going to pretend it isn't?

Your racial identity and tenure in the U.S. are not interesting to me, nor are those of your spouse. If you two are citizens or here in compliance with U.S. law, we don't have any static. This isn't a white vs. everyone else thing. It's a rules thing. Follow them. If you don't like them, follow them anyway, until you're able to effect change consistent with your preference. I don't mind your unwillingness to comment on the failure/outright refusal of several law enforcement bodies to enforce existing immigration laws, but I do mind their flagrant disrespect for the rule of law.

My implication on the relative controversy of the debates was that any measure that limits a citizen's fundamental rights should be quite controversial indeed, much more so than topics which fall short of that standard. I'm glad debates around gun control are controversial - they damn well should be. That each side digs in and fights for its beliefs is just fine by me. The idea that a reduction in fundamental rights should be "common sense" is bizarre to me. For this reason I'm exactly as supportive of birthright citizenship as I am of gun ownership. They're both guaranteed by the Constitution. I don't understand how anyone can defend one and not the other. Work toward amendment if that's a problem. It's a rules thing. Follow them. If you don't like them, follow them anyway, until you're able to effect change consistent with your preference.

Was your Fox News comment an attempt to paint me as an ill-informed jackass? Whether I am is fair debate, but Fox News has nothing to do with it.

[dgaddis]

And they're saying something else entirely.

Same thing that happens here after nearly every mass shooting. Mass shootings are great for news media and gun retailers/manufacturers.

[Matthew Strongin]

Of course you don't think of immigration as a problem in Miami. That's because it isn't. It isn't a problem in Texas, either, but illegal immigration certainly is. Are you really going to pretend it isn't?

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions. I'm not pretending or implying anything. Immigration is just one of many problems in this country and I believe it takes a disproportionate amount of the air in the room.

Your racial identity and tenure in the U.S. are not interesting to me, nor are those of your spouse. If you two are citizens or here in compliance with U.S. law, we don't have any static. This isn't a white vs. everyone else thing. It's a rules thing. Follow them. If you don't like them, follow them anyway, until you're able to effect change consistent with your preference. I don't mind your unwillingness to comment on the failure/outright refusal of several law enforcement bodies to enforce existing immigration laws, but I do mind their flagrant disrespect for the rule of law.

You completely missed my point. Many in this country paint immigration as a bad thing. My commentary on my tenure and that of my wife is to show that we and our families have watched this city change from a very different place due to immigration and that, despite not being part of that immigrant community, we still see it as a good thing. Do you get this upset at all agencies that disrespect the rule of law? Or just the ones that let immigrants in?

My implication on the relative controversy of the debates was that any measure that limits a citizen's fundamental rights should be quite controversial indeed, much more so than topics which fall short of that standard. I'm glad debates around gun control are controversial - they damn well should be. That each side digs in and fights for its beliefs is just fine by me. The idea that a reduction in fundamental rights should be "common sense" is bizarre to me. For this reason I'm exactly as supportive of birthright citizenship as I am of gun ownership. They're both guaranteed by the Constitution. I don't understand how anyone can defend one and not the other. Work toward amendment if that's a problem. It's a rules thing. Follow them. If you don't like them, follow them anyway, until you're able to effect change consistent with your preference.

The idea that 2nd amendment gets interpreted the way it does is bizarre to me. I don't believe the founders intended a construct of a well regarded militia to protect against tyranny to be the same as personal self defense. FWIW, I shoot. I have my whole life.

Was your Fox News comment an attempt to paint me as an ill-informed jackass? Whether I am is fair debate, but Fox News has nothing to do with it.

Not at all, but you're clearly worked up and reading into things. Fox News paints a picture of anyone who isn't for a wall as someone who wants open borders where people can march in without a check of any sort. The gulf between those extremes is vast and full of possibilities. That's what I was pointing out. I don't know, nor do I care, where you get your news.