Please continue to misrepresent what I write.
It reinforces what I have already stated about you.
Maybe this hasn't occurred to you.... To spread lies one must tell lies.
And I called it. Rather than discuss you want to accuse.
you said
A lie by omission is not someone telling a lie it is someone leaving out certain facts that then creates an misleading perception.
That you think a lie by omission is someone telling a lie tells everyone that you do not even understand basic words.
We could have saved a lot of time by you simply confessing that you really have no clue what a lie by omission is.
Did I say the violence was because of the gun ban?
No.
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd once again you miss the boat.
Despite.
What does that mean to you?
Why is the ban in place?
Has it worked to stem the violence?
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd
More accusations...........
Where is the LIE in the OP and/or the NZ news?
No, you keep saying a rise in violence despite a gun ban.
Yes despite means that you think a gun ban would have put a stop to violence.
But no one in nz said the gun ban was put there to stop violence that had nothing to do with the mass shooting. that is your implication Without evidence or even a good reason to think so.
Because that IS TRUE.
Incorrect. It is your government that assumed it would have a positive effect. That is the members who were optimistic. Others likely knee jecrked for votes.
Wait... You were saying the ban had nothing to do with mass shootings.
No it is not true. As there is no relationship between the gun ban and the rise in gun violence.
Yes our government said it would have a positive influence. not that it would put a stop to gun violence.
Sigh! It really is so hard to communicate with you.
The gun ban did have something to do mass shooting. However the rise in violent gun crimes is not simply just a one only mass shooting by a white supremacist.
The rise in most gun violence is because of gang tensions. Which had nothing to do with the mass shooting.
You need to understand that the gun ban and the rise in gun violence are two completely separate issues. The gun ban a response to the mass shooting while the gun violence a response to australias deportation policies.
From Tha article...
The figures, obtained from police under the Official Information Act by news outlet RNZ, show that gun crime has increased in the country in 2018 and 2019
The ban was enacted spring 2019.
So, gun crime still went up. Not down. Not leveled off.
Why was the ban enacted?
The real problem in this thread - I clarify as I repeat - is that you are secretly trying to use overseas cases to make the case against gun bans in the USA - the USA has the 2nd Amendment and any gun discussion I've had with Americans always resorts to that last shield when they have lost all other arguments. You yourself introduced the gun bans in the UK for example and unfortunately for you, despite an initial rise in gun crime in the UK, gun bans in the UK have been successful. Yeah we have continuing gun and knife crime but deaths and part of that spike is that owning a gun itslef became illegal and so counted towards numbers - not just the fact a gun was used in a crime.
Same thing may be happening in New Zealand if gun crime has continued and if the gun ban was aimed as a blanket style ban as the UK imposed. However, New Zealand did not introduce a blanket gun ban and I see where your confusion lies - you have assumed the gun ban was because you think it is an overall ban on all guns in New Zealand and have been using that to base your argument on. The legislation clearly targeted very specific types of weapon and magazines for those types. I said this in the previous post but you missed or misunderstood the legislation.
If you can show the New Zealand gun ban was aimed at the same weapons that gangs used then you have a point but you can't - thread is dead.
Name a country besides the U.S. that has the 2nd amendment.Name a country with lax gun laws and low crime
Our gun crime rate here has everything to do with criminals and not guns. Stop people from becoming criminals and there won't be any more "gun crimes". Guns would then only be used for sport. Lets attack the underlying societal problem and not an inanimate object.Not near as high as purs
Our gun crime rate here has everything to do with criminals and not guns. Stop people from becoming criminals and there won't be any more "gun crimes". Guns would then only be used for sport. Lets attack the underlying societal problem and not an inanimate object.
Name a country besides the U.S. that has the 2nd amendment.
Name a country besides the U.S. that has the 2nd amendment.
Name a country besides the U.S. that has the 2nd amendment.
Our gun crime rate here has everything to do with criminals and not guns. Stop people from becoming criminals and there won't be any more "gun crimes". Guns would then only be used for sport. Lets attack the underlying societal problem and not an inanimate object.
In the three countries that have recently implemented bans how many are experiencing a drop in guns and gun related crime.
The UKs for example was implemented specifically because on a mass shooting. Did it stop mass shootings in the UK?
As I posted in my previous - and I'm not researching right now - I strongly suspect that those three countries may see a rise in gun related crime simply because the mere fact of owning one becomes listed as a crime. That's what happened in the UK.
We had one mass shooting since Dunblane - Derrick Bird went crazy and went on a shooting spree with his shotguns and rifles - killing 12 and injuring 11more very close to where I live but that's it. The gun ban largely worked.
We had one mass shooting since Dunblane - Derrick Bird went crazy and went on a shooting spree with his shotguns and rifles - killing 12 and injuring 11more very close to where I live but that's it. The gun ban largely worked.
Just stop.
It is YOUR GOVERNMENT that thought the gun ban would do something.
NO ONE is arguing the gun ban led to more violence.
And if not to have an effect on gun violence than what the hell was it implemented for?
And I do understand the gun ban and the rise in gun violence ARE related issues. They are related because both issues involve guns.
Just like Australia. Just like the UK. And likely Canada as well.
Bans implemented.
Gun violence does not abate.
Big effing trend.
Police Commissioner Andrew Coster says there would have to be a "very high threshold" for him to change his belief that New Zealand's police should not be routinely armed.
Following last year's mosque shootings, police launched a six-month Armed Response Team trial as a way to tackle a rise in gun crime. The trial was met with strong opposition and Māori justice advocates called for it to be stopped.
"I believe the style of policing that is right for New Zealand is a generally unarmed service, and it would be a very high threshold for me to move away from that position," Coster told Morning Report.
The relationship you are trying to make is one of only association. There is a gun ban, there is a rise in gun crimes, both relate to guns, ergo there is an association. And from that comes the opinion that gun bans do not stop gun crime. So why have them.
It is simplistic thinking. It leaves out many relevant facts. As does your link in the op, lies by omission.
For example the rise in gun crime is not related to the mass shooting. One is a terrorist act the other is a turf war between rival gangs. The gun ban was not implemented because of the rise in gun violence. The gun violence occurred many years before the ban.
The bit you will probably never understand is why the gun ban. Because americans are bred to be violent. They see a gun as a solution to a problem.
NZ , completely different mind set. The gun ban was put there to emphasise the idea that violence is never a solution that guns are never the answer. Here is a link that also emphasises that point.
Police Commissioner: 'High threshold' for routine use of armed police - NZ Herald
Despite the rise in gun violence the police are still quite happy to not carry guns. The people of nz do not want police to carry guns.
Now i wonder. Can a pro gun american ever rap his head around that concept.
The relationship you are trying to make is one of only association. There is a gun ban, there is a rise in gun crimes, both relate to guns, ergo there is an association. And from that comes the opinion that gun bans do not stop gun crime. So why have them.
It is simplistic thinking. It leaves out many relevant facts. As does your link in the op, lies by omission.
For example the rise in gun crime is not related to the mass shooting. One is a terrorist act the other is a turf war between rival gangs. The gun ban was not implemented because of the rise in gun violence. The gun violence occurred many years before the ban.
The bit you will probably never understand is why the gun ban. Because americans are bred to be violent. They see a gun as a solution to a problem.
NZ , completely different mind set. The gun ban was put there to emphasise the idea that violence is never a solution that guns are never the answer. Here is a link that also emphasises that point.
Police Commissioner: 'High threshold' for routine use of armed police - NZ Herald
Despite the rise in gun violence the police are still quite happy to not carry guns. The people of nz do not want police to carry guns.
Now i wonder. Can a pro gun american ever rap his head around that concept.
If the ban is not due to gun violence than why the ban? You appear to be pinballing. First the ban was not due to the mass shooting. Then it was due to the mass shooting. And now it is back again to "gun ban was not implemented because of the rise in gun violence".
Now "The gun ban was put there to emphasise the idea that violence is never a solution that guns are never the answer."
That is a platitude. A thought. A talking point.
Wasn't your mass shooting gun violence?
Why yes... Yes it was.
And that is exactly what your government gave for the reason of the ban.
Someone in your government must have considered this to be a solution to gun violence.
And I can wrap my head around the fact you love accusing others of lying while not being able to point out the lie.
There'''s no justification for police having guns after March 15, 2020 | Stuff.co.nzThe concept of an unarmed policeman is completely alien to the American RW
What you need to understand is that all this rights BS and self defense is a smoke screen
The gun is their identity
The British lost their patriotism in WWI, Americans have yet to lose it as a nation (and Trump's election success is testament to that).
I often talk about US "peer" countries only to be hit with right wing BS like "the USA has no peers"
They genuinely think the USA is the greatest country on Earth and consequently they are the greatest people on Earth
They would as soon let you take their flag than their gun
Their gun inflates their ego and simultaneously reinforces their world view of "USA uber alles".
Take their gun and they'd be forced to look hard at their minimum wage job and re-evaluate their world view of USA hegemony (which in turns devalues themselves).
When people see or have access to a gun, their behaviour becomes more aggressive.
A review of over 50 published studies reported that just the sight of weapons increases aggression in both angry and non-angry individuals. In one study, drivers with guns in their cars were significantly more likely to follow another vehicle too closely, make obscene gestures, or both.
In other studies, having a gun was associated with more aggressive thoughts and more hostile views of the world.
Cops, like the rest of us, have brains that link weapons with aggression too, and despite the firearms training that is supposed to mitigate the risk of an armed police officer getting trigger happy, there have been too many deaths* –
18 in the past decade and 14 in the last five years – from police gunfire. ( Thats in nz. I will leave it to others to compare that with america.
if lethal options of policing are instantly at hand, they are more likely to be used instead of the many other policing tactics, such as negotiations, dogs, handcuffing or other restraints.
In their response to the police's new Armed Response Teams, those roaming, gunned-up units that are now being trialled in three districts, researchers from Victoria University's Institute of Criminology laid out the evidence against this approach.
Mutual escalation was one – the idea that when police carry guns, criminals think they need to as well, resulting in more shootouts. The more criminals respond violently, the more police think they need to arm themselves. And on it goes.
There is no better example of this than the US, where 36,000 Americans die each year from gun violence, generating a growing call for removing firearms from the police altogether.
But the researchers argue that "disarming an armed police force is much more difficult than not allowing arms to be routinely used in the first place. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is hard to put back in."
These experts concluded that based on the evidence, "cops in cars with guns makes communities less safe, not more."
New Zealand gun crimes rise to highest in a decade despite strict gun bans
The same thing in England. And Australia sees more guns than pre-ban.
That wasn't supposed to happen
Gun crime rates and killings involving guns in New Zealand reached their highest level in a decade this year despite the country's strict gun control measures lauded by left-wing politicians in the United States.
The figures, obtained from police under the Official Information Act by news outlet RNZ, show that gun crime has increased in the country in 2018 and 2019:
Last year, there were 3540 occasions where an offender was found with a gun.
And in both of the last two years, the rate of deadly incidents involving a firearm was the highest it had been since 2009.
The number of guns seized by police is also on the rise, up almost 50 percent on five years earlier at 1263 last year.
An officer was attacked by someone wielding a gun 13 times in 2019, up two on 2018 but remaining steady over the past five years.
New Zealand earned praise from gun control advocates in the spring 2019 after Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern banned all "military-style semi-automatic weapons" and "assault rifles" in the wake of a massacre of 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch. As a part of the ban, the government implemented a gun buyback program allowing legal gun owners to surrender their firearms to the government for "fair and reasonable compensation." Proponents of the ban assumed that it would result in fewer guns in the country, and thus, fewer gun crimes. But that evidently is not what has happened so far.
New Zealand gun crimes rise to highest in a decade despite strict gun bans - TheBlaze
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?