Why is the average firearm owner, an unsafe gun owner? (1 Viewer)

[jaeger19]

The charges were dismissed because he was insane. Name suppression is a common grant in nz. And is used to protect him or his family from any retribution or stigma that the insane do not deserve.

The law in nza. The Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (“CP (MIP) Act”) provides the procedure for determining whether a defendant is unfit to stand trial. It does the same for determining whether a defendant should be found not guilty by reason of insanity on the basis of an “agreed verdict”.
The charges were dropped because the mentally impaired cannot be charged for their actions.

There is being actually educated in law. Which you are not if you think a person who is mentally impaired can be tried in a court.

Yeah no. That was NOT the reason given for dropping the charges.
The reason as stated was because the evidence they had supported his claim of self defense.

Some more
2006: Greg Carvell shot a machete-wielding Ricky Beckham, 29, in the stomach with a handgun at his father's Penrose gunshop. Police charged him with possession of a pistol for unlawful purposes but in June 2007 the charges were dismissed.


More:
“Self-Defence in New Zealand
Section 48 of the Crimes Act defines Self Defence. When self-defence is raised, the court will consider the following:
Given the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be:
- Was the defendant acting in self-defence (or in defence of someone else)?
This is an important requirement. The defendant must have believed they were acting to protect themselves or someone else from imminent danger. It is not enough to simply be protecting your property.
- Was this exercise of self-defence reasonable?
The use of force in self-defence should be proportional to the danger faced. What is reasonable in the circumstances will be a question for the jury but it does not exclude the use of weapons and even firearms in self-defence.“

A Policy A Day: Castle Doctrine

In the lead-up to the election, we are going to examine one policy per (working) day. We've selected policies to be as balanced as possible ...

www.mcdp.nz

 

[soylentgreen]

I hunt with mine

so .... you're 100% wrong

I was referring to how we hunt in nz , not america.

 

[RF667799]

I was referring to how we hunt in nz , not america.

So though you stated "the only use" as if it was universally true, it isn't that at all.

Nor was it true for NZ, despite your attempt to dodge your lie.

 

[soylentgreen]

1. And yet it didn’t go anywhere. I could easily pull some things from NZ from a minority of folks and state that it represents the majority of NZ ers.

I am not arguing that it represents the majority of ameircans. Only a very vocal minority. Like the one that got trump elected. After all, 76 million votes is a minority of the american population of 300 million.

2. Oh.. now you have gone from Americans believe they have a right to kill to “ some”
Lmao.

You just make it up as you go along. The laws on self defense are lethal force only when there is a reasonable belief it’s necessary to stop an imminent death or grave bodily injury. The same in New Zealand . These laws are ubiquitous across America and are the result of the belief of Americans that there is NO RIGHT TO KILL but you can defend yourself with deadly force only when reasonable and necessary.

No, you have a legal right to use lethal force and buy a gun (or any weapon) for the specific use of self defense. Something you cannot do in nz. The only thing we have in common are the words self defense. They do not mean the same thing.

Stop your bs.

3. Yes you can legally use a firearm to defend yourself in New Zealand.

Find me the law that says you can. But you will not because you cannot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_l...unting game, pest control and,own a gun is 16.

Hunting game, pest control and agricultural uses, sports, collection, and theatrics are all normally acceptable purposes but personal protection and self-defence are not. The New Zealand firearm licence limits the grounds upon which an individual can carry a gun.

But I have told you this before and your lame rebuttal is to ignore the fact and keep repeating a lie.

4. Really. I and my neighbors use our ar 15’s for coyote and pig hunting. It can also be used for deer hunting and if you have an ar 10 you can use it for larger game.
You have zero clue what you are talking about.

Not the preferred style in nz. Bolt action is the most popular here. It is you who have no idea.

5. Sure. It happens in New Zealand as well

Name released for one alleged Tauranga vigilante​

Name released for one alleged Tauranga vigilante

Two of the alleged vigilantes appear in court for a third time.

www.nzherald.co.nz

6. Yeah. Now we have gone from all Americans to now some.
So I just showed that some New Zealanders are vigilantes.
So should I then say New Zealanders belief they have the right to commit vigilante justice?

The argument was not that it only happens in america. The argument was that vigilantism is more acceptable in america. Try again.Whataboutism is as lame as you get.

If not ? Why not? It’s EXACTLY what you are doing.
7. Sure I can
Here again.
Here “Everyone is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.” (Section 48 of the Crimes Act 1961.)”

Except that we are not allowed to buy guns or any weapon for the purpose of self defense. Big difference.

Does it say “ except for deadly force”? No
It says such force as..
Which includes deadly force.

No, that is just an american affliction from having such a badly written constitution that you have to make assumptions about what the law says.

8. Except being “ insane “ wasn’t the reason for the charges being dismissed . The REASON GIVEN. BOTH BY THE PROSECUTOR AND THE JUDGE WAS:
case.

Of course it was. You cannot put to trial an insane person.

“There was no prospect of the Crown disproving self-defence, McClenaghan said.”

They didn’t say it was because of insanity.

And if he committed murder while being insane then he would not have been released.

You are being silly .

Of course not. he was insane. Released into a an asylum.

 

[RF667799]

I am not arguing that it represents the majority of ameircans. Only a very vocal minority. Like the one that got trump elected. After all, 76 million votes is a minority of the american population of 300 million.

No, you have a legal right to use lethal force and buy a gun (or any weapon) for the specific use of self defense. Something you cannot do in nz. The only thing we have in common are the words self defense. They do not mean the same thlies.

If you attempt to buy a baseball bat in NZ, they ask you your purpose?

Seems a New Zealander could just lie about that, since some seem to be so willing to do that.

Find me the law that says you can. But you will not because you cannot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_New_Zealand#:~:text=Hunting game, pest control and,own a gun is 16.

But I have told you this before and your lame rebuttal is to ignore the fact and keep repeating a lie.

Not the preferred style in nz. Bolt action is the most popular here. It is you who have no idea.

The argument was not that it only happens in america. The argument was that vigilantism is more acceptable in america. Try again.Whataboutism is as lame as you get.

Except that we are not allowed to buy guns or any weapon for the purpose of self defense. Big difference.

No, that is just an american affliction from having such a badly written constitution that you have to make assumptions about what the law says.


Of course it was. You cannot put to trial an insane person.

Of course not. he was insane. Released into a an asylum.

 

[Rich2018]

I was referring to how we hunt in nz , not america.

Do you still use yo-yo's ?

 

[jaeger19]

I am not arguing that it represents the majority of ameircans. Only a very vocal minority. Like the one that got trump elected. After all, 76 million votes is a minority of the american population of 300 million.

No, you have a legal right to use lethal force and buy a gun (or any weapon) for the specific use of self defense. Something you cannot do in nz. The only thing we have in common are the words self defense. They do not mean the same thing.

Find me the law that says you can. But you will not because you cannot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_New_Zealand#:~:text=Hunting game, pest control and,own a gun is 16.

But I have told you this before and your lame rebuttal is to ignore the fact and keep repeating a lie.

Not the preferred style in nz. Bolt action is the most popular here. It is you who have no idea.

The argument was not that it only happens in america. The argument was that vigilantism is more acceptable in america. Try again.Whataboutism is as lame as you get.

Except that we are not allowed to buy guns or any weapon for the purpose of self defense. Big difference.

No, that is just an american affliction from having such a badly written constitution that you have to make assumptions about what the law says.


Of course it was. You cannot put to trial an insane person.

Of course not. he was insane. Released into a an asylum.

1. Well great. You are finally coming around.
So you admit your contention doesn’t even apply to the majority of Americans.
SO STOP SAYING “ AMERICANS THINK THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO KILL”

And that minority? It’s way way way less than 76 million. And frankly none of that minority believes in “ a right to kill”.
A right to kill isn’t “ we’ll only when I need to protect my property.”
That’s far and away too narrowly construed to be considered a right to kill

That’s like saying that I gave the right to free speech but only in writing letters to the editor.

2. In the use yes. In New Zealand you have a right to use lethal force including using a firearm to do it.
for some stupid reason you simply cannot use self defense as a reason for buying a firearm. Frankly , askinng for a reason to have a firearm seems silly anyway. I mean if someone is planning to use the firearm for nefarious reasons do you really expect them to say “ I plan to use this shotgun to murder my ex wife? “
Silly New Zealanders.

3. I already did.
Show my where you are explicitly forbidden to use a firearm for self defense. You can’t and there are a number of instances where a person used a firearm for self defense and was not charged and or convicted.

4. Nope. Don’t ignore it. I addressed it. You cannot list that as a reason to purchase but you can still legally use a firearm for self defence when reasonable

5. Well duh. Because you had severe restrictions on semi autos and then went on to ban them. In the states ar15’s are extremely popular for coyote and prairie dog hunting , not to mention deer hunting .
You have no clue.

“The AR-style rifle is becoming the most popular type of gun for coyote hunting, and I’ve bought into it. I absolutely love my AR setup for coyotes.

The Ar-15 is an excellent choice for coyote hunting. Its easy handling makes shooting a moving coyote simple, and its general low recoil makes follow-up shots fast and practical. AR-15 calibers like .223 Rem, .224 Valkyrie, and 6.5 Grendel are popular and effective AR-15 calibers for coyote hunting.‘“https://backfire.tv/the-ar-15-for-coyote-hunting-is-it-really-a-good-option/

6. Your claim that vigilantism was more acceptable in the us was BASED on one example . So it happens in New Zealand so it must be just as acceptable.

7. Big difference yes. The United States makes sense. The New Zealand law doesn’t.
Clearly New Zealand law allows New Zealanders to use firearms to defend themselves when reasonable to do so. And New Zealanders are choosing to do so.
It’s awfully silly to say “ you can’t say you want one for self defense”
What’s your expectation? Someone who wants to use one for nefarious reasons will say “ I plan to kill my ex wife and her boyfriend”.
Lmao

8. Actually we don’t have to make assumptions. Are constitution is quite clear.

9. It’s not the reason either the judge nor the prosecutor gave. And yes you can certainly put an insane person on trial in New Zealand hence the insanity defense where the jury can decide that you were not sane.

10. Again not why the charges were dropped.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

Well we would use your sources as they are the research in question
But I will try to explain in layman’s terms.
The scientific studies flaw is selection bias .
“Selection bias is a systematic error that occurs when a study's sample population doesn't accurately reflect the target population. This can happen when researchers use improper selection procedures or when factors influence participants' continued involvement”

It’s in the way the study selects participants.

Now what these studies DONT do is say take a group of 2000 people with roughly the same characteristics . No extreme outliers . And randomly assign firearms to say 1000 people as an experimental group
And not assign 1000 people firearms as a control group .
Of course this would be almost impossible to do.

So what these studies have to do is use EXISTING gun owners and existing non gun owners. Well that sets up selection bias .

Imagine you had a group of 2000 people from the us population. In that group you would have highly responsible people and you would have the other end of the spectrum. People that were irresponsible, had drug and anger issues etc. these people would probably be a small minority ( let’s say 200 or 10%)


So let’s say that that population of 2000 was allowed to choose a firearm or not or not.

And roughly 1000 of the 2000 chose a firearm.
Well in all likelihood , all the irresponsible people with anger issues and drug issues would choose a firearm .

So that 1000 gun owning people would include all or a large portion of that 200 irresponsible people.

So if they studied who was more likely to die , the gun owning group or the non gun owning group . Of course the gun owning group had a higher chance of death because they had a higher percentage of irresponsible people.
And that’s what you find with these studies. When you compare the the owning group to the non gun owning group you find the gun owning group had higher rates of domestic violence, chemical dependence and were more likely to die from non gun violence.
In other words gun or no gun, this group was more likely to die.

Please cite the study properly. I'm not going to figure out what you're talking about unless you cite it properly. I'll let you pick the citation format.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

It's kinda telling that:

1. You suddenly want to make this thread about me, and
2. You put the word "deserved" in quotes, when I didn't say anything even remotely like that, let alone use that actual word.

Listen, I got a gun nut telling me right now that he doesn't know how to spot someone who might use a gun to hurt themselves. And he's a gun instructor. So you have to understand that it's not you. It's the culture. I mean, listen did you even read the OP?

 

[Scatty Kitty]

None of your business

I'll take that as a no, you cannot and do not practice basic gun safety.

Neat.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

Or you could just answer.

Ugh I'm tired and need to go to bed. Basically I work a job where there is an omni-present threat of violence against myself and others at all times. I've witnessed multiple fights break out at once. And I've been personally in situations where a fight was likely to break out. And I deescalated the situation every time. Because I understood having a gun or fighting back would not help. But talking it out and listening to them did. And before you ask, no it wasn't a one time event. More like 4-5.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

Complain? Your assertion was demolished from the get-go, and everything is entertainment after that. It's amusing to watch you go on as if you proved something.


Maybe they think you're trying to call them out, because you keep asking them personal questions.

My opinion is that the average school teacher chose a career to lord over children because of a failure to come to grips with the frustrations of their adulthood. School teachers get defensive when I tell them this, because they know I'm correct.

I like that you think I'm still a school teacher. I made a whole thread about my new job.

 

[RF667799]

I like that you think I'm still a school teacher. I made a whole thread about my new job.

Couldn't cut it?

Actually ya know...I was trying to illustrate a point in terms you might understand. I'm thinking you aren't interested in anything but preaching, though.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

Couldn't cut it?

Wasn't getting paid enough money working at the school as a substitute teacher and going to school. So I had to leave.

 

[SMTA]

I'll take that as a no, you cannot and do not practice basic gun safety.

Neat.

Bullshit
That is a lie

 

[jaeger19]

Please cite the study properly. I'm not going to figure out what you're talking about unless you cite it properly. I'll let you pick the citation format.

Actually , I point out a general flaw in all studies that claim a firearm is associated with a higher risk of death.
However, you are the one that stated “ studies show”.
So cite YOUR study and I’ll critique it.

 

[jaeger19]

Ugh I'm tired and need to go to bed. Basically I work a job where there is an omni-present threat of violence against myself and others at all times. I've witnessed multiple fights break out at once. And I've been personally in situations where a fight was likely to break out. And I deescalated the situation every time. Because I understood having a gun or fighting back would not help. But talking it out and listening to them did. And before you ask, no it wasn't a one time event. More like 4-5.

That doesn’t answer my question.
Hmm if you saw someone trying to kill say 5 other people. As a Buddhist , would less harm come to pass if you stopped the killer ( even with death)
Or would your compassion for the killer outweigh your compassion for the 5 who are being killed. ?

Deescalation is not always feasible.

 

[braindrain]

One example . but there are others. Examples of polticians wanting to change the law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ublicans-migrants-trespass-bill-b2522235.html
Republicans in the Arizona legislature advanced a bill that would allow residents to use “deadly force” if someone trespasses onto their property in the border state.
What you call reasonable to others mean the right the kill.


I will dumb it down for you.
What is considered legal and what some demand is their right can and often is two different things.

Actually no, they cannot. But as I said what is legal and what people do can and often is two different things.

Only you think we can use a gun in self defense.

The only use for a an ar is to intimidate. Has no practical use other than that. A useful tool to threaten to and to kill many people is not a tool that should be easily purchased.

Yet it happens. Would you like links about how and why it happens.

All this link does is prove my point that what is considered legal and what some demand is their right can and often is two different things.

Yet you cannot find one link to our law that proves that. Nor can you find any links of nz people demanding that right.

Of course because the person was insane and you cannot put a person to trial who cannot defend himself which the insane cannot. Not as you would have us believe that killing people is acceptable as it is in america.

It’s rare to see a single post with this many idiotic statements in it. Well done.

 

[braindrain]

I was referring to how we hunt in nz , not america.

What you mean is you got caught making shit up and are now trying to tell a lie to get out of it.
Tell me do you really think that it isn’t obvious.

 

[braindrain]

Ugh I'm tired and need to go to bed. Basically I work a job where there is an omni-present threat of violence against myself and others at all times. I've witnessed multiple fights break out at once. And I've been personally in situations where a fight was likely to break out. And I deescalated the situation every time. Because I understood having a gun or fighting back would not help. But talking it out and listening to them did. And before you ask, no it wasn't a one time event. More like 4-5.

That’s the thing about the internet, you can make up any story you want to.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Listen, I got a gun nut telling me right now that he doesn't know how to spot someone who might use a gun to hurt themselves. And he's a gun instructor. So you have to understand that it's not you. It's the culture. I mean, listen did you even read the OP?

And how am I supposed to “spot someone who might use a gun to hurt themselves”? Do they were a name tag? Special shirt?

If you have 8 hours to teach a class including range time and a student sits attentively and pays attention, how would you know their intentions? Do you have some special ESP?

And I see that you have also failed to address the fact that a class is not required to buy a gun.

And nice move opening with the “gun nut” pejorative. Good way to get people on your side by insulting them.

 

[soylentgreen]

1. Well great. You are finally coming around.
So you admit your contention doesn’t even apply to the majority of Americans.
SO STOP SAYING “ AMERICANS THINK THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO KILL”

given that you have a right to bear arms and a legal right to use lethal force saying ameirca has a right to kill is still appropriate.

And that minority? It’s way way way less than 76 million. And frankly none of that minority believes in “ a right to kill”.
A right to kill isn’t “ we’ll only when I need to protect my property.”
That’s far and away too narrowly construed to be considered a right to kill

Irrelevant to the point that a minority has a strong influence. Especially when it is a vocal minority such as the right to kill with a gun crowd is.

That’s like saying that I gave the right to free speech but only in writing letters to the editor.

2. In the use yes. In New Zealand you have a right to use lethal force including using a firearm to do it.
for some stupid reason you simply cannot use self defense as a reason for buying a firearm. Frankly , askinng for a reason to have a firearm seems silly anyway. I mean if someone is planning to use the firearm for nefarious reasons do you really expect them to say “ I plan to use this shotgun to murder my ex wife? “
Silly New Zealanders.

No, you are just assuming that is so. Yours is an assumption that because america does it that way everyone must also do so.
How ridiculous that you are treating a law as if it would actually stop a crime. Are americans such sheeple that if a law is created your criminals think tey can no longer do something.

3. I already did.
Show my where you are explicitly forbidden to use a firearm for self defense. You can’t and there are a number of instances where a person used a firearm for self defense and was not charged and or convicted.

I have are you not bothering to read my links because they prove you wrong. Once again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_l...unting game, pest control and,own a gun is 16

Hunting game, pest control and agricultural uses, sports, collection, and theatrics are all normally acceptable purposes but personal protection and self-defence are not.

4. Nope. Don’t ignore it. I addressed it. You cannot list that as a reason to purchase but you can still legally use a firearm for self defence when reasonable

And as i have pointed out what is reasonable in america is not what ios reasonable in nz. You simply assume that we also want to have a right to kill.

5. Well duh. Because you had severe restrictions on semi autos and then went on to ban them. In the states ar15’s are extremely popular for coyote and prairie dog hunting , not to mention deer hunting .
You have no clue.

My comment referred to nz where no such animals exist.

 

[soylentgreen]

“The AR-style rifle is becoming the most popular type of gun for coyote hunting, and I’ve bought into it. I absolutely love my AR setup for coyotes.

The Ar-15 is an excellent choice for coyote hunting. Its easy handling makes shooting a moving coyote simple, and its general low recoil makes follow-up shots fast and practical. AR-15 calibers like .223 Rem, .224 Valkyrie, and 6.5 Grendel are popular and effective AR-15 calibers for coyote hunting.‘“https://backfire.tv/the-ar-15-for-coyote-hunting-is-it-really-a-good-option/

again no such aimals exist in nz so no use for such a gun. Hunters prefer single action bolt guns here.

6. Your claim that vigilantism was more acceptable in the us was BASED on one example . So it happens in New Zealand so it must be just as acceptable.

7. Big difference yes. The United States makes sense. The New Zealand law doesn’t.
Clearly New Zealand law allows New Zealanders to use firearms to defend themselves when reasonable to do so. And New Zealanders are choosing to do so.
It’s awfully silly to say “ you can’t say you want one for self defense”
What’s your expectation? Someone who wants to use one for nefarious reasons will say “ I plan to kill my ex wife and her boyfriend”.
Lmao

It makes sense because unlike america there is no desire to have vigilante nit jobs shoot down black men simply because a white man thinks the only reason a black man is running is because he is a thief.

8. Actually we don’t have to make assumptions. Are constitution is quite clear.

Really. Where in the constitution does it clearly say you have a right to a gun. Bear weapons could just mean sticks and rocks. Just as your judges decided that the word abortion does not appear in the constitution so is not a constitutional right.

9. It’s not the reason either the judge nor the prosecutor gave. And yes you can certainly put an insane person on trial in New Zealand hence the insanity defense where the jury can decide that you were not sane.

10. Again not why the charges were dropped.

So you say. but do not prove.

 

[Metric Mouse]

I don't believe there are millions. I've seen statistics go as high as a tens of thousand, but not millions.

But there are hundreds of millions of guns in the country...

So that would mean the vast majority are stored safely, and never cause any harm.

 

[RF667799]

again no such aimals exist in nz so no use for such a gun. Hunters prefer single action bolt guns here.

It makes sense because unlike america there is no desire to have vigilante nit jobs shoot down black men simply because a white man thinks the only reason a black man is running is because he is a thief.

Really. Where in the constitution does it clearly say you have a right to a gun. Bear weapons could just mean sticks and rocks. Just as your judges decided that the word abortion does not appear in the constitution so is not a constitutional right.

So you say. but do not prove.

And on to the conclusion. Assume the radical nonsense of the Gun Control Industry is true, and proceed to bash America.