TargetTalk

"My personal feeling is that New Zealand’s firearms law is among the best legislation of its type in the world. It restricts firearms ownership to those who are fit and proper without being unduly harsh or bureaucratic.
It is based on the premise that firearms ownership is not a right – it is a privilege."

Fortunately, you live where you live and I live where I live. I for one would find it exceedingly difficult to accept that 1) I am not allowed by the state to provide for my own physical security, while simultaneously 2) the state is not responsible for my physical security.

Add to that the (seemingly inevitable; like physical laws) propensity for bureaucrats to become tyrants (the less power a bureacrat has, the more likely s/he is to abuse it), I for one would not appreciate the state deciding for me what behaviors fall under hte category of "rights" and which fall intot he category of "priveleges."

Not knocking those who make the informed choice to be subjects; just that I prefer to be a citizen.

Much evil has been done in the world "for the good of the people." The state has murdered more people than all the private citizens ever have- someting about "economies of scale" I suppose.

Anyhow- not knocking the various forms of tyrrany in vogue in the more "progressive, socialized" states- vive le difference!

Steve Swartz

Steve Swartz wrote: Not knocking those who....

Which you then proceed to do.

Sorry Steve - despite what you may think, we in America do not have a monopoly on 'freedom', 'democracy', or the 'freedom of speech'. Also our government has shown itself to be just as capable as any other of denying citizens their rights and our powerful elites of abusing their power.
Anyway - we shouldn't use Target Talk for this kind of political discussion - there are dozens of other forums out there for this kind of thing.

Shallow Hal

Shallow Hal:

1) Odd (or at least inconsistent) how you take me to task for being "judgemental about other systems of government" when my post was not out of the clear blue sky, but a response to:

"My personal feeling is that New Zealand’s firearms law is among the best legislation of its type in the world. It restricts firearms ownership to those who are fit and proper without being unduly harsh or bureaucratic.
It is based on the premise that firearms ownership is not a right – it is a privilege."

Seems like you were a little more sensitive to my reaction than the original poster . . .

2) . . . also a little odd (or at least inconsistent) when you take me to task for "injecting politics" into this thread- a thread started for the sole purpose of discussing firearm laws, registration policies, etc.!?!

3) Not so odd (quite common in human nature) that you close by responding to things I didn't post in the first place.

Oh Well.

Back to the subject of the thread-

Solzenhitsyn once wrote (paraphrasing here) "The line between Good and Evil lies not along rivers, or mountains, or political borders; the line between Good and Evil cuts across every human heart."

How the profundity relates to this current discussion is thus; gun control represents a paradox in direct contradiction to human nature.

If people are Good, then you don't need gun control.

If people are Evil, then you can't afford to have gun control.

The socialist democracies fall into the trap of assuming that in order to protect the Good people, we can take guns away from the Evil people and then everyone is safe. You then wake up in a state where *only* evil people have guns . . . and, of course, the agents of the state.

But I repeat myself.

Steve Swartz

As an advocate of firm firearm regulation (not banning), and as one who believes it is a privilage and not a right, I wish I could say there was a stronger correlation between gun control and gun related homicide. Although the US has the highest firearm homicide rate in the industrialized world (3.72 per 100,000 as compared to all other industrialized countries [except Italy] which are < 1.00 per 100,000) - the rates of these countries was lower than the US prior to stricter firearm laws. The reasons for the higher (3-4x) general and firearm homicide rate in the US seems to go much deeper into the fabric of society rather than to do with any differences in firearm regulations.

Craig Persel
American living in Canada

Craig,
Given your acknowledgment regarding the source of America's crime problem, why do you favor strict firearms regulation? I guess I should first ask, what regulation do you favor and why?

Mark

In my minds eye I think of Australia and Canada of having vast
undeveloped areas containing a great variety of life that can
be a danger to human and domestic animals...

It would be difficult to participate in competitions if you are
several hundred miles away from any population centers.

Are the regulations "relaxed" in rural areas?

Jerry

sparky wrote:Craig,
Given your acknowledgment regarding the source of America's crime problem, why do you favor strict firearms regulation? I guess I should first ask, what regulation do you favor and why?

Mark

Fair question.

First, I don`t think that all the data is necessarily in yet. The correlation between firearm regulation and homicide rates has been equivocal. Some studies have show a relationship, and others not, which means it has not yet been proven. More studies probably need to be conducted. Until that point I think it is safer, and makes more sense, to have tighter regulations.

Secondly, safety concerns. Most of us would not tolerate people purchasing and driving cars without a license. Firearms, like cars, have a great potential for causing serious harm or death if not operated correctly. Many injuries and deaths from firearms are caused by misuse (e.g. accidental discharge, children having access, etc.). So, some level of training and/or proof of competency to obtain a license should be required.

Lastly, I would not want criminals or people with mental illness owning a firearm, so we need to have very thorough background checks on who is purchasing. This includes the selling of a firearm after you initially purchase it. If I remember correctly, in the US I can purchase a firearm from - or sell one to - an individual without any tracking of the transaction. This does not seem like a reasonable thing to allow.

Craig

Jerry LeVan wrote:In my minds eye I think of Australia and Canada of having vast
undeveloped areas containing a great variety of life that can
be a danger to human and domestic animals...

It would be difficult to participate in competitions if you are
several hundred miles away from any population centers.

Are the regulations "relaxed" in rural areas?

Jerry

I have only lived in Canada for 3+ years, and shoot only air rifle and pistol, so I`m definitely not an expert on this question, but . . .

In Canada, you can purchase hunting and target firearms that are in the "unrestricted" category. "Restricted" firearms would be the typical assault weapons, snub nose pistols, etc. These can no longer be owned by individuals. A fairly lengthy process is involved in obtaining an ownership license, but once you have this then you are free to puchase and use unrestricted firearms. I live in Montreal, but travel often to the eastern townships about 1 hour east of Montreal. It is quite rural and during deer hunting season I have seen (and heard) many hunters shooting very close to where I am staying. I have also seen hunters parked along the freeway between Montreal and Toronto while hunting in the nearby woods. So, it seems to me that Canada, which has a fairly high gun ownership population, but with strict regulations, allows a fairly open use of guns for hunting, etc.

Craig

Sirs,
I have red answers from all over the world, thank you.
Please study what “cbpersel” from Canada wrote above. If we act in a responsive way we are in a much better situation if an unthinkable situation does occur.

If we could have the same criteria for when a person is to be trusted with a firearm then there is a possibility for accepting people to cross borders with guns and participate in competition.
Try to be united there. The US states and Canada to start with. Of course I must be able to travel with guns. Hidden away and responsibly carried.
In the Nordic countries, citizens from Norway, Finland and Denmark can come to Sweden and participate in our shootings.

I must however advocate for a proper license even for air weapons.
Commercial interests push out cheep guns. Then guns falls in wrong hands. When this is causing problem for the “public masses” it can produce politicians who do see the opportunity for collecting votes. Let us not invite trouble. When guns, air guns or even toy guns are used to play around with or used for robbery it is a threat to OUR interests.

It is a saying I this country that among legal gun owners the criminal rate is even lower than among the police themselves. And the police have a good reputation in Sweden.

Regards
Kent