You fail to understand what democracy means.
Your 250000, even IF they all opposed this law, which they clearly don't based on press releases by major hunting organisations, they would not outvote the rest of NZ.
That, for good or ill, is what democracy is about - but apparently you don't want to defend democracy.
cross out for and insert against – you want to build an argument to change the law of this country.
You are arguing to possess lethal weapons - the onus is on you to present data. In the absence of data you should not be allowed to possess lethal weapons.
Moreover, the data against is in all the scientific literature and no I won't be your librarian.
Honestly for all your denial that the NRA is not in NZ, ALL your talking points are standard NRA nonsense designed to distract.
A page of text to say
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people
Show some originality. Seriously this NRA talking point has been debunked a thousand times. See also “mentally unwell” and “lone gunman”.
If you want to build an argument for guns then you need to start with data. Not cherry-picked data or massaged statistics, real data.
While you’re doing that we’ll ban your toys that kill people.
why has he even got a fire arms licence at all
Over 99% of licenses are approved.
One wonders if the police have the time to do the job properly.
Legally purchasing a weapon offers an opportunity to inspect who has a weapon
Oh that’s so funny.
When one of the biggest gun sellers in New Zealand is a convicted gun smuggler who committed federal crimes in the US and spent two years in jail for them?
Our current system failed.
Now we get a new system.
You want to play with lethal weapons then the choice is clear, leave New Zealand.
Oh BTW NRA playbook arguments have no sway here.
You folks won’t see it
I lived in the US for 3 years, half of that in Texas and Arizona. I've been to dinner at people's houses where they assured us that they made up for us in average gun ownership.
Because I worked with these people and socialised with them, I decided I needed to do some research on the whole gun thing.
That's why I already knew NZ had vastly more guns than most folks realised (including semiautomatics and high caliber "military style" ones).
I'm a scientist, I'm used to reading scientific literature. I'm used to digging deep into subjects and separating data from anecdote and speculation from facts.
Everything I read said the same thing. Gun ownership is terrible for society. And more significantly, gun ownership is a huge risk factor in suicide and harm to family. There are a couple of countries that are weird outliers (looking at you Switzerland) but overwhelmingly countries with more guns in private hands suffer more harm. Mostly to the gun owners and their families.
It's a public health issue.
So here's the thing, you seem convinced we're ignorant left-wing echo-chamber nuts. But all you present is your own anecdotes. You claim you represent law abiding folks whose guns would never harm anyone. But the data from NZ is the same as anywhere else - if you own a gun you are hundreds of fold more likely to harm someone than if you don't own a gun. That alone should give you pause. That the people likely to be harmed are yourself or your loved ones should terrify you.
There are legitimate reasons to own a gun and legitimate reasons to even own a high powered semi-automatic.
BUT the number of people who own guns in New Zealand is far higher than is legitimate or reasonable.
AND the number of guns they own is far higher than is legitimate or reasonable*.
For simple public health reasons New Zealand needs far fewer guns. So few that registering and tracking them would and will be simple.
*note "collecting" is NOT reasonable when what you are collecting is a lethal weapon. Try Magic the Gathering if you want to collect something.
and death visits
Death did visit, and I was still the same atheist I've always been.
Besides I hadn't had the salmon mouse anyway.
For me the key thing here is that the decision of the chief censor, who BTW has a shit tonne of experience making these judgements, can be challenged in court.
IF you or others can make a strong case that his decision should be modified, then by all means do so in court. IF you are supported by the court then the ruling will be modified and that to me seems reasonable.
What the censor did do, again based on his considerable experience, was take out of general circulation a harmful document. Well not really, given the nature of the internet but that's another discussion.
Until such time as the court rules to the contrary, the chief censor has done what he can to remove an objectionable document.
Fascinating discussion. I'm strongly reminded of discussions about toxins - the rule is that everything is toxic, it just depends on the dose. And the same thing kept coming up here - it's the dose that's important for the effect.
The obvious problem is that without good trials you can't get a handle on the dose or worse find out if dose is different for different people.