I wish I knew of a place with few people, few laws, and cheap land.
Well, it's because I like guns. Firearms are an amazing hobby. It teaches responsibility, maintenance of a fragile and precision machine, puts you in control of your personal safety, and can put dinner on your plate if you're ever up for a bit of hunting. I subscribe to a very Locke-esq philosophy of life. Where some group begins by regulating one freedom I enjoy, they will not simply stop. All governments will slowly etch away at freedoms that people have in the aim of securing more control over it's citizens (furthering the divide between the peasants and the ruling class). Firearms rights are a very good litmus test for my case since it quickly points to, in my opinion, if the population has given up their own rights to protect themselves and is ready to pack up their freedoms and hand them over to their ruling class.
In my personal opinion, an unarmed populous is a completely ruled populous since the people have given up all hope of being in control of their own safety and government's actions. They do this not even for safety but for the illusion of such.
I'd like to reverse the question to you. Rather then as "Why is that a problem instead of a perk" in relation to owning firearms, let me ask this about banning fire arms.
The facts simply don't align with the assessment that banning fire arms will positively effect anyone. Firearms ownership simply does not correlate to crime.
I'll agree that it does correlate with firearm related deaths since that is plainly evident in the data but those deaths are replaced with other means when firearms are taken out of the equation.
There are very few recent studies about this on a federal level. This is largely due to the CDC being prohibited from researching firearms related topics.
The 'best' source I have found was a source from '07. [0]
An "ok" secondary "check" for this, that is by all accounts not a very good measure, is by looking at some charts wikipedia has made [1] [2]. If you go to those two pages you will see that the places with the most fire arms are seldom the most dangerous places. Now, if you change your comparison from Guns vs Intentional Homicide to % People Living Below Poverty Line vs Intentional Homicides you will see something interesting [3]. Once you have >10-20% of the people living below poverty there is a huge increase in homicides. I think if this is studied further that you will find that firearms are a single means to some crimes, not the only mean and that crime correlates to poverty, not firearms ownership.
Personally, I don't want my rights to be taken away "just because;" I want a reason for rights being revoked. The plain fact of the matter is that there does not seem to be any reason to revoke the right of firearms ownership.
[0] - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235214... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentag...
I like hunting but the almost religious passion for guns that some Americans have, I find very disturbing.
I would remove the word almost: a whole beliefsystem, usually peppered with paranoia about the state-machine oppressor is built around the them.
> please stay where you are.
I intent to do so. I never intended to move to NZ due to restrictions on things I like.
> maniacal about spreading
I never asked to spread my opinions to other countries. I have only attempted to give a fair depiction of how ineffective the restrictions on firearms ownership are.
Please read this for my exact concerns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028162
> kind of obsessive insistence on widespread gun ownership [...] that some Americans have, I find very disturbing.
(Nice you nicked the bit about it being religion before I had a go at it ;))
No I don't think I am being obsessive. I think if you read my original post you will understand better. I am saying "I don't want to go here because X".
This boils down to: I have N places to choose to live in for retirement. In choice A I am allowed to do everything I want, in choice B I am not. Why move to choice B?
That makes no sense to me. I also don't think that is an obsessive attitude.
Edit: (I clicked reply a little too soon)
I'm sorry to say, but New Zealand and Australia aren't the only safe and friendly countries in the world. I can move to many places other then there and get the same protection and standard of living (often for a cheaper price point) then in New Zealand.
I guess that last part needs citation as I do not really buy that. Other weapons are far harder to use: knifes etc need you to come up close which means a far greater step. And also collateral damage from bad aim and bullets bouncing around make guns messy in crime. Orlando shooter with a knife would not have been news at all and all that.
And by restrictions I would not necessarely mean your rights taken away to own them but requiring you to have proper training (the heavier the arm the more years of mandatory training) and yearly psych evals. People who won't pass or refuse to take those two are the people I would not want to see with guns in the first place.
Not sure what the correlation is but here you need to pass tests like that to own a gun yearly and there is no gun crime to speak off. Replacement is hard to test; one would need to either do the reverse in the US or here to test it. Research will not give much insigh imho due to the different dynamic of the weaponry.
Did you finish reading the entire post, because I do provide sources for that? One in a academic journal and one a basic sanity check using open data from Wikipedia.
> Other weapons are far harder to use: knifes etc need you to come up close which means a far greater step
Not really as many other weapons would have given a hire kill count and damage to the surrounding to the Orlando case.
Get some drain cleaner and some other miscellaneous items and you can kill far more people then with a gun.
Again, if you remove one method for an attack, people will just shift to another.
Even in gang conflicts there are acceptable replacements: machetes and molotov cocktails.
> And by restrictions I would not necessarely mean your rights taken away to own them but requiring you to have proper training (the heavier the arm the more years of mandatory training) and yearly psych evals
How many years is necessary? Please define a number as I have not ever heard one.
Please read this for a rebuttal to this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028400
In short, it makes no sense to mandate a multi-year training period because the requirements for safe operation are extremely simple.
> Not sure what the correlation is but here you need to pass tests like that to own a gun yearly and there is no gun crime to speak off
Well actually if you are in New Zealand, yes there are firearms deaths. [0]
No, just because you remove firearms from law abiding citizens, they do not go away.
> People who won't pass or refuse to take those two are the people I would not want to see with guns in the first place.
So people who think a law is stupid is someone who should not own a gun? Honestly, all of these 'training course' are asinine. Please, go to youtube and find a video of these courses (some of them have been recorded. I'm not sure if NZ is one of these videos). They teach you nothing.
The main reason I see for the courses is to charge people money and make an extra "step" to getting a firearm (or spooky scary baby killer as many people from the far-left call it).
> Research will not give much insigh imho due to the different dynamic of the weaponry.
What different dynamic of the weaponry? All of the weaponry I any many other would like to own operate on one of 3 types of actions: gas-piston, direct impingement, or blow-back.
These are the "different dynamics", outside of this you are banning looks. In my opinion that makes no sense and I break it down in this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028162
It is worth a read if you would like to see my opinion of these laws that are enacted in your country.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
That all goes for having a domestic dog as well and that is a lot less harmful (probably will actually help) if you ever have a psychotic episode.
Considering NJ is a part of USA, that sounds a bit like saying that New Zealand manages to have higher mountains than Limburg, Netherlands (which is apparently the highest part of Netherlands with a whopping 322.7 m hill).
BTW, your link literally starts with: "About 230,000 licensed firearms owners own and use New Zealand's estimated 1.1 million firearms." That's supposed to be "nonsensical"?
That makes no sense. I don't understand this comparison.
I'm saying this because if I am going to move some place there needs to be a beneficial trade in outside factors that will make my life better. Moving to some place that will restrict me more will make my life worse. Therefor I will not move to such a place.
Even given this, I can still acknowledge things I would like to have in my living situation (cheap homes and land).
I don't see what you object to here.
> BTW, your link literally starts with: "About 230,000 licensed firearms owners own and use New Zealand's estimated 1.1 million firearms." That's supposed to be "nonsensical"?
It's not the amount of firearms that are important to me, it's the type.
Quantity != quality.
If there was a place with no firearms regulations and 0 firearms owned by the public, I'd not mind moving there! I'd buy the guns I want since there are no regulations.
The volume of guns owned isn't important at all. It's important instead to have freedom to buy guns I want to own with features that please me.
See, you want to have the freedom to buy whichever guns you want. I want the freedom to not have to live with people like you. "Features that please you" is a matter of novelty. Not being surrounded by nutters with guns is a matter of personal safety. I find the latter more important. Stay in NJ.
Please read this to understand my objections: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028162
Nonsensical roughly means "having no meaning; making no sense." (from google's `define nonsensical` query)
The laws fit those criteria for me. They have no meaning in a safety context and they don't really make sense.
I would love to hear your opinions on my other post (linked in the comment you replied to).
The Ukraine (after this war dies down) or the Czech Republic will loosely fit the bill and they both come with the bonus of having similar food that I grew up with due to my Russian background.
Places like Alaska fit better on a legal level and are still in the country I grew up in: the USA.
This is my major concern. There are a lot of restrictions on self defense and fire arms that I'm just not used to from the United States.
Well these are the things I like about your country and your neighboring country.
- In NZ and Australia you get on average more sun coverage per year. This is good for energy costs as I like to use solar.
- The people there speak English, so it is an easy place to move.
- Land is cheap in NZ
- The currency conversion is in my favor
- Not many people live outside of Auckland (in Australia) and NZ has only a few densely populated areas. I'd not live there so people won't have easy access to bother me.
The laws are the only thing from stopping me from moving there.
> What is it about Australia you like over the US if not the society?
To answer that specifically, it's the ability to easily live outside of your or any society while not living in a place that is completely "lawless"
Auckland is in New Zealand.
> The land is cheap
Sure, in the wops. Anywhere near a city is very expensive. I'd say on average land and housing (building materials especially) is far cheaper in the US.
Well I guess it's good I'll be staying America. Gives me the right to being ignorant about geography!
> Sure, in the wops. Anywhere near a city is very expensive.
Great! I don't want to be next to a major city. Maybe a 2hr drive to a small town with a post office and a store or two.
> I'd say on average land and housing (building materials especially) is far cheaper in the US.
In some places yes, like in Alaska which is one of the main places I'm looking into moving to.
The only two acceptable places from that list (that don't have absolutely loony laws in my opinion) are Florida and Arizona.
California is one of the worst places in the world for firearms ownership. Colorado has those silly magazine capacity bans.
For anything remote with a decent amount of land (~5 acre) you'll easily pay >50k in Arizona. You won't find of anything like that in Florida.
So that leaves Arizona and unfortunately I'd rather not cook while sitting on a tar road. It's just crazy hot.
I'd much rather look into a place like Alaska (which is currently the most obvious place for me to look into moving). That's my current "plan" for when I'm finally going to retire.....
First things first, I'm going to try and get through college!
But in general, yes I already know of a great in United States place to go: Alaska. That being said all of my life training up from now has told me something about planning. Being in an "engineering" field I live by "one is none, two is one" and not having a backup plan for if something goes wrong with (all of) Alaska... it just seems wrong to me.
That's why I wish that there were more places like that. I feel really sick to the core without a fallback.
I understand people from the US feel they have the right for protection/whatever, but if you're unwilling to trade that "freedom" for everything else the country has to offer.. I think you need to review your priorities.
If you're a hobbyist you can join a club and apply for permits for various forms of firearm. We do obviously restrict some forms from civilians as they're deemed to dangerous for those who don't use them in their line of work (ie military, NZ's version of "SWAT") - just as you'd limit people from performing surgery or practicing law without a license.
So you would say that if someone is in your house and taking your things when you come home, you'd not try and stop them? You'd call and wait for police to arrive rather then going in at that instant and stop them?
That makes no sense to me.
> if you're unwilling to trade that "freedom" for everything else the country has to offer
Every country is essentially the same. Sure there is different food, different people, and different views there are essentially a few basic things that exist in any country I'd consider living in: Some sort of currency, some sort of government, and some sort of community formation (shops, bars, people).
I can get that from almost any major country whether it be New Zealand or the United States. Why would I go to New Zealand if I loose some privileges that already have here?
Is part of your priority to restrict your own freedom for no tangible gain? If so, I think you need to evaluate your priorities once more.
Really, what does NZ do that is horribly different from the US (beside telecom monopolies being worse and everything being far more expensive over in the land down under ;))?
Both countries have their problems and their benefits and their detraction from my quality of life, but I loose something that provides myself with action-ability on my own safety.
> If you're a hobbyist you can join a club and apply for permits for various forms of firearm
Ah yes! The "not currently used by military" rule as well as quite a few other restrictions.
These restrictions on ownership make no sense. I can fully understand not wanting automatic firearms within a country. I get it, I'd be fine with that. But please, point out the difference to me between banned and unbanned guns in NZ?
This is what qualifies a gun to be classified as being a "military style firearm"
- A folding or telescopic butt
- A bayonet lug
- A military pattern free-standing pistol grip
- A flash suppressor
- A magazine that holds more than 7 rounds (magazines holding a maximum of 10 rounds may be modified internally to hold only 7 as per legislation) excepting rimfire, where the limit is 15 rounds per magazine.
- A detachable magazine that appears to hold more than 10 rounds (excepting rimfire; 15 rounds).
- A folding or telescopic butt
- A bayonet lug
This basically bans one of my more favorite rifles, the SKS [0]...... a 71 year old rifle.... that has become classified as a "military firearm".
- A military pattern free-standing pistol grip
The top constitutes a spooky and evil rifle who's only purpose is to kill while the other one is fine! That makes no sense! They are the exact same gun, except one has a protruding pistol grip and the other doesn't.
- A flash suppressor
- A magazine that holds more than 7 rounds (magazines holding a maximum of 10 rounds may be modified internally to hold only 7 as per legislation) excepting rimfire, where the limit is 15 rounds per magazine.
- A detachable magazine that appears to hold more than 10 rounds (excepting rimfire; 15 rounds).
There is also a side effect of these laws that is just the icing on the cake for me. If you live in a place that enforces mag-cap laws, you need to buy capped magazines. This might not sound like a big problem but this can in many cases double the cost of magazines! All at no real benefit to society.
> just as you'd limit people from performing surgery or practicing law without a license
That is a horrible analogy. Owning a firearm is nothing like brain surgery and you can 'practice' law without having a law degree (I am using practice loosely here).
You don't really need years of training to handle a firearm, you just need a little bit of practice and some good supervision. Nothing special. It's what you'd find any any decent firearms range.
In short, if you want to take things away from civilians, at least have a good reason to.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS [1] - http://i.imgur.com/2fyop0q.jpg [2] - http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/343...
> That makes no sense to me.
I think this is the crux of the issue. If they attack me, I agree physically defending myself is obviously an option.
But why instigate violence against someone who isn't assaulting, or attempting to assault you?
Why not call and wait for the police, or follow them as they escape whilst on the phone to police, rather than physically putting your life and safety at risk? For what? Objects and possessions of economic value?
> Really, what does NZ do that is horribly different from the US (beside telecom monopolies being worse and everything being far more expensive over in the land down under ;))?
We had telco monopolies.. In the 90's. The government broke them up. We have fibre in 30% of our main city centres and we're aiming for 80% of NZ households by 2022.
Mobile data, calling and SMS is very cheap in comparison to the US. We aren't locked into contracts like you are. In fact, all major telcos offer far cheaper prepaid plans in comparison plans to any US carrier I've seen.
Our internet is on average better than the US except in parts of Silicon Valley, where Google fibre rollouts are already in place and some major city centres. However that's changing very rapidly with fibre rollouts and 4G mobile data plans lowering each quarter.
Then I could go on about our excellent healthcare, welfare and social systems, the fact this is the easiest country in the world to start a business and support yourself/family due to small-business friendly laws and economic concessions..
Maybe I've been drinking too much of the American left-wing kool-aid, but in a country where children die because parents don't have health insurance, mass-shootings happen several times a year, and homelessness is a massive problem.. I just don't believe your people are more "free".
> That is a horrible analogy. Owning a firearm is nothing like brain surgery and you can 'practice' law without having a law degree (I am using practice loosely here).
> You don't really need years of training to handle a firearm, you just need a little bit of practice and some good supervision. Nothing special. It's what you'd find any any decent firearms range.
.. It might just be me, but I think operating a weapon or machine that has the ability to maim, kill and disable other people should require a significant amount of time invested and reviewed before they're able to do so on their own.
Licensing makes sense. It does for cars, it does for trucks, it does for heavy machinery. All of these things have one thing in common. You could potentially hurt other people very easily, if you're not trained. However I don't see us coming to any sort of agreement on this given the length, detail and tone of your response.
We're not taking away, we're simply saying prove that you're not going to be an idiot.
Also I think you're confusing New Zealand with Australia for all of your points. Their internet sucks, their political climate is far more right.
You're right about things being expensive here, but maybe it's something to do with the things that matter being free (housing, healthcare) that makes New Zealand one of the happiest places to live in the world? And probably the happiest place to live that doesn't have oil money.
That's again the problem. Intent to self defend isn't protected in New Zealand or Australia. You could in fact go to jail if the court can prove you intended to do this.
That is unacceptable to me.
> We had telco monopolies [...] Also I think you're confusing New Zealand with Australia for all of your points. Their internet sucks, their political climate is far more right.
This was more of a small joke, not the content of my argument.
> It might just be me, but I think operating a weapon or machine that has the ability to maim, kill and disable other people should require a significant amount of time invested and reviewed before they're able to do so on their own.
You mean cars? Cars here only require ~6hr of practice to obtain. More people are killed by cars then guns in the US and I'm assuming in Aus and NZ.
Is 6hr needed to obtain a gun? How many hours? What kind of training? I am a very responsible gun owner. I do comply with all municipal, state, and federal regulations. I can easily say that I can get any person to my position in under 1hr.
Define a time, otherwise your point is very much invalid as it is open to shifting of your goal post.
It is not very difficult:
- Don't point it at anything you don't want to destroy.
- Don't leave your finger on the trigger.
- Don't load your firearm until you are in a position to fire.
> We're not taking away, we're simply saying prove that you're not going to be an idiot
I don't think that there has been a single place where that has held true for very long. Even recently in CA, they recently passed a confiscation bill for previously grandfathered & registered magazines.
Confiscation is, in the mind of all the gun owners, the next step after any form of registration.
> Licensing makes sense.
I personally have absolutely no problem with this. It's the specific laws, not the idea of some form of licensing. I'll definitely be able to pass any licensing requirements.
I'm mentally healthy, I'm only interested in sport and self defense, and I have absolutly no background of criminal activity.
> but maybe it's something to do with the things that matter being free (housing, healthcare) that makes New Zealand one of the happiest places to live in the world? And probably the happiest place to live that doesn't have oil money.
I thoroughly hope that I will not need to rely on these systems for retirement. I want to be self sufficient. I think that's a good goal in life. So no, health care and subsidized housing won't make me personally happy so it is in fact irrelevant to me.
I don't really care that your country has socialized a large portion of public needs because I will likely still rather rely in privatized means of maintaining my heath and home.
Also, "other people are happy with this" isn't a really good argument. I'm not going to move to some place to make other people happy, I'm going to move to a place that will make me happy. The fact of the matter is that not having guns will make me very unhappy.
My issue is with banning the look and feel of rifles instead actually banning things that matter. I also dislike the assumption that these frivolousness bans actually help anything.
I'd like to counter your "side"'s statement that "gun laws make us safer because they protect us from firearms crimes" with saying the Patriot Act in America "makes us safer because it protects us from terrorist crimes".
I'd say that both are antithetical to the freedoms I desire and that these laws don't really do anything other then make us feel good.
> That is unacceptable to me.
Sure, the last time that happened a guy stabbed a 14 year old to death for spray painting his wall. The guy was sent to prison. Our laws and justice system is very lenient for mistakes, but if you panic and kill someone because you're scared - the situation has to be VERY bad for you to get off lightly. "Life" is 10-15 years (unless you're deemed unfit to go back into society).
> I don't really care that your country has socialized a large portion of public needs because I will likely still rather rely in privatized means of maintaining my heath and home.
I think you're looking for the word "nationalize", rather than "socialize".
This is a good example of explaining the differences[0]:
> A nationalized hospital, for example, will set its budget, its policies, and the way that it operates according to a plan set nationally, usually by a congress of representatives from many different regions. A socialized hospital, however, will organize itself according to the ideas and principles decided upon by those who work there. In one case, it is the nation that obtains the industry, controlled by governors, and in the other case, it is the people that obtain the industry, controlled by the workers.
Good, that's the idea. They're fall-back options which the majority of the country use. Cut your arm open doing some DIY at home? Save yourself a $2000 excess and goto the ER.
> Also, "other people are happy with this" isn't a really good argument.
That's not the argument. The argument that people on average are very happy here.
> I'd like to counter your "side"'s statement that "gun laws make us safer because they protect us from firearms crimes" with saying the Patriot Act in America "makes us safer because it protects us from terrorist crimes".
I'd like to point you to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
I'm a fan of guns myself. I regularly hunt, hold a license with P endorsements (pistols, though you don't hunt with them hopefully), however an E is available to use MSSA's and shotguns. But not being able to fire RPG's and AK47's isn't the end of the world to me, and I find it very strange that that is a make-or-break decision for you.
[0]: http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/nationalize_the_economy_o...
The problem is that self-defense is not explicitly protected. Feasably if someone pulls a knife on me in my home, I manage to get a gun and shoot them (assuming I've managed to tackle the 500 locks the NZ Police mandate you have on them), and shoot back I feasibly be sent to jail. I personally don't like that.
> I think you're looking for the word "nationalize", rather than "socialize".
I think the root of the problem is the different connotations of the words from your country to mine. When medicine is "socialized" to me it means that it is funded by public funds.
> Save yourself a $2000 excess and goto the ER.
What if instead of a nasty gash I need a surgery that is not covered by your health care? I still need to pay the hefty fee. I'd rather just go with a private insurance company like I always have here in the States.
I've always gotten great care from my parents plans and from plans I've gotten through the college I'm attending.
> The argument that people on average are very happy here.
Well I can say that about almost anything. The problem is that you have not proven direct correlation between these two statistics.
I could also say that Switzerland has high gun ownership and people there are happy! But I would be being disingenuous about this. It is not because of the gun ownership, it is a combination of many factors. All of which I cannot specifically exclude or attribute this characteristic to.
> I'd like to point you to:
I would very much like it if you could read through my post here so we can discuss this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028025
> But not being able to fire RPG's and AK47's
RPGs and AKs are very different. A semi automatic AK is almost completely identical in mechanical operation to a M1 Garand (or better yet the M1A1 carbine). The only reason why I'd assume you are ok with one and not ok with the other is the look of the rifle. Functionally they are the same.
It is stupid to ban something's looks. Ban, or make it extremely difficult to obtain, functionality that makes sense to regulate such as full auto.
For example: ban the use of nitrus tanks in cars, don't ban hotwheel flame stickers. One makes something very fast and the other just makes something look like it moves fast.
It is smart to regulate one, and it stupid to regulate the other.
... Really? It's one lock and they make you bolt it to the floor so people can't just pick up the safe and go. You can get them for <$200.
> and shoot back I feasibly be sent to jail. I personally don't like that.
.. But you wouldn't. Because he was brandishing a knife.
> What if instead of a nasty gash I need a surgery that is not covered by your health care
It covers anything that hinders your livelihood. We fly people to other countries for experimental cancer treatments and to Australia that we don't have an available specialist to perform.
Our tax, if you're earning 100K is almost the same as yours. 33%. And we include all the healthcare and social assistance programs that comes with it. You pay what, 28% on federal income and 6-7% on state (for New Jersey)? In fact for 100K ours is less, and if you're earning a lot more - 33% is our TOP tax bracket.
In regards to your other post which I read:
> an unarmed populous is a completely ruled populous since the people have given up all hope of being in control of their own safety and government's actions.
Or the populace feels they have evolved past the point where physical violence is required for their own safety and government control. We don't believe we'll need to physically harm or protect ourselves from the government.
New Zealand is a very small country.
You know the saying that the world is 6 degrees separation from each other, ie you know someone who knows someone.. .. who knows someone who knows Obama. In New Zealand it's 2 degrees. For example; I know someone, who knows my prime minister. I actually know a few people who know him. Because of this I think, a lot of the population here feel a lot of politicians and people in power - no matter how out of touch with reality at times we believe they are, are somewhat still down to earth and will look after our self interests. And if we stop believing that, we vote them out of office (a bit like Australia does every so often).
I agree with you on banning based on the "looks" of a firearm. And I agree that there are a lot of people who could responsibly own any gun. There's also a lot of people who could responsibly own nuclear materials, butterfly knives and high powered lasers. And you can own those things.. With proper reason and licensing and registration to do so.
But you're focusing on such a small part of life. You're deciding a country isn't suitable for you because a certain firearm is prohibited in that country.
To me, that's nuts. And I can't even begin to see from your point of view. Even if it's about "the principle".
I'd love to chat with you over a beer. We've got such opposing views and I don't think either of us can see why the other thinks the way we do.
It was more of a joke. I personally keep more locks on my firearms then would be mandated by the NZ Police. (One in the action, on on my ammo container, and one on the room storing them)
> .. But you wouldn't. Because he was brandishing a knife.
> It covers anything that hinders your livelihood. We fly people to other countries for experimental cancer treatments and to Australia that we don't have an available specialist to perform.
I have to say, you do have me on those two accounts.
> Or the populace feels they have evolved past the point where physical violence is required for their own safety and government control. We don't believe we'll need to physically harm or protect ourselves from the government.
I don't feel that firearms being regulated is evolution in the right direction. What I feel is evolution in the right direction is evidently your social programs. That represents one of the things I'd call "the right evolution". I feel that you could create a country just as safe, if not safer, if you had all of the social programs of your country with most of the firearms laws remove.
> I agree with you on banning based on the "looks" of a firearm. And I agree that there are a lot of people who could responsibly own any gun. There's also a lot of people who could responsibly own nuclear materials, butterfly knives and high powered lasers. And you can own those things.. With proper reason and licensing and registration to do so.
From what I understand is that you are focusing on the licensing side of things. Again, I can pass any licensing criteria needed (no criminal history, no mental health background, I am interested in this as a profession and as a hobby). I also have absolutely no problem with licensing on ownership and background checks. What I do have a problem with is their implementation.
My idea scenario:
- Join a club and go through their mandatory safety course (every range has one of these in the States) (Usually free)
- Log 1hr with rifles and 1hr with pistols at a range while being supervised by the RSO (must have a sign off by the RSO). (~160 USD)
- Get printed by the police and have them run a background check (~100 USD)
- Wait for check to clear (current system takes anywhere from 1 minute to 1 week from personal experience)
- If you come up clean, get a modified drivers license that says "certified for firearms purchasing and ownership" (5 USD for DMV to print a new ID)
In my mind, why would I go to the range for training with their guns when I can just buy my own! And bam! Now I'm not a safe firearms owner and instead I am a statistic for Aggregate Negligent Discharges.
I am fine, 100% with needing licensing and printing, and proper safes for firearms ownership. I will never make an argument against that because (and this is the crux of the issue) that makes complete sense! I agree with those practices as those save lives! So yes I am fine with gun laws as long as I can own rifles that look "scary" yet function identically to any other firearm that you are allowed to own.
> But you're focusing on such a small part of life. You're deciding a country isn't suitable for you because a certain firearm is prohibited in that country.
It is very small. A very very small point in life. But it is relaxing, enjoyable, and one of my many many hobbies I hold close to myself. (Along side software engineering, alcohol brewing, hiking, gaming, debate, and soon electrical engineering and design).
If any one of these were removed from the equation I wouldn't move to a place because they are all things I enjoy.
Not only that, but I don't have to move to NZ or Australia. I can move to many places.
This comes down to: You can move to two places, A and B. A fits all of your personal requirements for a a living space. B does not fit all of your personal requirements for a living space.
I would rather move to A than B.
(It is for this reason that I consider Alaska and the Czech Republic to be better contenders for retirement destinations)
> I'd love to chat with you over a beer. We've got such opposing views and I don't think either of us can see why the other thinks the way we do.
I'd love to. If you're ever in the east coast shoot me an e-mail! I live in Northern NJ currently (<20 minutes from NYC). If you are ever here I'd love to take you to the range and then to a bar to talk (never in the reverse order for safety reasons).
I'm always up to talk to people with opposing view points. That is really the only reason I read HN: people are mostly up to talk about things they are not comfortable with.
But I think I'll be taking the advice of the many NZ-citizens on this forum: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12029424
It seems they don't want me much! Haha. But yes, the offer is on the table.
Very easy and simple legal code from what I've been reading on line.
This even extends to the (usually atrocious) zoning laws. Most zoning practices were established during the westward expansionist period and were very restrictive when put in place. From what I've been reading it was intended to "organize" the development of towns but it seems to have just mucked up everything.