Close Please enter your Username and Password

arero 62M
516 posts
3/21/2019 11:42 am
This One's for Brandy


I have started a couple of times write a post on gun control but it's such a complex issue I just get bogged down. Better suited my doctoral thesis I think. ( as if..) So I decided to examine just one tiny bit of it, the statement by Brandy in my blog comments “If someone in that mosque had a gun to fight back perhaps only 9 people would have been murdered instead of 49”.

All right, that sounds like common sense. Shoot the shooter. Problem solved, or at least reduced, stopped in it's tracks, but lets look behind the obvious. Who is going to be armed at the mosque? A security guard? Who is going to for an armed security guard every mosque, church, school and public gathering in NZ, when there had never ever been any kind of attack before? Or should we have just guarded those two mosques on that particular day?

What is the guard going be armed with? A handgun? When the shooter had high powered rifles? Bit of an uneven contest, that one! Should he be uniformed, so if the police show up they will know who is who? Because at the Riverchase Galleria mall shooting the police shot the wrong guy and let the perpetrator get away in the confusion. So, the guard's in uniform, the gunman knows to expect an armed guard (unless we keep them secret?) Who do you think he is going to shoot first? Take your time. You can have three guesses if you need them. Also, do you think the guard's going to be amped up, on high alert because the last attack was just – well – never?

Or should the congregation be armed? With assault rifles? I'm sure every right wing gun advocate would be reassured that the Muslims are toting assault rifles to their mosque meeting to protect themselves! The same people who believe “Islam preaches hate thy neighbor while other religions preach love”. With handguns then? Apart from the issue of imbalance of firepower, that actually might work. In this instance. Because they all know each other and the gunman would be a visible target and if enough of them had guns someone would get in a lucky shot and stop the horror. So for this one we need to look a little deeper. NZ has virtually no handguns. They are illegal except in special circumstances and very hard to obtain. So we would need to change the law to allow more people to have them. Like in the US

What would the cost of such a change be? The US has around 18 times the NZ rate of gun related homicides (this was before the Christchurch shootings – they will have skewed the stats somewhat but updated figures are not yet available. I estimate it will add approx 60% to NZ's gun murder tally for the year). The majority of US gun violence involves handguns (65, so it is hardly responsible to advocate a shift to the US position on handguns. It may have saved lives in the specific instance of the Christchurch mosque shootings but the overall cost of such a change is prohibitive. If 80 people are murdered by firearm in NZ in an average year, and 130 this year, compared to 720 every year if we achieved the US rate of shootings then it would be madness to say we should adopt the US model.

The problem with statements such as that arming members of the public would have reduced the death toll in the Christchurch shootings is that it sounds reasonable. It provides some prospect of preventing such shootings in the future, even if that prospect is actually false or very very tenuous. The other problem is that it shuts up the lefties, because we go off to think the whole issue over. Which is quite an undertaking for someone with a low wattage brain like mine. And before you start in saying I'm setting the left up as holier than thou, there are plenty on the left who do the same thing, spout slogans rather than workable solutions, like those who want to ban guns altogether. There are plenty of extremists on both sides.

Now I'm sorry if I've taken the piss a bit Brandy, and I'm not intending to pick on you in particular but if you make statements like those quoted above you must expect to have them debated. Peace be upon you.

jenny14 70T  
70098 posts
3/21/2019 2:10 pm

a

I think Gun Control is a very hard topic

Just having armed people there does NOT mean lives would be saved!

Very few people are calm enough to shoot accurately under those circumstances!!

I don't know the answer but it is good to debate the issue!

A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing. George Bernard Shaw

Jenny


arero replies on 3/21/2019 3:01 pm:
It's a very complex topic and not helped by being so emotive. And, if I'm brutally honest with myself, I have no justification for not wanting guns banned entirely except that I like owning and using guns, so I'm just as bad as all the rest

brandygirasol 49T  
3847 posts
3/21/2019 3:23 pm

Well its COOL to have your opinions and I respect them, sweety ... As a general rule of survival nobody can ever convince me that either myself or my daughter would be better off without a gun within reach when some future unexpected BAD GUY shows up ... When I'm concerned about my neighbors being murdered my instinct is not to demand the government pass laws to take away my right to self defense NO my instinct is to arm myself ... as for firepower- in my opinion a skilled shooter armed with a handgun at close quarters IS NOT outgunned by someone armed with a rifle .... Now remember everyone please I want to be LOVED


arero replies on 3/21/2019 3:53 pm:
Well, I don't presume to even know what the situation in the US is like, let alone want to impose my ideas on you, which is why I tried to confine the argument to one specific example, in NZ. I know we'll never convince each other

brandygirasol 49T  
3847 posts
3/21/2019 4:11 pm

NZ must be a wonderful place- but enough of this talk of guns- of course I like them- they are PHALLIC SYMBOLS after all ... In my sexual fantasies I'm down on my knees- mouth open wide- red lips parted and ready to suck on a great big.... BAZOOKA


arero replies on 3/21/2019 4:25 pm:
Hey, we found something we can agree on

brandygirasol 49T  
3847 posts
3/21/2019 4:39 pm

Oh WE agree on something do we? what is that? ME on my knees sucking on something BIG you agree with, honey, hmmmmm? ... maybe you can tell I'm feeling very slutty tonight....


arero replies on 3/21/2019 7:23 pm:
Oh... well, I was thinking more of NZ being a wonderful place
But who could disagree with such fantasies? I'm all for that as well!

virtualcuzi 47T
199 posts
3/21/2019 5:03 pm

    Quoting brandygirasol:
    Oh WE agree on something do we? what is that? ME on my knees sucking on something BIG you agree with, honey, hmmmmm? ... maybe you can tell I'm feeling very slutty tonight....
Is that a gun in your pocket brandy. It must be. It's all give and take in the end. One way or another!

Imagine my surprise when I found out that my opinion actually mattered!


brandygirasol 49T  
3847 posts
3/21/2019 5:21 pm

    Quoting brandygirasol:
    No Dear I'm the kind of tranny bottom gurl with virtually no gun to speak of if you know what I mean
PS I don't have pockets and there is never a BULGE in my mini skirt HINT HINT


virtualcuzi 47T
199 posts
3/21/2019 7:24 pm

    Quoting brandygirasol:
    PS I don't have pockets and there is never a BULGE in my mini skirt HINT HINT
I've got 9 inches. You can have some of that if you like.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that my opinion actually mattered!


taximan6752 63M
2880 posts
3/22/2019 4:30 am

I have found from experience that inside a building the man/woman with a 45 cal handgun has the advantage. example: client is in church agent is in church but stays in rear near entrance gunman walks in looking forward agent sees gunman agent understands that he does not belong in church with a rifle and shoots him before he can do any damage. make sure he is down puts pistol back in holster. and waits for police. note: even if gunman has body armor normally 2 shots from a 45 will knock him down and keep him in pain till he can be handcuffed eather buy you or police. loss of life maby 1 gunman churchgoers 0 agents lost 0 only unhappy person is gunman.


arero replies on 3/22/2019 11:55 am:
You put it very concisely and it's the only scenario I have heard which might be workable. Certainly the Christchurch dude didn't seem very professional if he got the wind up when someone threw an eftpos machine and an empty rifle at him.

Dreamcatcher__ 82M
5388 posts
3/22/2019 9:16 pm

Brandy, you didn't bring it up, so you get a pass from me this time. I still haven't heard a more convincing argument for serious controls on guns than Australian comedian Jim Jefferies'

watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0 (part 1)
watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4 (part 2, just in case it doesn't automatically load after watching part 1)

As Jefferies so cogently proves, there's just one honest argument for flooding a country with guns as we do in the US, and it's "I like guns, fuck you!" The rest of it is bullshit. I'm with the kids from Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida who will once more giving the adults a lesson in civic responsibility in Washington DC March 25 and 26.

Here's a letter I got from the March for Our Lives Movement:

"Hey,

One year ago on March 24th, 2018, we marched on Capitol Hill and called on Congress to finally pass sensible gun violence prevention policies. Last year's March For Our Lives was the largest single day of protest against gun violence in our nation's history.

Despite this massive show of support, many of our members of Congress still won't acknowledge the gun violence Americans face every day. So we're bringing the reality of the 40,000 lives we lost to gun deaths in 2018 to their front steps. Literally.

On Tuesday March 26th, we're setting up a pop-up gun violence prevention art installation right on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol. We'll be there from 8am - 5pm, reminding our members of Congress of the lives at stake each day they don't take action. This is open to the public, and we encourage you to join us if you're in the area!

The day before the installation, on March 25, March For Our Lives D.C. is hosting a Lobby Day. They're coordinating with students and activists from across the country to descend on Capitol Hill and deliver a flood of #LettersForChange, demanding our senators pass gun violence reforms like S.42, the Background Checks Expansion Act, immediately.

Last year, millions of people around the world marched in solidarity with us. In response, Congress did nothing. Maybe they thought we would just go away after that. Too bad for them.

Tune in on Twitter as we show Congress we're still millions strong—and we're not going anywhere.

We won't leave Congress alone until they pass real, meaningful gun violence prevention policies.

Thank you for joining us in the fight for our lives,
-Jaclyn Corin,
Director of Outreach, March For Our Lives"

New Zealanders have taken a sensible stand for their situation. It's America's turn now. I've been standing with the Parkland kids since they started their movement. They make the kind of sense that Jefferies makes. I invite you to join me.

(thanks again to sub_nouveau for calling Jefferies to my attention)

Oh, and I am a gun owner. I have an 1854 Enfield that I picked up in Afghanistan in 1976. It's exactly the kind of weapon the founders had in mind when they wrote the second amendment to the Constitution sometime after 1776.


arero replies on 3/22/2019 11:29 pm:
The argument in NZ is rather different from that in the US which is part of the reason it was easier to win. Nobody in NZ owns handguns and nobody is advocating for them - well no NZ'er - some Americans are advocating hand guns in NZ which I find totally bizarre and somewhat offensive.

The issue here was solely about high powered semi auto rifles and shotguns, which have a limited recreational use but are so devastating in a mass shooting. So the will of the people is to ban them. Even I signed the petition and I'm normally pretty apathetic and also a gun owner, although I've never owned or liked semi autos because of their poor accident safety record.

I'm no expert on the US constitution and it's not my call anyway since I'm not an American. This is simply my own opinion as a bystander. Seems to me the right to bear arms was clearly intended for the necessary provision of a well regulated militia. To me that implies that if you don't have or need a militia you don't have the right to bear arms and if you do then the bearing of them should be well regulated. Incidentally, it says nothing about what kind of arms. The language is kind of vague and very sketchy and to rely on it to override the will of the majority seems odd. I understand that the constitution is intended to restrain abuses of power and I applaud that in so much as it's intention is clear. Maybe you could look at other rights enshrined in the constitution and examine under what circumstances they are abridged. Such as the right to liberty, which is denied criminals or free speech which is limited if the speech would cause harm. These rights are not absolute and universal by any means so I fail to see why the right to bear arms should be, if it even exists.

brandygirasol 49T  
3847 posts
3/22/2019 10:14 pm

DREAMCATCHER thank you for the pass on my bad behavior ... the Enfield Rifle you own is a very fine weapon and its just as deadly as any so called assault rifle- and as you also know a .22 cartridge can also be just as deadly as a .45 cartridge in a skilled shooter's hands ... Sweety I do respect your opinions on firearms but i remain steadfast in my beliefs- like how crazy it is to herd a bunch of unarmed people or kids into an enclosed area with signs around it GUN FREE ZONE as a set up for the first nutcase with a gun to come along and have the power of life and death over everyone there


arero replies on 3/22/2019 11:36 pm:
And still the gun debate drags on...
Yes all firearms are deadly but some firearms are more deadly than others. Any firearm can kill a person but a .22 or a bolt action with limited magazine will not kill 50, no matter how skilled the shooter.
Incidentally, I see nothing in the second amendment that says what kind of arms you're allowed to bear.

brandygirasol 49T  
3847 posts
3/23/2019 6:32 am

Korero the founders of my country meant the typical firearms of the day- military or civilian NEVER did they intend for the federal government to have a monopoly on firearms or to OUTGUN the civilian population. The typical firearm nowadays is the semi automatic pistol or rifle and I can agree with SOME restrictions like fully automatic machine guns- bazookas- hand grenades being off limits except to the military. Our entire system of government is set up to protect the individual from the overwhelming power of the state. The bill of rights- checks and balances of 3 equal branches of government. The most important concept of OUR god given natural rights that NO GOVERNMENT grants the people and so thus CANNOT be taken away from the individual by the government ... WE do not trust the neccesary EVIL of government so the founders made sure that WE always have the means to resist TYRANNY ... Good thing because maybe you noticed in my country there is a push towards Socialism/Communism/Facsim by our unhinged left wing democrat party attacking the foundation of our democratic republic and soon WE may have another Civil War- regrettably!!!


arero replies on 3/23/2019 1:49 pm:
So it's not about what the constitution says but about what the writers meant? Maybe they should have chosen their language a little more carefully. We have a similar thing with our treaty of Waitangi, with the added complexity that it's in two languages and the two versions don't match particularly well - the translator was having a bad day.

brandygirasol 49T  
3847 posts
3/23/2019 5:50 pm

Wrong honey the founders were very clear every ablebodied Male was in the citizens militia. You are taking the liberal talking points it's not the u s army the founders meant. The bottom line is we don't trust government like hou do. You are ok with a benevelant dictatorship there in your country deciding what your rights are and they could take them your citizens have no meanings to resist..


arero replies on 3/24/2019 6:51 pm:
Able bodied male? DISCRIMINATION!

brandygirasol 49T  
3847 posts
3/23/2019 6:12 pm

Actually that has been settled recently by the supreme court the right to keep and bear arms. Even my liberal state of Illinois has to allow conceal carry for citizens. Our gun rights are not going to change despite lefty politicians with ulterior motives trying to disarm us crying crocodile tears when a kid gets shot...


arero replies on 3/24/2019 6:56 pm:
I am not trying to dictate what should happen in the US. Just an interested bystander here and I freely admit I don't understand the complexities of the US constitution,

Dreamcatcher__ 82M
5388 posts
3/24/2019 6:30 pm

    Quoting brandygirasol:
    DREAMCATCHER thank you for the pass on my bad behavior ... the Enfield Rifle you own is a very fine weapon and its just as deadly as any so called assault rifle- and as you also know a .22 cartridge can also be just as deadly as a .45 cartridge in a skilled shooter's hands ... Sweety I do respect your opinions on firearms but i remain steadfast in my beliefs- like how crazy it is to herd a bunch of unarmed people or kids into an enclosed area with signs around it GUN FREE ZONE as a set up for the first nutcase with a gun to come along and have the power of life and death over everyone there
Actually, brandy, my gun is a flintlock, nowhere near as deadly as a slingshot in the hands of a skilled slingshotter with an adequate supply of ball bearings at close quarters.


brandygirasol 49T  
3847 posts
3/24/2019 7:08 pm

Hey dreamcatcher that's an excellant point but you know what I mean those muzzelloaders were all anyone had government or civilian. I enjoy the back and forth with you my friend... brandy


brandygirasol 49T  
3847 posts
3/24/2019 7:09 pm

You too korero so I blew both you guys kisses...brandy


VisitingMastr 55M  
8 posts
4/18/2019 7:35 am

I'd love to get blown. A kiss that is



Become a member to comment on this blog