New Zealand: "Our gun laws will change." Why them and not us?

Uh, no.

Definitely on topic, just off your message.

Also, “Soldiers carry guns because they can’t carry cannons, not because guns make it easier for them to kill enemy combatants” is way too good to call this a wasted exercise.

Do your criminals support your gun laws?

Uh, no.

And 274 died in 2016. Your laws don’t work.

Asking why soldiers carry guns in wars has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is New Zealand’s knee jerk reaction to a one-of-a-kind tragedy in their country and the question of why can’t we do it in this country. That question has been answered … over and over and over. We cannot do it in this country because the Government is prohibited from doing so by our Constitution. All the rest of it is just bluster.

But thanks for the compliment. I kind of parodied that from the question/answer of “Why to you carry a gun? Because a cop is too heavy.” :wink:

Whether guns make it easier to kill people is directly relevant to the wisdom and efficacy of gun laws.

And thank you for confirming your point about cannons was premised on a joke. It sounded like one, so that makes sense.

So the military murders? Fascinating.

No. The military does not murder. I am aware of the mens rea distinction. It’s irrelevant.

It was said in humor, but just like the gun vs. cop joke, it is absolutely true.

What about the point posts?

Zander the topic title asks if New Zealand can change its gun laws in the aftermath of the Christchurch terrorist attack, why can’t the USA do the same?

NZ modelled their gun law changes on Australia’s that were changed after the mass gun shooting at Port Arthur, Tas in 1996. Changes that were supported in a bi-partisan way.

It is a completely nonsensical and frankly puerile argument to say “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.

Non sequitur alert.

Another non sequitur alert.

Nothing.

So you are saying that there were no murders committed before people had guns?

Do you have anything to rebut my post or do you think that simply spouting Latin phases wins the debate?

How has that question got anything to with my post?

When you choose to post something that is germane to the topic, then I may have cause to rebut that post. If it is not relevant to the topic, I reserve the right to choose as I think appropriate.