What Does New Zealand’s Ban on Assault Rifles Mean in America? Zippo.
Lots of people are asking themselves how it’s possible for New Zealand to ban assault rifles in a matter of days after the slaughter of 50 Muslims as they worshiped in their mosques, when such a change in laws is a political impossibility here, regardless of the incredible frequency and horrifying body-count of our gun-related tragedies . Here’s a thought:
Apparent difference between New Zealand and the U.S.: NZ doesn’t have an equivalent of the 2nd Amendment.
Real difference between NZ and US: NZ doesn’t have an equivalent of the NRA, that uses big money to smash all attempts on the part of Americans to keep military-style rifles out of the hands of psychopaths. 91% of Americans want universal background checks for prospective gun owners, but that’s simply not possible here.
If your imagination will allow you, think of how long lawmakers in New Zealand, in the absence of the rampant corruption that exists here, would last if they ignored the heartfelt beliefs of 91% of the people who elected them. You can’t hold your breath that long.
Craig,
Your passionate advocacy, obvious bias and carelessness with facts makes it hard to agree with you, without exercising caution.
The British countries have always exerted a considerable control over private ownership of weapons, while both the UK and NZ have resisted the temptation to unilaterally arm police forces except in special circumstances.
In contrast the US always possessed a deep fascination with firearms. The Founding Fathers envisaged armed “citizen militia ” as a safeguard against government oppression.
But i think the image of guns in the US is totally different from anywhere else. Emerging from the Hollywood depictions of the old frontier West, the gun has become a symbol of excitement, glamour and even sex appeal.
The gun represents a equalizing solution. James Bond is featured with gun as a major selling attraction to combine guns and sex. Movies and novels abound featuring the image of the gun, charisma and sex appeal.
Your figure of 90% is typical of “motherhood’ type polling. If you rephrase the question to ask, “should there be greater control of firearms”, the figure drop way below 50%.
That’s the problem facing legislators. The problem isn’t really guns, but the deep rooted love of guns in the American psyche.
Who is more appealing, Micheal Moore or Danial Craig ?
The NRA simply acts to bast to represent the beliefs of NRA members. The gun lobby exerts influence to protect the fire-arm industry and all the offshoots of hunting, tourism, sport, vermin control etc. ($227 billion and 400,000 jobs in the US economy).
That’s not “corruption”, that’s called participating in democratic political activity!
Legislators respond to the wishes of their constituents. At times it may not seem that way, mostly because believers in some political or social cause deludes itself that “motherhood ” polling will translate to votes.
When proponents relying on “motherhood” polling lose, they often can’t accept their own failure preferring delusion to reality, so they cry “corruption”, because that’s easier than saying “we got it wrong”.
Even the tightest gun control laws won’t stop mass shootings by delusional psychotics or terrorism. Both NZ and Norway have strict gun control, but in both cases the shooters had no criminal or mental history and were legally licensed.
“Laws” can’t stop psychotic killers. I’m not sure what can. After every outrage or incident, there’s a panic and outcry to do something, anything, to feel control has been restored. Someone, not just the perpetrator, some official or organization must be held accountable or to blame to matter how unjustly. We need to , feel less guilty, insecure and back in control.
As a farmer I own a number of firearms for vermin control and humane uses. I have never understood the need for any private citizen to own and keep at home a hand gun. Hand guns are designed for only one purpose, to kill other humans.
I support gun control. The era when a “citizen militia” could successfully confront a well armed, well trained, disciplined military force has long passed.
But, I’m not an American. The issue in the US is deeply cultural, rooted in tradition, heritage and identity. For US law makers it’s a far more difficult and complex issue.
Changing, or even reinterpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution will not be easy. The vast and overwhelming majority of US citizens will balk at any change, and legislators know this to be a reality.
Democratic representative government requires all participants to be able to participate using all available resources. You can’t just start re-rigging the rules when you lose, to disadvantage your opponents!