Six Days …

Posted on by under Global Issues, Political commentary, Social commentary

Six days.  It only took six days after a gunman opened fire on two mosques in New Zealand, killing at least 50 people, before the government took action and banned assault-type weapons that were never meant for civilian use to begin with.  Yesterday, New Zealand’s prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, announced a national ban on military-style semiautomatic weapons, on parts that allow guns to be modified into such weapons, and on high-capacity ammunition magazines.

This, my friends, is how a true leader responds to a crisis.  This is the action of a leader who actually cares what happens to the people in the country she is tasked with leading.  This is a leader who puts people ahead of corporate greed and politics.  Every nation deserves such a leader.

Now, you might say, well, New Zealand doesn’t have the National Rifle Association (NRA) to contend with.  Well, yes and no.  New Zealand actually does have a National Rifle Association, but their function is entirely different than the one in the U.S.  The New Zealand NRA is the country’s governing body for the sport of long-range target shooting. It does not engage in political lobbying.  When Prime Minister Ardern announced the ban on semiautomatic weapons yesterday, the NRA-NZ responded positively and even noted that they are considering a name change to avoid being associated with the U.S. NRA.

In New Zealand, gun owners are subjected to rigorous background checks and requirements, and even after acquiring a license, gun owners in New Zealand continue to be subjected to scrutiny from the authorities.

“If your name comes up with a police or traffic complaint, that list gets looked at by the police firearms division. If it looks like your name is coming up more often, they’ll come and have a word with you.” – Ross Mason, Chairman NRA-NZ

Can you imagine the outrage among gun owners if this happened in the U.S.?  Or, can you imagine the reaction if it was suggested that gun owners voluntarily give up their firearms?  Within the first four days after the shootings, a number of gun owners had turned in their semiautomatic weapons.  One man, a farmer named John Hart, turned his rifle over to police, then tweeted …John Hart

Did you read that, folks?  “My convenience doesn’t outweigh the risk of misuse.”  That should be a bumper sticker and we should hand them out with every gun purchase, every box of ammo …

I don’t know about you folks, but to me, this reaction all the way from the head of government down to the citizens, is a breath of fresh air.  This is the way it should be.  Consider this.  If a roller coaster at an amusement park derails and 30-40 people are killed or injured, all hell breaks loose.  The ride, or likely the entire park is shut down indefinitely.  The manufacturers of the ride are called in.  Safety experts and mechanics are called in to determine the cause.  If there is fault, fines are levied. And lawsuits are filed against the park and the ride’s manufacturer.  That ride will never operate again in all likelihood.  Why?  Because we place a high priority on human life.

But if a gunman goes on a spree in Las Vegas or a high school in Parkland, Florida, the nutters immediately come out ranting “don’t try to take our guns!” The NRA issues a statement before the dust even settles warning the sensible among us that this is “not the time” to mention gun regulation or gun safety.  A few days pass, the media move on to other things, and life returns to normal … until the next time.

Apparently, the NRA in the U.S. is not content to interfere and subvert any attempts at sensible gun safety legislation in the U.S., but have also stuck their nose into New Zealand’s business this week.  Former police minister and New Zealand National Party MP Judith Collins says that both she and the current police minister, Stuart Nash had begun receiving propaganda material from the U.S. NRA.  In the past, she said, when she sought to introduce gun law reforms during her two stints as police minister, she was inundated by material from the NRA in the U.S.

“They talked about how we were trying to take away their Second Amendment rights to own guns. We don’t have a right to bear arms. To own a gun in New Zealand is absolutely a privilege and not a right.”

Say WHAT???  By what right does the NRA here in the U.S. get off trying to change gun laws in a nation on the other side of the globe?  The NRA has gone beyond what is acceptable so many times in the past, but this one takes the cake.  Fortunately, New Zealanders have better sense that the average gun-lovin’ American, and Ms. Collins told them to …bugger off

I’ve said it all before, but it bears repeating.  The U.S. has the most lax gun laws, the most guns per capita (more guns than people, at approximately 400 million guns and only 330 million people), and the highest rate of deaths by guns than any other nation on earth.  It is past time for us to re-consider the 2nd Amendment that has cost the lives of more citizens of this nation than every war we’ve ever been involved in.  New Zealand certainly has the right idea, as do Australia and every other nation on the globe.  Yesterday I saw a New York Times’ OpEd piece titled, “America Deserves a Leader as Good as Jacinda Ardern”.  I second that!

Two thumbs up to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and the good people of New Zealand for putting human lives ahead of corporate greed.

Discover more from Filosofa's Word

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

89 thoughts on “Six Days …”

  1. Understanding the constitution, what freedom really means, how important freedom is, and to understand the difference between rhetoric, emotions, and real solutions.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I find that most citizens of this country have not even read, let alone quite understand, the Constitution. They pick and choose the parts that suit them, such as the 2nd Amendment. And even then, they are likely to mis-interpret, such as those who think that ‘freedom of religion’ means freedom to force their own religion on others. Or those who think that “the right to bear arms” means they can own as many AR-15s as they like.

      Like

      • It’s even more difficult. They don’t understand our own language. They haven’t the experience to think at higher levels and understand complex thoughts.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. The difficulty in this world is learning to separate ideas and practicality: thoughts versus understanding. I have heard of individuals driving their cars into crowds. And we know more people suffer from vehicles than arms. But we don’t seek to ban driving. The difficulty, I think many have, is to separate emotion from real answers. In this, we know guns don’t harm anyone. It’s people, and they need to be punished severely for their lack of consideration for human lives.

    Liked by 1 person

    • FACT: People without guns cannot do near the damage as people with guns. I’d rather face a guy with a knife any day, for he has to get right next to me, I can run or likely kick him where it hurts and wrest the knife away. And, he can get only a few people at most, not tens or even hundreds. Nope, you will never convince me that there is a “need” or even a reason for the average citizen in this nation to own a firearm.

      Like

      • A lot of people live inside their heads, unable to “see” what is truly happening. I understand we all have a perspective. It’s a matter of what our founding fathers understood. An armed society is safer. I’m never concerned with neighbors who go hunting, wear concealed weapons, and are very protective of their family and friends. Would I wish the guns were not in criminals’ hands? You betcha. But I don’t want my rights, or friends or any other law-abiding citizen, restricted. The solution isn’t taking guns away. The solution is taking on our responsibilities, learning how useful arms are, how they protect, and how to use them in difficult situations. The more you know…

        Liked by 2 people

        • absolutely right. Banning guns wouldn’t help because criminals would still find a way to get them and if you wanted to really ban guns, would you be in favor of taking them from the police, the government and security forces who protect people like the president and congress? If not, why should they have guns if the rest of us wouldn’t be allowed to? This is a valid question and one to think about.

          Liked by 1 person

        • The Founding Fathers were living in a different time. Never in their wildest dreams did they imagine the weapons of today, nor, I think, would they have written the Constitution quite as they did if they had. The one thing, though, is that they were intelligent men and they DID realize that time would not stand still, that the world would change, and thus they made the Constitution a living, breathing document, able to adjust to the changes in the world. Frankly, I do NOT feel safer in an armed society. I have left stores before simply because I saw a gun sticking out of a man’s belt. No, I do not see guns in the hands of untrained, unqualified shooters to be an advantage. Ask Gabrielle Giffords, or James Brady. Ask the parents of the children who died at Sandy Hook. Ask the survivors of the Parkland school shooting.

          Like

          • The argument that the founding fathers couldn’t have envisioned a world with technology like we have today that allows immoral people to kill each other at astounding rates is Ludacris because it puts the blame for the violence and reprehensible killing on the gun, not the people. Besides, it’s not a technological argument, it’s one of morality. The founding fathers understood that tyrannical rule was very real and that, eventually, a government over the people can and will become immoral and corrupt.

            Consider how other socialist regimes have murdered their own people, Russia, China, and now Venezuela. It doesn’t start that way but that’s the way socialism has always ended.

            consider the violence against unarmed citizens, you can see current footage on YouTube of APC’s running down pedestrians in the streets.

            But the argument that I have against gun control isn’t even like those lunatics who have the paranoid thought that they need to be prepared to confront representatives of the government when they come busting down their doors. It’s a matter of someone, anyone having the human right to defend themselves, whether it’s against a home invader or an abusive partner or spouse. Self-defense isn’t an American right, it’s a human right and to have the desire to ban all guns because of the acts of some very horrible people who have made reprehensible life choices that lead them to a path where they felt it necessary to take innocent lives is the same as demonizing anyone with a firearm and pronouncing them guilty until proven innocent of the potential of those same horrible acts of terminating innocent lives.

            Painting a broad brush stroke such as this isn’t logical. What if I said that all police officers were horrible people because of the ones who also take innocent lives, with a gun I might add? What if I said that all teachers were sexual predators because of the few who have had sex with their underage students? Would that be fair? No it wouldn’t. It’s like the kindergarten teacher who punishes the whole class because she can’t figure out which two or three students are disrupting her precious lessons..

            Why is it that this issue only becomes a political talking point after a school, theater or mall shooting and doesn’t become so when other people get killed like all of the black on black crime that happens in Chicago, a city with perhaps some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation?

            Liked by 2 people

            • Let me ask you something, Scott. Why do you think the U.S. has the highest incidence of gun-related deaths per capita in the world? Is that something, do you think, that we ought to be proud of? I’m not proud of it, and I will tell you that guns are banned in my home, and that I will exit a store or business if somebody there has a firearm.

              Like

  5. Sort of puts us to shame, doesn’t it? She’s quite something, the Prime Minister is. I love the picture of her you put as your header, Jill. The look on her face is all you need to see to know what kind of person she is.

    Liked by 1 person

    • No ‘sort of’ about it … it makes us look like a bunch of money-grubbing, greedy, power-hungry, gun-loving morons. Just what half of this country are! Yes, every time I’ve seen her in the last week, she looked near tears. You can just tell she really cares. And to pass new gun laws within 6 days??? Why, our NRA must be freaking out! 😀

      Liked by 1 person

  7. in 2016, 70000 people died because of prescription drugs and 250000 died from medical malpractice. I find it very difficult if not impossible to believe that a “ban” on guns is going to save lives. In London, the crime rate is so damn high, that the mayor is calling for a ban on knives over there and yet, they don’t have guns.

    the politicians who say that they want to ban semi-automatic weapons because they care about people dying are nothing more than pathetic lying parasites who just want to control you.

    If they really cared about the lives of people, why not ban prescription drugs or crack down harder on drunk driving. I’m sure that drunk drivers kill more people every year than these guns.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Perhaps they could concentrate on them all through new enforceable laws, Prescription drugs, medical malpractice, automatic weapons and drunk drivers. In London the crime rate is high but the death rate isn’t, and someone with a knife can generally only get one person to stab, with an automatic weapon far too many people are being killed.

      Liked by 1 person

      • the “knives only kill one person at a time” argument is weak at best because it’s basically giving more importance to many lives lost as opposed to just one. Since when does the body count lessen or make greater the tragedy of the loss of life? I’m sure people who have lost people to knife crime are just as devastated by the loss of that live as equally as if that life were eliminated by a gun or a car.

        Next argument please.

        Like

        • Shame on you for that one. Any loss of life like this is immense and heartbreaking but would I prefer some mas killer turns up with a knife instead of a machine gun, of course I would. There’s no more importance given to the many over the one merely relief that lives have been saved.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Apples to oranges, my friend. The deaths by firearm can be cut drastically by sensible gun safety legislation. The deaths from prescription drugs and malpractice will need different solutions. What you’re saying is basically … there are two children drowning in the ocean. I can only save one, but since I cannot save them both, I’ll just let them both drown.

      As to crime in London … I’d a heck of a lot rather be worrying about running into an angry person with a knife than an angry person with a gun! First, I stand a chance … a pretty good chance … of surviving a fight against a knife-wielder. I can fend him off, and he has to get right up to me before he can attack, so I might even be able to run. But a person with a gun? If he shoots, even from 25-50 feet, I’m dead. And … most importantly … he cannot kill 50 or 100 people within a minute or two with a knife. One, two, maybe as many as 4, but no mass killings happen with a knife-wielder.

      Ban prescription drugs? What about people like me who would die without insulin? Or antibiotics? Most deaths from prescription drugs are self-inflicted … either a purposeful or accidental overdose. Others may be drug allergies or other causes. Keeping guns in every household won’t help that. Taking guns out of the hands of those not qualified to use them will cut gun deaths though.

      Hugs Scott!

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Pingback: Six Days … — Filosofa’s Word | Shediac1981; A Blue Wall of Silence

    • You’re quite right … she should! And, I didn’t mention, but she is paying for all 51 funerals of he people that died as a result of the mosque shootings! My hope is that other leaders in the world will look at her and realize that this is what leadership ought to be. Probably not, but I can hope, yes?

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Mustn’t forget our “Second Amendment.” Doesn’t matter that it was written at a different time under different circumstances and for different people. According to thousands, it STILL gives them as “citizens of the U.S.” the RIGHT to own not just one gun, but many guns — including semi-automatics.

    It also doesn’t matter that some of those individuals with that RIGHT are people who have a grudge against … whatever/whomever … and may one day decide to get rid of the person or persons that irritate them.

    Then, after all is said and done, well … it was that person’s RIGHT to own a gun. Piss on the people who also had a RIGHT to live.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sadly, I think that for some the 2nd Amendment is more important to their sense of freedom than the 1st. I think that the men who carry a gun with them at all times must be lacking in other areas and they think the gun makes them more of a ‘man’. I would surely hate to burst their bubble, but in my book it makes them look like a fool.

      As long as the gun manufacturers are making money hand over fist (and they are), and as long as they’re willing to spend some of that money to buy our politicians (99% who take NRA money are republicans), then there will not likely be any substantial change to our gun laws. Sigh. You’re right … we the people are but disposable commodities to them and if a few thousand of us die in gun-related incidents … oh well. We’re replaceable by those republicans that are having 5-6 kids because they don’t believe in birth control or abortion! Sigh.

      Liked by 1 person

      • the pharmaceutical industry buys politicians too, advertising prescription drugs that people don’t need with more side effects than benefits. Watch a commercial for the latest drug and half of the advertisement if not more is a litany of side effects. Why is there not the same outrage from people over this industry? They probably have a bigger lobby than the NRA, not that I agree with them but a death is a death and they should all be taken seriously and be outraged over equally wouldn’t you say?

        Liked by 1 person

        • I am outraged, also, over the pharma industry, my friend. And the medical industry as a whole, for that is what it has become … a ‘for-profit’ industry. I no longer go to doctors, for they are in a racket with laboratories, specialists, and the pharma industry such that you cannot simply go to a doctor, but they will send you for useless tests that you don’t need, prescribe medicine that you don’t need, and charge you hundreds of dollars when all you needed was a bloomin’ antibiotic. I have no choice but to order my insulin from Canada … the difference between $500 per month from Canada or $1,300 per month in the U.S. I would have to choose death in the U.S., for I cannot afford the prices here. So yeah, I’m incensed over it all, but that doesn’t mean I cannot be outraged over the laxity of our gun laws also.

          Like

          • oh absolutely, the prices of medication in this country are crazy that’s for sure.

            I’m curious, where in Ohio do you live? I spent a good bit of time in the Akron area in the 90’s.

            If you’ve told me before and I’ve forgotten, please forgive my memory which isn’t as good as it used to be. Hope you’re having a good weekend. big hugs my friend.

            Liked by 1 person

            • I live in a suburb on the north side of Cincinnati. No worries about your memory … heck, I can’t remember what song I played yesterday! We put too much into our heads these days, I do believe. Have a great weekend! Hugs!!!

              Like

            • Let me re-phrase that a bit. I no longer go routinely to doctors for check-ups, etc. My criteria is: if I honestly believe I could die in the next 24 hours, I will go. Otherwise, I’ll just hang on to my money and likely be healthier for it! It used to be that my doctor would insist on seeing me every 3 months, and if I developed a cold or bronchitis, as I do every year, would order Xrays, MRIs and rob me of all my blood! I figure at 67, I’m healthier staying away from the medicos as much as possible! 😉

              Like

            • And, I have a number of friends my age who dutifully visit their docs regularly, follow their advice to a T, and I’m in better shape than most of them are! There’s a lot to be said for healthy eating (an occasional cookie or chocolate bar 😉 ) and exercise! 😊

              Like

              • I’m with you. I visit the doctor VERY infrequently — usually just for annual lab work and check-ups. I’m older than you but have been very fortunate as related to health issues. I’m sure genes play a role, but I also believe if you take care of yourself and pay attention to your body, it keeps you ahead of the game.

                Long live us! 😀

                Liked by 1 person

  14. Canada can learn from this too. Our gun laws as not as uncaring as those in the US, but they are still quite lax. I personally would love to make a trade with you guys below us: give us all your peace loving people, and we send you all our gun freaks, racists, and other haters. We have lots of room up here, and it would take some population pressure off you.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Wouldn’t it be nice if other world leaders viewed Ms. Ardern as an example to be emulated? Not that our own Idiot-in-Chief would see it that way, but perhaps the next prez?

      Like

  16. How refreshing to have a leader and a Government that cares what happens in their country and does something about it. Like you I’m disgusted that the NRA U.S.has tried to interfere in changes to the law of a Sovereign nation and can’t even check that country doesn’t have second amendment rights. Some politicians are trying to do the right thing for their people but others just wonder when their next pay cheque from the NRA U.S. is coming and bugger the people.Maybe the Democrats can be persuaded to do the right thing when they’re back in power.
    Yay for New Zealand.
    Cwtch

    Liked by 2 people

    • Definitely refreshing! Now, if only this trend would catch on with other world leaders … The U.S. NRA are wearing blinders and are the bullies in the playground. They happily try to stomp the faces of all who don’t agree with them. However, I hear they are not doing so good financially, so perhaps the bully will end up a non-entity before too many more years. Perhaps there is hope if we oust the GOP from the Oval Office, but I’m not even sure of that. Politics in both our countries these days seem to have left good governance behind in favour ot $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Sigh.
      Cwtch

      Liked by 1 person

      • I agree that the NRA in this country has no business trying to tell another country what to do. It seems that we are too much of police force for the rest of the world, from failed wars in the middle east to this crap from the NRA. Why the hell can’t we just leave other people alone? I’m libertarian though so I tend to be more on the nonintervention side of things.

        Liked by 1 person

        • In this case, I would agree with your libertarian viewpoint, for it’s rather like telling your neighbor what household cleaner he should use! The U.S. has a certain arrogance that leads them to believe they know what’s best for all. Rather like religions who presume to force their ideas on everyone. Sigh.

          Like

Comments are closed.