> I think this is the crux of the issue. If they attack me, I agree physically defending myself is obviously an option.

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.

You also need to prove that there is a decrease in crime or accidents for this law to be necessary otherwise I would not support this.

> 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.