I think his point is that we don’t have any wild game here that requires a semi-auto AR15 to hunt, because this article is about NZ gun laws here.
The only use case for semi-auto rifles here in NZ when it comes to hunting is for pest control, and in this case they are allowed (if you have the correct documentation and license).
The laws are meant to guard against cases like the Chch massacre.
ACT are trying to make the case that AR15s are fine for members of gun clubs apparantly unconcerned by the fact that the Chch shooter was a legally licensed member of a gun club
That wasn’t name calling.
Nimrod was a mighty hunter.
My comments were related to your comments about the reasonableness of weapons to hunt things that don’t exist in NZ in the context of a discussion about the reasonableness of weapons in NZ.
Not in New Zealand you numpty
Geographic location has little to do with my points, actually.
Yeah? Show me “drioves of hogs” in New Zealand, Nimrod
That is the bit that I was mainly focused on. My points are still valid, regardless of why you think name-calling is appropriate.
I think his point is that we don’t have any wild game here that requires a semi-auto AR15 to hunt, because this article is about NZ gun laws here.
The only use case for semi-auto rifles here in NZ when it comes to hunting is for pest control, and in this case they are allowed (if you have the correct documentation and license).
The laws are meant to guard against cases like the Chch massacre. ACT are trying to make the case that AR15s are fine for members of gun clubs apparantly unconcerned by the fact that the Chch shooter was a legally licensed member of a gun club
That wasn’t name calling. Nimrod was a mighty hunter. My comments were related to your comments about the reasonableness of weapons to hunt things that don’t exist in NZ in the context of a discussion about the reasonableness of weapons in NZ.