NZ gun laws

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › NZ gun laws

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 18

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2199737 16-Mar-2019 19:11

Fred99:

No - I agree - sorry if I didn't answer you before. There's a place for legitimate use of semi-automatic rifles for hunting etc, though personally I always used bolt action high power rifles, for a few reasons.

I'm very uncomfortable with the concept that *for pleasure* people would use an AR15 etc to hone their skills in getting as many shots on a target in as short a time as possible.

I am not entirely sure that it is such a morally significant distinction that semi-automatic rifles aren't necessarily designed solely to kill people (as opposed to fully automatic/auto capable ARs), as your interlocutors (I am using that term loosely) seem to think. If there are adequate/sufficient replacements for hunting purposes, as the independent Thorp review found in 1997(?), then I would argue that the trade-off is worth it. At the end of the day, in a first world country with high average income by world standards, most people only hunt for predominantly entertainment purposes.

Edit: typo

quickymart

13951 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2199741 16-Mar-2019 19:19

dejadeadnz:

If there are adequate/sufficient replacements from hunting purposes, as the independent Thorp review found in 1997(?)...

You're right, it was in 1997.

mattwnz

20157 posts

Uber Geek

#2199743 16-Mar-2019 19:21

Isn't the fact that they have said that the gun laws 'are' going to change as a result of this, just go to prove that they knew they were too lax to begin with? Why is NZ often use the 'ambulance at the bottom of the Cliff' scenario before they will change laws?

I was reading on the CNN website that our gun laws are some of the most lax in the world outside the US, even compared to Australias, and we have a very high numbe rof buns per person, and they apparently don't need registering against a persons name. We have had some shocking mass killings as a result of guns, and obviously this is the worst of them all. By world standards, what happened is shockingly bad. People will argue that it isn't guns that are the problem, but the people using them. But you could say the same thing about lasers and drones too, and they banned high powered lasers, and drones are controlled, and will likely be further restricted after all the lobbying going on. But this sort of thing couldn't occur without guns. We have the same problem with the electric scooters. It is likely that until someone is killed from one, the laws around safety will be very slow moving, with independent reviews and consultants etc.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2199747 16-Mar-2019 19:28

dejadeadnz:

Fred99:

No - I agree - sorry if I didn't answer you before. There's a place for legitimate use of semi-automatic rifles for hunting etc, though personally I always used bolt action high power rifles, for a few reasons.

I'm very uncomfortable with the concept that *for pleasure* people would use an AR15 etc to hone their skills in getting as many shots on a target in as short a time as possible.

I am not entirely sure that it is such a morally significant distinction that semi-automatic rifles aren't necessarily designed solely to kill people (as opposed to fully automatic/auto capable ARs), as your interlocutors (I am using that term loosely) seem to think. If there are adequate/sufficient replacements from hunting purposes, as the independent Thorp review found in 1997(?), then I would argue that the trade-off is worth it. At the end of the day, in a first world country with high average income by world standards, most people only hunt for predominantly entertainment purposes.

It's psychological - for example, semi auto hunting rifle at top, AR15 below:

You can legally own the firearm below in NZ. That is totally nuts. They say "only in America" - almost true, except for NZ and a few war zones.

chatterbox

204 posts

Master Geek

#2199748 16-Mar-2019 19:28

timmay556:

Fred99:

timmay556:

quickymart:

timmay556:

There is no need for V8's or Twin Turbo cars.

You would better spend your time banning Alcohol in this country, it probably kills 50 people each week due to the side effects and or drink driving etc

So no changes need to be made to gun laws whatsoever? Do I understand you correctly?

Correct. This is the first Mass killing in NZ in umpteen years, a knee-jerk reaction is not what is needed here.

Get off the grass.

The false equivalence argument (cars/booze) you use above is abject utter Bullsh*t.

As for the poor gun owners who will lose their so-called "right" to own military style semi-automatic weapons, specifically designed to kill other human beings in combat, now used to kill 50 of my innocent fellow citizens on my doorstep. It's a trivial loss of of their "right" to pleasure themselves, versus the unprecedented horrific events of yesterday - and possibility that will trigger copycat crimes of similar magnitude, I truly don't care about gun owners losing the right to own devices designed and used to kill people. It's pathetic - and a sick argument.

Not at all, it is a perfect example of double standards. Drunk drivers kill around a hundred people a year. The number of mass shootings we have in NZ is stupidly small.

What is truly sick is people using cognitive dissonance in order to push their own biases (your post is a good example.)

A drunk person kills someone by driving / violence but it's never on the scale of one man with a gun.

It's usually something like speed or impaired judgement in a vehicle, maybe an argument that leads to violence.

It's never on the scale of Christchurch.

If we're going to say 50 drunk people cause 100 deaths (say 2 innocent people killed per car accident), then 50 shooters with intent with this military type weapon = 2500 people dead.

Those numbers just aren't comparable and these guns are very dangerous in the hands of someone with intent. The alcohol example typically doesn't have intent either. It's a drunk person trying to get from A to B.

Never say never

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2199750 16-Mar-2019 19:31

mattwnz:

Why is NZ often use the 'ambulance at the bottom of the Cliff' scenario before they will change laws?

I'll just reply to this point -- it is an astute observation. I suspect there's a complicated set of reasons to explain this but in terms of our political climate, NZ legislators are still extremely enmeshed into the mentality that regulations are bad and hands-off is best. And despite a lot of the political barbs backwards and forwards, the two major political parties are far more alike than they care to admit. I remember attending a private event many years back where Michael Cullen openly admitted that he felt people exaggerated (and politicians equally chose to encourage this exaggeration for their political benefit) the differences between Labour and National.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2199752 16-Mar-2019 19:40

Just to point out, from the gun supermarket selling the AR15 style Colt rifle above, first line in Gun City's description of the weapon for sale on their website states:

This specially designed law enforcement weapon system features many of the combat proven advantages of the military M4.

It's completely and utterly nuts, an out of control situation in NZ catering to a small minority unlike in any civilised nation except the USA (if the US still qualifies) and nowhere else you'd want to live. About 1,200,000 guns in NZ, most in the hands of responsible owners who've never been in any trouble with the law, great folks - just like everybody who knew the perpetrator of NZ's worst ever mass murder thought he was.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2199755 16-Mar-2019 19:43

Fred99:

You can legally own the firearm below in NZ. That is totally nuts. They say "only in America" - almost true, except for NZ and a few war zones.

To your original point (I am admittedly not a hunter and have only ever shot pistols in NZ and an M16 in the US inside a range -- I did enjoy the experience but it's totally bloody insane how easy it was to get access legally to one), I am not sure that a hunter who practices adequate tracking and camouflage etc should need to fire a burst of shots at a target. Even if that's wrong, given the number of hunting accidents that we already have, the last thing we need is for poorly trained/trigger happy types to be able to shoot many shots in quick time.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2199811 16-Mar-2019 21:11

dejadeadnz:

Fred99:

You can legally own the firearm below in NZ. That is totally nuts. They say "only in America" - almost true, except for NZ and a few war zones.

To your original point (I am admittedly not a hunter and have only ever shot pistols in NZ and an M16 in the US inside a range -- I did enjoy the experience but it's totally bloody insane how easy it was to get access legally to one), I am not sure that a hunter who practices adequate tracking and camouflage etc should need to fire a burst of shots at a target. Even if that's wrong, given the number of hunting accidents that we already have, the last thing we need is for poorly trained/trigger happy types to be able to shoot many shots in quick time.

That's true in most cases, but there's also the "personal freedom to enjoy oneself by playing with lethal weapons" argument.

This article in Stuff:

The mosque shooter could have bought a standard weapon and then bought the extra parts <off the shelf in NZ - my edit> separately - although in doing so he would have been committing a crime under the Arms Act.

....

"Unfortunately we've got this situation of people with their standard firearms licence and then they've gone and bought 30-round magazines or even 100-round drum magazines - there's no licence required to buy those magazines by themselves," said firearms lawyer Nicholas Taylor.

That's absolutely, thoroughly insane, and an indictment on politicians and gun lobbyists.

F&#K their rotten souls if they did that with knowledge that was a possible eventuality. If it's merely incompetence with lethal consequences if they (politicians) didn't know, but they should NEVER be in a position of governance if they're so dumb and incompetent.

This needs to be investigated by news media *thoroughly*, and those responsible named and shamed on the front pages.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2199812 16-Mar-2019 21:18

Yep I am pretty sure it is legal to buy magazines by themselves. The illegality comes when you as a A license holder attach the high capacity magazine to your MSAAgun without holding an E endorsement. The Police Association have also submitted on this to Parliament AFAIK.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2199820 16-Mar-2019 21:49

dejadeadnz: Yep I am pretty sure it is legal to buy magazines by themselves. The illegality comes when you as a A license holder attach the high capacity magazine to your MSAAgun without holding an E endorsement. The Police Association have also submitted on this to Parliament AFAIK.

Oh for goodness sake:

AR 15 30 shot plastic magazine "on sale" for NZ$149 (reduced from $199 save $50!). These are only about $12 in the US, I assume people with the appropriate license class could get them perfectly legally themselves shipped from the US, so the local sales of these are at massive margin, that done knowing that people who would pay that price won't be able to bypass a legitimate importer, without running a risk of being nailed as their package crosses the border. Legally I don't know where that leaves them (the retailers),probably able to afford great legal representation if it came to an defending against an accusation that they were knowingly aiding gun owners to break laws whilst making a vast sum on the side. Morally, their hands are dripping in fresh blood.

FFS - no wonder owners of these NZ retail gun businesses are so incredibly and conspicuously wealthy in recent times.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2199824 16-Mar-2019 22:05

Seriously, I am not trying to be flippant but the problems to do with our gun laws are ridiculously well-adverted and our politicians are well aware of them. They just don't care. I did a quick search on what the Law Society has said on this issue and be prepared to weep.

Parliament's Law and Order Committee released a report in 2017 recommending the following changes to the Arms Act (the Committee itself originally made 20 recommendations apparently).

Amending the law so that a firearms licence is required to possess ammunition, unless the person in possession of the ammunition is under the immediate supervision of a firearms licence holder.

Amending the law so that a firearms dealer's licence be required to sell or supply ammunition by way of a business.

Amending the law so that dealers are required to keep records of sales of ammunition.

Amending the Arms Act 1983 to clearly state that a gang member or prospect must not be considered a fit and proper person to possess firearms and therefore must not hold a firearms licence.

Amending the law to require the Police to record the serial numbers of all firearms possessed by licence holders upon renewal of their licence or inspection of their premises.

Reviewing the penalties in the Arms Act 1983.

Amending the law so that where a dealer has committed an offence under the Arms Act, the court must treat this as an aggravating factor at sentencing.

Amending the law to make it clear that the secure storage requirements must be met to the satisfaction of the Police, before a licence or endorsement can be issued.

Extending Police powers to enter premises to inspect the security of "A" category firearms.

Amending the Arms Act so that failure to comply with the storage regulations must result in revocation of a firearms licence.

Would anyone like to play a guessing game on who played blocker on these recommendations? New Zealand First.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2199830 16-Mar-2019 22:28

dejadeadnz: Parliament's Law and Order Committee released a report in 2017 recommending the following changes to the Arms Act (the Committee itself originally made 20 recommendations apparently).

Those changes seem very reasonable.

If I recall correctly, in addition to the 2017 report you found, Jacinda mentioned there'd been reviews/reports in the early 2000's and in 2012. I wonder how similar the recommendations in those earlier reviews/reports were.

dejadeadnz: Would anyone like to play a guessing game on who played blocker on these recommendations? New Zealand First.

Ugh!

Ge0rge

2055 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2199834 16-Mar-2019 22:45

It's rather baffling why NZ First would do that - I can't see anything on that list that would restrict those current owners.

I remember reading that California has instigated similar rules around ammunition purchases - including limiting how much can be purchased in one transaction. It would be very interesting to know what sort of effect this has had there. As far as I'm aware, you can just bring it across the border, but that wouldn't apply here. Well not easily anyway! You must have a firearms licence to purchase ammunition in NZ already, however the seller doesn't have to, nor have to record it. I'm sure there were complaints from dealers that it would increase workload / compliance etc but phish - they'd pass the costs on anyway.

A national register would be an interesting exercise - I know that Canada had (has?) one, and it wasn't very effective - unsure if that was due to management or if Novapay were at the helm. We already have a computer based register of legal restricted rifles and pistols here in NZ, surely it wouldn't be that hard to add the A-cat firearms to that? I know full well what the opposing argument would be (or at least one of them) - that registration leads to confiscation, and that may very well be the case, particularly in the coming weeks / months. By that I mean that there are probably a large group of licensed restricted weapon holders (who the police have a list of, including the weapons) who are waiting to see if they are about to be the first to lose theirs. In saying that, if the option is registered firearms or no firearms, I can imagine that registration wouldn't be looking too bad. As an aside, we used to have firearms registered to their owner here in NZ - unsure when and why that changed, but it's odd that the police would choose to give that up?

As for the rest of the list, nothing there would change anyone's legal access to firearms from what we have now,.so I can't understand why the unwillingness to change the law?

@Dejadeadnz, it'd be nice to have this chat over a pint - tone is hard to portray here. I'm not being the least bit snarky or sarcastic when I ask if the above changes, which I fully agree would be a positive for NZ, would have made any difference to the atrocity committed yesterday?

Edit to add: I am certainly glad that it is a privilege to own firearms here, and not a right. That allows significantly more room to regulate who can and can't have access to them - definitely a good thing.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2199884 16-Mar-2019 23:13

mm1352000:

If I recall correctly, in addition to the 2017 report you found, Jacinda mentioned there'd been reviews/reports in the early 2000's and in 2012. I wonder how similar the recommendations in those earlier reviews/reports were.

Can't answer that one, sorry. What I can definitely say is that post the review occasioned by the Aramoana incident, the Arms Act has been the subject of sod all attention. The only big set of substantive amendments in the early 2000s (?) didn't amount to much.

Fred99:

What a weird quiz - you gave the answer.

Winston needs to be put under intense pressure over what you posted above. He's a populist, he wants to be loved, and he's smart enough to be able to manipulate himself into a revision of past positions, if pushed that way. Jacinda needs to put some extreme pressure on him.

My question wouldn't have even made a good quiz for a dumb Trump supporter, given that anyone slightly aware of these things would have guessed either National or NZF. It was way too easy.

I am not necessarily convinced that Winston will come to the party. Saw him somewhere today (been following too many different sources and honestly can't identify where) and he appeared to have been prevaricating on whether he'd support gun law reform. This was admittedly before Ardern announced her views. You also have to remember that whilst Winston is a populist, his political survival doesn't depend upon the masses. It's his rural and nutty base that will ultimately determine whether he survives.

Ge0rge:

@Dejadeadnz, it'd be nice to have this chat over a pint - tone is hard to portray here. I'm not being the least bit snarky or sarcastic when I ask if the above changes, which I fully agree would be a positive for NZ, would have made any difference to the atrocity committed yesterday?

I have a serious loathing for the taste of beer, so I am afraid I will run on the idea of going to a bar :P

All jokes aside, I couldn't tell you whether those amendments could have made any difference or not. Too early to tell. My own belief is that there should a wide-ranging Royal Commission on this incident. We need to look beyond just gun laws but also things like performance of our intelligence agencies, police, the adequacy or otherwise of the emergency response on the day, and also whether NZ as a society is fundamentally as tolerant as we would like to believe.

You and I will have to disagree on banning semi-automatic rifles but the thing that troubles me is that, in an age where banks are required to report suspicious financial transactions and big data, we don't require arms sellers and buyers to be registered to/transact on linked systems, perform analytics on purchases, and impose clear obligations on sellers to report suspicious transactions. I also believe there should be limits on the number of guns an individual can hold and the number of bullets one can buy at a time.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 18