evnafets: Continual battle of laws vs people who want to get around them...

I can't speak for the shotguns. I don't have one and don't really care for them.

But fact needs to be separated from fiction and the rhetoric of the anti-gun lobby. 

Firearms licensing in both Australia and New Zealand is already fairly tough. There are a bunch of requirements and central to this is what they call "fit and proper". There are a bunch of specifics within this but the upshot is its like being a Doctor or Teacher - to get there the issuing authority has to feel confidence the applicant is a moral and upstanding member of society.

Of course this does not mean every single person who has a license is, or will continue to be, "fit and proper". Every year a few Teachers and Doctors lose their registration and a few fiearms license holders lose theirs. But compared to the general population, Firearms License Holders are a well above average trustworthy and responsible demographic.

The problem here is the standard is already pretty high so politicians resort to red herrings and irrelevancies. In Australia this would be suppressors and firearms styles. 

The anti-gun crowd like to play on some people's fear of an American style free for all (in some states) but there is no such comparison. Both here and in Australia owning firearms is a privilege, not a right.

Ditto for carrying firearms in public, keeping them loaded, owning them for self-defense - all not allowed.

This arbitrary limit of 5 is is also too far. In this context there are different calibres and optics setups for different situations so a higher number of firearms is not out of order. This is not to say people with a 'collection' that this should be disregarded, but 5 is an artificially low number. The Bondi shooters only needed 2 (1 each), whereas a legitimate owner could easily have the 6 the father is reported to have held.

These sorts of rushed reactions are unhelpful and only penalise large numbers of good people while terrorists resorts to homemade firearms, knives, vehicles and IED's.

By and large I am confident both New Zealand and Australia are pretty damn safe when it comes to civilian firearms.

A major risk in NZ and Australia has been poor or negligent vetting. The Christchurch and Bondi terrorists were able to obtain firearms licenses but never should have:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/120285768/mosque-terrorist-was-wrongly-granted-firearms-licence-due-to-police-mistakes-sources-say

The Bondi shooters were known to be associated with extremist views yet still were able to hold firearm licenses and own firearms.

To those (in Australia) who cry about the unfairness of new gun restrictions, I say suck it up. Life is unfair. It was really unfair to those who lost theirs. 

Any measure is going to disadvantage some who have done nothing wrong. That is just the way it is. If you are a farmer and can’t shoot pests, find another way to deal with it. If your living depends on gun sales, that really sucks but it was your choice to make a living that way. Times change and people have to change with them. Hopefully there will be some kind of official measures to help with the adjustment. 

I am not in any way a hunter or gun person so I can’t know what this feels like to those who are, but I do know what it feels like to lose someone you love. Sometimes we just have to cope with the things that happen. There are all kinds of things that used to be allowed but are now prohibited. We did not always live in a world where fanatics would murder random people in public places. Things change. So should gun laws.

Rikkitic:

 

To those (in Australia) who cry about the unfairness of new gun restrictions, I say suck it up. Life is unfair. It was really unfair to those who lost theirs…………

 

………Things change. So should gun laws.

 

So if the perpetrators had used motor vehicles instead of firearms (as has happened in terrorist attacks overseas), would it be time to restrict or ban motor vehicle use? Or would we all just to have to “suck it up”.

Please note: I don’t own nor have I ever owned a firearm.

I can't get behind gun buy backs. I think they are largely done to be seen to do something, when the effect is largely very minimal. 

NZ spent well over $200M on their buy back. It targetted those who willingly gave up their weapons, which isn't the kind of people that should have their weapons confiscated to avoid mass shootings. 

You could argue it could prevent a small amount of impulse violence, and the theft of weapons from those people, but it wouldn't in any way prevent the determined fanatics who want to do harm, considering both NZ and AU are massive islands with huge coastlines, and it's a fairly trivial matter to get items smuggled in. 

I'd argue that money could and should have been spent in Mental Health, Education, and general heath and would have done substantially more actual good for everyone for a much longer period of time. 

I support the restricting of whom can own weapons of this nature, tightening them up as it makes sense, but I have yet to see any evidence it would have prevented either of the two horrific events in the last 5 years. 

I would love to be able to prevent these tragedies, they are horrific, I just don't see this as the answer. 

Dingbatt:

 

So if the perpetrators had used motor vehicles instead of firearms (as has happened in terrorist attacks overseas), would it be time to restrict or ban motor vehicle use? Or would we all just to have to “suck it up”.

 

Please note: I don’t own nor have I ever owned a firearm.

 

Your arguments are usually better than that. No-one needs a gun to do the shopping or drive to work. Our society doesn't depend on guns for transport. Sure, determined terrorists can always find creative ways to kill people, but there is no reason to make it easier for them than you have to. 

Don't expect to make any sense of the political and ideological causes at play here.

Within literally hours various competing "interests" were piling into this.

They don't ask first.

Some of them are utterly vicious and wasted no time taking advantage of this horrific event. The most blatant examples were the anti-Islam groups.

And when someone who they purport to speak for doesn't play along with the prepackaged narrative, they turn on them too.

Then is a whole background. The Australian PM wasn't given a frosty reception yesterday for no reason.

Its a lot to process.

I feel the gun debate should be done in the politics section

while i'm a big fan of open discussion, even if its just poking the bear, the firearms debate its not worth the effort.

they only change the rules when the emotions run high so they can shove complete BS through without opposition. they have had decades to change rules but never do so.

plus nz where we have police who blame farmers in gore for south auckland gang shoot outs, any discussion is pointless. you don't need to care about firearms to realize how stupid that is (and yes police spent a month blaming legal firearm owners for south auckland gang shoot outs).

MichaelNZ:

 

Don't expect to make any sense of the political and ideological causes at play here.

 

Within literally hours various competing "interests" were piling into this.

 

They don't ask first.

 

Some of them are utterly vicious and wasted no time taking advantage of this horrific event. The most blatant examples were the anti-Islam groups.

 

How many of them happen to think the shooters in Norway & Christchurch are "patriots, not terrorists"? I've reported & blocked a number of these types on social media.

deepred:

 

How many of them happen to think the shooters in Norway & Christchurch are "patriots, not terrorists"? I've reported & blocked a number of these types on social media.

 

If only things were so simple. I mean pretty much everyone can agree against those sort.

Unfortunately some of the others are a case of "with friends like this, who needs enemies". 

For the most part their "friendship" is not asked for or wanted. But they insert themselves in none the less. Their reason is blatantly obvious they want nothing more then a holy war. Thankfully, almost everyone else can see their agenda a mile off and is not taking the bait.

Then there is another bunch who like to have wars. By far this is the most screwed up because they exist on both sides of a conflict and things can and do spiral out of control.

So what can the rest of us do but stay away and hope sense prevails. Build bridges where we can. Refuse to participate in hostilities.

TVNZ is pissing me off.

They won’t even mention the Christchurch terrorist’s name and seem happy that footage of that crime is banned in NZ yet they persist in showing footage of the Bondi terrorists carrying out their attack which will be giving them exactly the attention they sought and will be a source of glory and entertainment to the sick bastards that support this awful attack. 

Just stop it. 

johno1234:

 

TVNZ is pissing me off.

 

They won’t even mention the Christchurch terrorist’s name and seem happy that footage of that crime is banned in NZ yet they persist in showing footage of the Bondi terrorists carrying out their attack which will be giving them exactly the attention they sought and will be a source of glory and entertainment to the sick bastards that support this awful attack. 

Just stop it. 

 

Agree, and slightly off topic - stop putting Brian Tamaki on the news. That's exactly what he wants too. There is no 'public good' in putting his goons in blue t-shirts that most of the wearers don't have the brains to read and understand on the TV.