Adequate gun control and (almost) complete party support.

Written By: - Date published: 8:43 am, March 22nd, 2019 - 128 comments
Categories: act, david seymour, jacinda ardern, national, Politics, Simon Bridges, winston peters - Tags: , , ,

Now that I’ve had time to look look through what has been implemented and what is proposed to happen with changes to gun laws and to think about the impacts. Like others, I’m almost satisfied.

Since that so seldom happens that I suspect a gotcha, I’m now going to keep debugging until I am sure that it is actually as good as it looks.

I can (reluctantly) live with .22 rimfire semi-automatics on farms and limited capacity shotguns. While these weapons can easily kill people, it is a whole lot harder to use them to kill people in batch lots. There should be enough time for the people being shot at to drag down a arsehole shooter if they get misused.

The ammunition available for these weapons will need to be clearly defined. The current 0.22 long at range isn’t a sure thing killer, but the loads of the 0.22 calibre weapons need to be tightly constrained. I really don’t want to see a faster velocity low calibre rounds becoming common. The legislation and regulation needs to account for innovation.

Similarly, I think that there is no need for buckshot shotgun loads in NZ or anything like it. For birds and rabbits it simply isn’t required, and it turns a shotgun into a great area weapon for indoctrinated dickheads.

A semi-automatic shotgun firing buckshot giving a  close quarters pattern as its shown on this image is a lethal weapon, commonly used in the military in urban warfare situations. 

There was a reason that the Christchurch mosque killer had shotguns in his car. Adding all non-birdshot shotgun loads to the list of class E requirements will remove its ready availability for such crazed fools.

Clearly the gun controls mechanisms will need to be beefed up. However putting the major effort into the the very limited numbers of class E license holders will make the job of arms control officers a whole lot easier to cover.


I’m pretty surprised at the level of political support. And in particular with both NZ First and National coming out with strong support. Here is National’s parliamentary leader Simon Bridges

Simon Bridges in Epson announcing support for government’s gun law reforms. Click through to Stuff article and video.

Now I know that most people are going to be surprised that I finally have a reason to laud Simon Bridges (I know I am). But I just have to on this occasion. Both he and the public responses of National to the announcements yesterday were excellent.

They’re fully supporting the thrust of the proposed changes going forward into the future. As National seem to have made a career in politics of being stupid over my lifetime, I’m sure it won’t last. But I’m going to enjoy it while it does. 

In parliament, only the minnow party of Act appears to be in opposition to the changes. I suppose that, at this point, one can’t read too much significance into Simon Bridges choosing to make his announcements in support from in the Epsom electorate – the Act survival lifeline. But I find it of political interest.


Finally, I’d have to say that the government coalition led by Jacinda Ardern and Winston Peters have done their customary good initial job. It is what I expect of them (which is high praise from me).

It looks like the way forward on gun controls is clear and I expect to be poring over the detail looking for problems in a few weeks.


The massacres in Christchurch were horrific and  a result of blase attitude to weapons control by successive governments and opposition parties over decades was just dumb. This program moving forward looks good. 

But being a person steeped in debugging programs, this all makes me deeply suspicious. I’m looking for when (and not if) the gotcha is going to crawl out into the light.

128 comments on “Adequate gun control and (almost) complete party support.”

  1. greywarshark 1

    Right let’s pass the sort of gun law we need. In this we apparently can take most leaves of our book from copying the Australian action. But we are warned about equivocating by the dreaded Lobbyists for their particular obsession, and getting tied up in knots.

    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/385308/military-style-semi-automatic-weapons-ban-gun-lobby-will-fight-changes-warns-reform-advocate
    New Zealand Politics
    22 March 2019
    ‘Military-style semi-automatic weapons ban: Gun lobby will fight changes warns reform advocate’

    Just as we can learn from Australian experience of the past, we can keep in mind that practically all our problems are just reruns of those of the past, cyclical.
    Hence the Gordian knot learning:

    Gordian knot, knot that gave its name to a proverbial term for a problem solvable only by bold action. In 333 bc, Alexander the Great, on his march through Anatolia, reached Gordium, the capital of Phrygia. …

    The phrase “cutting the Gordian knot” has thus come to denote a bold solution to a complicated problem.</blockquote)

    So in our smart, civilised society, we think, let us look back to the ancients grappling with the same basics in a different time. Alexander the Great is still remembered. NZ the Great Country will be known for taking a giant step forward if we come down hard and provide the funds to ensure the regulation is carried out strictly.

    The fact that Australia has already done it won't make a difference. We can be a tipping point in gun control after this. Bernie Sanders is quoting our stance to
    illustrate what the USA needs to do. We can win, and do good. Let's do it.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111465565/world-reacts-to-new-zealands-new-gun-laws-after-christchurch-terror-attacks
    'World reacts to New Zealand's new gun laws after Christchurch terror attacks'
    US Senator Bernie Sanders has applauded Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern for announcing tougher gun laws in New Zealand.
    “This is what real action to stop gun violence looks like,” he posted on Twitter. “We must follow New Zealand’s lead, take on the NRA and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons in the United States.”

  2. Nick 2

    Thank you for the write up Lprent. Good information. So good to see politicians do the right thing at pace.

  3. Grant Insley 3

    It’s been my experience that any more than one shot when hunting only results in damage to the meat. Bird shooting is different in some ways. I’ve never yet seen a group of animals, flock of birds or whatever sit quietly and let anyone fire more than 5 shots at them. They quickly depart. Then you reload. We used to carry spare clips for this purpose. Having more than 5 shots loaded makes you a lazy hunter.

    • greywarshark 3.1

      What have other shooters got to say to Grant I’s opinions and experience? This is a rare example of factual stuff about results. It is good to hear some anecdotes if they are on the level.

  4. fustercluck 4

    You guys are looking in the wrong places for solutions, I believe.

    The UK has even more restrictive gun laws and yet gun violence is rising there. Stabbings increased so they banned knives but stabbings are still increasing.

    Terrorists have adapted to gun restrictions using rental trucks or IEDs to accomplish similar casualty rates to mass shootings.

    3d printing, in both metal and plastic, is advancing rapidly.

    Firearms have recently been found in illicit drug shipments into NZ.

    The most violent cities in the USA have the most restrictive gun control laws. Over 90% of the mass shootings in the USA happen in so-called gun-free zones.

    Restricting a technology to try to restrict the abuse of that technology is not a very effective way to deal with the causal, i.e., the human factor.

    NZ now faces a much more difficult discussion about free speech, freedom on the internet, and political freedom. Removing firearms of whatever type from the possession of law-abiding citizens that were never going to be a part of the problem at hand will not deal with these larger problems.

    We need to be very cautious here. We must carefully protect the rights of those that we disagree with vehemently or we will all face living in a country that has lost the fruits of the Enlightenment, the hard-fought gains of our ancestors, that is to say, the right to live as free men and women.

    • lprent 4.1

      I think that you aren’t thinking, more playing with simple minded slogans.

      The issue isn’t that nutters are out there and can use whatever weapons are available. We know that. Hell everyone knows that.

      The reason why the semi-automatic weapons are the focus at present is because they allow killing or severely injure large numbers of people to be accessible to technical simpletons.

      You don’t have to learn to make sophisticated bombs, or fly aircraft to spray a clip out of a semi-automatic. You don’t require brains – as is pretty self-evident from the people who use them.

      Cars, trucks, knives, and even bolt-action weapons are not designed as mass death weapons and are not that capable at being adapted to it.

      • fustercluck 4.1.1

        I am sad to see that my attempt to participate in the discussion here from a different perspective than most was dismissed as “simple-minded”. The facts that I asserted are simply that, facts.

        A truck requires no special training and is arguably easier to use than a firearm.

        The 2016 truck attack in Nice killed over 80 innocents.

        Knives are ubiquitous.

        The 2014 attack in Kunming involved zero firearms and resulted in the death of 31 innocents.

        An IED using a 9kg gas cylinder requires very little training and (horribly) ample instructions are available on the internet to permit any wingnut to build one.

        Home-made IEDs killed 23 in Manchester and wounded over 100 more.

        Arguably, the Christchurch shooter had to jump through more hoops than any of the attackers listed above in order to carry out his plan.

        The University of Texas tower shooter used a bolt action rifle to kill 11 and wound over 30, some at a range of over 500 meters. The ammunition used in pretty much any hunting rifle is far more deadly and has much greater range than the .223/5.56 ammunition used in an AR15. Certainly, a bolt action rifle requires different tactics than an AR15, but it is every bit as capable of inflicting mass casualties.

        My point is that removing certain guns from the law-abiding does not deal with the underlying issues that result in mass fatality attacks. Forcing a mass killer to choose alternative methods does not deal with the question of why they have come to that motivation nor does it prevent them from undertaking a very effective plan using something other than a firearm.

        You may dismiss the above as simple-minded, but I challenge you to do so when facing the families of those killed in Nice, Manchester, Kunming, etc.

        [lprent: Read the policy and consider what is involved in robust debate. I used exactly the same tone to you, that of contempt for stupidity, that you used to everyone else. The only difference was that I was explicit as I was uncertain if you were intelligent enough to interpret anything more subtle.

        If you don’t like receiving it, then I suggest you don’t use that particular debating tactic. It causes flame wars and I’m likely to shove the consequences straight down whining throat. I have a low toleration for fuckwits doing antique online tactics that I’ve observed for the last 4 decades. ]

        • Dennis Frank 4.1.1.1

          “The University of Texas tower shooter used a bolt action rifle to kill 11 and wound over 30”: the rebel architect was immortalised in The Ballad of Charles Whitman by Kinky Friedman.

          [Verse 1]
          He was sitting up there for more than an hour
          Way up there on the Texas tower
          Shooting from the twenty-seventh floor
          He didn’t choke or slash or slit them
          Not our Charles Joseph Whitman
          He won’t be an architect no more

          Didn’t show up on vinyl till ’72, but “I wrote “The Ballad of Charles Whitman” shortly afterward. I’m sure the people who didn’t like it thought I was mocking a tragedy or something, but they didn’t listen to the song. It explores the mind of Charles Whitman and what makes these things happen. The question is, Why? Why would somebody do that? He was a straight-A student, an Eagle Scout, a Marine—just a good all-around, all-American asshole. I doubt if his neighbors thought he was evil. That’s usually how it is”.
          https://genius.com/Kinky-friedman-the-ballad-of-charles-whitman-lyrics

          • greywarshark 4.1.1.1.1

            Thanks Dennis F
            …these things happen. The question is, Why? Why would somebody do that? He was a straight-A student, an Eagle Scout, a Marine—just a good all-around, all-American asshole. I doubt if his neighbors thought he was evil. That’s usually how it is”

            So – was he a materialist and didn’t have a soul? Was he a conformist and went through all the routines, did the things society had set up, and then thought WTF? Did he get to the end of all his certification of being great and wonder ‘What is this all for. I’m finished, but what next and I even don’t like anybody or anything around me’?

            • Dennis Frank 4.1.1.1.1.1

              I got a lot of flack from a few commentators when I tried to encourage a focus on learning about his psyche & motivation. Citing the need for evidence-based public policy escalated it into abuse. Puzzling why some leftists seek to deny our need to learn from experience.

              So I cited Kinky’s rationale in wry observation of his similar interest in the psychological angle 53 years ago. I doubt the media reported much if anything on that shooter’s motive, or even family background, to explain his apparent alienation & descent into ultraviolence. As I’ve mentioned, the profession of psychology carefully refrains from exhibiting any professional competence on these issues, so as to create the impression in the public mind that they verge on useless. So it’s hard to blame the media for their focus on sensationalism instead of elucidation.

              • WeTheBleeple

                Dennis. I was not discouraging learning. I had an issue with your direct propogation of the terrorists materials, and your consideration he had a point…

                It was tone deaf and terrible timing. Especially in the light of the wishes of our PM not to do it. It came across as entitled pompous and arrogant. And very ignorant.

                Stop stirring and misrepresenting me and the situation. I got mad, and you know I’m not a hotbed of mental health, but you kept at it, snide shitty comments and here you are still going…

                You are using all of this to pick on the aspie ptsd guy, refusing to answer to what you actually did, and constantly acting like a victim for being sworn at.

                If you can’t handle swearing you are out of touch with most of the population and you don’t care anyway you just use it to play victim.

                Stop judging, lying, picking, digging at and needling me in your underhanded shitty way.

                You prick.

                • solkta

                  I used to think Franky was a try-hard who was too stupid and or lazy to get any real knowledge of the topics he prattles on about. Now i think that he is a shit stirring little prick.

                • gsays

                  @WtB Mate, I value your contribution here on TS.

                  I have noticed folks, who are usually quite magnanimous, being quite aggresive.
                  All good, bearing in mind that we are grieving etc.

                  What caused me to comment was in your second paragraph, you cite the PMs wishes.

                  In your last line, you ignored our leaders more important instruction of kindness.

              • lprent

                I’d just ask – what would be the point (outside of pure gossip)?

                Presumably the point of such a profile would need to be translated into policy changes at some point to be useful to society as a whole.

                One of the problems is that to do a psychological analysis on a single society wide basis, from where any individual is drawn, and then to try to remove the causes of their behaviour would have to be described as a forlorn hope. This would be almost everyone’s experience just of families, let alone acquaintances or friends or even enemies. Frigging hard to see where most personalities, even those that we know well, derive much of their behaviour from except as poorly formed metaphors.

                Then to try to do it in a society that is in a large part made up of people born in from other societies subject to different policies and societies (like this individual) seems ridiculous to me. And then there are the generational shifts.

                Just thinking about any correlations spinning off the infinite levels of different traits.

                For instance this guy appears to have spent a lot of time playing online games in his youth. I hate to think of a tens of thousands of hours that I have done with them ever since starting to play Duke Nukem with other via modem in 1991. I did several thousand hours playing Doom in groups in 1993-5. Or online forums. I’ve been doing them since 1980. I have over 20 thousand comments over the last decade just in this one.

                How much does that both of us have done these things lead to a probability of occurrence of the same behaviour in the other? I’d say pretty minimal based on the people I know who have also done the both of these activities.

                You can see the same things in just about everything from kids from abusive families to those raised in the lap of luxury. Those who are short compared to those who are tall.

                Outside of physical developmental damage, any correlations tend to be well below any useful margins of error.

                So what would be the point? The only one I can think of would be to do the kind of profiling that police already do (and frequently misuse). And my opinion of those is that it usually causes more damage than it handles.

                • Dennis Frank

                  The point is formulation of public policy. I’m a sceptic about the utility of the hate-speech law, as I’ve mentioned, due to the lack of usage. Now that the cops have launched prosecutions in the wake of the massacre, any court decision that identifies it on the basis of evidence will establish case law.

                  If/when that happens, media will know how to recognise it. Nobody reproduced any definition for it that was attached to the legislation during the canadian visit furore, did they? That created the impression in my mind that no definition was used by the designers and drafters of the legislation. Small wonder the media don’t act in the way parliament expected them to, eh?

                  People think mass shooters are wacko. That’s traditional. Courts often decide otherwise. It would be helpful to all if the warning signs are recognisable. That requires consensus on what those warning signs actually are – right across the political spectrum.

                  • McFlock

                    Warning signs are only recognisable if displayed, and are fundamentally different to motivations.

                    Our fucker and the Norwegian fucker concealed any warning “signs” from anyone who would do anything about it. Finding commonalities after the fact won’t help prevent the next fucker, because fuckers know to keep their plans quiet. There are very few spreekilling fuckers about whom everyone says “oh shit, totally knew he was going to do that, he told everyone when where and how he was going to do it, and he totally did it”.

                    All we can do is keep weeding out the hate so as few people as possible grow up to be fuckers.

                    • Dennis Frank

                      Warning signs tend to be produced by motivations. The inquiry into why the govt agencies created to detect these threats didn’t detect him will presumably inform us more about what warning signs they look for, whether they hadn’t been instructed to look for the right signs, whether he exhibited warning signs, etc.

                      While not attempting to jump the gun on that, I think it is a good idea for us to consider it from a personal perspective – and a social perspective. After all, personal and social threat detection have been critical to human survival throughout our evolutionary trajectory. No way can we avoid the necessity.

                    • McFlock

                      Any competent person can avoid raising the biggest red flags. And all they need to do is raise about as many flags, warnings, side-glances, or concerns as anyone else.

                      We can help detection by lowering the backround level of hate, but detection of someone thinking about cmmitting an atrocity is the final hail mary effort you make as a backstop to things that actually work: controlling people’s access to offensive weapons, and protecting probable targets without turning the area into a prison.

                      And we don’t actually need to know some of these methods. We shouldn’t. Because knowledge enables evasion. If everyone knows that anyone who googles “mein kampf” gets their full history processed through a threat assessment, the serious ones will just buy the book secondhand, or groups will distribute samizdat copies.

                      Basically, I reckon the most we should see is an inquiry the recommends the SIS and GCSB have a management shake up and probably their heads fired. Other than that, knowing the details of what they look for will just make those aspects easier to hide.

                    • Exkiwiforces

                      From what I’m hearing and a chap by the of Jim also mentioned yesterday I think?

                      That ……… name was reported to the local firearms officer/ office at Dunedin police station and the same people also raise the issue of the conduct of the Bruce Range in Sth Dunedin over Safety, the live fire practices/ serials and possibly breaches of illegal mod’s to weapons as well.

                      From what I read/ heard from sources so far there is a lot of very pissed off people down in Dunedin, from coppers, Ex and current service personnel, hunters and Service Rifle Tgt shooters. At the soppy, lazy or just plain incompetence from the local firearms office/ officer and the head of Dunedin Policing. Then also we have people in CHCH raising issues of the white supremacy muppets attending certain firearms/ militia events in ever increasing numbers.

                      Some of my copper mates are now starting to ask why the top head shed of NZ Police is in CHCH and not Wally his deputy??

                      I think Bushy knows more than what he is saying to the media and Janadals is doing a bloody outstanding job atm, if the cops are trying hide something? Then she needs hold a Royal Commission at arm’s length before it does damage to the Government and to her moral ethical standards that she has set of the last week.

                    • McFlock

                      Yeah, but as this sort of points out, anything he did didn’t separate him from folks who didn’t commit any massacres.

                      BTW, “sth Dunedin” floods every time we get a decent rain, and it’s right next to the harbour. This club was in the arse end of the dunners city limits 🙂

              • greywarshark

                Dennis
                I guess you will let that pass. I said the other day about being a statesman and you certainly argue things out well. enough to be one. And the art of breathing your nose is a handy one.

                Handling psyches is an interesting thing, you can’t know someone as well as you think if you don’t know something of their background and tendencies. It might explain why you don’t listen to the sensitives at times of sensitivity!

                I think back to the Kansas affair. Breakfast at Tiffany’s guy. Waiting for it to come to me. He did a closely researched study on two shooters who seemed to randomly select a farming family to shoot. Got them lying down with their heads on pillows beforehand. Weirdly considerate.
                I’ll look up google. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Cold_Blood
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Capote : author.

                • Dennis Frank

                  Re sensitivity, I have my own. I can empathise with the sensitivity of others no problem. Whether that then becomes a suitable topic for blog discussion is driven by the extent of reciprocity. Seeing things from one’s own point of view is fundamental to human nature, so when folks get into dramatising their personal navel-gazing I switch to something more interesting. Just like everyone else.

                • WeTheBleeple

                  “when folks get into dramatising their personal navel-gazing I switch to something more interesting”

                  See, I might have a bit of insight, but you are not open to conversation, you are still scoring points aka playing games.

                  This is not Statesman like take off the rosy spectacles GWS. I have every right to reply to his little digs. it’s not you who’s the implied target.

                  I also don’t appreciate how it all got dumped, out of context, at the top of open mike, but I did read the context of how that came to be, so such is life. I then got piled on. Dennis gloats. You blow smoke up his ass.

                  Just stop being petty please Dennis.

                  • greywarshark

                    I just like to see us sticking to the bigger picture as much as possible WtB.

                    And all the time i am on this blog I am thinking ‘These are people who imply they care about what sort of society we live in, how treat each other, and how the present society we have can be improved so it’s fit for purpose in the fast-developing distant future. We are supposed to be intelligent, educated, aware environmentally, but also socially. I fear that we will all split into groups that have to defend themselves from other groups and that there will be little room for concerted human effort because so many people are so bloody self-centred and lack kindness and empathy. That means they will also be impractical as people getting on with each other and keeping to agreements that are enhancing rather than limiting will be necessary. The ill-tempered, sneering, mean and self-centred approach emerges from many on this blog, which does not bode well. Also a sentimental attachment to a soft approach and reluctance to engage in debate against some favoured person will result in limiting the width of ideas and debate; consensus is often managed in a way that dampens thought and expression.

                    • WeTheBleeple

                      “because so many people are so bloody self-centred and lack kindness and empathy”

                      That’s what I’m seeing in the constant needle (Frank) – jab (me) – victim (Frank) – pile on (you, others) – victim (me) – needle (frank) – pattern.

                      And it’s getting tedious.

                      I don’t know what the rest of what you were saying is about, and didn’t ask for a psychoanalysis.

                • Molly

                  I was given that book many years ago by a friend.

                  Interesting read. One of the perpetrators had noticeable learning difficulties, and followed the lead of the other. He also had some recognisable physical features that many years later make me wonder if he had Foetal Alcohol Syndrome. I’ll have to dig the book up after our renovations, and read it again. People with this impairment have very little or no impulse control, have impaired decision making, and are easily led or manipulated. IIRC, he was reported as saying that he didn’t think he would shoot anyone until after he had done it.

                  The issue regarding mental impairment was clearly outlined in the book.

          • SHG 4.1.1.1.2

            Whitman wasn’t evil, he was ill, and he knew it.

        • greywarshark 4.1.1.2

          You fail to sharpen your mind cluster-fluster. Trying to solve a number of similar problems by widening the scope of one remedial action is not likely to be satisfactory. Concentrating on a range of weapons that are particularly egregious and preventing availability of certain clip-on additions to allowed guns is the first priority.

          The new laws won’t stop gun tragedies. But it is a good step, and will help if proper controls are introduced, maintained by regulation that is rigidly carried out. There should be no ‘capturing’ of government officials in this area of control. In fact it might be good to ensure that staff turns over every ten years or so.

          And your point of looking at why people resort to hurting and killing as a way of ‘serving their country’ and ‘solving problems’ is a good one. All the male energy that goes into violence and projected self-deprecation could be used
          in something that they could be proud of and which would be honoured by the community.

          There could be teams of guys that would be on call to help out with whatever needs doing, a sort of Ready Team, that would either be working or working out to keep fit between tasks. They would be permanent members of their Team, which would have different ranks according to the experience and quality of their personnel. They could all also do short block courses at Technical College between call-out times.

          They could be a bit like the now nation-wide Students Army like the one that started in Christchurch after the earthquakes. People would cheer the guys, and girls, in the Ready Team when they came to town or country to help out with the big, difficult jobs and highly regard them. They could be helping shift logs at Tolaga Bay at the moment. There are going to be so many environmental problems, that something would be occurring all the time.

          It would give regular pay at a good rate, which would improve with experience, length of service, quality of skills, and there would be travel around different parts of the country. There would be team spirit, it would in the end be equivalent to getting in the All Blacks when one of the workers got into the A team.

          It is a practical idea and worth going for Cluster. If you are looking for positive change, why don’t you take this up and start lobbying for this change instead of thinking about guns. Guns are to test your shooting skills, or for scaring, injuring or killing people. So go for the positive, go hunting with your mind, like gun users who give up shooting with guns and take up a camera to shoot images of the wonderful animals. Take your ideas to wonderful pollies and leaders whose batteries are still fully charged and who could shine some light on the dark corners of sad society, at present going bad for lack of sunlight. Just trying would be a worthy activity leading to appreciation and two-way respect. and succeeding would be a great service to the nation and prove you to be strong in mind and body, the sort of well-balanced individual that is so needed now and into our ever more difficult future.

          • fustercluck 4.1.1.2.1

            Why do you people have to preface any comments with an insult?

            [lprent: Read the policy, stop whining and grow up. Just do the debate like an adult without attempting to make yourself an artificial victim. ]

            • greywarshark 4.1.1.2.1.1

              I start off with an uncomplimentary feeling about your comment.

              Then I put effort in to an extensive comment on an idea that you could use to build something that would lift you or other men up from the present state of sadness and dissatisfaction many of them are in.

              But you are too tender to even try to think to lift yourself and your cohort up and be real men. Not much hope for you and the rest of us while there is such a soggy bunch of aggrieved males with no spirit to raise themselves. Your first thought is to reject anything that someone outside the group suggests, unless said with gentleness, paying proper respect. Poor you, poor the rest of us.

            • OnceWasTim 4.1.1.2.1.2

              Read the Policy, Stop whining and grow up
              Or ‘you person’ go start you’re own fucking blog

              Jesus H!
              But thanks for reminding me why I gave up tutoring (apart from the diminishing appreciation and support of the academic staff in favour of the bean counters)

            • WeTheBleeple 4.1.1.2.1.3

              Hey Fuster

              Change ‘you people’ to ‘some people’ and you’ll likely only piss off the some people doing what you think it is they’re doing.

              Opening statements like yours are provocative, not specific.

        • Gabby 4.1.1.3

          Thanks, I shall dismiss it as simpleminded fluffyduck.

      • Bewildered 4.1.2

        LPrent devils adocate arguement on this is bad policy made on the hoof and emotion

        How many people have been murdered by guns in nz, very few, murder rate has been dropping since gun ownership including automatics have been increasing Mass shootings in nz are a outlier Should we be making policy on the hoof based on outlier especially when statistics that are meaningful correlate that guns are not the issue here The Au arguement also is weak, yes there has been no massacres since port Arthur but there where very few before port Arthur suggesting nothing si statistically significant Finally current gun laws did not prevent the massacre and where broken and not enforced why do we think more regulation will help Murder is against the law, drugs are against the law, murderers and criminals don’t tend to care about laws, prohibition solves very little One other interesting point, people may be surprised to know that the US only ranks 56th in the world in mass public shootings Norway Switzland Russia have 45pc higher rates of mass public shootings ( source Crime prevention research Center, crime search.org), so again are guns really the issue

        • Bewildered 4.1.2.1

          Note above should read 56th per capitia in regard to US ranking with respect to public mass shootings

        • lprent 4.1.2.2

          How many people have been murdered by guns in nz, very few, murder rate has been dropping since gun ownership including automatics have been increasing ….

          And that is a prime example of the moron’s correlation dribbled by a anti-punctuation bewildered idiot.. Lets just assume the dribbler actually has the stat right – which is unlikely since dribbler was unable to provide a link in support of his lie. But I guess if you looked at it as being a percentage of our burgeoning population – it is possible.

          Here are just a few other alternative explanations – some are probably valid causations, some are not. But they are all valid correlations.

          • We have had increased immigration over the last 20 years, so gun deaths have been falling. The dilution of the deathly kiwi gun kulture.
          • The number of people in younger age groups relative to the rest of the population has been falling – so gun deaths have been falling – fewer kids suiciding by gun
          • Farmers have been getting better prices for dairy products (the farmer murder/suicide hypothesis)
          • As the internet grows, gun deaths have been falling.
          • As the use of MMOG grows, gun deaths have been falling.
          • As Judith Collins gets closer to the hot seat, gun deaths have been falling. I won’t comment on that one…
    • Dennis Frank 4.2

      Good point re 3D printing. There was a tv news story I saw not long ago proving that the tech had successfully produced a semi-auto gun. To a non-gun-nut like me it looked just like an AK47 or similar and apparently worked just as well.

      Our legislation will have to be designed to cope with this new tech too. Your other point re UK trend despite the law is worthy of examination. I’d like to know why the trend is happening.

      Supply & demand could explain it. The law is a constraint on animal spirits (techno-jargon of economists). Excessive immigration escalates hostilities regardless of the constraint. You can actually accelerate a vehicle when the handbrake is on.

      • Paul Campbell 4.2.1

        I run a makerspace in NZ, at least once a year I get some teenage boy (and yes they’ve always been boys) who asks about printing guns … I get to explain that our gun laws apply equally to making guns as they do to owning guns, and that a 3D printed gun made from the low temp thermoplastics we use for 3D printing is more than likely to blow up in their faces … yes we encourage you to use our free 3D printers, but NO you may not print an (illegal) gun

        • Dennis Frank 4.2.1.1

          Assuming that you are right, and the current law suffices to stop such 3D gun-printing here, that’s reassuring. No evidence that it has happened here does suggest the copycat thing is not kicking in.

          If the one I saw on the news is made via more sophisticated chemistry, to withstand the effect of heat generated by usage, then an enterprising gun-shop owner may try to find a loophole in the law that allows manufacture here.

          • Andre 4.2.1.1.1

            I’ve used 3-D printing professionally. The material properties you get are absolute crap for anything but the most sophisticated printers. A 3-D printed gun from a hobby printer through to a middle-level professional printer is going to be as much a hazard to the user as to anyone else.

            Yes, it’s also possible to 3-D print metal parts (research what Rocket Lab is doing). But that kind of printer is worth around half a mil as I understand it. Is anyone going to put that kind of investment at risk to produce highly illegal parts? Particularly when it’s going to remain much easier to just smuggle some guns?

            The point of banning the guns isn’t that it realistically expects to remove all the banned guns at once. Even though it will get rid of most of them. When all that’s left are the illegal ones, it becomes much riskier for anyone to own one, it’s risky to let anyone else become aware you have one, and it becomes much easier for the police to confiscate them as soon as they become aware of them.

            • woodart 4.2.1.1.1.1

              very good post andre, should re required reading for all of the ‘:what about 3d printing’ know it alls.

        • BM 4.2.1.2

          Shows how little you know.

    • mauī 4.3

      I like your last paragraphs. I’ve recently watched a bit of Stefan Molyneux for the first time, he makes the point that shutting down people’s views/debate has the effect of driving it underground. That could be even more dangerous for a society.

      There’s also a chance that getting tough on hate groups won’t make the slightest difference. This individual could have chosen to wear an “extreme right” ideology to carry out a heinous act. It might not be so much about the ideology, but about a sick character who uses whatever they can to justify their heinous actions.

      • fustercluck 4.3.1

        And underground is where extremism can turn to mass murder. If we do not protect the right of the truly offensive to speak freely we will see more and more of these murderous eruptions. Allowing free speech for all, not just those we agree with, is the single best way to protect ourselves, i.e., it is far more effective than gun control, knife control, etc. When we force others to hide their thoughts and feelings, we will encounter them in other forms soon enough.

        • greywarshark 4.3.1.1

          Self control goes hand in hand with gun control. Expecting people who have no self control, no real self respect or respect for others, to behave themselves responsibly is futile. Gun control is necessary for us others who do attempt self control. We need a society where trust prevails, otherwise we never know what mad and bad thing may happen. It is the may that ‘kills’ society, enjoyable and friendly society that is.

          • WeTheBleeple 4.3.1.1.1

            I was wondering if, with the ‘internet of things’, all 3D printers might be perpetually online and then they are monitored for:

            Known pre-existing code for weaponry. Weaponry.

            And new designs might run through a digital filter to log their components and origin should that design prove to be nefarious. (a transformer!). This might also solve issues of copyright.

            Dunno. Just thoughts on it.

        • Bastables 4.3.1.2

          Bullshit, even Hitler complained about how his speech was taken away. Fascists do not take freedom of speech seriously, they use it to gain power and commit genocide.

          The Wiemar republic stated they had the most free society…

      • lprent 4.3.2

        The problem is that there are many ways to shut down debate. My problem as a moderator is that one of the most common ways of doing it is for individuals commenting to try do an artificial imbalance of behaviour online.

        Do as I say, not do as I do.

        Personally that is the basis of my operational response to critical new commentators who clearly haven’t observed the site for any length of time. I reflect their style back to them in an accentuated form and see how they cope with it.

        Always enlightening 😈

      • Bastables 4.3.3

        Stefan Molyneux is part of the alt right. He propagates the white replacement theory, argues the fall of Rome is due to immigration and therefore immigration into Europe will destroy “European” culture., that there was no native american genocide. He was also very involved in the alt right/gamer gates redicoulus attacks on women including surreal critiques on Star wars, Ghost busters and Wonder Woman being secret feminist assaults on masculinity.

        He’s a crypto white supremacist and a misogynist, that has actually propagated the hateful ideas of immigrants will destroy “western culture” (aka the white race). That you’re using him as a defence for allowing hate speech as “view’s and debate” is telling.

        Let’s listen to the fascists on why their ideas of how terrible minorities should be acceptable eh?

        • Stuart Munro. 4.3.3.1

          I agree. I don’t think Molyneux has improved on Gibbons’ explanations for the decline of Rome, and I don’t welcome his stimulus of the nutjob fringe.

          The anarchic alt-right has reached the point of presenting a real danger to societies that tolerate it. He or any other agent provocateur should be given cause to reflect on the consequences of inciting ethnic violence, which may include legal liability.

          I’d contrast him with Peterson, who has a fair amount of unobjectionable material out there, and whose opinions are somewhat informed by research. I don’t think I’d bother to see him, but his book isn’t just a collection of vagrant prejudices loitering without means of support – though he would do well not to appear to tacitly endorse some kinds of fans, like the ‘proud Islamophobe’ in the recently circulated photo.

        • mauī 4.3.3.2

          Ok, thanks. I haven’t seen a lot of his content, in the thing I watched he seemed to have a reasonable argument and appeared balanced when it came to free speech.

          But.. I’ve just looked up his take on native americans and that is really off. He does actually think that the european race is superior, and looks to be finding excuses for what happened to the indians. What a fuckwit. You’re right, looks like a white supremacist.

      • Jess NZ 4.3.4

        Anyone wanting to debate on free speech vs hate speech re: threat to society should first at least read what the UN has already discussed decades ago and concluded – then see if you have anything new and better to say. Molyneux does not, and is clearly biased.

        ‘During its eighty-first session, to be held from 6 to 31 August 2012, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination will hold a day of thematic discussion on racist hate speech in the context of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

        ‘According to article 4, States parties are required to penalize racist hate speech, including dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial hatred, acts of racially motivated violence and incitement to such acts.’

        And much more at.

        https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CERD/Pages/Racisthatespeech.aspx

    • Dukeofurl 4.4

      US cities generally dont have highly restrictive gun laws any more after US Supreme court rulings in the last decade.
      https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-met-gun-control-chicago-dahleen-glanton-20171003-story.html

      Remember that old requirement that gun owners in Chicago register their firearms with the city and obtain a permit? Well, that’s gone too.

      Then you have to consider the ‘City of Chicago’ is only 2.7 mill people in an urban area of almost 10 mill people with dozens of municipalities which runs into 3 states.
      In 30 min or so you can drive from ‘City of Chicago’ to ‘City of East Chicago’ which is in neighboring Indiana not in Illinois. Different state laws would apply, or in half a day, drive from Chicago to very lax Missouri.
      Guns dont recognise borders/ municipal boundaries in the US, The most violent places are not the very large cities but small towns in the South, but the figures most often used are deliberately only count areas of 100K population or more ( “Cities”)

      • greywarshark 4.4.1

        What is the approved level of killings to enable a human settled area to call itself a ‘safe’ city, town or state?

  5. ianmac 5

    Being a cynic I expect Bridges sighed in relief because he would know that the 20 Select Committee points of reform 2017, which Bennett whittled down to 7 of the easier ones, will mean that National doesn’t have to do the hard yards.

    • Chris 5.1

      And Collins is just smart enough to know where the popular support is. Why didn’t she do anything when she was minister?

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111484260/judith-collins-tells-nra-to-bugger-off-over-new-zealand-gun-reform

      • ianmac 5.1.1

        No doubt a finger in the air will indicate which way the wind is blowing. Be very easy therefore to make the “right” call. Brave? Nah!

        • Chris 5.1.1.1

          Collins would’ve asked herself “it’s difficult but I need to find something to say about all of this that will resonate with the masses yet is consistent with my reputation as having a tough and abrasive personality. I know, I’ll say I told the NRA to bugger off! Perfect”.

      • Siobhan 5.1.2

        You give her too much credit for ‘smarts’.

        She’s just, as good as admitted, that her previous lackluster attempts at gun ownership reform were clearly in line (or possibly at the behest of) with previous NRA lobbying.

        They have no shame. Unfortunately that’s how their voters seem to like them.

        • Chris 5.1.2.1

          I think the likes of Collins, Bennett et al, are *just smart enough to see where the popular support is*, but yes, I agree that an inability to look beyond popular support suggests the bar is pretty low.

  6. Puckish Rogue 6

    Personally speaking bringing in new laws and rules and still managing to get, mostly, universal support means you’ve probably got it about right so hopefully we can now all agree that all we need now is just minor, and I do mean minor, tinkering

    • It is ,… a milestone.

      A good milestone,… even Judith is happy with it… like as you say… just a few more tying up of loose ends. It is a good result so far. Ironing out any rough edges is all that’s needed in the pragmatic sense. Re-implementing a register system is needed.

    • Kevin 6.2

      I think the universal support was pretty much forced upon them PR. The political hit for opposing the Governments actions over gun laws would have been crippling for National and would have been the final nail in Bridges leadership coffin.

      • Puckish Rogue 6.2.1

        The rules did need to change and this seems a fairly decent balance so good on them, and everyone else of course

    • lprent 6.3

      Yeah. I was surprised.

      You can see from my post yesterday, that I really hadn’t thought through the implications. What they wound up with was pretty much what Redlogix was advocating.

      Less than what I was advocating. Probably I’m a bit more worried about upcoming technologies.

      For instance the increased densities in batteries start making devices like coilguns far more likely to go into wide usage. If I can get a battery on the back of my bike capable of (mostly) pushing my 120kgs + 7kg of computer up a 85m hill every work day – then pushing a multiple 2mm ferro slither out at very high velocities out of a man portable weapon isn’t that far away.

      But for the existing projectile weapons, this isn’t a bad solution.

    • ianmac 6.4

      PR “means you’ve probably got it about right”
      How come it was wrong in 2017 but right in 2019?

  7. patricia bremner 7

    There are things we have to be thankful for after the tragedy of loss.
    A clear sighted Prime Minister who has led with grace.
    A parliament which has moved swiftly to remove military grade weapons.
    A public who have shown grief and generosity in equal measure, every other ethnic community pulling together and sharing.
    A Muslim Community who have shown huge dignity and trust.
    A good foundation for moving forward, and a balm on the pain.
    We are ever changed, and will open our Marae Halls Churches and places of worship (with few exceptions.) We must open our hearts and homes, and grow in memory.
    Prime Minister Ardern is correct. He has failed in his message of hate.He of no name.
    The Nation will remember the fifty and support their families.

  8. Grumpy 8

    Like you, I have spent a lifetime around guns. I have worked as a professional deer hunter and pest controller and been heavily involved in the control of all types of pests.
    I agree totally with everything you say. These firearms have no place in New Zealand and are not useful in any form of wild animal control (except perhaps in the rapidly shrinking business of mass culling of deer and suchlike – which can be properly managed by DoC).
    Of more concern to me is the “type” of shooter around now. Predominantly younger and obsessed with wearing camo clothing these guys live for killing things. No longer a couple of ducks for the table but wholesale slaughter and just dump the carcasses.
    We see this attitude everywhere and it will not end well.
    The old hunting culture of New zealand still exists and could flourish with the removal of E-Cat and MSSA firearms and the attendant attitudes of many of their owners.

    • marty mars 8.1

      + 1 good comment

      • Grumpy 8.1.1

        In my old age, I have been invited out for a hunt with some of the younger generation. All armed with the latest point and spray automatics and donned head to foot in the latest pattern camo gear. I am now very choosy who I go out with.
        My father and uncles would have given them a good boot up the posterior. Hunting is a culture which involves providing food for the family and respect for the prey. That is missing these days.

        • marty mars 8.1.1.1

          Yep all my rellies hunt and I know a few hunters here – most older – I’ve mainly hunted pig in the day so bit different.

          It is a whole different type of hunter out there – less the hunter more just the killer imo.

          • WeTheBleeple 8.1.1.1.1

            Ah, living in the bush catching dinner with a tomahawk. Some of us were feral wayback 😀

            I absolutely agree with Grumpy. Unless it’s pest control, hunting is to fill the freezer and feed the whanau.

        • greywarshark 8.1.1.2

          I suggest grumpy that films and television has a big part to play here. Strong-jawed men striding into the fray, able to handle the opposition and preserve the life and resources of those behind, that’s the excuse behind the gun craze and the use of it as a means to settle a man’s mind when he gets riled about something. Or the man in wartime, so ennobling and so held back by incompetent officers, just go in and blaze away. Problem solved. The man who is looked up to and obeyed, whose skills and resilience are great gets glorified on film.

          So many films are about conflict and strength and enjoying having a go at the despicable enemy that just want to harass, injure, kill you and take what is yours? So put on the camo gear, and see if you can get some of the special night-hunting headgear and be a real man away from pesky rules, do your own thing, that’s the game. I think that would be what passes for thought in many young shooters’ minds.

          I read about Australian senator – or Queensland or something – Fraser Anning. He used the gun to clear aborigines off the properties he wanted. Now he is wealthy and believes in keeping what he has and preventing anyone trying to get some of it back. And is against people of colour as being undesirable; he would know all about that! Having is nine-tenths of the law. And if you use guns to get it, apparently once you have got it, whatever, you are home and hosed as they used to say.

        • left_forward 8.1.1.3

          Excellent Grump – I was espousing yesterday the school of thought that there is no moral legitimacy in killing animals (other than culling to protect flora, fauna, and food production), but the old hunting lore that you talk about here is acceptable when combined with the above exceptions.

          Unfortunately, this new hunter attitude also includes people who release young pigs and goats into natural bush areas to replenish hunting stocks, just as our colonial ancestors used released rabbits, possums, stoats and ferrets further back in time – all still doing significant damage to our fauna and flora.

          These people are often associated with one section of the anti-1080 lobby who are more interested in protecting ‘their’ hunting stocks and dogs than they are the natural environment.

          The whole issue of hunting culture and behaviour is all tied up with the gun issue – do we really want or need to concede our gun laws to protect such irresponsible attitudes?

          Thanks for your contribution.

    • RedLogix 8.2

      As a lifelong tramper I’ve shared a hut with hunters many times. Apart from the odd slightly anti-social and quirky ones, and one idiot who insisted it was ok to have a loaded gun inside … I’ve enjoyed the company of most, and learned a thing or two from them. The experienced ones know the bush so intimately, in a way trampers often never quite connect with.

      It’s not the guns I’ve a big problem with, it’s the irresponsible culture around them. Like you I’ve seen the culture shift from the highly skilled bushmen from the NZFS, through to a new group of camo-wearing fools who’ve learned all the wrong things, from all the wrong people.

      And these MSSA’s have done nothing but enable this unhealthy culture.

    • lprent 8.3

      Yeah. I’ve always viewed weapons as tools, not entertainment devices.

      I’ve invariably used weapons always as part of whatever I was working on – as a soldier or as part of work on farms or on a rifle range we were grazing or working with soldiers. Never been hunting except for pest clearance on farms.

      I suspect that a lot of kids (and as I get older the idea of what I think is a kid seems to get older as well) these days get their ideas about weapons from playing computer games.

      They have no conception of messiness that happens in real life at all kinds of levels when they get used inappropriately. Like this dickhead in Christchurch, they expect to rush in, spend a few minutes shooting appropriately play-acting targets and then running away from the consequences. Just damn dangerous to be around.

      I grew up around people who went off to WW2, Korea, Vietnam – including the range instructors and my grand-parents generation. It was somewhat chastising.

      • greywarshark 8.3.1

        The men forming hate groups want excitement. Having something to focus on gives them solidarity. And it is part of human behaviour. Countries that have internal problems will go to war, knowing that when facing outwards the citizens will concentrate on the external problem. Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands War is said to be an example.

        If those whitey identity groups haven’t ruined their brains with alcohol or some other disabling drug, they could form a bunch of do-or-die toads and learn how to defuse mines etc. They could front up to that enemy in a very sneaky way and give them a send off so that the people could farm, walk there again. Excitement, high pay, team spirit and self-pride. The Defence Force should do it and satistfy everyone provide they are kept under control. See they don’t go on night raids to neighbouring villages and rape young females or males; people who are either amoral, starved of sex, or both might do this.

        They would have regular trips home. They would be feted and probably given Nobel Peace prizes. Why not give them a chance to suck it and see what real danger and heroism is like, or return to it if they have been in a war. After war’s all-encompassing demands are over, some find civilian life lacks something. Some mine-sweepers would become much admired.

  9. Puckish Rogue 9

    Also let’s hope there’s an overhaul of how the police run firearms licensing

  10. Dennis Frank 10

    I heard a comment on Nine to Noon reinforcing yesterdays suggestion that there will be a longer-term program of gun reform by the coalition after the legislation scheduled for April 10 comes into effect. That suggests serious intent to do a thorough job. I also heard the Police Association rep (Cahill) say he’d seen his face on a blog with a target super-imposed.

    Media reportage has been to promote the pending legislation as a changing of the gun law but refer to the announcement by the G-G not as such. It suggests general ignorance of the fact that an order-in-council does change the law! The relevant govt website describes an order-in-council as a Legislative Instrument. Legislative Instruments are laws made by the Governor-General, Ministers of the Crown, and certain other bodies under powers conferred by an Act of Parliament.
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/glossary.aspx#li

  11. Jeremy 11

    I don’t think ACT is opposing reform, just that NZers should be able to have their say on the changes.

    I know we have had numerous previous reviews of the gun laws, but I believe NZers should still be able to have their say on this legislation. The Order in Council has removed the threat of additional sales i.e. held the status quo in place – it doesn’t reduce the threat of further attacks like the amnesty and surrender does till the amended legislation is passed, but the threat of further attacks can never be eliminated with the plethora of weapons available it can only be reduced slightly, and you can bet the spy agencies are working overtime to ensure a further attack doesn’t happen in the meantime.

    What the Government has basically decided to do is run roughshod over particapatory democracy to expedite a slight reduction in the risk of a further attack in the few months it would have taken to have proper engagement and consulation with the public over this major law reform. You can bet that if the public consultation was allowed to happen there would be a lot more and very different responses than to previous proposals when it was a niche issue. By not being allowed to have our say the terrorist via our politicians has robbed us of a little bit of our freedom and democracy.

    Because this is a major reform, and while I’m sure many commenters won’t agree, arguments for inalienable gun rights are often termed with respect to multi-generational ability to stockpile weapons against future autocratic and despotic regimes. It’s not an argument I agree with, but the way in which this legislation is going to be rammed through ensures that people with these beliefs won’t get to make their case, from within this group are the kind of gun nuts we’re all worried about and this is likely to incense them more than they would be already with the changes – exactly one of the outcomes the terrorist enumerated.

    I know that many people here are in favour of what is being prosed and view it as common sense, but not everyone is society shares those views. We need to maintain our democracy and freedom and engage in debate, because that is the only way that when the shoe is other the other foot, and something you strongly oppose is being proposed as common sense that you will also get your say and it won’t be rammed through under urgency.

    A further consideration is the wisdom of retrospectively criminalising behaviour, our government has done this twice now in a week and it should be worrying to all NZers.

    • Ed1 11.1

      The proposals in 2017 did go through a select committee process, and it has been indicated that further legislation will also have such a process, albeit possibly quite short. I cannot believe that submissions will be much different from those in 2017; I believe the statements about “Attack on Democracy” are somewhat over-egged.

      From what I understand, the recommendations of the 2017 select committee were not put to a vote of parliament – was that “maintaining our democracy”? One possible way forward would be to make the vote on any legislation a conscience vote, although not all parties may agree to that. Far from their being too little discussion, some may feel that with all the reports since the Thorpe Report, the example of Australia, and the need for change demonstrated by the Christchurch shooting, it is time for considered but timely action.

      • Jeremy 11.1.1

        Hi Ed,

        There is a difference between riding roughshod over the limited participatory parts of our democracy and an “Attack on Democracy”, I believe that further changes will allow for submissions but this initial change is going to be put through under urgency and is the only part I was referring to.

        Where you said, “some may feel that with all the reports since the Thorpe Report, the example of Australia, and the need for change demonstrated by the Christchurch shooting, it is time for considered but timely action.” that is exactly my point – some may feel that very strongly, and I’m sure many do, but that does’t justify making the changes they strongly prefer under urgency when considering the limited benefits of doing so compared to the cost and risks.

        • McFlock 11.1.1.1

          The cost is trivial. The risk of urgency becoming habit-forming in this govt is not much of a risk compared to the fact that we now know that we have active nazis in NZ and (until a day or two ago) massive loopholes in controlling tools of mass murder. As we’ve discovered, that’s a lethal risk.

    • greywarshark 11.2

      Jeremy
      Blah blah. Delay. Blah blah. Side issues get talked up and the discussion expands to contain these further matters. Blah blah. Stats of all sorts come forward with confusing graphs. Blah blah. Suggest some change Blah blah. Get sidetracked by the next large crisis. Blah blah. Something gets passed by parliament under urgency so as to appear to have dealt with the problem in a considered, formal manner…blah blah.

      • Jeremy 11.2.1

        So I’m guessing you have no actual constructive response to the serious points I’ve laid out above?

        No one is getting sidetracked before legislation is passed, it’s the most important bill on every parties agenda and it will be till it’s passed, the points I’ve raised go to the lack on wisdom in doing so in the manner proposed.

        • lprent 11.2.1.1

          Grey did.

          But these serious points that grey raised. I noticed that you aren’t dealing with them at all?

          • Jeremy 11.2.1.1.1

            I don’t see how he engaged in a debate other than to say, effectively, don’t raise any objections because that might delay things.

            I believe I did deal with that point in my response when I said “No one is getting sidetracked before legislation is passed, it’s the most important bill on every parties agenda and it will be till it’s passed” and it would remain the most important piece of legislation on every parties agenda until it was passed – whether it was passed under urgency or under a fast tracked select committee process. To imagine the public would let it be otherwise is, in my opinion, fanciful.

            I believe that would remove any concerns about the process and we would still end up at the same place, and we wouldn’t be letting this scumbag rob a little bit more of our participatory democracy from us.

            • greywarshark 11.2.1.1.1.1

              Cripes Jeremy. You are fanciful. You are just growing towards middle age apparently, but have not yet had time to stop and review all the political changes that have happened since you were born.

              it’s the most important bill on every parties agenda and it will be till it’s passed” and it would remain the most important piece of legislation on every parties agenda until it was passed – whether it was passed under urgency or under a fast tracked select committee process To imagine the public would let it be otherwise is, in my opinion, fanciful.

              Do you only take an interest in politics when it refers to something that affects you? If you were interested in society and your country, which most of your age group aren’t (this is from observation across a wide range of societal groups) you would have seen numerous examples of
              government ignoring ‘the most important piece of legislation’ to the country, which change FTTT.

              (Warning – Spoiler: reading may be incredibly boring. Rant starts here.)
              As politics involves all our society’s concerns there are numbers of pieces of legislation that were most important to be passed, that haven’t.
              For instance those helping to solve the problems of – people even families having to sleep in cars, having to pack into homes with the likelihood of spreading diseases, the unaffordable homes even to rent, the lack of homes for rent, those with low incomes and lack of time to parent have lack of food for children – from toddlers to secondary school students, the budget advisers struggling to help people who on the minimum grid of livability don’t get enough income,
              and – deep breath –

              the sale of NZ to foreign buyers to give the impression that we have an economy, the inability to enable jobs to be available to do things that need to be done because business interests have successfully tied government hands from taking cost-efficient steps for the unemployed, the organising of statistics taking so that it doesn’t give a clear picture of NZs employment situation for NZ consumption but uses methods that are compatible with the OECD’s recommendations, the joining up to trade treaties with egregious clauses that call for contra proforentum clauses (we being so small beside the bigger nations with bigger pockets and more brains – we exported many of value to us and turn to flexible overseas ones.)
              Also health, tourism, roads and rail, and on and on.

              • Jeremy

                You underestimate me methinks, I’ve been interested in politics since I was a teen and have studied the history of politics back to how our tribal ancestors governed before the dawn of agriculture.

                You seem to be intimating that you are old and grey and therefore your experience outweighs any younger person’s experiences, research and ability to reason but there are plenty of old, dim and uniformed people in society.

                The problems you mention above are serious but are in a different stratosphere of urgency compared the massive holes this act of terrorism has so clearly demonstrated in our gun laws. The question to my mind is exactly how urgent should the revision be put through, should they be passed under urgency with all the negatives that entails, or should we take a few months in order to have participatory democracy and hopefully a better law. I don’t believe any of the arguments presented thus far have provided any good rationale for passing this under urgency – rather than an expedited select committee process, especially when the cost / risk reward factors are accurately considered.

                • McFlock

                  Oh, if we’re expertise-measuring, I’ve got an hons degree in politics.

                  Law changes aren’t immutable, and in this case it’s better to err on the side of public safety and relax it later if the need is legitimate.

                  • Jeremy

                    That argument could be made to make everything illegal and then only legalise things that have a “legitimate need”.

                    Doesn’t sound like a country I’d like to live in.

                    You didn’t perhaps get that degree from the University of Waikato did you?

                    • McFlock

                      Firstly, it could only be made to make things illegal that are demonstrable hazards to everyone and with no obvious need from the start.

                      What else would be on that list?
                      Tobacco (already being phased out)
                      alcohol (already tried and prohibition caused more harm than good)
                      cars/trucks (off the list because of obvious need, but risks mitigated by regulation)
                      Lions and tigers as household pets.

                      Feel free to add more.

                      what was with the Waikato reference?

        • KJT 11.2.1.2

          The majority are pretty much in favour of Rambo being reined in.

          As we obviously, have been all along.

          That is democracy.

          Risking the safety of everyone, because a small interest group may swing the vote your way, or to help party funding, is not!

          I see the tactic from the anti gun control advacates is to try and delay until the sensible majority forget about it.

          Note; the concerns of farmers and others who use guns as tools for their job gave been addressed.

          For once, politicians have worked in everyone’s best interest. I am happy to give credit where it is due, and say, good on them.

          • Jeremy 11.2.1.2.1

            “I see the tactic from the anti gun control advacates is to try and delay until the sensible majority forget about it.”

            I presume that is directed at me?

            I’m not an anti-gun control advocate. Never had a firearms licence, in fact I can only remember shooting a single round of ammunition during a visit to the Police Armoury.

            “Risking the safety of everyone, because a small interest group may swing the vote your way, or to help party funding, is not!”

            I couldn’t agree more, thats why we probably shouldn’t push legislation through under urgency to ensure we have extreme gun nuts white-anting around to the maximum extent possible.

    • Peter 11.3

      I haven’t seen why Act won’t support the moves. Surprised that Seymour hasn’t used the opportunity to show how principled and reasoned they are.

      • lprent 11.3.1

        He may have problems getting them out via the media.

        However I’m sure that an Act supporter would have linked to them if they’d been written.

    • left_forward 11.4

      In 2017, a cross party, parliamentary select committee thoroughly and carefully researched the impact and risks inherent in our deregulated gun laws, heard detailed and extensive submissions in an open process. After a whole year of work and debate, recommendations were finally made only to be unilaterally turned over by a National Minister under pressure from a gun lobby working behind close doors to successfully undermine our constitutional democratic process.

      An then there was 15 March 2019.

      Is this the process that you are calling for to maintain our democracy, freedom and debate?

      • Jeremy 11.4.1

        Your argument above is an argument against seeming corruption, not against NZers having their input into a select committee process. It’s an argument against having any select committee process, or a call for total reform of how our government works. A wholly separate debate.

        Surely you can see that after 15/03 that things will be different? I.e. the select committee would attract many more and diverse views – and amended views, in wake of the attack and that none of the political parties would be stupid enough to “play politics” with this issue.

        • left_forward 11.4.1.1

          Corruption of the democratic process is one part of the point and how sad that we look back at it now and see that if the recommendations had all been implemented they may well have prevented last Friday’s events (although we may never have known).

          The other part is that the consultation has already been done – it is just a year and a bit on – lets just get on with what should have been done then. The collective view of the public and parliament is very supportive of this change – there is little doubt other than in the mind of National Rifle Association of America.

          While the risk remains on high alert for copycat behaviour, it makes sense to act right now. As you point out, the lesson of having few controls on access to these weapons has been well and truly learnt.

          Parliament are our elected representatives – they are empowered to act on our behalf. This is indeed democracy.

          • lprent 11.4.1.1.1

            While the risk remains on high alert for copycat behaviour, it makes sense to act right now. As you point out the lesson of having few controls on access to these weapons has been well and truly learnt.

            The current changes to the regulations only really stop new sales and give cause for police to easily arrest class A holder of certain weapons. They don’t clean up the mass of now-illegal weapons already out there.

            That requires budget and process. Both require approval from parliament.

            A rapid start to that is what will reduce the copycats and to the formations of any potential illegal resistance to the changes mandated by parliament. You can see why opponents of the legislation would like more time.

    • lprent 11.5

      but I believe NZers should still be able to have their say on this legislation.

      I think that the problem is that most of us have been through these periods of ‘consultation’ on this topic before.

      I know that I have ever since I was living in Dunedin during the Aromoana shootings.

      From what I have seen, in this particular topic, consultation essentially just provides room for un-elected self-interested lobby groups to pervert the process of consultation by screwing with the government of the day. They appear to outweigh all other people contributing to the debate.

      I’d go with more ‘consultation’ on this topic if and only if the recommendations of the select committee doing it are implemented without change. Unlike the last time.

      Alternatively we could pretty much go with the 2017 recommendations – which largely appear to be what is being put in place.

      • Jeremy 11.5.1

        Fair enough, I was 11 when Aromoana happened so I don’t have any experience with that tragedy, but I have to believe that this time is different, the sheer scale, horror and audacity of the attack will see that the majority of NZers have a keen and very active interest in legislation being passed within a few months under a fast tracked select committee and there is no doubt the overwhelming number of submissions will be for a ban of MSSAs, et al.

        We would get to the same place but NZers would have been directly involved.

        • lprent 11.5.1.1

          We would get to the same place but NZers would have been directly involved.

          I’m not sure that we would get to get to the same place. It didn’t happen the last three times that the longer public submission process you are describing was followed on this topic.

          For a started, most NZers simply won’t be involved except as being potential future unarmed victims of another dickhead.

          In this issue (and many others) only the most self-interested parties will make submissions and usually the ones most vocal about it are that very small minority of people who own guns. But their views have previously been quite strongly represented throughout previous reviews of the legislation and regulation.

          Even there, when in the course of those reviews the majority of the representations and subsequent recommendations produced were simply ignored in the interests of an even smaller group of well heeled noisy interests making private representations to ministers.

          I’d say that the process you are interested in promoting simply doesn’t work that well on this topic based on the results.

          One of the reasons that we have a representative democracy rather than a direct issue voting one is simply that most people don’t get that concerned about much outside of their own direct interests. They don’t present to select committees. Hell – they even avoid pollsters.

          So we have a composite process. The select committee system provides a way for specialized self-interested bodies and individuals to make their self-interested representations in public rather than more dangerously in private.

          Being an MP inevitably invokes the self-interest of getting re-elected by a large and usually diverse set of people. That leads to the main effect that you always get when you are around MPs and they know you even slightly – they keep asking you what you think. They and their staff always watch all media (including specialist sites like this) for opinions being formed.

          Then almost regardless of the issue (apart from a few things that are reserved to the crown) our parliamentarians sit in judgement. That is why parliament is the highest court in the land.

          In this case it is clear that our parliamentarians are getting some rather direct feedback from those that they represent. Otherwise there wouldn’t have been anything like the unanimity that I described in the post – the normal state of politicians is like what you see from commentators here – they all disagree with everyone else.

          Now I know that there are those who disagree with me on theoretical (I carefully didn’t say religious) grounds. But I still haven’t seen a more effective system for getting a useful balance – despite and possibly because of all its flaws. So in this rare moment of parliamentary agreement, we can do with a short technical select committee process looking less at the rights or wrong of gun control, and more about how to do it effectively.

          • Jeremy 11.5.1.1.1

            Thank you for taking the time to write out that in depth response.

            We are making a fundamental change to what many consider one of our most important rights/privileges and I’ll never be able to get on board with the idea that is should be done is a rushed manner and without allowing the direct involvement of the public in that proposed piece of legislation, as you say “I still haven’t seen a more effective system for getting a useful balance – despite and possibly because of all its flaws.” You’ve pointed out above that MPs are likely getting a lot of direct feedback, well good, they know where things are heading so let people have their say in response to one of the worst days in our history, a day that would have informed their opinions so vividly and will draw responses from those not usually engaged in the political process. As you point out, Parliament has the final say they can still push through whatever they like through if they so desire after the select committee if they believe those submissions are not representatives of the wider population, and face any consequences at the ballot box. Why go out of our way to antagonise gun nuts and reduce input from the public for such limited benefit? The arguments that opening this up to the select committee process would change the final result is one I’m highly spectical of given what happened last week.

            Previous parties have presented their views, yes, but they might well have changed in light of the 15/03 and others that have never presented on the issue before would like to have their say I’m sure, it’s only fair and right that people get to express their views under a normal expedited process, and the argument that politicians might do the wrong thing if we allow this isn’t sufficient in my opinion.

            • lprent 11.5.1.1.1.1

              It isn’t a right. That is a bit of mis-interpreted bullshit from the US constitution. And frankly most of the US gun nuts (as distinguished from the more rational gun-owners aren’t fit to be in a militia.

              But it never has been a right or even a privilege here. It has always been something that people earned by being deemed ok enough by our local milita (ie the police) and the crown to possess. That was because they were deemed to be not stupid enough to be either a homicidal dickhead or an accident waiting to happen.

              Moreover historically that didn’t include semi-automatic or automatic weapons. Nor for that matter; grenades, tanks, artillery, warships, warplanes, claymore mines, or innumerable other offensive devices. Or for that matter cruise missiles.

              We already know what the gun-nuts will say – it is kind of pointless listening to them yet again. They are like a record stuck in a groove repeating some legal crap from the other side of the world. You can read their comments in the proceedings from 2017. And they were outright wrong when they assured everyone else that the regime could prevent this kind of gratuitous bulk murder. So they clearly aren’t trustworthy sources.

              I know what the more moderate gun-users are going to say and so does everyone else. They have been doing so in all of those meetings in the past, and if you read the comments here you’ll find a lot of them saying it again. Essentially why does anyone need a semi-auto to shoot? You mostly use them for entertainment (including duck-hunting).

              It is also the same at my work – a deeply weapon oriented workplace. I haven’t yet talked to my gunsmith father-out-law or my gun-owner father – but I’d imagine exactly the same conversation. The gun laws are letting dickheads get weapons that they are dangerous with.

              As for everyone else – the vast majority, they are just appalled that a dimwitted dickhead gun-nut was able to get weapons that killed or injured more about a 100 people, and who was only stopped by accident from continuing.

              Screw the gun-nuts. If they want to get upset, I sure that the old (like me) and current soldiers will be able to educate them. We’d happily demonstrate what real firepower will do.

      • left_forward 11.5.2

        Yesterday Dennis F argued that it was reasonable for Minister Bennett to favour the wishes of a behind-the-scenes-lobby over the select committee recommendations (although he / she went on to claim that what he / she thought was reasonable and what he /she supported were different things).

        I largely agree with you lprent – if a Minister wishes to overturn a select committee recommendation then IMO, they have a democratic duty to disclose a clear rationale along with any lobby groups who may have influenced them, their arguments, and whether they have made any donations to the party.

        Dennis the Menace will say that I am being delusional, partisan and bigoted in holding this opinion. I fail to understand him / her – but I am interested in how an alternate case can be legitimately made.

    • Dukeofurl 11.6

      Since the election there has been debate over some changes with submissions , the 2016 select committee had a debate with submissions.

      There is plenty of debate …. which is just being used to now to stop action

    • Jess NZ 11.7

      I disagree, because most of us know f*ck all about guns, and SOME of the ones who know the most are the ones who will protest the loudest and gain backing from the NRA (who did their best to interfere with Oz at the time).

      We all didn’t get a chance to debate when Bennett rejected most of the expert recommendations paid for by our taxes.

      It can’t be democratic when there isn’t understanding. I’m more than happy to leave it to the recent expert review and our elected reps, elected through the democratic process to represent us.

  12. Ed1 12

    The decisions have been well received, but it was not clear early on that this was just the first part of the process, that a number of issues have still to be decided / agreed. For example, I have not seen anything about retaining the use of semi-automatic weapons by police or defence forces – saying we will rid our country of these weapons could be taken as meaning that that our military will be similarly limited; I suspect that was not intended.

    I support a registration system for every firearm, and for that registration to be linked to an individual’s firearms license. I was impressed with a radio interview, I think with Alpers, where he told of police attending a domestic dispute call being able to be told as they travelled whether there were firearms at the property they were going to, , and having the authority to remove those firearms and ammunition if they felt that necessary. The system used for motor vehicles is a reasonable comparison. Presumably it is possible to give a unique identifier to each firearm. Sales of firearms should be reported promptly as for motor vehicles, with penalties for non-compliance, or selling to a person not licenses for a particular class of weapon.

    Purchase of ammunition should be limited to holders of firearms license holders only, and if the license includes details of firearms held under that license it becomes in effect a “prescription” for the types of ammunition that can be sold. Just as for a prescription, details can be required to be automatically sent to a central body who are then able to analyse usage (over-prescribing is identified in this way).

    I am wary of large concentrations of firearms in one place – one suggestion was that some firearms only be able to be stored at an approved gun club facility – would that just make the gun club ab attractive target to thieves / terrorists?

    • RedLogix 12.1

      would that just make the gun club ab attractive target to thieves / terrorists?

      That’s a reasonable point, and I had pondered it a bit. Yes it is a risk, but then in a relatively small country like NZ such a raid would be immediately obvious (assuming appropriate alarms and monitoring) and if the cops really want to find you … they damn well do.

      I think this would cover most likely scenarios.

      • Jeremy 12.1.1

        The police currently resolve less than 20% of burglaries.

        Do you believe they don’t “really want” to find the other 80%?

        • Gabby 12.1.1.1

          They don’t really ‘have the time’ jermy.

        • McFlock 12.1.1.2

          A police force is only as good as its budget.

          But twenty MSSA’s being stolen? They’d make the time.

          • Jeremy 12.1.1.2.1

            I worked for the Police for a while. I don’t share your faith in them.

            • McFlock 12.1.1.2.1.1

              Luckily it’s cynicism rather than faith that gives me that impression

              • I have been to the Police a number of times on serious matters and they are basically not interested ?

              • Pierre

                Having trouble following the cultural contortions emanating from the left in New Zealand at the moment – collectively deciding the best response to fascism is to *arm the police* and *disarm the working class*? Did nobody think to raise the serious political considerations of that?

                • McFlock

                  The working class has always been disarmed. A few years ago we saw what happens in “semiauto vs LAV”. It ended badly for the guy who shot the cop.

                  And I reckon you’ll find that most people (left or right) don’t want to see armed police everywhere, anyway.

  13. A 13

    I like it 😀

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111484260/judith-collins-tells-nra-to-bugger-off-over-new-zealand-gun-reform

    She told the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age that these lobbyists typically directed massive amounts of material that appeared to be sourced directly from the National Rifle Association to her office and those of other MPs.

    “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,” she said.

    I’m guessing she will be the next NZ politician commented on by John Oliver

    • Puckish Rogue 13.1

      Well tv programs do prefer having sexy, attractive women on screen but I just hope they ignore her personal magnetism and focus on her considerable intellect

    • ScottGN 13.2

      I watched this morning’s piece with Garner and Faafoi online. Collins never actually told anyone to bugger off as far as I could tell, It was Garner who suggested that’s what she might like to say to the NRA and she readily agreed.
      Her main mission this morning though was to try and re-write the story around National’s pathetic response to the recommendations from the 2017 taskforce. She tried to claim that National and Paula Bennett was prevented from implementing all the recommendations because of the impending parliamentary hiatus due to the election that year, after which they lapsed as the new government was sworn in.

  14. woodart 14

    think that gun clubs around the country should be doing some serious soul searching and some serious vetting of their members. I have had experience of a couple of gun clubs and a good percentage of their members seemed to have a large amount of hate in their systems. definitley made me feel uneasy, and were the last people that should be allowed access to firearms. worked with a couple of regular gun club shooters who exhibited serious pyscopath tendencies. all very matey with the local plod and saw themselves as law abiding, and were always itching to take up arms to put down imagined civilian insurrection……

Recent Comments

Recent Posts