Banning Rambo weapons not a knee-jerk

Written By: - Date published: 5:35 am, March 21st, 2019 - 185 comments
Categories: chris bishop, john banks, paula bennett, Politics, Simon Bridges, stuart nash, winston peters - Tags: , , , , , ,

Passing stringent gun controls is far from a knee-jerk reaction to the Christchurch massacre – our politicians of all stripes have procrastinated over this ever since the 1990 Aramoana massacre.

This blood-on-their-hands dithering contrasts with Australia’s decisive action following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, when military-style semi-automatic and automatic weapons (MSSAs) were banned together with a buy-back of existing weapons. They have had no massacre since.  

In Christchurch, 50 have been murdered and more than that wounded by one deluded Australian psychopath who has taken advantage of lax laws here, possibly doing it here because it would have been far harder there.

Politicians like National’s Paula Bennett,  NZ First’s Winston Peters, Labour’s Stuart Nash and ACT’s Stephen Franks and David Seymour should all have difficulty looking in the mirror.

Police Minister Nash even backed then his predecessor, Bennett, in 2017 in rejecting 13 of the 20 recommendations on gun control by the Law and Order Select Committee.

 “When I was the Opposition Police Spokesman, I learned the hard way that firearms owners are passionate about their sport – and their guns,” Nash commented.  As well as kowtowing to gun lobby, Nash has similarly bowed to the fishing lobby over cameras on commercial fishing trawlers.

Make no mistake, the gun lobby, backed by many of the 240,000-odd gun owners, are a powerful lobby.  They are also backed by the ultimate lobby group, the US NRA, which keeps a close eye on Aotearoa, frequently issuing statements as they have since the Christchurch massacre.

The NRA was one of the loudest voices opposing Australia’s MSSA ban.

Commenting on the 2017 select committee report, the NRA said “the report makes the case for extreme new gun controls aimed at New Zealand’s approximately 242,056 law-abiding gun owners. The onerous recommendations impact nearly every aspect of gun ownership in the country.

The NRA took issue with a government document that stated owning a gun was special privilege rather than a right. NRA said the “natural right of self defence” was inherent to all peoples.

Because the US is such an outlier among developed nations on gun control, the NRA is desperate to keep in the fold the two other countries with relatively lax gun regulations – New Zealand and Canada – so its position is not seen as the absurdity that it is.

In fact, the 13 proposals recommended by the Select Committee but rejected by Bennett were not only not extreme they did not include the most basic sensible control measure of all – the banning of MSSAs.
The following is what was rejected and accepted:

  1. A firearms licence required to possess ammunition. Rejected
  2. A dealer’s licence required to sell ammunition. Rejected
  3. Dealers required to keep records of ammunition sales. Rejected
  4. Registration process for websites facilitating trading in firearms, parts, or ammunition. Partial rejection – not registration but clarify “mail order” process applies to online sales.
  5. Permit to procure extended to cover all sales or transfers of firearms (i.e. include A-category firearms). Rejected
  6. Investigate the creation of a category of restricted semi-automatic rifle and shotgun. Reject.
  7. Implement firearm prohibition orders. Accepted
  8. Codify the “fit and proper” criteria in the Arms Act. Rejected
  9. Implement a stand-down period after licence revocation. Accepted
  10. Clarify that gang members or prospects must not be considered “fit and proper” to possess firearms. Accepted
  11. Require Police to record serial numbers of all firearms upon renewal of licence or inspection of premises. Rejected
  12. Review the penalties in the Arms Act. Accepted
  13. Treat dealer offending as aggravated at sentencing. Rejected
  14. Determine appropriate security standards for A-category licences. Accepted
  15. Secure storage confirmed before licence or endorsement received. Rejected
  16. Allow Police to enter premises to inspect security of A-category firearms. Rejected
  17. Failure to comply with storage regulations to result in mandatory revocation. Rejected
  18. Clarify and publicise the extent of amnesty provisions in the Arms Act 1983. Accepted
  19. Police publicise amnesty provisions. Rejected
  20. Check that firearms brought in on visitors permit are exported or transferred legally. Accepted

The 2017 rejections of the year-long Law and Order Select Committee recommendations was actually par for the course by our politicians who have been got at by gun owners, who politically behave similarly to other single-issue activists like anti-abortionists, anti-vaxxers or anti-1080ists.   

Ever since Aramoana,  when then Police Minister John Banks boasted he would outlaw “Rambo” style weapons, politicians have promised but failed to deliver mainly because they have been got at. The actual gun reform National delivered in 1992 was wet in the extreme-  limited to tightening mail orders and storage and slightly tightening licensing.  Rambo guns and pistols were not outlawed but required an endorsement on a licence.

After two police shootings in 1995, the government ordered an independent report into guns by former judge Thomas Thorp. His comprehensive 1997 report advocated many sensible restrictions and the establishment of a Firearms Authority that would oversee much stricter licencing. The National government actually introduced an Arms Amendment Bill in 1999 but the new Helen Clark government succumbed to the activists’ pressure and let it lapse.

Another Arms Amendment Bill was again introduced in 2005, but languished until it was dismissed in 2012.

Dominion Post reporter Andrea Vance, late last year in previewing Nash’s latest attempt to refresh the 1983 Arms Act noted that every year since 2010 government proposals for changes to gun legislation reform have been drawn up and quietly dropped.

But there is no question that the public mood now is for action and the die-hards will be left in the cold.

National police spokesman Chris Bishop, who late last year set up 30 “gun forums” to oppose the Nash’s proposed changes and push some dog whistle wedge politics, said there had been a perceptible shift in the public mood since the events of Friday.

His leader, Simon Bridges has definitely thrown in the towel. “The world has changed,” he perceptibly noted. He has met with Nash and says he will co-operate in principle. Asked if would support a ban on MSSAs, he said: “I think it would be remarkable to justify any other position, frankly.”

Asked where that left farmers and the like, Bridges said: “We are going to do the right thing.”

NZ First leader Winston Peters was less forthright, but accepted he would also have to cave on this issue. It was a coalition government decision he said.

Pro-gun lobby group Fish & Game, which represents 150,000 anglers and game bird hunters, supports gun reform and said military-style weapons should never have been allowed to be sold here. CEO Martin Taylor said there is no legitimate recreational hunting use for such weapons.
Fish & Game said it would support a gun magazine limit of 2-3 shots.

So what should this latest gun law reform include? At the very least it should include all the 13 recommendations of the 2017 Law & Order committee that were not passed. It should at its heart included:

  • A total ban on the sale of military-style semi automatic weapons
  • A government-backed compulsory buy-back program for the existing 15,000 MSSA weapons
  • Extreme restrictions on pistols to such things as Olympic-games style range shooting
  • The establishment of an independent Firearms Authority as proposed by the Thorp Inquiry to oversee licencing
  • The licencing of every individual gun as happens in all countries except Aotearoa, Canada and the US
  • Licence renewal every three years and make it the licence holder’s responsibility to inform the authority of any change of address within days of it happening
  • Ban sale of guns over the internet
  • Restrict gun advertising

(Simon Louisson reported for The Wall Street Journal, AP Dow Jones Newswires, New Zealand Press Association and Reuters and briefly was a political and media adviser to the Green Party.)

185 comments on “Banning Rambo weapons not a knee-jerk”

  1. Dennis Frank 1

    I agree that your prescription for regulation ought to be enacted by parliament. As regards Bennett’s failure – that was produced by representative democracy. Blaming her for not catering to our common interests seems unreasonable when she knows she must cater to the special interests of those she represents.

    However your reluctance to identify the root cause remains popular. As long as folks demonise others instead of solving social problems those problems will persist.

    Inevitably, comprehension that a shift away from archaic democracy towards a system that actually works is likely to spread sufficiently to trigger the shift. We just have to wait and see how much suffering has to happen to get the slow learners to catch up.

    • …” As long as folks demonise others instead of solving social problems those problems will persist ” …

      All good words but utopia will never happen. It is sadly a part of the human condition that there will always be psychopathic individuals among the general populace. The best we can do is seek to minimize their ability to cause harm without drastically taking away civil freedoms from the majority.

      • fustercluck 1.1.1

        I agree completely. The problem rests with the criminals and the nutters. The UK has very tight gun control but rising gun violence. The UK banned knives but is plagued with stabbings. We live in the era of 3d printing (metal and plastic) and the evil and twisted among us will increasingly have the means to bypass any laws enacted.

        There are clearly some weaknesses in our gun laws that must be addressed. But banning one dangerous thing simply means that bad people will use other dangerous things for their deadly purposes (trucks into crowds, IEDs, etc.). There are thousands of responsible firearm owners out there that contribute zero to the risks to the community.

        Given that the manifesto of the Chch killer reveals a hideous troll who peppered his screed with memes, copypasta, etc. from other trolls, and given that he appears to seek adulation from similar cretins much more than he appears to be a genuine white supremacist (that the ok sign is a white power sign is a well-documented troll), ultra-rightist, or even an eco-fascist or Chinese government sympathiser (as he asserted in his manifesto).

        We have been attacked by a nihilist troll who is using us all to play a horrible joke that is appreciated only by his ilk. This is a truly terrifying development that will not be fixed with gun laws or anti-right rhetoric. We face serious free speech questions in connection with the use of the internet (4Chan, 8Chan, etc.) if we are to deal with this threat and we need to do it now, do it well, and do it in a way that unites rather than divides us.

        • WeTheBleeple 1.1.1.1

          This is an interesting angle. Nihilist. No allegiance at all.

          I think close scrutiny of any tattoo work, travels, and internet activity will find his allegiances, if any.

          His tattoo work will reveal a series of artists he’s spent considerable time getting work with. Many of the worlds tattoo artists can recognize others styles instantly.

          Worth looking into. I’m sure they are. How about now?

          • fustercluck 1.1.1.1.1

            Agree on looking into the ink. Looking into ALL the evidence is mandatory. I understand blocking the images of the killings, even as I assert the censorship does more harm than good in the long term. We need to confront what this homicidal troll actually is, rather than cloaking parts of his record in secrecy or ideological agendas.

            This guy is a new threat. He is the most virulent, most hateful, most hopeless form of internet trolling gone live. The trolls have left their computers behind and are now in “meatspace” (as they refer to reality). Their goal is greater notoriety and “respect” within their malevolent peer group.

            This is not the ginned up hand-wringing of the past. This is not unfounded fear of heavy metal music or video games. This is a very real, modern, and growing danger. If you have never looked at 4chan or 8chan you have no idea what this subculture is like.

            We are going to have to deal with this subculture and doing so is going to impact on every human’s free speech, at least as it manifests on the internet. I am a conservative and a gun owner. We can argue about both of those things as much as you like but left vs right, guns vs disarmament, will not make a dent in what is happening right before our eyes.

            Close a few loopholes in gun laws? Fine. Complain about Trump a bit? Sure. But if we are going to learn the real lessons here, we have to understand that we are the subject of an almost unimaginably cruel joke, a meatspace troll of unfathomable cruelty. We are dealing with people who think that baiting the left with a bogus white power hand sign is a great reason to kill enough people to get the image of you flashing it on the news. (you can google the history of the OK sign being turned into a faux-white power meme)

            I find much on this blog to argue about. I sincerely hope that the compassion that motivates so many on the left, the intelligence that is often devoted to opposing the right, the patriotism that compels participation in our culture and our form of democracy, allows us all, left and right, to confront with clear eyes and unanimity, something that we have never seen before and that I fear we will see more of in the future.

            • WeTheBleeple 1.1.1.1.1.1

              The problem with disseminating the materials of trolls is the destructive memes that lie within them. I’m sure we all understand the need to understand, but there’s content we don’t need to see to understand the idea behind it.

              Trolls deliberately disrupt. This is sociopathy. Therefore troll materials are designed to cause problems. Better to not engage in the material unless it is your field to do so, better to find and engage the trolls.

              I am concerned about young minds exposure to the materials causing incidences of trauma or infecting them with pathological memes like this. It echoes of teenage humor I knew decades ago where consequences for words are not fully understood, and competition to be the most outrageous is ‘all in a bit of fun’. This killer was a man though, getting off and empowered by the cruel mentality of (dare I say broken) teens. How many adults are in that community posing as kids and egging them on to be the worst they can be?

              We do need to look at these internet groups and come down hard, brutally in fact. But also to alter the structures that support their activity. Including the trumps empowering lawlessness, the availability of weapons, and social malaise in general.

              The only reason we wouldn’t be able crack at these internet trolls till we bust them wide open, is that they are supported by powerful people.

            • RedLogix 1.1.1.1.1.2

              That is an interesting read fc.

              Regardless of how else we analyse this murderer, whatever motives we attribute to him … there is no question the nihilism is an unavoidable component.

              A lot of people have already said much about him and I’m not going to quibble or diminish any of that. A lot of people will naturally want to disassociate from him and his appalling act of cruelty. We are going to want to de-humanise him, protect ourselves by transforming him into a loathsome monster. And again I’m not going to criticise this instinct.

              Yet over time we will learn more about him, his story will likely be more complex than we know about yet. And if you don’t want to know, then that is fine too.

              Each in our own way we have taken a beating; I can say that I’ve not slept well since Friday night.

        • SHG 1.1.1.2

          he appears to seek adulation from similar cretins much more than he appears to be a genuine white supremacist

          Ding ding ding, we have a winner

      • soddenleaf 1.1.2

        Being a nationalist isn’t a crime. Liking guns, not a crime. The crime is govt knows that poor nutrition, financial stress, powerlessness, can push otherwise stable members of the gun community, who also hold right-wing views, into deprived socially, nutritionally depleted, fiscally challenged, etc. That’s to say it’s not just gun laws that need better attention, but just everything. CGT forces income earners to pay their bosses CGT. Lax and lacking food oversight, free trade, has lowered the nutritional value of basic foods which has a medical harmful effect causing delusional thinking, overweight as people eat more to get the basic nutrients they need. The trickle down economy that removes inspectors, mine, food, etc.

        So where is Lab on country of origin, on free trade protections so dumping stops, on supermarket that use their market dominance, on insecurity of employment, on rebalancing the tax system to support the majority, not the 1%. Maybe if stupid right-wing gun owners weren’t up against it like the rest of us our collective wealth would be better. They’d not fear Muslims as a threat, since stress alleviation is a govt responsibility.

        It struck me how much time parliament has given over to rightful pronouncements of grief, etc, but seriously it’s parliament that’s got to pull itself up imo.

    • left_forward 1.2

      As regards Bennett’s failure – that was produced by representative democracy. Blaming her for not catering to our common interests seems unreasonable when she knows she must cater to the special interests of those she represents.

      Is this how you define representative democracy DF?
      A Minister ‘must’ cater for the special interests of a lobby group and ignore the common interests of the security and safety of citizens?

      WTF!!

      • Dennis Frank 1.2.1

        No, it is how people like her see it. To understand how representative democracy works, one must grasp that the system was set up to allow partisan behaviour. Representation of interest groups is part of the design. It’s how rightists think.

        • WeTheBleeple 1.2.1.1

          “No, it is how people like her see it.”

          No, it is how vested interests like to see it.

          You wouldn’t be being misleading though, would you Frank.

          “one must grasp”

          I’ve noticed.

        • left_forward 1.2.1.2

          But you said that it was unreasonable for Bennett to have not catered for special interests. You were supporting the rightist’s abuse of democracy.

          • soddenleaf 1.2.1.2.1

            In order to win, at whatever costs, Tories show their cowardice. They are so weak they need to collectivize their effort, each pandering to each other’s special interests, then taking over msm to distract, distort, and demonize. Its because thirty years of ever cheap high grade fuels have made the right weak, cowardly, underhanded, and basically sad. A few even fearing their united strenght is under threat from years of coddling by media and govt, get all deluded and start….

          • Dennis Frank 1.2.1.2.2

            Not at all. I was explaining why she would feel that way. You seem not to understand that rightists feel obliged to represent their constituents. Why be so partisan? Consensus politics becomes impossible if participants choose bigotry.

            • left_forward 1.2.1.2.2.1

              Blaming her for not catering to our common interests seems unreasonable when she knows she must cater to the special interests…

              You certainly did say this!!

              Don’t be so patronising – of course I understand that some rightists think their constituents are the gun lobby and not the citizens of the country.
              – the point is, how do you justify agreeing with these rightists?

              Why do you say that my insistence that parliamentarians are there to represent all citizens (and not just a self-interested minority) is somehow partisan, anti-consensus, and bigoted?

              • Dennis Frank

                It’s your spin of what I wrote that was wrong. No, I do not agree with “these rightists”. I just see why they believe what they believe, and do what they do. Therefore, as I said, it is unreasonable to blame her.

                As regards your latter question, it seems sincere so I will respond accordingly. I agree that fairness ought to apply in representative democracy – but realpolitik gets in the way!

                Have you examined the wording of the oath elected reps are required to swear? If you do, you will see the structural effect of binding their behaviour via contract. So there’s a modifying effect that applies upon entry into the job, in which any idealistic notions of democracy are displaced by how the system actually works. Constraints from party rules, the herding psychology of caucus colleagues, and that of party members at the separate local level, all kick in to supply a supplementary warping effect.

                So, to assume that she ought to conform to the moral prescription you were projecting onto her is unrealistic. Such delusional stances are typically produced by partisan identity politics. When I led the consensus process to get the Greens to adopt our rules and constitution in the early nineties, I discovered the extent to which partisan bias prevented consensus. Also, it caused the Values Party schism in the mid-’70s.

                As regards bigot, that’s not a term I often use. If it doesn’t apply to you, I’m sorry, but remember that behaviour provokes the label. Telling the truth about bigotry is a social necessity, so I must remain on track with the praxis…

                • left_forward

                  I disagree with all of this – it is not unreasonable, delusional, unrealistic, off-praxis, idealistic, partisan, or bigoted, to expect high standards of democracy and representation from parliamentarians (and especially Ministers) in representing the best interests and safety of citizens.

                  Jacinda has just shown exactly that these standards can be met, and no doubt it requires courage to stand up to the corrupting (or warping) forces that you refer to – but that is what is expected of those we elect.

                  We both apparently see why ‘rightists’ believe what they do and act the way they do, yet you think it is reasonable, and I don’t.

                  You seem to be only keeping track of your own tail within a sad cynical little world / praxis / bubble. Don’t delude yourself, you are not telling any truth about bigotry… you haven’t convinced me you even know what it is.

    • KJT 1.3

      DF. Fresh from “demonizing” the mentally ill, in yesterdays thread.

      • Dennis Frank 1.3.1

        More bullshit from leftist bigots. Thanks for helping me make my point. Dig yourself in deeper, the rat-hole will start to feel like home…

        • KJT 1.3.1.1

          Still you don’t understand what you were doing.
          Substitute Muslim, right winger, Maori, or “centrist”, for mentally ill, and you may begin to get it.

    • patricia bremner 1.4

      Paula Bennett when asked why those decisions were made said “Different times”
      Actually it was about 2 years ago. What was different?

      No massacre to guide the thinking. NOW we have lost 50 and have 50 wounded and untold numbers of traumatised citizens through military style weapons being wielded by one man, we SEE times have changed.

      I am as guilty as Paula Bennett. I saw the lack of change offered regarding guns shrugged and in my apathetic way said “Typical!”

      Why didn’t I write to Parliament to put in a submission?… like most I let that decision be made on my behalf, like most of us comfortable blind poor participants in our democracy. I didn’t care enough and I am grief stricken about that failure now.

      • WILD KATIPO 1.4.1

        … ” Why didn’t I write to Parliament to put in a submission?… like most I let that decision be made on my behalf, like most of us comfortable blind poor participants in our democracy. I didn’t care enough and I am grief stricken about that failure now ”….

        ———————————

        HERE, … is one of the more honest and straight up opinions. I think we all share in this predicament.

        • KJT 1.4.1.1

          True. But as a few cabinet ministers overode both the select committee recommendations, and presumably those of the submitters as well. The whole process is a joke.
          It is not consultation when the outcome is never in doubt.

      • Gabby 1.4.2

        Pullya couldn’t very well say she vos just following orders, and she isn’t clever enough to make up believable reasons to hide that she vos just following orders.

  2. patricia bremner 2

    We have to realise, we don’t let people have bombs or bomb making equipment, and we ban the carrying of flick knives, yet we allow these military style guns.

    That is plainly silly dangerous and counter productive surely.

  3. Heater Tanguay 3

    Jacinda has shown strong, caring, compassionate leadership. Yes, the NRA and their supporters will try to stop these gun laws changes. They were successful the last time. There is no comparison with Paula and Jacinda. There will, this time be the long overdue changes to the Gun Laws in NZ.

    • Hear ! Hear !

      We will not be let down this time.

      • cleangreen 3.1.1

        Here here WK, So we need change as I have a small rural isolated block and use bows and arrows and a pee shooter mostly here, so a rapid firing magazine rife military style 100 bullets automatic rifles; – is so of the top for us to have.

        Shit when I was in the Army in 1964 as a conscript getting ready for the Vietnam war we had SLR rifles with 15 shot single shot magazines.

        If I was sent to Vietnam as a field scout in the signal corps, they would have given me a 25 yards accuracy “Stirling sub machine gun!!!!!

        So these heavy duty rifles are really “mass killing weapons” of war, – and need to be heavily restricted to exceptional use only.

  4. Adrian Thornton 4

    Personally I love guns, but see no reason that we should have access to or need to have MSSA’s in our society at all, just do a buy back and get it done ffs.
    I also see no reason why Stuart Nash is in the Labour party when it is blatantly obvious to everyone that he has far more in common with his many friends on the right.

    • Indeed.

      … ” I also see no reason why Stuart Nash is in the Labour party when it is blatantly obvious to everyone that he has far more in common with his many friends on the right ” …

      He should be gone. His natural home would be with ACT or even the ChiNational party.

      Regards semi automatics?

      They are too easily converted over into weapons that kill human beings. That was their original design purpose . Magazines carrying up to 100 rounds are far too easy to procure. The market in semi automatics is far too easily supplemented by smuggled arms into this country.The laws of licensing a firearms user yet not registering any firearms to that owner are far too lax and not sufficiently comprehensive.

      If we want to minimize the harm caused by psychopaths using these weapons we must ban them.

    • left_forward 4.2

      Why do you personally love guns?
      Does it give you a sense of power over nature?
      So that you can cause suffering and choose which animals (and humans) can live and die?

      • Adrian Thornton 4.2.1

        I love guns because they are beautiful pieces of machinery, great to handle and hold. and even better fun to fire,

        I don’t actually hunt anymore, but I have absolutely no problem with shooting animals for food, in fact I would say shooting an animal is far far more humane that fishing.

        • Grant 4.2.1.1

          Know what you mean. I love them as ingenious machines, beautifully designed and ergonomically sweet. I know they have a place and are a necessary tool. But I can’t justify hunting for fun and don’t need to do it to eat. If I had to I would. Even small calibre semi-autos are just too potentially dangerous in the hands of gung -ho civilians.

          Edit: That’s why I’ve always liked Don MacGlashan’s song, A Thing Well Made. It makes the calculation between the beautiful gun and the potential harm it can cause and leads you to the inevitable conclusion that having access to the weapon isn’t worth the pain it might cause.

      • Peter Christchurh nz 4.2.2

        I used to love guns too, but I have never shot at a living creature ever. Shooting can be a sport, just like any other.

        Control the guns. Control the shooters. Ban military style firearms. All good and that has my full support and almost certainly the full support of most kiwis. But denigrating people when you have no knowledge or understanding of them is sad and mis directed.

        • aj 4.2.2.1

          I shot a young fallow deer with a single shot bolt action .22 when I was 18. Aimed at head, hit in neck. Haven’t picked up a gun since, I’m 65. I discovered at that moment I had taken no joy from the experience at all, it took something away from me. I know deer are a problem, it’s just not me.

          • Grant 4.2.2.1.1

            Same here. I went through a phase of shooting rabbits with an old Lithgow single shot bolt action when I was 16/17. They were usually dead by the time I got to them. One day my target was still alive when I go to it. Haven’t shot anything since. Turned in my rifle to the cops during one of the periodic amnesties they used to have. I think I can already hear the mocking laughter of the rural / hunting guys as I write this.

      • KJT 4.2.3

        Funny. I find weapon technology fascinating, along with other technology, and I enjoy target shooting.
        It is hypocritical to condemn hunting for food, if you like bacon and steak.
        Controlling some introduced animals is a regrettable necessity.
        As for killing people. It is never right.
        However for myself, I haven’t killed any animals since, hunting as a teenager, and decided it wasn’t something I like doing.

        • left_forward 4.2.3.1

          I don’t eat bacon or steak or any animal products because I believe that killing animals when we don’t need to is morally wrong (under the same moral principle of it being wrong to kill another human). We have no legitimate right to choose whether another sentient being lives or dies in our modern, affluent lives when we do not need to eat meat or animal products that rely on mass killing of animals (such as dairy and eggs) – we can get all of our nutrition in a significantly more environmentally friendly and healthy way from plants.

          I do make an exception to this as I agree with you KJT that it is necessary sometimes to cull introduced pests that are damaging our food sources, fauna and flora. The use of weapons for these purposes however can be closely controlled.

          I also agree that guns need to be available to military and police for protecting citizens under closely controlled circumstances.

          Beyond that, guns need to be seen for what they are made to do, machines designed to kill.

          There is no morally legitimate reason for any guns to be freely available to individuals when we can gather all the food we need down at the local shop or supermarket.

      • Drowsy M. Kram 4.2.4

        Have a happy if vague memory of playing ‘cowboys & indians’; cap gun, holster, leather outfit. Grew out of it when I reached double figures – never looked back.

    • Gabby 4.3

      I think that’s exactly why he’s in the Labour party thorny.

  5. Rae 5

    To paraphrase someone somewhere this week “If you think you need an assault rifle to go hunting, then maybe I could take up boxing in a daycare room of three year olds”.

  6. rata 6

    Banning guns won’t change anything.
    There are a myriad of alternative ways of causing great harm.
    Not saying banning guns shouldn’t happen just saying it
    won’t protect against terrorism or attacks on large groups of people.

    • left_forward 6.1

      Guns have only one purpose – to cause harm.
      Banning processes (e.g. violence and war) and things (weapons) that have a single purpose to cause suffering and death will change everything.
      Who knows, it may even transform our whole attitude to nature and others to one of respect and compassion?

    • Of course not. IED’s can just as easily be used. Trucks diving into crowds , gas attacks, as we have all seen over the years.

      But that is no excuse to not narrow the playing field between the terrorists arsenal of tactics and their convenient weapons of choice. Hence, semi automatics must be banned.

      Sadly for those who are rational , responsible and benevolent human beings . But we do not live in the ideal world , – and semi automatics / automatics should be the preserve of the Police and Military where there are checks and balances , supervision and proper oversight . There is ,…no justification after last Fridays incident for the civilian population to have them in an imperfect world.

    • vto 6.3

      I don’t buy that as an argument against a machine-gun ban.

      Of course banning machine-guns will change things. It would have changed the outcome of last Friday’s massacres. Not as many would have been killed dead. Pretty f%^&ing simple.

      Such a tightening will definitely reduce the results of gun massacres.

      Imo that point of yours is wholly ignorant

      • rata 6.3.1

        People are looking for easy answers.
        But there are no easy answers.
        The twin towers were brought down by
        planes flying into them.
        The hijackers had small knives only as weapons.
        The Oklahoma bombing was carried out using
        an ANNM fertilizer truck bomb
        Glock 21 (not used).
        So the mania to ban guns is bound to fail.
        Essentially there is no answer.
        Just hope it’s not you next time.

        • vto 6.3.1.1

          Yeah, thanks rata but I dont rate that answer for reasons already provided..

          Regulation of society’s extremes cannot be dealt with on the basis of compliance. That is a nonsense.

          • rata 6.3.1.1.1

            Yeah, thanks Vto but I don’t rate that answer for reasons already provided.
            If you think 7 billion people can be controlled 24/7 you are delusional.

        • Drowsy M. Kram 6.3.1.2

          So the mania to ban guns is bound to fail.rata

          If the ‘mania‘ to ban guns represents failure, then does the mania to own (multiple) guns represent success?

          Just glad that regardless of how many guns, or rental properties, a NZer owns they still get only one vote.

    • greywarshark 6.4

      That fits with the appproach in your past bulletins rata.

    • Gabby 6.5

      It will a bit ratty. Fertiliser bags don’t appeal so much to the fetishists.

    • CC 6.6

      What a pathetic comment Rata. It would have taken a pretty large and sophisticated bomb to kill and maim over 100 people and an army of knife attackers to do the same. How would you have done using a single shot bolt action rifle?

      • SpaceMonkey 6.6.1

        Actually… a truck full of fertilizer will do a very decent job, as I saw in London many moons ago in 1993. Time of day was the only reason it killed 1 and maimed 40. Nothing sophisticated about it, materials required and recipes easily found on the interweb.

    • KJT 6.7

      Banning guns, designed to kill people quickly, will change things. We already have positive evidence from Australia. No mass shootings or murders in Australia since the buyback.

      • Puckish Rogue 6.7.1

        Really? Try looking up Margaret River murders to see if that’s true

        Hint, it’s not true

        • KJT 6.7.1.1

          One family. Not dozens. You are wrong.

          • Puckish Rogue 6.7.1.1.1

            So if its family it doesnt count?

            That’s really cold

            Ok then since killing family members is somehow different how about looking up the Hectorville seige

            • KJT 6.7.1.1.1.1

              Get a life. Very difficult to kill dozens of people at once with a knife, bolt action or nan chuck.
              Why make it easy for a murderer.

              • Puckish Rogue

                Actually it’s not (with a bolt action) look up the mad minute

                15 aimed shots per minute (including reload) at 300 yards pre-ww1 British army standards

                • bwaghorn

                  If the fucker had had a bolt action with 5 shot mag . One of those brave sole who charged into the teeth of his gun would have got through.

                  • Puckish Rogue

                    Or there might have been even more deaths due to the bigger calibre round used

                    Or this guy might have made some bigger bombs and used them instead, he did have some IEDs in his car so he probably wasn’t shy about looking that kind of thing up

                    Maybe he uses a lever action rifle (some use magazines)

                    Maybe he uses a pump action shotgun to start, drops it when empty, and switches to another rifle

                    There’s a lot of what ifs in there

                    • mauī

                      Yes, a lot of what ifs that are no where near equivalent to what he used.

                    • marty mars

                      I hope they audit the shit out of all gun owners because guys like you scare me. You are selfish, childish and inadequate and your pointy penis substitute kills. Hand them in before they get taken is my advice.

                    • Puckish Rogue []

                      On the one hand your arguement is compelling however I think I’ll hold onto it for now 🙂

                    • bwaghorn

                      All I’m grateful for is that it didn’t have bump stock . Bet you’d like one A? So you could stroke it.

                    • Puck your starting to sound like a wank, mate.

                      If automatics and semi automatics weren’t such effective ‘people killers’ why then would all the army’s of the world have adopted them???

                      Seriously now, … since the time of the Gatling gun onward’s,… the military saw immediately ,…the advantages in warfare of rapid fire weapons.

                      Or are you trying to say they were stupid ?

                      And incidentally , …. where oh where ,… is the tactical advantage garnered against a deer ,… who does not fire back, who does not deploy their herds in flanking manoeuvre’s , … who do not lay down suppressive fire from automatics in their retreat or offensives…?

                      Are you saying that hunters are so incompetent and deer are such formidable deadly military adversary’s that you need a semi automatic to kill them?

                      I think its time to drop the pretenses that civilian hunters or pest eradicators need semi automatics….

                • cleangreen

                  Puckish rogue

                  I was in the army as a trained killer before the Vietnam war, and we all try shooting 15 shots in a minute with accuracy, and all found it was virtually impossible to have a passable kill rate.

                  So don’t use that crap as we need to show a kill rate to pass as solders when in the killing zone.

                  The ‘Bren gun’ was the only way to have any accuracy then with a tripod and laying flat on the ground.

                  • Puckish Rogue

                    Maybe you weren’t a good enough shot, or simply didn’t practice enough

                    • bwaghorn

                      Oooh look out a real man has spoken🙄🙄

                    • Yeah give it a rest , Puck.

                      Stop wanking.

                      The Gatling Gun | Shooting USA – YouTube

                    • McFlock

                      Didn’t practise enough?

                      Maybe popping down to the firing range to do outdated military drills twice a week would have raised eyebrows. Even if he could get up to your book standard.

  7. Puckish Rogue 7

    1. Total ban no but more stringent rules

    2. I dont think a buy back will work but if its voluntary I dont have an issue

    3. Pistols are already very restricted and arnt causing issues so what else do they need?

    4. If its truly independent then sure why not

    5. Wasnt this dropped because it didn’t work, was prone to abuse and massively expensive

    6. Yes

    7. Yes

    8. No

    • Ed1 7.1

      “2. I dont think a buy back will work but if its voluntary I dont have an issue”

      I think a buy back will work – it did in Australia. Sure there will be a few not handed in, but the vast majority will. I don’t understand voluntary – yes they should be able to just hand them over, as I understand 37 have already, but to have a banned weapon at the end of a buy-back period should be a serious offence. It has been said that in Australia many were paid more than market value, whether that was true or not, the police should be able to get records of all sales since last Friday of weapons that are to be bought, and the buy-back price should be 90% of purchase price to reflect that they are second-hand; stupidity deserves its reward.

      • Puckish Rogue 7.1.1

        If its voluntary then it’s all good ith me however they best be also buying back any extra on it as well

      • BM 7.1.2

        From what I’ve read, only a third got handed back at a cost of $500 million Australian dollars.
        Guess who probably still has all the semi-autos.

        • bwaghorn 7.1.2.1

          Yes but those guns are getting old and know doubt the cops are picking some of them up from time to time .
          And they cant easily get more .
          Sheesh I need to stop working so I can explain simple shit to you too all the fucking time.

          • Puckish Rogue 7.1.2.1.1

            Cant easily get more…you really believe that?

            • marty mars 7.1.2.1.1.1

              Why not follow the logic instead of trying to tangentialise all the time. What are you afraid of? Your weak indefensible position perchance? You’re not engaging honestly because you dont like the answers? Sad for you to be shown so lacking, but that’s right wingers for ya.

  8. greywarshark 8

    Radionz news report was on this morning, A Scottish member of gun law reformation said the government was for delay till all measures about the attack finished. Delay, delay and they had to keep on reminding government about their tragedy and keep pushing for the needed work on limiting laws to be done.

  9. RedLogix 9

    I made these points a few days back, but worth repeating in this post. This would be a good opportunity to reshape gun control in a completely new way. I would propose three major categories of user with quite different control regimes.

    1. Police and Military

    Permitted any weapon and open carry. Individual certification and training required to be refreshed at least annually. Body cameras mandatory and all non-training shots to be accounted for by review.

    2. Farmers and Pest Controllers

    Limited to an approved range of bolt-action rifles unable to be converted to anything with a high fire rate. These people need relatively quick and routine access to a weapon at all times, but with strict storage and separation of ammunition rules. Five yearly safety certification course. Automatic expiry of licence if no longer working in the field. Limited to a maximum number of people at any one time, maybe 20,000 for the whole country.

    3. Recreational Users

    A wider range of non-high rate weapons permitted, but all guns must be stored at a registered gun club, or professional storage facility. Hunters must produce either a dated DoC Block permit, or a landowners letter of permission to access. Ammunition must be purchased on the day, and only in sufficient quantity for the stated purpose.

    All other users get to bang away at a registered and supervised gun range. Nowhere else. Mandatory search on leaving the premises.

    A separate sub-category of collectors would permit any weapon to be kept at home, but never any ammunition, and/or the weapon must be permanently disabled.

    4. General

    Nation-wide a full database of every single weapon. All ammunition sales recorded. All easy to achieve in this age.

    Importing of any weapon type is by white list only, ie it is banned unless reviewed and approved by a Firearms Authority.

    Major penalties for illegal ownership or use, two year non-parole minimum sentences should be available.

    It’s a substantial proposal, but it would have the political will to implement now.

    • Puckish Rogue 9.1

      Farmers dont have access to shotguns?

      • RedLogix 9.1.1

        OK include shotguns, I overlooked them. But limited to low fire rate types only.

        • Puckish Rogue 9.1.1.1

          No semi auto .22s for rabbit control, especially given the amount of rabbits on some farms?

          • RedLogix 9.1.1.1.1

            I know a very experienced pest controller quite well, in decades of experience he never used semi auto’s. Yes they are convenient, no they are not necessary.

            • Puckish Rogue 9.1.1.1.1.1

              I’ve known a few and they think they’re quite necessary, for instance you need to take out 20 goats and that first shot goes and they run then it’s going to be a very long day

              The danger here is that people who dont know (or dont think its important) start making decisions for those who do, with no consultation

              • Kevin

                If that first shot hits, the rest will still run.

                Next argument…

                • Puckish Rogue

                  You can get more aimed shots off quicker so there’ll be less (hopefully) chasing

              • RedLogix

                The goal is obvious, absolutely minimise the risk of mass death weapons falling into the wrong hands. Have detailed consultation by all means, but everything else falls out of that objective.

                Edit: IIRC my professional friend used silencers to good effect, although he did say that dealing efficiently to a mob had some specific skills and tricks to it.

                Back in the NZFS day, the govt cullers managed quite well with just bolt actions as a rule.

              • Molly

                Substitute “people” for “goats” and you have articulated the issue perfectly.

                Now, the consideration for you is whether ease of pest control supercedes the benefit to people from misuse.

                • RedLogix

                  Perfectly stated. Thank you.

                • Puckish Rogue

                  Oh well in that case substitute cars for semi autos and let’s start talking

                  Last year 379 people died on our roads but I don’t see anyone talking about the ease of car use vs the public good

                  • RedLogix

                    but I don’t see anyone talking about the ease of car use vs the public good

                    I made the same point elsewhere this morning; and the short answer is that we tolerate road deaths and injuries because we judge the benefit worth the cost. It’s a bit cold-blooded to say it like that, but there it is.

                    The convenience of bowling over rabbits may be important to a few people, but to the wider public if tighter rules prevent just one such slaughter as we’ve just had … the cost will be well worth it.

                    Besides machine gunning rabbits is pretty damned agricultural way to go about it; there are alternatives.

                    • aj

                      And the number of road deaths where there was any intention to kill themselves or others? close to zero. It’s not even remotely an equivalent argument. The shooter wanted to kill as many as possible.

                    • Puckish Rogue []

                      That was in reply to Molly ref: changing goats for people so that I’d change semi auto for cars

                      But I could have gone with alcohol or any number of other examples of things we dont need, that kill an extraordinary amount of people (certainly more than guns) that we allow

                    • Puckish Rogue

                      A machine gun, by definition, is automatic firing only and I dont recall anyone calling dir machine guns to legal (I’m not anyway)

                  • Ad

                    Puckish have you been living under a rock?

                    There is an entire Ministry devoted to road safety.

                    The lack of regulation on NZTA on this has led to:
                    – the sacking of its Chief Executive
                    – The resignation of most of its board
                    – Chucking out almost all of its Tier 2 Management, and
                    – Three separate reports coming to Parliament about it.

                    From which will emerge massive legislative change, in short order.

                    Plus a full re-evaluation of the priorities of the entire multi-billion transport budget.

                    And more to come.

                    • Puckish Rogue

                      Yet hundreds die every year so here’s my proposal:

                      Motorway speed limit 70km

                      Highway limit 50km

                      All other roads 30km

                      Maximum cc limit 1000

                      Only hatchbacks allowed

                      All vehicles must met highest safety standard and have rear view video camera

                      No motorised two wheels

                      You may have a push bike

                      Hows that for starters, it’ll certainly bring the road toll down

                    • Ad

                      Oh PR!

                      The road toll would be substantially worse if:

                      – No vehicle had a WOF
                      – No modifed or commercial vehicle had a COF
                      – Police didn’t randomly stop and evaluate people across the network every single night
                      – There was a multi -stage process over a year of professional evaluation to get a licence to operate one
                      – You needed multiple levels of licence to operate more powerful ones
                      – Companies actively recalled tens of thousands of vehicles go wrong
                      – Massive multi-decade safety campaings kept rolling
                      – Huge media scrutiny didnt apply
                      – Two Ministers were accountable etc etc

                      None of that applies to arms in NZ.

              • mauī

                It’s not like New Zealand farmers have always had access to semi-autos. Farmers in the past have had to rely on bolt action rifles and that hasn’t created an ecological disaster. Some of my family for instance had teenage boys equiped with those rifles and they damn near wiped out every pest on their farm during those years.

                • dv

                  As a teen ager I would regularly shoot 10 to 15 rabbit in an evening with 20 odd bullets in an evening. Single shot bolt action 5 shot magazine.

              • cleangreen

                No No again PR

                Our pest controllers shoot rabbits out on our farm.

                Our shooters that come have always had good kill rate with a single shot 22 no problems.

                • Puckish Rogue

                  Some use them, some don’t. I’m not about to tell pest contractors what they can and cant use

              • WeTheBleeple

                But Molly got it perfectly with the word switch PR.

                While you are now floundering.

          • Gabby 9.1.1.1.2

            That’s just about having fun puckers. You’re not clearing up a rabbit infestation with guns. Have you learnt nothing from the Great Emu War?

            • Puckish Rogue 9.1.1.1.2.1

              That was all about failing to understand the enemy plus illustrating the danger of taking on the native population on their home ground

              🙂

    • Gabby 9.2

      No Modular Weapons. None of that ‘importing as one thing then converting to another’ crap.

  10. CHCoff 10

    In general then, without engaging particular the abhorrent politics relating to this terrible event

    Citizens should not be disempowered by not having autonomous access to weapons that can take down killers and save lives.

    Weapons that are designed for spraying bullets into groups are not available to the public.

    Armed defenders, police, army, are not allowed to arm with such weapons against members of the NZ public also.

    Such weapons could be in stockpiles, and trained with, in areas related to national duty but they must be super tightly regulated, secured and accounted for constantly, so they are not leaked into societal circulation.

    With the above in place, if there are any similar attempted incidents in the future, then it will be abundantly obvious to most people, that the weapons have been smuggled into the country somehow..

    • RedLogix 10.1

      Yes that is in principle similar to what I outlined above. You do make the good point that such a regime would make any weapon that didn’t comply, ie was in the wrong place at the wrong time, relatively obvious and easy to deal with.

      • soddenleaf 10.1.1

        And colour coding guns would make them immediately obviously out of place. And give police immediate seizure ability. A olympic gun could be light blue say, and if found in a public place, not olympic related, could be seized. Yellow for gun hobbiests who use them at gun clubs, and must be sealed when transported. Orange for farm uses, when not on a farm, doc land. Police fines, etc would mount up.

    • Gabby 10.2

      But Chcoffoffy, citizens would have access to knives which are, according to gunstrokers, every bit as lethal, so the would be undisempowered.

      • bloke 10.2.1

        good point, I always do the Sunday roast with a 12 gauge pump action and throw knives at passing ducks

      • WeTheBleeple 10.2.2

        They should demonstrate the efficacy of knives with a rabbit cull.

  11. ianmac 11

    A gun expert reckons that to order online still requires the purchaser to pick up his purchase from a registered gun dealer. Wonder if that was enacted because of Heather dp Allen’s exposure of the weakness?
    Wonder if that is so on Trade-me?

  12. Simon Louisson 12

    BTW if you feel strongly about gun control I urge you to email to your local MP, Police Minister Stuart Nash and the PM. Remember pro-gun proponents are many and very vocal which is why effective gun control since Aramoana has been shelved so often. Those of us who want control to prevent further such massacres need to speak up.
    I also urge you also to sign the Action Stations petition https://our.actionstation.org.nz/petitions/ban-semiautomatic-weapons?bucket=Gun_Reform
    This is what I sent my local MP Paul Eagle:
    Kia Ora:
    If there is one good thing that can come out of the Christchurch massacre it will be decisive and comprehensive action by our politicians on gun control.
    Since Aramoana, our politicians have dithered on this because they have been fearful of the reaction of the pro-gun advocates. If you as an MP can’t get past this, you should not be in parliament.
    We need not only to pass all 13 of the recommendations of the 2017 Law & Order select committee but should ensure the reform includes:
    A total ban on the sale of military-style semi automatic weapons
    A government-backed compulsory buy-back program for the existing 15,000 MSSA weapons
    Extreme restrictions on pistols to such things as Olympic-games style range shooting
    The establishment of an independent Firearms Authority as proposed by the Thorp Inquiry to oversee licencing
    The licencing of every individual gun as happens in all countries except Aotearoa, Canada and the US
    Licence renewal every three years and make it the licence holder’s responsibility to inform the authority of any change of address within days of it happening
    Ban sale of guns over the internet
    Restrict gun advertising

  13. bloke 13

    You can’t stop every nutjob because they are, well nutjobs.. However you can slow them down a lot and make it a lot harder for them to get these weapons.

  14. Stuart Munro. 14

    There seems to be a presumption that demand for semiautomatics is somewhat driven by nutjobbery. I think it’s more probably driven by an unrepentant corporate psychopathy on the part of the likes of Gun City.

    With the exception of the Rugers preferred by some rabbit shooters, semiautos are not a strong preference for most hunters. That demand is driven from somewhere else – an illegitimate (and illegal) unstated desire for self defence, a US style “I got me a 357, got me a truck load of shotguns, 3 big boar battle rifles and ammo out the ass, and i ain’t safe, i can’t protect myself!” and the bottom line of very dubious operators like David Tipple, who, having convictions for firearms offences in the states, is arguably unfit to be a licensed seller.

    • Puckish Rogue 14.1

      It’s more that people are actually beginning to see the advantages a semi auto has over a bolt action

      It’s similar to people saying manual cars are “better” than automatic cars

      Then you have claims of “cheating” yet I wouldn’t mind getting that when scopes became cheaper and more available older hunters would have said using a scope was cheating

      A semi auto rifle has distinct advantages over a bolt action and vice versa but there’s a lot of people out there that dont like change

      Especially when all the classic deer stalking stories were written when semi autos simply weren’t as available as they are now, to say nothing of the cost

      • cleangreen 14.1.1

        Puckish Rouge,

        I have lived and operated a small rural farm for 14 years and single shot rifles are fine as most who use them develop good skills at making just one shot kill rates as we see them improving over time.

        Semi-automatics are for lazy or less capable shooters that is the point here.

        Bullshit – You said;
        “A semi auto rifle has distinct advantages over a bolt action and vice versa but there’s a lot of people out there that don’t like change”

        • Puckish Rogue 14.1.1.1

          You dont think a semi auto has any advantages over a bolt action or that you’re not a resistant to change dinosaur?

          • WILD KATIPO 14.1.1.1.1

            He’s pointing out the very pertinent fact – that even this govt and the opposition have agreed on – that semi automatics were not designed for hunting purposes but for killing other human beings.

            It is peculiar you are hanging back and trying to present a case for them. Perhaps you should be petitioning parliament instead.

            Somehow I think you will be drop kicked clear out of town.

      • Stuart Munro. 14.1.2

        They’re a nice technology in some instances – but the guy with the Ruger by no means necessarily brings back more bunnies than the guy with the bolt action.

        But you evaded the point – there has been a strong commercially driven impetus to sell semiautos, including the bad faith designation of AR15s as not being military style. That’s a dangerous trope, as the proliferation of such weapons leads us down the garden path to the utter cock-up which is the US model, complete with hot and cold running school shooters.

        We could do a lot worse than copying and pasting the Aussie rules as an interim measure while we design our own. Your heteronomous desire to own and use such items is weak against the demands of public safety.

  15. So now we have Dirty Politics proponent Simon Lusk informing us about firearms changes…

    What is likely to change with gun law reform after Christchurch …
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/…/christchurch-shooting/…/what-is-likely-to-change-with-gun…

    • Dennis Frank 15.1

      ” A political consultant who has advised the gun lobby and others, Simon Lusk, says there are an estimated 7000 licence holders and around 19,000 military style semi-automatic weapons in New Zealand. The cost of the Government buying back banned weapons could be around $47.5 million based on a figure or around $2500 each. The Government could reduce the cost of any buy-back scheme if there was an option for decommissioning such weapons, he said.”
      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111440490/what-is-likely-to-change-with-gun-law-reform-after-christchurch-mosque-shooting

      Your link didn’t work, btw. “Lusk said there appeared to be widespread political support for a ban on military style semi-automatics and there would be little push back as their main purpose was to “kill men”. Like most hunters, he would be happy to see them go and while there was a small but vocal minority that would push back, they had little political clout or influence among the wider hunting sector.” Good to hear, eh?

      “Guys like me aren’t that keen on seeing idiots in the bush with AKs. We know the people involved in this; they are outspoken, a tiny minority and they annoy the hell out of us all. There’s no political sway there.”

      Gee whizz, if I were Puckish I’d be running scared! The Lusk, he be a-gunning for you, mon! Better hide fast. Perhaps shape-shift to a new identity. Modish Vogue? Too up-market?

      • Puckish Rogue 15.1.1

        Not sure quite sure what you’re on about being that I dont own any MSSAs…

        • Dennis Frank 15.1.1.1

          Didn’t you just the other day here argue against the proposed ban of semi-auto guns? Perhaps there’s a nuance in your position that I missed…

      • WILD KATIPO 15.1.2

        Link does work when you copy and paste entire reference onto google search, press enter ,then hit the first article that does appear.

        I just did it myself to check.

      • WILD KATIPO 15.1.3

        No , but we do see that just because Lusk is a keen hunter , – that doesn’t take from the fact that he of all people were chosen to front this. Good on his firearms views… but he is a poor choice when he and his little scummy mates have had such a negative outcome in recent NZ politics.

        I do not need to remind you further of his far right wing attack politics.

        • Stuart Munro. 15.1.3.1

          His maths is pretty dodgy too – $2500 as an average buyback price across the board – for in many cases old used weapons. Simple buyback would be to put them up on Craigslist in the US, or use something like that as a comparative. Deflates his scare numbers and the profiteering expectations of post-atrocity purchasers significantly.

          • I feel love 15.1.3.1.1

            I was surprised how cheap guns were, plenty under $500, I just thought it would be harder to get guns because of the expense alone, but they really are quite cheap.

  16. ankerawshark 16

    I have just come back from Parliament where Action Station delivered their petition to ban semi automatics. Grant Robertson, James Shaw, Chris Bishop, Jan Logie and Louisa Wall all there and they endorsed that Parliament is united in this.

    Chris Bishop gave credit to Jacinda Ardern for her leadership which saw her reach to both side of the house.

    An early childhood teacher spoke of the gun city adds, showing children using guns as part of a family activity. Things will change. There is no debate now

    • Puckish Rogue 16.1

      That’s more a sad reflection of the growing devide between urban and rural communities

      • mauī 16.1.1

        BS. It’s a true reflection of the divide between gun fanatics and the rest of the country.

        • Puckish Rogue 16.1.1.1

          What is wrong with teaching your kids to shoot and, hopefully, teach them how handle firearms and most importantly not to be scared of firearms but to respect them

          • mauī 16.1.1.1.1

            That’s not your angle though. You would be teaching them how to use semi-automatics and telling them that they’re only as dangerous as any other gun. We may as well be a southern state of the USA then.

            • Puckish Rogue 16.1.1.1.1.1

              Do keep up Maui, the kids in the ads are using air rifles

            • Puckish Rogue 16.1.1.1.1.2

              Silly little Maui, if you’d bothered to read any of my other posts you’d see that I want all semi auto rifles and shot guns to be moved out of the A classification into the higher E endorsement

              So no starting kids on air rifles is a very good thing

              • mauī

                Yeah silly me… you’ve made dozens of comments on this post that essentially defends these types of weapons and then you make this last comment about actually wanting restrictions…

                • Puckish Rogue

                  Maui, Maui, Maui silly little Maui, it’s quite easy to go back and check my statements, they even have the date and time on them

                  Have a nice cup of tea and lie down silly little Maui and then come back and try again

          • cleangreen 16.1.1.1.2

            PR What is wrong with teaching kids to use a bow and arrows?

            My father was known as “the father of NZ Archery’.

            I grew up shooting arrows from bows dad built, learning to shoot with my father and my brother,

            Why rifles rifles rifles always;!!!@!!

            Do you own a gun shop or have financial interests in them?

            • Puckish Rogue 16.1.1.1.2.1

              If the dads into archery then good on them, if the dads into shooting then good on them

              • Erm ,… your kind of evading the issues, … you do not use a bow and arrow to commit mass murder. However you can with a semi automatic with an illegal magazine clip.

                Comprendo Senor ?

                • Puckish Rogue

                  I was responding to a specific question so I gave a specific answer

                  Donde esta la pollo Senor

                  (No I also dont own a gun shop 🙂 )

                  • No matey, you are EVADING issues. That’s all you are doing. Over and over again. Deliberately. But it really doesn’t matter anymore because the banning of some semi autos is virtually guaranteed.

                    So kind of makes this whole exercise a waste of time in the first place.

                    Anyways time for a song and a goodbye… this article needs a little music to brighten it up…

                    Mary Hopkin ~ Goodbye (HQ) – YouTube

  17. Tuppence Shrewsbury 17

    No more video chat verification of guns being purchased would help too

  18. Jim 18

    I found this very interesting, perhaps the current laws are not too bad, if only they were inforced properly, this is shocking and gross mismanagement by those handing out gun licenses.

    Joe Green is a former licensing and vetting manager for the NZ Police.

    From Joe Green:

    Was the integrity of the firearms licensing process compromised?

    In my opinion piece published in the DomPost on 20 March 2019 I said that “Legislators would do well to begin with a close review of the firearms licensing process as it was applied to Friday’s offender. It is after all the mechanism by which he gained lawful access to firearms”.

    I now understand that the firearms licensing process as it was applied to the offender in the Christchurch shootings was compromised in that:

    • The offender applied for his firearms licence in a Police District in which he might have an increased chance of getting it approved.

    • It seems that there was no interview of the offender’s spouse, partner or next of kin (the person who knows them best).

    • The process requires the interview of an unrelated referee. I understand that two people were interviewed. They knew the offender primarily through an on-line chat room. Both referees are recorded as saying the same.

    • The offender declined to be interviewed at his home. He was interviewed at his place of work.

    • There is doubt as to if a home visit and security inspection took place.

    • It is apparent in the vetting process that the offender has no friends as such.

    This outlines a classic scenario for someone setting up to obtain a firearms licence for nefarious purposes, and because due process was not followed, he succeeded.

    Having obtained a firearms licence it is but a short step to obtaining firearms. A step he took.

    Changing the law in terms of the possession and use of firearms by law abiding people will have little effect on safety unless the integrity of the licensing process is maintained.

    • Puckish Rogue 18.1

      So if the existing laws had been followed this probably wouldn’t have happened?

      • Jim 18.1.1

        Interesting isn’t it.

        • Puckish Rogue 18.1.1.1

          Its almost as if instead of creating new laws enforcing the current laws might be a better option

          If it’s the case as he says…

          • I feel love 18.1.1.1.1

            Just proves a blunt approach like “ban all semi automatics” is better because those with the authority to licence can’t be trusted to do their job. The gun industry/lobby has no one to blame but themselves, “give ’em enough rope” indeed.

            • Puckish Rogue 18.1.1.1.1.1

              Or maybe the people should do their jobs so people don’t get killed

              • marty mars

                They’re banned mate – hope you get a good price when you hand it in for buyback. What a great day for this country.

                • Puckish Rogue

                  Doesnt affect me in the slightest, I have a semi auto .22

                  Semi auto shot guns still allowed, semi auto rifles still allowed

                  So not a bad result from my point of view 🙂

                  • marty mars

                    In like a needle out like a plough – it has started…

                  • Jim

                    I’m not so sure PR.
                    About your centrefire semi autos anyway.

                    Effective immediately, military style semi-automatics and assault rifles will be banned in New Zealand under stronger new gun laws announced today, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says.

                    All high-capacity magazines will also be banned.

                    As will two types of firearms now defined as Military Style Semi-Automatics (MSSAs):
                    · A semi-automatic firearm capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges

                    · A semi-automatic shotgun capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges.

                    So tell me if I’m right in thinking that if you own a five shot semi auto, but it is capable of taking a high capacity magazine(even if you don’t have one because you are A cat), then that is now defined as an MSSA and therefore illegal?

                    • Exkiwiforces

                      It’s going to depend on the wording, type of semi auto as well as there are a number of old school rifles like the
                      M1 Grand
                      M1 Carbine
                      SKS
                      M14 and M21
                      G43 the W2 German Sniper Rifle
                      The Johnson Rifle from Canada?
                      The 3 10 shot Semi Auto’s from France, Belgium and Italy which I’ve forgotten their names.

                      Can be De- Mil to take a five shot mag along with all other stuff taken off like bayonet lugs, flash suppressors and Rifle Grenade Attachments etc would still fall in with the A Cat Licence requirements.

                      It would be interesting to see what happens to those that have the C Cat Licence? I know a few single seat Vampire and Venom owners might be sweeting atm, as you can’t De Mil the Aircarft because you will upset the CoG if you tinker with the 20mm guns as the keep the A/C finely balanced.

                      PS, there is a Russia Sniper and its many variants callled the Dragnov or whatever it’s name is, fires a half decent round a 7.62x 51mm from memory a little bit larger than the 7.62 NATO or .308 rd. Could also fall under a Cat A Licence and I know a few NZ Coppers who use it from target shooting to deer shooting etc.

                    • lprent []

                      For that matter, an old 1908 Luger with an attachable rifle stock and (if anyone could get the ammunition) a 32 round drum.

                      Of course I’d say that was a pistol. But pistol grip, big magazine, center-fire, semi-automatic…

                    • Exkiwiforces

                      That would come under the B Cat Licence lprent as it would classed as a Pistol due to its length and the de attachable stock is not normal fitted for. It’s the same for the 9mm Browning, Colt .45 and other similar pistols.

                    • lprent []

                      Yeah, I know – I was being facetious.

                    • Exkiwiforces

                      I realised after I bugged off to something then thinking that you have pull one on me. 😀

                      All good mate, but most here probably won’t understand our type of humour.

              • I feel love

                Yes, they should have, but they fucked up, or don’t have resources, or just unenforceable, whatever. Let’s see if you have that same attitude when they are against the law and demand the authorities “do their job” & collect and destroy the illegal weapons.

                • Jim

                  Fucked up is an understatement after all those deaths, and yes I will have the same attitude and demand Police round up these now illegal weapons. In the same way I have always demanded Police Persue illegal weapons.

    • … ” It is after all the mechanism by which he gained lawful access to firearms”…

      ———————————–

      Erm…. yes ,… a semi automatic which was easily converted into a weapon of mass murder by using an illegal magazine capacity …

      There’s just no way around it.

      Preventing the general public and psychopaths from procuring these weapons is , in the long term, the best preventative move.

      • Jim 18.2.1

        “Preventing the general public and psychopaths from procuring these weapons is , in the long term, the best preventative move.”

        I agree and if NZ Police do the vetting job properly, the general public and psychopaths will never get access.

        • Molly 18.2.1.1

          It is possible to have more than one safeguard to ensure safety. eg. cars can have seatbelts and airbags to increase the likelihood of survival.

          A restriction on weapons and a more effective vetting system will do the same.

          • Jim 18.2.1.1.1

            Yes Molly you are right, another mechanism against atrocities.
            I guess from people who enjoy shooting sports it’s disappointing, when you enjoy a sport with your family and that is effectively finished because of the unforgivable actions of another.
            However no choice but to suck it up.
            Hopefully this Government who puts itself out as a Government or “Fairness” will pay a “Fair” price for the firearms that are currently held buy law abiding citizens that have done no wrong.

            • Molly 18.2.1.1.1.1

              I hope the Government acts in a reasonable and fair way regarding buyback as well.

              I have faith that many will be able to adapt accordingly and will be able to continue to enjoy their family/friends excursions into the future. They still have many other options, and the contentment that comes from being out in nature.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 18.3

      That sounds like a very weak process – and far less rigorous than I have had for my own licence renewals etc.

      Every time – spouse / partner was interviewed (and specifically not in my presence), relative interviewed (not in my presence) and myself interviewed – at my house, and my firearms / lock up inspected. They really did some digging (including in relation to someone living at my house who had brief mild depression in the past).

      All of which I thought was a good system.

    • Exkiwiforces 18.4

      I’m stepping back into this now, after what happened on Friday.

      Yes Jim, from what I’m hearing from sources back in NZ. Is that this ……… skip a few steps in the vetting process through sloppy work on behalf of the local firearms officer and by other as sighted above. Also this …….., as I believe may have or held a current Australian/ NSW Firearms Licence which currently under Australia and NZ Laws are/ can be recognised as with all types of licensing for ships, planes, cars etc. This could’ve also led to this…….. skipping a few crucial points of the NZ firearms vetting process and I would to say also that Australia States and Territories don’t have very robust vetting standards/ systems or requirements unlike NZ. If the vetting process had been followed by the letter of the Law then it is highly unlikely this ……. would’ve received his firearms license.

      Also I’ve heard that the Bruce Rifle Range south of Dunedin was very suspect, in the way it was run, conducted of some of the range practices and a number of other things that really put my contacts on edge. That a number people made contact to the local Firearms Officer/ office.

      If we go back since the David Gray’s mass shooting until now, you would find that every Royal Commission held IRT to these Mass Shootings or Firearm shootings is that the local firearms office/ officers and Police haven’t followed the letter to the law or concerns of other firearms users about possible breaches of the NZ Firearms Laws by other firearm users.

      This time the horse has bolted and MSSA weapons are gone, which for me is sad as I had 10 shot, later a 7shot SKS, M21 the Sniper version of the M14 and a SLR. These weapons were used by me and others as a way to maintain my/ others shooting standards during the 90’s. When the “No Mates Party” slashed the Defence budget aka training to a point in the old 3LFG in South Island/ Burnham that if we wanted to maintain any standards then DIY was the option which BTW opened a few other doors as well which I’ll leave for another day.

  19. left_forward 19

    Thanks Simon, I appreciate your article.

    As I have outlined in a comment above, I don’t personally believe there is any moral argument for individual ownership of guns in New Zealand. However, I am pragmatic and accept we are a long way from accepting the moral argument in our little, agriculturally dependent country – so all of the recommendations of the select committee + ban on semi-automatic weapons is a good starting point.

    I cannot accept that any Government Minister should dismiss the year-long work of a select committee without significant cause. If there is cause, then the reason (including any reason if any a lobby group has given) should be fully disclosed to the public.

    These recommendations came at a great cost to submitters in time to put in submissions and attend hearings, as well as the cost of parliamentary staff and politicians working on the committee. We collectively made a significant investment in this process. How does Paula think that she has a better view of this than those who worked on the Committee for so long?

    The answer of course is that she didn’t have a reasonable objection – but she listened instead to a minority self-interested lobby and ignored the well resourced and carefully researched select committee.

    Last week we saw the result of her outrageous behaviour – she is culpable.

  20. Dennis Frank 20

    “As of 3pm today an order in council took effect. The changes to the regulations would mean the firearms were now catergorised as needing an E-class licence endorsement.
    This means no one will be able to buy the weapons without police approval. Ms Ardern said there was no point in applying for one.”
    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/385268/pm-jacinda-ardern-says-new-zealand-will-ban-all-military-style-semi-automatic-weapons-and-all-assault-rifles

    Job done, yay!! 👍 😍

  21. James 21

    As lprent said – I was wrong on the political wind in gun ownership. Jacinda and conwent a lot further than I would have ever thought.

    I don’t agree with the law change – but as a citizen under this government will respect and follow it and will be returning any guns required under this law.

    • Sam 21.1

      It’s not all sower lemons. There is a buy back in place. I’v been using the same APEX bow exclusively now for over ten years. Normal people don’t often appreciate how much more difficult it is to hurl a missile than it is to fire a bullet. Bow and arrows require more upper body strength, wet whether can warp the bow, the arrow flexes a lot more than a bullet inflight so really pulling back hard on the bow to give it that extra pop and just snap shoot gives increased accuracy. But for normal people, increased difficulty is just boring, boring, boring.

    • Magnificent !

      🙂

      You truly have my encouragement and good will along with many , many other people !

      Proud of you.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago