Just outlaw semi-automatic weapons

Written By: - Date published: 10:54 am, March 16th, 2019 - 213 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags: , ,

Now anyone who knows me is aware that I’m not exactly a pacifist. Quite the opposite. I’ve used and worked with weapons for large chunks of my life. On farms, in the army, or ranges and developing software and hardware to train various military in the use of their weapons.

Weapons for me are just tools that need to be under trained control and used for purpose. They aren’t there for dickheads to play out their untrained and ill-disciplined penile obsessed fantasies as just happened in Christchurch.

So what exactly is the purpose of having civilian semi-automatic weapons?

I can’t see any economic reason. Just show me a civilian task that cannot be done with a blot-action or single shot style weapon. And I simply can’t see any reason related to the public good.

In fact the only reason I can see for semi-automatic weapons is to compensate for the poor weapons training of hunters – and dickheads.

However, semi-automatic weapons are really good for the lazy nutjobs to perform the cowards act of killing the unarmed. With the lax gun laws in NZ, this known white nationalist nutjob got a gun license in 2017 and accumulated 5 weapons and then went on shooting spree.

That is a problem that deserves a unrestrained policy to excise it. Regardless of the feelings of the lobby groups or the current owners of .

Lets just outlaw all semi-automatic weapons outside of the tasks that actually need them. Make the conviction of having possession of a working instance to be an offense requiring long imprisonment.

Those tasks mean that we should restrict pistols, semi-automatic and automatic weapons to the military and the police.

If someone wants to play with weapons that are semi-automatic or automatic, let them go and get trained properly. I’m sure that service in the army will be good for them – if they can get in.

213 comments on “Just outlaw semi-automatic weapons”

  1. greywarshark 1

    The response by outspoken gun lovers to any restraint on their holding of and acquiring weapons of any destruction not even mass destruction, gives the impression that they view that as an equivalent of cutting off their dicks.

    • lprent 1.1

      Screw them. Most of them are badly trained dickheads.

      Go along to any range and you’ll find a significiant percentage that I wouldn’t think are competent to to handle weapons, and they’re usually the ones with the semi-autos.

    • R.P Mcmurphy 1.2

      thats right. they have small pee pees and need these guns to compensate.

    • woodart 1.3

      to have ANY sort of a firearm, you should provide a definite need for it. a hobby is NOT a definite need. bullshit reasons like belonging to a gun club are NOT a good reason. the farm I live on, the farmer grows grass and bales it. no animals here. no reason for firearms. hale bales dont need shooting

  2. Sanctuary 2

    I remember about ten years ago seeing some bloke on the side of the Taupo road kitted out head to toe in matching soviet style camo, combat boots, webbing and toting two semi-auto SKS rifles and thinking to myself deer stalking doesn’t seem to attract the same crowd it used to.

    The weapons attract a particular sort of character and should be just banned.

  3. marty mars 3

    I agree.

  4. Ric 4

    Yes and as soon as possible and definitely mandatory imprisonment.

  5. esoteric pineapples 5

    15 million guns in NZ and that is just the legal ones. Given a huge number of New Zealanders don’t own guns, that means that on average gun owners have around 15 guns each (a rough estimate)

    • Blazer 5.1

      impossible stat.Check it.

      • arkie 5.1.1

        A decimal point has disappeared it seems;

        Nearly 250,000 licensed firearms owners own and use New Zealand’s estimated 1.5 million firearms.

        https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/105882611/the-battle-over-semiautomatics-police-frustrated-by-the-law-firearm-owners-frustrated-by-police

        avg = 6 guns per gunowner

      • lprent 5.1.2

        *sigh* It is always important to correct the mathematically challenged.

        https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/new-zealand

        Blazer: The stat is based on the numbers of weapons imported over decades. Weapons last for very long periods of times if you don’t leave them in the rain.

        It doesn’t count weapons that have been destroyed or discarded, because they simply aren’t counted. We don’t register most weapons – we license owners. We also mostly don’t track who owns what.

        Not all weapons are held by registered owners, because licenses are often let to lapse. However there will be a lot of owners with lapsed licenses who have weapons in a cupboard somewhere. They aren’t hard to find.

        And then there are relatively few weapons held that have been smuggled. The estimates of those are around 10,000.

        So your maths is wrong because you’re too lazy to think it through or to look it up.

        On the other hand esoteric’s calculations is just about as bad because he assumes that only currently licensed people have all of the weapons.

        • Graeme 5.1.2.1

          Firearm registration and tracking is a no brainer in 2019 with modern tech and the web. I’m not sure that was the case in mid 80’s when the old registry was abandoned. I’m sure you could come up with an excellent web based system in pretty quick time. Even to account for several million firearms.

          My understanding of the demise of the firearms registry was that it was so inaccurate due to the age and paper basis of records that it was worse than useless. That came from an arms officer I knew socially at the time.

          • McFlock 5.1.2.1.1

            The other problem is that serial numbers are often inconsistent, duplicated, or poorly stamped or worn away, especially on older weapons. So each firearm could well need a unique NZID added as it is registered/discovered.

            There’s an historic firearms channel I watch on youtube which goes into aspects of various weapons (back to black powder and Victorian big game hunting rifles with massive bores). They had an interesting discussion on registering restricted firearms in the US, like souvineers granddad brought back from WW2. The US have a register for those, and basically it comes down to whether someone has registered a weapon like that with a number that looks like that anytime in the past 80 years, and some registrations were for owners that were born in the 1800s. And then there are some weapons that might have the same serial number but have different manufacturer stamps, which might not have been logged when the weapon was registered.

            Rather than the federal database being the authoritative record, if you had the original paper from when it was registered, that was the document of record. Otherwise if it wasn’t on the database, it might get destroyed.

            But yeah, no reason modern imported ones shouldn’t be registered without problem.

            • Graeme 5.1.2.1.1.1

              There’s no reason a NZID number or mark couldn’t be added to items with dubious marks on application, but the number would be quite small, most firearms that are in usable condition have very good marks. Something exotic and collectable probably wouldn’t be weapon of choice for the dodgy bastards, an AK or AR with no numbers, straight in the furnace.

              But it looks like assault rifles are going to be hard to own from now on. Good.

              • McFlock

                Do they put trace IDs in ammunition yet? Like the tiny IDs they can spraypaint on cars? That would also be a good idea.

                • Graeme

                  Recommendations 1,2 and 3 from Joe90’s post below at 19 would have taken care of that.

                  There’s an awful lot of numbers on ammo packets now, I presume that would give some traceability. And if those recommendations had been adopted there would have been records of the ammo purchases and alarms would have been triggered in a good regulatory environment.

        • Blazer 5.1.2.2

          what was my ‘maths’ exactly?*sigh”

  6. solkta 6

    Totally agree with all of that. It seems so obvious.

  7. Stuart Munro. 7

    I think there’s a quasi militaristic streak in some people that makes them want to buy lookalike weapons even when they have no antisocial intentions. I imagine gun sellers have found it profitable to sell to that demand.

    Bolt actions would be a good idea, putting the onus on gun owners to restrict themselves to clearly hunting or range weapons. There would be considerable and somewhat justified resistance from owners of hunting semiautomatics obliged to surrender or replace them however. I’m not sure where lever actions would fit. A return to registration would be a good idea, for all that rebuilding the register will entail a lot of work.

    But my first move (if magically granted legislative powers) would be to examine the networks that nurtured these terrorists, and as far as possible monitor them or shut them down.

  8. Andre 8

    I’d go further.

    As well as simply getting rid of any kind of semi-auto outside of military and law enforcement, I’d require every firearm to be registered to an owner and an address.

    Any time a firearm is to be moved off that address, whether to go hunting or to a shooting range or whatever, a movement plan needs to be filed with the police. These days it can be done by an app on a phone so it wouldn’t be particularly onerous.

    • solkta 8.1

      Good ideas. Then the Police would know where a gun was at any given time. Any gun that isn’t where it should be then in the crusher it goes.

    • RedLogix 8.2

      Yes. There are roughly three types of people who have a justifiable need to access firearms; police and military, farmers and pest controllers, and recreational users like hunters and gun hobbyists. It’s my thinking that a better system would treat each group in a different manner.

      Police/military would need a high level of ongoing personal training and certification, but in return would be able to have relatively unconstrained access while on the job.

      Farmer and pest controllers would continue with something similar to the current user registration system, with a high emphasis on safe storage and separation of ammunition.

      Recreational users are the biggest group that we need to rethink. I’d be inclined to require mandatory membership of registered gun club, an annual safety course and for all weapons to be professionally stored at the club premises (or similar). Each weapon to be individually registered, and all ammunition to be purchased on or near the day it is to be used.

      It’s my sense this would be more effective than getting bogged down in the details of which weapons are legit or not; there are so many technical shades of variation and difference between weapon types.

      • lprent 8.2.1

        Not that much.

        I tend to view weapons in rounds per second and seconds per round.

        If something can be fired repeatably within a second, then it should certainly be banned as being a military style weapon. It makes it too easy for a shooter to to hold off unarmed attacks.

        If it takes seconds per round then any shooter is vulnerable to concerted attacks and into a situation where they are vulnerable to unarmed attackers.

        And it is easy to measure.

        Just give a good shooter a weapon to test the marginal weapons. If the law said that you should not be able to shoot a round more than once every 1.5 seconds. Then that is testable. Possession of anything that fires at faster than that is outlawed. And for that matter any importer or modifier is fined or imprisoned as well.

        Frankly I don’t think that much of complex regulations. If people want weapons then they will get them. After all there are always knives.

        I just want it hard to get weapons that can kill large crowds easily. And the best way to do that is to make it difficult to possess them.

        • Jess NZ 8.2.1.1

          They are WMDs, weapons of mass destruction, and shouldn’t be available to civilians.

        • RedLogix 8.2.1.2

          Fair enough that’s an intelligent way to look at it. I was thinking of the US experience in trying to legislate against military style weapons, and the endless complexities of trying to do so, and the loopholes that complexity always seems to create. Your rounds/sec approach does have the merit of being pretty simple; and not mutually exclusive with the ideas I list above.

          My daughter and son in law lived as caretakers at a gun range for years and while they too saw plenty of idiots, at least the idiots were confined to the range, and that over time other users tended to educate them. It’s my sense that mandatory club membership is potentially a useful social moderator/filter around gun ownership and attitudes towards them.

          I’d extend my suggestion above; recreational users would either have to produce a dated DoC Block Permit, or written landowner hunting consent in order to take any weapon off the gun club premise. Everyone else gets to bang away to their hearts content, but on the range only.

          • lprent 8.2.1.2.1

            I’d agree about the gun clubs.

            Far better than not having a informed peer group. Nearest thing to having corporal being educational about weapons safety and methods.

              • lprent

                Which I’d also expect.

                Unless you own a farm, a range is the best place to hone aiming. It also has the benefit in that it allows you access to the informal networks for sales of weapons and to try different weapons out.

                I’d also repeat what I said about who you see on ranges. The real dickheads who I wouldn’t trust with a weapon usually fire semi-autos.

                • The Good Shepherd

                  Exfarmer and exfirearms owner here.
                  Needed my .22 for pest eradication and my 303 for humane slaughter of larger animals, cattle, horses and feral dogs. Never did like using a knife.
                  I did not need a military style firearm for any work I did.
                  Military style weapons should be restricted to properly trained military and police forces only.
                  Civilians don’t need them – they are designed to kill human beings not food or targets.
                  I suggest an immediate amnesty followed by an ongoing search and destroy mission to find all illegal weapons in the hands of unlicensed or improperly licensed owners who should be charged with possession and sentenced to jail.
                  All firearms to be registered.
                  All firearms belonging to hobby and sports shooters to be stored in secure armouries such as at local gun clubs and to be logged in and out.
                  No firearms to be sold, traded or gifted to anyone but a licensed dealer.

        • Stuart Munro. 8.2.1.3

          That’s a good measure, gives a clue on how to deal with pump and lever sporting guns. A magazine limit mightn’t hurt either.

      • Poission 8.2.2

        The question arises,does Tarrant further succeed with fragmentation brought about by gun control?

        At multiple points in the manifesto the author expresses the hope that his massacre will spark further attempts at gun control in the United States, which he believes will lead to gun confiscation and a civil war. He believes this civil war would be the best opportunity destroy the American “melting pot”. This idea is repeated often enough that it seems to be something the author legitimately believes in.

        https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-world/2019/03/15/shitposting-inspirational-terrorism-and-the-christchurch-mosque-massacre/

        • solkta 8.2.2.1

          The mess that the US is in is their creation and their problem. Our problem is to not get like them.

          • Poission 8.2.2.1.1

            He said he had many modes of attack,but chose firearms because it would divide America.

            • Andre 8.2.2.1.1.1

              Adolf Twitler’s next utterance is going to knock our problems well away from the US headlines.

              The only international gun control effect this may have is helping Australians resist the creeping relaxation of their gun laws.

        • lprent 8.2.2.2

          I’d agree with solkta.

          The US has their own set of problems. We should deal with our own lax control of firearms rather than their issues.

        • RedLogix 8.2.2.3

          While I agree with lprent that we shouldn’t let our response get become overly entangled with the situation in the USA, there is the other view that I’ve consistently advocated … that all the big problems we face are global in nature, and there is an aspect to this event that has nothing specifically to do with NZ.

          It could have happened anywhere; we just got very unlucky yesterday.

          The merit of what I’m suggesting above, around controlling access to weapons and ammunition … is that recognises legitimate weapon use, avoids outright banning, and permits people who are genuinely skilled and knowledgeable around guns to use them in strictly controlled contexts.

          • Poission 8.2.2.3.1

            He had two delivery mechanisms,firearms and facebook.

            If the wonks had not effected repairs to FB would the Kinetic mechanism been utilized?

          • lprent 8.2.2.3.2

            My general problem with semi-automatics is that I can’t really see any civilian legitimate use.

            That is, I can’t see a any valid use in civilian life in NZ where the same job cannot be done with a bolt or lever or pump action.

            I don’t think that there is a case for banning firearms. I do think that there is an easy case for simply banning civilian use of self-arming semi-automatics

            • Jim 8.2.2.3.2.1

              Do you include semi auto shotguns this would impact on skeet and clay clubs, also 3 gun competitions at clubs.

              • lprent

                So if you are saying that these are purely for entertainment, then yes.

                You probably need to read my post again to understand where I’m coming from.

                And consider this.

                There are people who find torturing small animals to be entertaining. Should we provide them with exemptions to allow them to do that? If not then why? And how does that not apply to using firearms for entertainment.

                And I know that the analogy is strained for effect. But exactly the same principle is in effect.

              • solkta

                Guns are for killing not for playing games.

                • Jim

                  They are used for both.

                  • solkta

                    Only because we allow fuckwits to be fuckwits.

                  • Andre

                    Some sports die a natural death. Some sports are regulated out of existence because they are no longer socially acceptable. A sport going out of existence because the weapon of mass-murder used in that sport is no longer socially acceptable would be a sub-category of the latter.

        • Steve 8.2.2.4

          Poission, Sadly, he already has. The posts on this thread are clear proof of that. On Friday morning I woke up an upstanding member of society with a number of licenses and statutory certificates and clearances to speak to that. By Friday evening most people on this forum have labelled me a dickhead, a fuckwit and implied I am the worst kind of human through no action or inaction on my part, without ever having met me and without knowing anything about me.
          This forum and others on both sides of the political extremes have given Mr Tarrant and for that matter Chris Cahill, exactly what they wanted. They have manufactured a divide in our society I doubt will ever heal.
          I would call you all my friends and countrymen but I strongly doubt from the rhetoric anyone here would return the gesture.
          I feel for the victims. First they are attacked and now they’ll get to watch the society they live in rips itself apart as a result.

    • cleangreen 8.3

      Andre.;;

      No that will not work, as anyone who has the technical knowledge method of hacking into that “firearms registry’ can go steal a firearm from any address that firearm is known to be at.

      That will be anytime making their homes a dangerous place to be living as being exposed to those who would steal from them.

      • Andre 8.3.1

        Tough shit.

        If you think that’s an actual concern, either give up guns completely, or store them at your local gun club and file a movement plan when you want to use them away from the gun club, or sort out proper secure storage at home.

        Seriously, that objection is as stupid as saying a terrorist could have just chosen to drive a car at speed through the crowds of kids at the climate protests so there’s no point at all in trying to tackle the guns side of the problem.

      • cleangreen 8.3.2

        Andre you are wrong twice in the same day.

        I agree with Wild Katipo.

        You speak as if you are a city boy no doubt.

        But Wild Katipo is right and you are wrong again.

        Most in the rural areas have slow internist in case you are obviously unaware.

        Secondly and most important we in the rural areas have no ‘cop/s” to protract us like you city folk have.

        So now you will use your silly logic again to tell us if we are worried leave the rural life and move to the city eh.

    • May be a little cumbersome in more remote regions tho. Not all rural folk have fast and accurate internet. Besides… if a neighbor sees some captain cookers coming down the fence-lines and asks for your assistance,… you have to act in the moment,… not dick around with online bullshit.

      • Andre 8.4.1

        Hardies.

        I think if any rural cop becomes aware of someone popping over to their neighbour to deal to some Captain Cookers without fully following admin procedures, they’ll have the good sense to … ahh … not be aware of which side of the boundary fence it happened on. Prob’ly not if it means going across to the other side of town, tho.

  9. Kat 9

    As Jimi sang…………………….Machine Gun

    “Yeah, that’s what we don’t want to hear anymore, alright
    (No bullets)
    At least here, huh huh
    (No guns, no bombs)
    Huh huh
    No nothing, just let’s all live and live
    You know instead of killing……..”

  10. Drowsy M. Kram 10

    I’m unfamiliar with gun ‘culture’ and use, and agree with lprent’s post and many of the comments, e.g. those in the thread @8.

    The Kiwi way is not the U.S. of A. way. We can choose to restrict ownership of pistols, semi-automatic and automatic weapons to the police/military. It would be an appropriate and proportionate response to 49 New Zealanders being murdered in an afternoon. I would feel safer, even if that’s not fully rational.

    Pollies, please don’t waste the opportunity for some good to come out of this tragedy. Involve the police, military and legal experts, and introduce draft legislation into the select committee process ASAP. P.M. Ardern’s comments so far are encouraging.

  11. Jess NZ 11

    Just do it. The consultation has already been done – we just need the will to act.

    2017 ‘Police Minister Paula Bennett consulted with independent firearms experts, and accepted seven recommendations, but rejected 12.

    “We needed to strike the right balance between public safety and the rights of legal firearms owners,” Bennett said at the time.’

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/97512128/opportunity-missed-for-nz-to-tighten-gun-control-laws

    and 2016

    ”Police Association president Greg O’Connor also believed a mass shooting was “inevitable”, telling MPs police had noticed a massive increase in the number of firearms among “those who simply should not have them”.

    “We’ve already had mass killings, there are mass killings happening in the United States, we would be naive to think we’re not going to have one here.”‘

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/83499342/mass-shooting-in-new-zealand-inevitable-without-action-on-gun-laws-mps-warned

    Australia has benefited from their stand….

    “We have an opportunity in this country not to go down the American path.”

    Those were the words of former Australian Prime Minister John Howard before he radically changed Australia’s gun laws and – many believe – rid the country of gun violence on a large scale.

    You will already be hearing some Kiwis clutching their gun rights. We have to decide which ideals we really follow in NZ. Are we actually clean and green? Are we actually peaceful and safe? Which country do we use as a model for our future?

  12. cleangreen 12

    Do not place all firearms onto a digital online data registry as that will be hacked by terrorists and used against us all. Be careful to make any records of weapons ownership free from any online or digital registry else you will then wake up to have everyone who owns a firearm in risk of being robbed or worse.

  13. Glenn 13

    And while we are talking banning…ban the wearing in public of camo gear. Theres a guy I see dropping off his kids at school often dressed in camo clothes and he’s not the only one around. It gives me the creeps.

    Ban all guns except bolt action rifles and shotguns for registered hunters.

  14. [ ” Those tasks mean that we should restrict pistols, semi-automatic and automatic weapons to the military and the police ” ]

    Brilliant , brilliant IPRENT.

    You’ve had a little more time than me to put this article together rather than comments on the fly and I 100% endorse every aspect of it. Start to finish.

    This is the sort of discussion this country needs.

    100% Approval of all aspects of the argument you have put forth. That and the individual licencing of individual firearms as another poster said on another related post.

    That would certainly sort the pretenders out from the serious and responsible crowd.

    • Perhaps I should use the term, ‘registered firearms’ in lieu of ‘licensed firearms ‘ when it comes to licences firearm holders!

      More than happy with a 45 – 50 pound bow anyways. I just don’t like the noise, the kick and the scaring of game for miles around firearms do… plus its primal and no ones going to get scared or alarmed when they see a bow in the back seat.

      They’ll just go on their way and think ‘ nice bow set’ and not get a heart attack.

  15. Mark 15

    100% agree Mr Prentice. Its ridiculous, why the fuck does any ordinary citizen in a normally peaceful society need a semi-auto weapon is simply beyond me.

    They should put this law in ink forthwith and give two weeks for all semi-auto weapons out there to be turned in (with compensation as it would not be fair to apply the law retroactively). Sales should be banned forthwith under emergency measures, as we now have the risk of copycat, and revenge actions. The cops should be doing their best to track down all sales of these sorts of weapons —surely they are kept on a database somewhere?

    If the guy had gone in with a bolt-action, we would perhaps have been looking at 4 or 5 dead, not 50.

    • Puckish Rogue 15.1

      Google mad minute, pre-ww1 British soldiers fired upto 15 rounds per min (hitting the target of course) including magazine changes at a range of 300 yards (that’s using a bolt action)

      Of the top of my head the world record is 36 shots

      • McFlock 15.1.1

        Four seconds per round rather than four rounds a second. And a ten round magazine, not 20 or more.

        Maybe more of the people who ran at him would have survived.

      • Mark 15.1.2

        pre-ww1 British soldiers fired upto 15 rounds per min

        Probably sitting out at some range, this would be the maximum rate. Not running around amok in a crowded space. Even 2 seconds between shots (and probably a lot more) would greatly increase the odds of the fucker being disarmed.

        • Puckish Rogue 15.1.2.1

          This is true but then again they also wouldn’t have to be aiming out to three hundred yards, probably a max of 10 meters plus using a bigger caliber

  16. R.P Mcmurphy 16

    the acquisition of these weapons is a direct result of neo-liberalism and the nationals giving in and giving people choice. yeah right.

  17. Puckish Rogue 17

    Well here we go….

    I disagree with the straight out banning of semi automatics but I have no issues with changes to the firearms law as long as those changes target the illegal uses around firearms rather than impacting on those that legally and lawfully own and operate semi autos

    Heres a picture of the semi auto I own (at least the closest I could find on the net)

    https://www.cabelas.ca/product/92542/ruger-1022-birchwood-sporter-stainless-steel-semi-automatic-rifle-with-scope

    Should a .22 also be banned?

    • Andre 17.1

      Please explain how having to live with a slightly reduced rate of fire is going to have disastrous effects on your quality of life (assuming you’re not using it at your current workplace), and how that outweighs the way 49 of us were just murdered.

      • Puckish Rogue 17.1.1

        It won’t but the real issue is not what they used to kill but that they wanted to kill, planned to kill and went out and killed

        We accept many things that kill us because we don’t want to accept a lowering of our quality of life

        Cars, alcohol, smoking, obesity all these things kill many more people than firearms do yet we accept those

        You want to cut down on firearm deaths then implement newer, more stringent laws around firearms, such as mandatory imprisonment for anyone that has in their possession an illegal firearm, tougher mandatory sentence for firearms used illegally, take firearms licences away from anyone using them improperly, add a new category specifically for semi autos instead of having them in category A

        But the straight up banning of semi autos is a knee jerk reaction that will make people feel good because they think they’ve done something but all they’ll really do is make the people who deal in them even richer by driving the prices up while simultaneously punishing the people who take their responsibilities seriously

        • WILD KATIPO 17.1.1.1

          You contradict yourself repeatedly.

          [ ” You want to cut down on firearm deaths then implement newer, more stringent laws around firearms, such as mandatory imprisonment for anyone that has in their possession an illegal firearm ” ]

          Then in the next breath you say …

          [ ” But the straight up banning of semi autos is a knee jerk reaction ” ]

          Then you go on to say…

          [ ” but all they’ll really do is make the people who deal in them even richer by driving the prices up ” ]

          And finally …

          [ ” while simultaneously punishing the people who take their responsibilities seriously ” ]

          So after all that long winded load of horseshit wouldn’t it have been easier and more concise to simply say…

          —————————————————-

          … ” By banning semi automatics for sale to the public we would not punish people who take their gun ownership responsibly , we would not push up prices for a non existent product that is not on sale to the public, and by banning of semi automatics it would prevent a knee jerk reaction from those who when found in possession of illegal firearms were imprisoned”…

          —————————————————–

          There ya go.

          Easily fixed, cobber.

          • Puckish Rogue 17.1.1.1.1

            ” By banning semi automatics for sale to the public we would not punish people who take their gun ownership responsibly , we would not push up prices for a non existent product that is not on sale to the public, and by banning of semi automatics it would prevent a knee jerk action from those who when found in possession of illegal firearms were imprisoned”

            You would punish people like myself by not allowing me to own a semi-auto when I, and the vast majority of owners, have done nothing wrong and followed all the laws

            You would push up the prices up criminals would make from black market arms sales (much like prohibition did with alcohol)

            It won’t stop people from wanting to kill or finding ways to kill which should be the main focus, not the means they use to kill

            • WILD KATIPO 17.1.1.1.1.1

              [ ” You would punish people like myself by not allowing me to own a semi-auto when I, and the vast majority of owners, have done nothing wrong and followed all the laws ”]

              Are you that bad a shot you really need a semi automatic rifle to kill a rabbit, PR ???

              Geez. OK then.

              But tell me, if you really wanted to go all Rambo ,… why didn’t you just join the military when you were younger?

              Remember when I said i knew an ex military guy from Belgium in 1995-ish who was contracting to local farmers around Queenstown [ so he claimed] and used a scope, a silencer and a bolt action .22 rifle . He came back in about 2 hours with a belt full of rabbits … and I mean a belt-full.

              About the only other time I saw that was when I was a kid and a possum trapper came down out of the woods onto our property [ my father was a park ranger and he was checkin in with dad ] – and that was an overnight trapline in the 1970’s.

              Now,… tell me again , PR,… just why you feel you need a semi automatic…

              Seriously now.

              Why do you need one?

              • Dennis Frank

                I second your question. PR seems reasonable most of the time. Why would any reasonable person want to own a semi-automatic gun? Like I wrote on OM earlier, I’ve never seen a reason offered in the media.

                If PR shares the US sense of entitlement, I’d like to see him rationalise that for Aotearoa. Their constitutional rationale is invalid here.

                • Puckish Rogue

                  Reasons: hunting, three gun shooting, general target shooting (or plinking)

                  I don’t share the US sense of entitlement

                  • Dennis Frank

                    Thanks for explaining. I understand. I was in the ATC during my college years, so I did plenty of target shooting. I hated the way the 303 rifle kicked your shoulder like a mule! The 22 was no problem. My rationale for eliminating the semi-auto option is the greater good (harm minimisation).

              • Puckish Rogue

                I served in the NZDF

                I don’t “need” one but I do enjoy taking it down to the firing range and shooting some rounds off, its basically good, cheap fun

                But thats me, others have different reasons

                • Well, OK then… but…

                  The Simpsons – Helen Lovejoy – Think of the children – YouTube

                  I cant argue with your former defense service record…but I do notice you mentioned using it on a bonified range… well , like pistols ,that seems an OK outlet… so long as the same rules for pistols apply to semi automatics. And that is ,… left under lock and key / supervision of the club grounds when you have finished the exercise..

                  I’d go along with that in all fairness.

                  So long as you were a licensed firearms owner and your weapon is registered to you as the rightful owner.

                • woodart

                  I enjoy punching self entitled wankers in the face. should I be allowed to? following on from your self entitled posts, possibly… but for the greatest good for the greatest number of people…no. but thats me, others will have different opinions…and reasons..p.s. I dont need a gun to feel manly, whats your reason puckish rogue????

                  • Puckish Rogue

                    Being that what I enjoy is legal and what you enjoy isn’t I’m going to suggest you don’t

                    I’m guessing the reason you don’t need a gun to feel manly is because you enjoy punching wankers in the face

                    What’s my reason for what?

                    • woodart

                      dont enjoy punching wankers in the face, only self entitled wankers, especially ones that hide behind semantics. just because your hobby is legal this week doenst make it moral, or very possibly ,legal next week. what excuse will you use then? sad excuse for a human when you need to have such weapons, either you are compensatiing for a defect in your physical or mental makeup, or you are a dickhead. try a real weapon, a chainsaw with a 26 inch bar, or a very large motorcycle. suggest that either one is probably too much for you, but they will do you more damage than unsuspecting bystanders.

                    • Puckish Rogue []

                      If you’re using a chainsaw as a weapon then I suggest you get help but seriously what exactly is immoral about target shooting and hunting?

                      Also for whatever its worth I’m a former soldier (including peacekeeping duties) and current corrections officer so you’ll excuse me if I laugh at your pathetic tough guy routine and mock your weak attempt to suggest my masculinity is linked to firearms

                      You on the other hand to seem to enjoy having a large, powerful, throbbing engine in your hands and between your legs but hey you do you

          • I feel love 17.1.1.1.2

            Didn’t you (or BM if I’m wrong I apologise) predict this guy was unlicensed?

            • Puckish Rogue 17.1.1.1.2.1

              Not quite, I was speaking generally:

              ‘I don’t know (of course) but I suspect its not the legally owned, law abiding citizens causing the issues with firearms so any changes in the law need to be focused on the criminals using the firearms plus more money spent on mental health issues also wouldn’t go astray

              For instance 5 year minimum incarceration for possessing a firearms or for stealing a firearm or illegally selling a firearm etc etc’

              • [ ” 5 year minimum incarceration for possessing a firearm ” ]

                But even there we would have to include mitigating circumstances… ie :

                An Uncle on a farm gives or lends to a minor, who, demonstrates a maturity beyond their years but still falls under the minimum legal age to possess such weapons…ie : ‘ the lad just went out to shoot a few bunnies’…

                Yet I’m sure that that could fall under the general supervision of a mature adult… certainly not as a rabid leader of an anti societal group hell bent on murder or mayhem…

                I’m sure the legal commonsense of the country can easily discern the difference….

              • WeTheBleeple

                “I suspect its not the legally owned, law abiding citizens causing the issues with firearms”

                Go sit in the corner and think about what you just said.

                • Puckish Rogue

                  In general it’s not but yeah I didn’t realise how much preparation this guy did

            • Jim 17.1.1.1.2.2

              I also predicted this guy would have been unlicensed, it pisses me off no end that he held a current A cat firearms license, almost as much as it pisses me off that he killed and injured so many.
              I hold the same license he had, it wasn’t easy to obtain, police even phoned my ex wife of 20years who I haven’t had contact with in, well 20years to get her opinion of my suitability.
              I guess the people who supplied this arseholes character references may not be sleeping well.

              • I feel love

                Def needs looking at then doesn’t it? Makes one wonder how a migrant can get a gun licence? How does anyone under say 25 get one? I mean to have “good character” takes years to consider, who gets refused?

                • Jim

                  Yes interestingly I have just found out that some of the members of the gun club he was a member of we’re concerned about this guy, apparently he had been mentioned too the local police arms officer as a risk.
                  Would of been great if he had been reassessed then.

        • Molly 17.1.1.2

          Your examples are a false equivalence, PR.

          Access to semi-automatics means that harm that is intended is easier to carry out, and harder to avoid. I would consider a responsible owner would accept limitations on his personal ownership in order to minimise the opportunity for others to cause harm.

          • Puckish Rogue 17.1.1.2.1

            Banning semi-autos will just make terrorists think of different ways to commit these crimes

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_van_attack

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_London_Bridge_attack

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Barcelona_attacks

            • solkta 17.1.1.2.1.1

              It would have been quite amusing to watch this turds footage if he had tried to drive a van through a mosque.

              • Andre

                ISTR reading somewhere he described himself as an eco-fascist*. If not for that he might have been tempted by the crowd of climate protest kids.

                *Yes, eco-fascists are an actual thing. I never knew that until today.

                • solkta

                  Not unless he could have found a crowd of just Muslim kids.

                  • Andre

                    That may be a criteria for this particularly right white supremacist murderous fuckwit. But the next right-wing extremist terrorist might not be so picky.

                  • Andre

                    When people used to tell me that coz I lived in Titirangi I wasn’t a real westie, I was an eco-nazi treehugger, I thought they were just kidding around. Turns out they actually were insulting me.

                    • Dennis Frank

                      Gosh, mean buggers eh? Until a couple of years ago I had a place just down the hillside, across the boundary in Glen Eden, about 100m up from the valley floor so I still had a good view. I probably saw you at the village cafe. Titirangi was the up-market suburb (along with Remuera) when I arrived at the start of ’68 so I get the anti-affluent greenie thing from that perspective – although I suspect in your case it may equally have been rightists trying to frame greenies as control-freaks…

                • WeTheBleeple

                  Kinda blue green huh.

            • lprent 17.1.1.2.1.2

              yah sure. What a stupid argument

              About what is your point about removing the easiest method for dumbarses to get high body counts.

              The other techniques like making a decent size bomb without blowing themselves up or learning to fly a airliner are probably beyond most of them, and these are already controlled. We the number of people being killed in mass shootings with semiautos keeps rising.

              The only other low tech one that comes close is using a car or truck, and that mostly causes injuries rather than deaths.

              so what is your problem with removing the tool used for mass murders? You have a yen to do it yourself ?

            • Sabine 17.1.1.2.1.3

              yep.

              and wearing your seat belt will enhance your chances of live.

              so frankly i have no issue with terrorists having to find a different method of trying to kill many many people in the shortest possible amount.

            • Gabby 17.1.1.2.1.4

              That would be good wouldn’t it puckers.

        • Andre 17.1.1.3

          The design purpose of semi-automatic weapons is the rapid mass-murder of other humans. That fact separates semi-autos from cars, alcohol, smoking, obesity.

          Remove semi-autos from public availability, and a wannabe mass-murderer is going to have to try a lot harder to carry out a targeted mass-murder. And nobody is going to lose significant quality of life. That’s an extremely low hanging fruit for improving public safety at very low downside if I’ve ever seen one. It may even have a bonus of reducing suicides as well.

          In contrast, at this point I’m no longer at significant risk from smokers or the obese, current efforts at harm reduction are targeted at protecting those users from themselves. Use of cars and alcohol are currently already heavily regulated and are subject to continual ongoing regulatory change, mostly tightening.

          As for trying to divert into just changing laws around use of firearms instead of eliminating the most dangerous firearms with zero legitimate civilian use, well, I’m in favour of doing both. When Australia had their major crackdown it really made a big difference.

          • Puckish Rogue 17.1.1.3.1

            “The design purpose of semi-automatic weapons is the rapid mass-murder of other humans. That fact separates semi-autos from cars, alcohol, smoking, obesity.”

            Semi-autos have many uses including, but not limited to: hunting, target shooting and pest control

            “Remove semi-autos from public availability, and a wannabe mass-murderer is going to have to try a lot harder to carry out a targeted mass-murder. And nobody is going to lose significant quality of life. That’s an extremely low hanging fruit for improving public safety at very low downside if I’ve ever seen one. It may even have a bonus of reducing suicides as well.”

            It means they’ll think of different ways to kill many people, for example Japan has extremely tough laws but they still found a way:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack

            but really that means we accept these things will happen rather then thinking of ways to stop attacks in the first place

            How do you think it’ll cut down on suicides?

            • solkta 17.1.1.3.1.1

              By your logic we might as well make tanks and bazookas legal because hey, they will find another way.

            • WILD KATIPO 17.1.1.3.1.2

              [” Semi-autos have many uses including, but not limited to: hunting, target shooting and pest control ” ]

              I didn’t even bother to read the rest of the diatribe.

              BULLSHIT.

              Semi automatic rifles HAVE NO LEGITIMATE USE in hunting. None whatsoever.

              Unless you are ;

              A / A piss poor shot to begin with , or

              B / A piss poor shot to begin with.

              In NO CIRCUMSTANCES do you need a semi automatic weapon to either target shoot , – and most of all to , – ‘hunt’ or eradicate pests.

              First off,… there are very few marksmen or women that use semi automatics to target shoot. Second off, – NO ONE uses semi automatics to hunt game unless they want a totally bruised, inedible meat carcass to poison themselves and their family’s with , and Thirdly , – NO serious pest controller uses a semi automatic to spray bullets all around a property to kill a few bunnies when silence and stealth is the order of the day.

              No.

              There is no reason to date given by responsible firearms users that justify semiautomatics use by the civilian population.

              • Puckish Rogue

                You should have read it. I said semi autos, not semi auto rifles, however you are wrong and heres why

                Close country shooting (in the bush) means you don’t always get a chance to set up a shoot and sometimes you need a quick second shot to finish off the animal humanely so in that situation a semi auto is a legitimate use

                Another reason is that the AR-15 platform lends itself to swapping out receivers and barrels quickly, this means you can use a .308 for deer then drop down to a .223 for goats or wallabies or down to .22 for rabbits so this means you can hunt different animals without having to buy extra weapons

                I don’t go duck shooting (sounds boring, cold and uncomfortable to me) but my understanding is that the semi-auto shotgun is the go to for them ever since the days of the Browning Auto-5

                “There is no reason to date given by responsible firearms users that justify semiautomatics use by the civilian population.”

                There is no reason to date given that you would accept

              • cleangreen

                100% Wild katipo.

            • Andre 17.1.1.3.1.3

              To the very minor extent that hunting and pest control may be affected by a slightly reduced rate of fire, keeping weapons of mass-murder out of public availability has an enormous payoff for a very tiny cost.

              As for target shooting, that’s just a game, and games change their rules all the time. BFD.

              Yes, they will think of other ways to kill people. It’ll be harder, they probably won’t kill as many. How on earth is that an argument against taking the simplest possible step to eliminate the biggest threat of all that’s easiest for a mass-murderer to use? Once the first, biggest and easiest step is taken, you move on to the next steps. It also possible to do more than one thing at a time.

              IIRC, in the US there is a very close correlation between lax gun laws and high suicide rates (driven mostly by gun suicides), and strict gun laws and lower suicide rates (driven by low gun suicides). Eliminating semi-autos will likely reduce overall gun numbers and maybe help foster a more careful gun culture around the remaining guns.

              • Puckish Rogue

                “Eliminating semi-autos will likely reduce overall gun numbers and maybe help foster a more careful gun culture around the remaining guns.”

                Most firearms in NZ arn’t semi autos in the first place

                • Andre

                  What they found is a decline in both suicide and homicide rates after the NFA. The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57 percent compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by about 42 percent.

                  Now, Australia’s homicide rate was already declining before the NFA was implemented, so you can’t attribute all of the drops to the new laws. But there’s good reason to believe the NFA, especially the buyback provisions, mattered a great deal in contributing to those declines.

                  https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

            • lprent 17.1.1.3.1.4

              Semi-autos have many uses including, but not limited to: hunting, target shooting and pest control

              and is there any reason in NZ to use them – when a bolt action is usually more effective in even moderately skilled hands?

              As that was part of the post, then perhaps you could go beyond slogans and address the argument rather than whatever it is that you have been doi

            • lprent 17.1.1.3.1.5

              Semi-autos have many uses including, but not limited to: hunting, target shooting and pest control

              and is there any reason in NZ to use them – when a bolt action is usually more effective in even moderately skilled hands?

              As that was part of the post, then perhaps you could go beyond slogans and address the argument rather than whatever it is that you have been doing here…

              • Puckish Rogue

                Ok then you can exchange the receivers and barrels in an AR-15 easily which allows you to use different calibers and for different uses so one AR-15 can replace any number rifles and for target or hunting

                Since most deer are killed in ranges closer than 200 yards an AR-15 in .308 will do the job nicely, you can then change it out to a .22 and hunt rabbits then change it out to whatever calibre and take it to the range for some target shooting

                If thats your thing, its not mine as I’m happy with my .22 but thats a legit reason to own one, whether you accept it or not is up to you

                • lprent

                  Offhand, I would say that you could do pretty much the same barrel and component swapping with any design of rifle, Including bolt actions.

                  I suspect that it’d be easier design than trying to so it with a auto arm mechanism.

                  Quite why you think it is a valid argument makes me wonder why you are presenting it. It is a PR bullshit argument. Probably made up by gun manufacturers as a argument for trolls to use

                  • Puckish Rogue

                    C’mon you’re smarter than that.

                    The AR-15 is designed to be a modular weapon system (wiki it) which means its designed to be easily modified (which I think you already know)

                    Certainly a damn sight easier than my tikka t3x (don’t worry it’s a bolt action)

                    You seem to be of the mind that because you don’t accept any valid reasons for owning a semiautomatic that there can’t be any valid reasons so when a reason is given you just don’t accept it

                    • Here what we say Puckish Rogue , unless you want future blood on your hands , that of your children or that of your wife.

                      Think carefully of what you are advocating for political gain and expediencies…

                      Refer my comments below…

                    • McFlock

                      If what you say is the case, then there could soon be a market for a modular bolt-action assembly.

                      Could probably do a simple one for the AR15, actually. Hell, even bodge one by closing off the gas port remove/close the gas chamber, and you’re probably not too far removed from using the charging handle as a straight-pull bolt operator.

                    • Puckish Rogue

                      To McFlock

                      Definitely be for someone smart to figure out but yeah it would cut down on the amount of rifles someone would need

                  • Irrespective of any of this, … if a hybrid weapon that is easily taken down and subverted into another lighter grade of firearm is involved, a carbine , much like the pistol, it should then be subject to the laws of pistols. Whether by caliber or by range.

                    From military grade semi automatics of rapidity of fire to light sports carbines, … the potential for circumventing the law is made manifest. The law is not then designed to be mocked.

                    Therefore , the same laws of pistols and the storage of pistols must apply to all hybrid type weapons. Fore we know pistols such as the Uzi are capable of rapid auto and semi automatic fire as a weapon designed to take life at short range also… That they be stored at a legitimate gun club, that their owners be licensed and that their firearms be registered, and that the ammunition’s thereof be contained in a dissimilar environ…

                    How hard is it really,… to ward against common thugs and brigands?

                    • Puckish Rogue

                      Pistols are currently stored at your home in a b category, police approved gun safe

            • woodart 17.1.1.3.1.6

              absolute bollocks rogue. the more you try and justify your hobby, the stupider you become. semi auto for pest control, what bullshit. do you blaze away at possums or rabbits, if so the cocky that owns the land you are on will quickly tell you to phuck off before you shoot him, his stock or his tractor. and as for hunting ,once you have missed with the first shot, do you think any animal is going to be dumb enough to wait around. pillock. all the hunters I have known(real hunters, not tossers with guns) use single shot rifles because they know that an animal will not stand still after the first shot has missed. you may be an ex-soldier but you sound as though you know very little about hunting animals. if as you claim, you are now a prison screw, you possibly need to see your phsyciatric officer…it sounds as if you have anger issues, definitley NOT the sort of person that should have access to anything stronger than an air rifle…

              • Puckish Rogue

                bwaghorn 26
                16 March 2019 at 5:55 pm
                Absolutely ban them the army and possibly government chopper cullers are the only people that should have semi autos .

                UncookedSelachimorpha 25
                16 March 2019 at 5:32 pm

                Professional cullers shooting from helicopters do have a legitimate use for semi-autos, but that could be accommodated I expect (a very small number of people).

                We could also continue to allow low-powered semi-autos, to the same power as a .22LR – these can be useful for legitimate rabbit shooters in some cases. To give context, .22LR has about 10% of the energy of the cartridges likely used in the CHCH murders. But not essential either.

  18. Dennis Frank 18

    I agree completely. I expect the coalition to legislate accordingly. If it doesn’t act fast to do so, I will stop supporting it.

  19. joe90 19

    Let’s not forget the enablers.

    Police Minister Paula Bennett has put the public and front-line police officers in danger after rejecting recommendations to tighten firearm controls, the Police Association says.

    Association president Chris Cahill said Bennett had rejected every meaningful recommendation put forward by the Law and Order Select Committee, and had “appeared to bow to the pressure of the gun lobby”.

    “The Minister’s concern about over the top rules and restrictions on hunters and shooters ignores the reality that New Zealand is awash with firearms and the majority of them are stolen.”

    Bennett today responded to the Law and Order Select Committee report on illegal firearms, accepting only seven of 20 recommendations designed to stop criminals getting their hands on guns.

    […]

    Government response to committee recommendations:

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

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11876027

    • left_forward 19.1

      Why oh why would they have rejected these recommendations- FFS.

      • Jess NZ 19.1.1

        Because ‘”We needed to strike the right balance between public safety and the rights of legal firearms owners,” Bennett said at the time.”

        I wonder what she thinks of her legal firearms owners now?

  20. SPC 20

    It would appear the Australian was here because of our easier gun laws, he would not have been able to legally acquire them and then train up on them over in Oz. So he came here to buy the weapons and then train on them here – all quite legally.

    Other Australians, including their government, will be aware this is now a threat to their security, not just our own.

    If our gun laws had tightened up in 2017, this person would not have come here.

  21. Jenny - How to get there? 21

    Yep. Make em’ illegal.

  22. Andre 22

    Australia had their ban and buyback of semiautomatic guns, so it’s worth looking at how that worked out for them. I linked to this at the end of a long thread with Puckish, but it’s probably worth re-linking here so there’s more space for discussion.

    https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

  23. adam 23

    My problem is simple – after Aramoana this was the discussion, then after Launceston – same discussion. It just needs to happen, rather than be talked about. Open parliament, pass the bill, then melt the guns.

    And if you want to fire off a automatic rifle, then join the army reserve. I won’t stop you, and hey you might even do some good.

    https://www.defencecareers.mil.nz/army/careers/army-reserve/

  24. Jenny - How to get there? 24

    The government need to do this right away, under urgency. First sitting.

    Let’s not be like the US, where their lack of will, like clockwork, sees repeats of the same thing, over and over again.

    If the government refuse to act, every single MP of conscience with the gumption and the guts needs to put in a private members bill to ban all semi-automatics weapons.

    You can make sure they do.

    Get in contact with your local MP’s electoral office and make an appointment, tell them what you want. Demand that he or she put a bill to ban semi-automatics in the ballot. Take a delegation of friiends and family with you if necessary.

    If enough MPs or all persuasions put in such a bill it will force the government to acct, we won’t even have to wait for it to be drawn the government will be forced to act.

  25. UncookedSelachimorpha 25

    I’ve used firearms regularly since my teens. I thought our gun laws were a reasonable balance (and much better than USA), but I am now happy for semi-autos to be banned. Also individual firearm registration is a good idea. Both of these would have made it more difficult for the f#@kwit in CHCH.

    I have done *a lot* of hunting for meat and pest control and have never needed a semi-auto.

    Professional cullers shooting from helicopters do have a legitimate use for semi-autos, but that could be accommodated I expect (a very small number of people).

    We could also continue to allow low-powered semi-autos, to the same power as a .22LR – these can be useful for legitimate rabbit shooters in some cases. To give context, .22LR has about 10% of the energy of the cartridges likely used in the CHCH murders. But not essential either.

    • KJT 25.1

      Agree totally.

      I’m another that enjoys target shooting, guns and bows, even though I have no desire to fire at anything that is alive. Also use a sextant for navigation. It would be good if guns, to shoot people, became the same sort of historic anachronism.

      Don’t see how having to use bolt action rifles, detracts in any more than a minor way from, target shooting.

      There are people that have legit reasons, pest control, as you have said for semi autos. However if they were the only ones licensed and their guns registered, the number of semi’s in circulation, should be reduced, over time, to a couple of thousand under strict control.

      If you are a hunter, and have to blaze away with a semi auto, maybe you need to up your skill level. Certainly would not want you, near my tramping track.

      The problem at the moment, is that previous Governments allowed the “horse to bolt” on individual gun registration. It will take time, an amnesty and buy back, to bring it back to sense. The Aussies after Port Author have shown how it can work.

      Or. Are we going to be like the yanks. Too scared to upset an agitated gun lobby.

  26. bwaghorn 26

    Absolutely ban them the army and possibly government chopper cullers are the only people that should have semi autos .
    I’ve hunted for over 20 years with bolt actions 5 shoots is more than enough in the mag .

    I see uncooked has already said it but I’ll leave it up as I agree

  27. Sabine 27

    yep. ban the things.

  28. Muttonbird 28

    Pretty interesting that the most popular thread today is one arguing about guns rather than the ideology behind yesterday’s event.

    • Jenny - How to get there? 28.1

      New Zealand has a tradition of practicality.

    • adam 28.2

      Is it because we all get that white supremacists are the true fascist vanguard who want to destroy our country. I hope so.

    • McFlock 28.3

      There will always be fuckwits in the country.
      We don’t have to make it easy for them.

    • Dennis Frank 28.4

      Probably because that ideology is banal? I’ve been fishing for something deeper. The psychology around social categories and threat recognition.

      We know that the ratio of non-violent believers to violent believers is dramatically large – and not just in islam. Identifying any believer as an enemy therefore requires a guilt-by-association mental reflex. As sensible as refusing to eat food because sometimes it is contaminated. Threat-identification warped by over-generalising.

      If this can be labelled mental illness in public policy, treatment becomes a question. Can it be cured or is it a hard-wired condition? If the latter, how to we identify potential mass-shooters?

    • Pierre 28.5

      Yeah, why not just outlaw the fascists?
      It’s obvious that the terrorist had a clear political motivation, the guy was definitely a nazi, and yet people are out condemning ‘hatred’ and abstract intolerance and gun-ownership.

      • greywarshark 28.5.1

        Pierre
        The thinking of this guy came from somewhere – some source that has roused him to make this gesture of hate. We are looking where the source is, what led him to this behaviour? Where do your ideas come from Pierre; babies aren’t born with these impulses in mind. They have to grow and perhaps have a role model. Who do you think Tarrant’s role models are?

        • Pierre 28.5.1.1

          Sure, he was influenced, he probably read some alt-right stuff online, and that shaped his actions. Part of any anti-fascist strategy is to address people’s material concerns and win them over to a progressive cause. That’s because we all recognise that the real threat of fascism doesn’t come from individuals like Tarrant, the threat comes from above. For example, in France the relationship of the Front National with the Yellow Vests is constantly strained by the FN’s refusal to endorse measures for social advance. Le Pen is a puppet of the oligarchs, she will not countenance a raise in the minimum wage. In those situations it is the task of the organised left to show through their actions that racism will not put food on the table.

          However, if a fascist cannot be convinced or neutralised, they must be removed. Some liberals like to pretend that they’re all neutral, that we respect the plurality of discourse, free speech for all, etc. I don’t think the labour movement should have any moral objection to suppressing its enemies. It’s basic self-defence.

          The problem with appeals to ‘stop hate,’ is that they suggest Tarrant was some lone, angry man, who acted out of a feeling of hatred. I haven’t read his pronouncements, his actions are statements in themselves. He didn’t go and shoot up a mosque because he’s just a hateful person, he did it because he’s a nazi. This should be obvious to anybody.

          It’s extremely unlikely that the fascist cause will gain popularity after this incident, but that shouldn’t lull you into a sense of complacency. The left in New Zealand has neglected its duty towards anti-fascist organisation. I was in Wellington during a small National Front protest a long while ago, and the NZ Labour Party was absolutely nowhere to be seen.

          Jacinda refers to far-right extremism, but what is extremism? It’s muddled and vague, and this isn’t just quibbling over terminology, it’s about political strategy. In Britain, John McDonnell stands in front of massive crowds to declare unambiguously that the British Party of Labour is an anti-fascist party. That’s a statement of position, and it’s something remarkably absent from the public response in New Zealand.

    • Jess NZ 28.6

      Because as shown in the US, people get angry and lash out at each other for various reasons – this ideology is only one.

      I don’t want any of them to have to have semi-autos to carry out their revenge fantasies. Not bullied students pushed over the line visiting our son’s school. Not Neo-Nazis. Not religious extremists. Not ‘pro-lifers’. Not survivalists.

      How would you locate and legislate for all of them and those I’ve forgotten or not imagined?

      As has been shown excellently in this thread and demonstrated in real life in the USA and in Australia, there is no convincing civilian need for high-speed high-powered assault weapons, which have murdered so many already.

      From our mouths to the government’s ears. I strongly recommend we all send messages to our elected reps so they don’t only hear from the gun lobby.

    • KJT 28.7

      The ideology is irrelevant.

      People with many different ideologies are responsible for this sort of shit.

      Separation from society, narcissism, lack of empathy, sociopathy are contributing causes.
      And cynical people who take advantage, of the lost and delusional, to act out their agenda.

      If you really want solutions, stopping easy access to weapons is one.
      The other is examining, and dealing with, what, in our society, causes a child to become a cold blooded sociopath.
      Trauma, from war or abuse, bullying and/or social rejection, appear often appear to take a part in making a mass shooter/bomber.

  29. BM 29

    Ban semi-autos and you will see either a huge surge in behind the new conservatives or a new political party will appear.

    In an MMP environment where both the large parties are currently pretty much equal, a hard line pro-gun conservative party could easily become the party that gets National across the line and back into government.

    Be very careful of what you wish for.

    • Sam 29.1

      After the events of the mosque massacres it is only a matter of time before high powered repeating rifles are banned from all but government institutions. So it will be impossible for a minority to pull the majority to its side.

    • lprent 29.2

      From my recollection, we have already had at least one party of that type. It folded into United Future (or whatever its name was then) and disappeared. Its electoral contribution was nothing much.

      Most responsible gun-owners wouldn’t give a damn. For a starter, most of them don’t have semi-autos. And I suspect that after this shooting even those who have them will look at the public good rather than having a expensive entertainment device.

      What we will get is a number of dickheads putting their own pleasure over the safety of the public, and the backing of the gun merchants pushing PR behind them.

      Screw them… They will be a ripple rather than a wave. Besides, I’d love to tar National as supporting terrorists.

      • BM 29.2.1

        If I was going to buy a gun for hunting why would I choose a bolt action over a semi auto?

        • Puckish Rogue 29.2.1.1

          Bolt actions are generally cheaper, have less working parts so more reliable, generally lighter and generally more accurate

          Also people don’t tend to freak out if they see someone with a bolt action in a conservation park or something

          Suppressors work better on bolt actions as well

          • BM 29.2.1.1.1

            What would you prefer PR a bolt action or semi-auto?

            • Puckish Rogue 29.2.1.1.1.1

              An AR-15 can be a valid hunting rifle, most of the opposition to it is from “old school” types that can’t/won’t change with the times

              Chamber an AR-15 in .308 (basically an AR-10 if anyones interested) and you have a rifle thats easily accurate out to 300 yards without too much practice and most deer are shot at ranges far closer than that

              Secondly as much as everyone would like not every deer goes down on the first shot (anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar) so sometimes you need a second shot and you need that quickly so in that respects a semi-auto wins

              Because the AR-15 is designed to be modded you can easily swop out whatever features you like and much more easily then you can on a traditional bolt action

              The other main reason is because you can also change out the working parts on an AR-15 which means you could hunt deer in the morning in .308, swop out to .223 in the afternoon for goat and then swop out again for .22 and shot rabbits which makes the AR-15 much more versatile then a than a bolt action

              In the end it depends on if you want to hunt or target shoot, what you want to hunt, where you want to hunt it and what your budget is but you can’t go wrong with a decent bolt-action rifle, a good suppressor and a very good scope 🙂

              • BM

                Interesting, I not a big gun guy, but like you said why handicap yourself and cut your options down by choosing a bolt action? dosen’t make sense

                I’d go semi-auto any day if I was going to get into hunting.

                • Puckish Rogue

                  Best have some decent disposable income then 🙂

                • bwaghorn

                  So you wouldnt forgo the chance to own a semi auto for the greater good . Keeping in mind that most game in this country is shot with bolt actions .
                  I’ve hunted with at least twenty people not one of them owned a semi auto .

        • UncookedSelachimorpha 29.2.1.2

          Generally more accurate, quieter to load, easier to use safely, usually better range of calibres available, typically cheaper… Which is why most game (except birds) in nz is shot with a bolt action!

          • BM 29.2.1.2.1

            So out of the 1.5 million guns in NZ how many do you reckon are semi-autos?
            A million? half a million?

            • UncookedSelachimorpha 29.2.1.2.1.1

              I know a lot of hunters, don’t know anyone who uses a semiauto centrefire rifle. I would guess less than 10% of guns in nz are semi autos, and most of those are .22LR and shotguns

        • lprent 29.2.1.3

          If you need a semi-auto’s load speed, then it tells me that you’re either a terrible shot or an impatient shooter. Because the large hunting animals in NZ don’t often move far after they get a high velocity round into the central body, and that is a large target.

          Snapshotting a second round… Well the only person I know who got killed hunting (a work colleague back in the 90s) got killed on after several snapshots when his fellow hunter hit him while rifle tracking a wounded deer and pumping out shots at movement.

          It is a practice that is frowned upon by any reasonable shooter for everything except in combat. It is just too frigging dangerous when you are trying to aim while your focus is constrained. You can’t see while focusing on an aim point and you’re usually squeezing the trigger unaimed on movement. It is a good way to kill other people – often kilometers away.

          If you want to do that, then I’d suggest that you get a shotgun and learn to fire in the air. It’d make everyone else a lot safer.

          • UncookedSelachimorpha 29.2.1.3.1

            “If you want to do that, then I’d suggest that you get a shotgun and learn to fire in the air.”

            And don’t hunt anywhere near me please!

            Good hunters pride themselves on how few shots they fire – not how many.

      • Sam 29.2.2

        So you’re censoring me now, is there a reason for that?

        • lprent 29.2.2.1

          At present you’re in auto-moderation while I await some sign that you have read, understand and accept the policy. Moderation proceeds on that queue when each of us has time.

          If you are incapable of doing that for reasons of laziness or simple stupidity, then I suggest that you depart the site. Because I will turf you off it if you are incapable of being a guest here.

          Otherwise stop being an arrogant fuckwit and do the requirements to continue commenting here. BTW I don’t like jerkoffs or whining children – you are currently getting a preliminary categorisation as being both.

          This is your last chance.

      • woodart 29.2.3

        agree 100%. let the few gun nuts cuddle up to the nats. will drag the nats down with them. sensible nats will run a mile from gun nuts after this tradgedy.

    • Andre 29.3

      John Howard banned semi-autos and did the buyback very soon after taking office. Then held the Prime Minister spot for another 11 years. So yeah, really unpopular move.

      • BM 29.3.1

        They don’t have MMP in Australia and they didn’t ban them outright they just changed the licence requirement.

        Also, they ran a buyback campaign so no one was out of pocket,

    • Muttonbird 29.4

      A typically out of touch response from BM. He tries to be responsible and we see that all the time but his base instinct holds him back.

      • woodart 29.4.1

        yes, argueing from a position of stupidity makes his arguements even dumber than normal.

      • McFlock 29.4.2

        I had to walk away from the computer for a few hours. I can’t deal with that jerk at the moment.

  30. Ankerrawshark 30

    Ban the bloody semi automatics for a start. I don’t give a rats arse about all the wankers who are saying “ what about me, I ll miss my fun”. Grow up and get a new hobby.

    Saw something in Japan about how strict gun laws are there and how hard to get a gun and guess what, very few homicides using guns

    • Saintarnuad 30.1

      Clearly you haven’t read the UK crime stats from January 2018.

      Gun crime up over 20% in a country where EVERY firearm is registered, and handguns are completely illegal (excluding air pistol and black power muskets)
      Most notable was that 67.3% of firearm crimes were committed with handguns.

      Let’s look at Canada, they cancelled registration of firearms (with the exception of handguns) a couple of years back because the Government and Police found it provided no positive effects upon community safety, was expensive and onerous to maintain, and it didn’t work as criminals didn’t register their guns anyway.

      Australia has been another epic fail, more than $40 million on buyback schemes, and guess what, not ONE illegal firearm was surrendered. That’s a fact, not one firearm, which proves firearms registration doesn’t work, as only law abiding citizens registered their firearms.

      While on the subject of Australia, two terrorist events well documented in the media, further detail how banning and or registration doesn’t work. The Lindt Cafe in Sydney, the Muslim immigrant had no firearms licence, and a firearm used in the siege was a unregistered and in fact had been made Illegal since 1996. The other event at Sydney’s Police HQ in Parramatta, was once again incidentally a Muslim male, used a handgun to murder a police employee. That handgun had actually been previously surrendered to police for destruction many years earlier.

      I’ve only chosen to mention both of the Sydney terrorists were Muslim to provide balance. In light of the recent tragic event in Christchurch, whereby the alleged perpetrator is being described as a white supremacist right Eco-fascist, I thinks it’s fair and reasonable to suggest terrorists come from all races and religions.

      Maybe it might be a reason he targeted a mosque

      • Ankerrawshark 30.1.1

        I haven’t read the reports you mentioned that is true.

        I understand the fact that Howard change gun laws after the Tasmanian massacre where some 30+ people were gunned down with a variety of weapons. Is credited with preventing huge loss of life subsequently. The very tragic Lindt siege would have cost more peopl their life’s if the perpetrator had of had a semi automatic. Likely same in parramatta. Again I refer to Japanese gun laws where it is very hard to get a gun.

        Why anybody wants to own a semi automatic is totally beyond my comprehension
        Ffs even the police want tougher gun laws

        Your last sentence that maybe that was the reason he targeted a mosque I find disturbing. He targeted a mosque cause he is an extremist, who is capable of a mass shooting. Your statement implied he targeted a mosque because of these two terrorist attacks carried out by extremists in Australia. If I have inferred correctly I find your comment deeply offensive.

        • Jim 30.1.1.1

          He may have targeted the Mosque in retaliation to other terrorist attacks by Muslims, he played Serbia Strong also known as Remove Kebab, possibly referencing the Bosnian Serb/Muslim conflict, its also rumoured his guns had the names of victims of other terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims written on them. But who knows what goes on in the mind of a lunatic.

      • marty mars 30.1.2

        Piss off – white supremacist race religion hatred is in our face. Keep your mealy mouthed bullshit to yourself. Fuck your balance.

      • Andre 30.1.3

        Looks to me like at best you’re seriously misrepresenting things. But since you’re just asserting shit without links …

        Not one illegal firearm surrendered in Australia’s recent amnesty? Well, I s’pose 57,000 is “not one”.

        https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-43236421

        Handguns in the UK? For starters, it’s a shitload easier to smuggle stuff into the UK than it is into New Zealand. Then there’s the way their overall level of gun crime is way lower than ours.

        https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44053904

        Given how things have checked out on the first two assertions I looked at, can’t be arsed looking at your Canada claim. Except to note it’s dead easy to smuggle stuff from the US into Canada.

  31. RRM 31

    Hear hear lprent.

    Even a leftie can be right twice a day.

    There is simply no reason for anyone to own their own semi auto. They are for killing a crowd of opponents, and last time I looked ordinary citizens aren’t allowed to do that.

  32. Paul Campbell 32

    No one needs five guns either, a bolt action 303 for deer, Crumpy showed us that was all that was needed, and a 22 for rabbits, there’s no other real reason to own a gun in NZ

    • Brutus Iscariot 32.1

      Doesn’t really matter how many guns a single person owns – people only have two hands.

      The number of firearms owned made no difference to the body count in Christchurch, likely the presence of an arsenal was simply related to the individual’s own narcissism.

  33. Brutus Iscariot 33

    Some interesting political dynamics to consider. Winston will be out of Parliament at the next election if he supports a simple ban on semi autos, and he knows it.

    Would suggest that a bipartisan approach to a revamp of legislation may work best.

    • Gabby 33.1

      His constituency should be terrified of younguns with guns. He just needs to ask if they want to be cut down in their own la z boys watching coro.

  34. CHCoff 34

    CIrcumstances can change but the issue is defenseless citizens.

    don’t need political agendas at this point in time.

  35. Richard McGrath 35

    I don’t have a gun licence and only have a Soviet-made slug rifle (powerful enough to kill a rabbit mind you). However there are (at least) two arguments that can be made against disarming the citizenry:

    1. How do you suggest the people defend themselves against a fascist government? Think Germany in the 1930s.

    2. Law abiding people will dutifully hand in their semi-automatic weapons; do you really believe criminals will hand theirs in so easily?

    For anyone here that believes a person has the right to defend themselves with force against government tyranny and criminal thugs, what degree of self-defence should be permitted? Bolt action rifles? Crossbows? Peashooters? Remember the thugs and fascists will still have the semi-automatic rifles they neglected to hand over while the rest of the population made themselves more vulnerable to predation.

    • solkta 35.1

      I think you got out of bed on the wrong side of the planet. You are looking for the USA.

    • McFlock 35.2

      1. How do you suggest the people defend themselves against a fascist government? Think Germany in the 1930s.

      If you need weapons to defend against the government, even an MSSA won’t stop an LAV or a 105mm artillery round. It was almost a reasonable argument when civilian and military weapons were similar, but that was 200 years ago. these days, anyone dreaming of a “Red Dawn” style “head for the hills and defeat the oppressing army” is a fantacist and a fetishist. That only ever works if the group has another state supplying it with smuggled military weaponry. And an EFP mine just ruins the venison, so there’s no legitimate reason to have one while hunting.

      2. Law abiding people will dutifully hand in their semi-automatic weapons; do you really believe criminals will hand theirs in so easily?

      It will slowly dry up the pool of weapons available for criminals to steal and use.

    • David Mac 35.3

      Richard I think this argument has its roots in fear. For your argument to win favour with me, I am required to be scared.

      I don’t want to go the way I go because I’m scared. Lets lock up racks of fully automatic bad boys in Police Stations and risk it. Put down the Uzi and risk it with me Richard.

      Crossbows, air rifles etc etc, it’s just noise. We need to get rid of the stuff that enables Joe Blows to wipe out a classroom in 2 minutes.

      Lets do the brave thing mate.

    • joe90 35.4

      Think Germany in the 1930s.

      Herschel Grynszpan and David Frankfurter had guns.

    • bloke 35.5

      1.No one is going to win against the Nazi’s with a gun so forget it, actually the people wanted the Nazi’s so your really fucked unless you want to kill all your neighbours.

      2. Get real, how much gun crime is there is NZ? Also once these are banned there will be zero doubtr about who the crims are.

  36. bloke 36

    Shot a few animals when I was a farmworker, they are tools. Occasionally culled a few goats and shot a few rabbits for dinner. I cannot for any reason see a need for a semi-auto for a hunter/farmer/sportsman.

    Given that SA guns are primarily designed to kill “things” if not specifically people and intensively marketed to males who seem to think that owning one will restore their manhood, these tools of death should be banned from civilian use. To ensure that people hand them over a mandatory punishment needs to be legislated. 12 months amnesty with a buy back as per Oz, then a further 12 months with a 10,000 fine if found in possession and after that a period of incarceration perhaps 3 months and a fine. Just enough to disrupt a life but not long enough to indoctrinate.

    Send the message loud and clear.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Strong first week of firearms buy-back events
    The first full week of the firearms buy-back and amnesty has produced a strong turnout as events roll out nationwide for the first time. “Momentum is slowly starting to build as community collection events are held across the entire country, ...
    2 days ago
  • New digital service to make business easy
    A new digital platform aims to make it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple government agencies, leaving them more time to focus on their own priorities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash ...
    1 week ago
  • Million-dollar start to gun collection events
    Million-dollar start to gun collection events  Police Minister Stuart Nash says a solid start has been made to the gun buyback and amnesty after the first weekend of community collection events. “Gun owners will walk away with more than ...
    1 week ago
  • Praise after first firearms collection event
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has praised Police and gun owners after the first firearms collection event saw a busy turnout at Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch. “Police officers and staff have put a tremendous effort into planning and logistics for the ...
    1 week ago
  • New Police constables deployed to regions
    Seventy-eight new Police constables are heading out to the regions following today’s graduation of a new recruit wing from the Royal New Zealand Police College. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the record high number of new Police officers being recruited, ...
    2 weeks ago