Lets ban assault weapons – now

Written By: - Date published: 7:45 am, March 18th, 2019 - 284 comments
Categories: crime, jacinda ardern, labour, national, nz first, police - Tags:

LPrent recently outlined in a compelling way the reasons why semi automatic and automatic weapons should only be possessed by police or the military.

I thought that I would have a look at the law and I was astounded at how simple it is to get an endorsement allowing someone to possess such means of mass murder.

The Arms Act says this:

30A  Application for endorsement in respect of military style semi-automatic firearm

(1)  Any person, being of or over the age of 18 years and being an applicant for a firearms licence or the holder of a firearms licence, may apply at an Arms Office to a member of the Police for an endorsement permitting that person to have possession of a military style semi-automatic firearm.

(2)  Every application under subsection (1) shall be made on a form provided by a member of the Police.

(3)  Every applicant shall permit a member of the Police to take, or to cause to be taken, for the purposes of the application, a photograph or photographs of the applicant.

Section 30B says that “a member of the Police may, subject to any direction from the Commissioner, make the endorsement applied for if that member is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be in possession of the military style semi-automatic firearm to which that application relates”.  

David Parker on Saturday announced that semi automatic weapons are going to be banned.  Good job.  Our law will then be just like Australia’s.  After the Port Arthur massacre Australia went full hog and bought over a million guns back then destroyed them.

Incredibly Parker’s announcement has resulted in panic buying of these weapons of mass destruction.  From Laura Walters and Melanie Reid at Newsroom:

There has been a rush on gun shops, with people “panic buying”, in the wake of the Christchurch terror attack and in anticipation of the Government tightening gun laws.

Following the Christchurch shooting, which killed 49 people on Friday, the Prime Minister promised to tighten gun laws. 

Following Jacinda Ardern’s comments on Saturday morning, gun shop owners – at bricks and mortar stores, and online – experienced a jump in sales.

The Christchurch branch of Gun City was busy on Saturday, with people buying guns and equipment.

Firearms owners posted online about “panic buying”, where people were rushing to stores to purchase firearms, following the prime minister’s comments about plans to tighten gun laws.

Gun nuts will hate this.  

Coalition of Licenced Firearm Owners secretary Nicole McKee reckons there is a stringent vetting process for firearm licenses.  Clearly that stringent that a right wing extremist can get a number of semi automatic military weapons and kill 50 innocent people.  Pretty tone deaf is Nicole.

She says there should not be knee-jerk legislative changes.  She sounds like any Republican politician that has been bought off by the NRA.

As I type this I am listening to Jacinda Ardern being interviewed on Radio New Zealand and being very careful with her language.  Clearly coalition considerations are at play and New Zealand First’s response to gun control changes has not been great.

And Simon Bridges was being equivocal on the change.

But mass panic buying of semi automatic weapons demands an urgent response.

Let’s do this.

284 comments on “Lets ban assault weapons – now”

  1. And it must be repeated – this is not kneejerk. The consultation has already been done and we paid for it – we just need the will to act, unlike the previous government..

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

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

      • Skunk Weed 1.1.1

        Sensible idea why do we need assault weapons here in NZ ?

        Why are these people not being monitored by the Police, SIS, GCSB ?

        • soddenleaf 1.1.1.1

          There is a way to do both, manage them. Color code guns. All hunting, farm use,Orange handles. Black,green militray police. Light blue Olympics. Yellow enthusiasts. Plus, put a GPS tracker in the yellow butt. Now police, public immediately know the sort of gun, what’s immeduately illegal, that charges for miss use goes up as people have more opportunity to break the law. I.e not disclosing change of use when repainting, having said weapon in the wrong public place. Just like people lie and say they served, so people I me to parade with the real thing, its the glamor of guns that we have to stop. As there is always going to be a minority with deranged values who will use them, so we need to protect ourselves, by more opportunity to take them away for misuse, by spoiling the road to collecting them, all yellow.

          I cannot however agree with the idea only the govt own guns. And while people persist in making this a black and white, all or nothing, the compromises never get made. Trust citizens, but verify, and also make ownership harder as it’s complete lacking.

    • alwyn 1.2

      It wasn’t just the National Government of course.
      No Government in the last 20 years has had the courage to do anything.
      This is a very brief summary from Wikipedia but I think it is accurate.

      “The government decided in August 1996 to order an independent report, this time led by former judge Thomas Thorp. His report was released in June 1997 and was the most comprehensive and detailed review of the 150 years of firearms controls in New Zealand.[10] Thorp’s report explored how New Zealand had arrived at its existing legislation, its underlying principles, its effectiveness compared to other countries, its administration and cost. Thorp made numerous detailed recommendations in 28 different areas. His recommendations called for many new restrictions on legal gun ownership, including setting up a separate Firearms Authority to overhaul the licensing process, restricting ammunition sales to just the firearms owned, banning various firearms features, that licences be renewed every three years to keep track of changes of address and that all guns be registered (the last being particularly unpopular with firearm owners).”

      Then

      “The National government in 1999, its last year in office, introduced an Arms Amendment (No. 2) Bill to implement the recommendations, and the bill was supported by the new Labour government. After the strong weight of submissions made against the bill when it was in select committee, the government was persuaded that the changes were unneeded and would be difficult to implement. Due to the opposition, the bill was withdrawn. The government then introduced a much reduced Arms Amendment (No. 3) Bill, which increased penalties for distribution, manufacture and use of illegal weapons. It has been in select committee since 2005, and the government has not shown any sign of proceeding with it.”

      If the Government quickly comes up with a very limited bill to ban, and buyback, all MSSA type weapons and agree the bill with National they can pass it regardless of what Winston thinks.
      But it must be limited and it must be quick. Otherwise nothing will change.

      It would also help if people like Kim Hill were to stop demanding that it be Simon Bridges job to fix it all up. We have had the current Government for a full half term now and they certainly haven’t tried to do anything yet.

      To get anything done
      It has to be by both parties.
      It has to drop all the politicking about the past.
      It has to be done quickly.

      • Skunk Weed 1.2.1

        Winston and the Sparkling Pony are too busy on the World Stage promoting their ultra egos, rather than worrying about gangs and gun control.

        Shane Jones was going to sort it out, they are all piss and wind IMHO ?

        • greywarshark 1.2.1.1

          Skunk Weed
          You smell like a skunk. Don’t use this occasion to take potshots at our leaders with your negativeness. Every bad thing suits you doesn’t it so you can whine about how bad things are, your favourite topic.

          And I suppose the put-down term ‘Sparkling Pony’ is a way of diminishing our Prime Minister? I am not used to the terminology of your pathetic cohort.

        • Gabby 1.2.1.2

          Sparkling Ponyboy works for the airline now stunkweed.

        • SHG 1.2.1.3

          Shane Jones was going to sort it out

          Please, that would involve work. It’s never been Jones’s strong point.

      • Dukeofurl 1.2.2

        Recent recommendations for change were only 2016-17 with Bennett as police Minister

        “The committee met between 16 March 2016 and 5 April 2017 to consider the inquiry. It received 102 submissions from organisations and individuals and heard oral evidence from 20 submitters, as well as advice from the New Zealand Police.

        The committee makes 20 recommendations
        https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/news-and-communications/latest-news/news/amendments-to-firearms-laws-recommended
        Bennetts decision alongside the 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

        • RedLogix 1.2.2.1

          Looking down that list it’s obvious they only accepted the softest and politically cheapest options.

          It would be good to see the media hold Bennett to some account for the decisions she made, now demonstrated so disastrously inadequate.

          • alwyn 1.2.2.1.1

            The other lot have been there for fully half their term you know.
            Can you demonstrate any evidence that they have done a single thing about the problems?
            Like hell they have. Gun owners have scared the hell out of every politician this century.

            • RedLogix 1.2.2.1.1.1

              That’s true. Still Bennett is still in Parliament, and if National show any signs of buckling on this … lets just say they would have a great deal of trouble defending politically Bennett’s decisions this week.

              And it’s not like she made them in the distant past either.

              If anything they would be smart to front foot this and get in the mea-culpa now; and then commit to making up for it by whole-heartedly supporting and expediting any new regulations unconditionally.

              • alwyn

                The General Public neither know nor care what Paula Bennett or anyone else did or didn’t do.
                People quoting the bits she accepted from a report of 3 years ago isn’t going to affect that.

                Asking that a political party accept they did something wrong and apologize for it is never going to happen. Never, ever, ever.
                They simply don’t do that sort of thing. Show me where any party has ever done such a thing. Show me one time when Helen Clark did such a thing? Show me where John Key did it?
                Show me where Ardern, or her boss Winston has ever done it?

                That is of course one of the major reasons that we have to change the Government every few terms. It is the only way to scrap the rubbishy things that they did but will never cancel because that would be to admit they were wrong.

                Unfortunately our current Government is demonstrating that they made no attempt at all to prepare for becoming the Government in nine years of Opposition. New Zealand is suffering now because instead of just a few dud projects there are a plethora of them.

                However that is beside the point. If Labour and National sit down and come up with a bill that they both own, and pass it, we can get rid of assault rifles. Can’t they at least try and do what is right for New Zealand rather than settle for petty points scoring which is all we seem to see in Parliament these days?

                • RedLogix

                  Yes your last para echo my sentiments exactly. I guess we now need to convey to our political mandarins the same message.

          • Salsy 1.2.2.1.2

            One only needs to google “Paula Bennett Resign” to see the massive list of ongoing fuckups shes been involved with including WINZ & Human Rights breaches. She has no place in a New Zealand Government..

        • alwyn 1.2.2.2

          Which simply illustrates precisely what I said in the second line of my comment.
          I’ll repeat it

          “No Government in the last 20 years has had the courage to do anything.”

          If you think the statement is wrong can you tell me when any of our Parliaments since 1999 have actually done anything significant?
          They just sit on it as they are frightened to upset the quarter million or so people who own firearms.

          If they move fast, and don’t try and party politicize it we have a short window of opportunity to get rid of MSSA type weapons. That is worth doing.

          If we open the whole subject up we will get absolutely nothing done as it will bog done in squabbles such as “we must ban duck shooting” and so on. The General Public will forget this horror and the impetus will vanish. We must go ahead before our politicians back away from the risk of upsetting the few gun owners who own this type of weapon.

          • Dukeofurl 1.2.2.2.1

            You didnt mention the most recent ‘review and recommendations’ of 2017 but waffled about 1996.

            The opportunity of 2017 was lost because Bennett listened to the gun lobby. Shes accountable for that. Thats how democracy works too.

            She too had a part in the Meth hysteria… at least it was possible for a new government to task the Chief Scientist to get his investigators onto it.

            Gun laws arent quite in the same category of ‘black and white’ – till now

            • alwyn 1.2.2.2.1.1

              What I was pointing out was that NO Government in New Zealand for the last 20 years has been willing to take on the Gun Lobby.
              OK, so Paula didn’t accept all the 2017 recommendations. So what. The Clark Government did even less in nine years. The Key/English Governments din’t do any more than Clark.

              The current lot, your buddies I believe, have now been there for 17 months.
              What have they even hinted about doing, prior to last Friday? They are the ones in Government now. They have the chance, if they are willing to do it and to not politicize the situation to get something done.
              Up to date they have done zero, zilch, nil, nada.
              They have proved to be just as scared of the gun lobby as all their. predecessors. And Winston has probably forbidden them to do anything at all.
              Well there is a chance to get rid of assault weapons. I have pointed out what I think they can accomplish and what they must do immediately. We have a very short window of opportunity. If they can ignore the temptation to follow your approach and to sit there saying “it’s all your fault” we might get something useful done.

  2. Wensleydale 2

    Stay tuned for a selection of muppets to bleat, “But I need an AR15! There are a lot of possums on my farm!”

    • bwaghorn 2.1

      I’d love to se ed the stats on semi auto ownership.
      Not counting .22 s .
      My guess is their will be far more owned by urban cowboys and pasty oddballs than rural people.

    • oldand inthe way 2.2

      i use a 10.22 Ruger semi for possums. You can’t lay poison in the wet. and if you knew diddlysquat about Forest Collapse in Northland you wouldn’t make such ignorant comments @Wensleydale.You need repeat action at times for longer range targets. A Shotgun is only good when they’re closer. Dickheads who misunderstand the magnitude of the threat that possums are in this country really shit me!

      • Wensleydale 2.2.1

        I was being facetious, mate. Make yourself a nice cup of tea. You’ll feel better.

        • greywarshark 2.2.1.1

          Wensleydale
          People being facetious about important matters others are serious about can get them riled. The right approach would have been to acknowledge the factual and interesting points oldie made.

          • Wensleydale 2.2.1.1.1

            Oldie obviously feels very strongly about possums. And guns. That is his right. His keen insights into how to kill possums with a semi-automatic rifle are duly noted.

  3. Gosman 3

    There may well be a case to change the gun laws however it is extremely unlikely there will be any more terrorist acts carried out in NZ very soon. Tgis means we don’t need to change tge laws immediately. We should treat this as an opportunity to review and tighten them (if deemed necessary) following the usual law making process. The Government can propose a bill and/or a review and get information before and law changes happen

    • RedLogix 3.1

      If we are to have an effective ban on these high rate weapons, we will need to do the same as Australia, and implement a mandatory buyback. Yet this ‘panic buying’ ensures that the ultimate bill to the taxpayer for this will only be larger than it already stands at.

      Normally you’re not a big fan of unnecessary govt expenditure; what’s different this time?

      • Gosman 3.1.1

        The panic buying is exactly what you would expect as a result of talk to have immediate ban.

        • RedLogix 3.1.1.1

          Given that JessNZ has shown that the normal legislative processes have already been undertaken under the previous govt (they simply didn’t have the political will to fully implement them on the day) … then would you have in principle supported this ban being introduced immediately and with no prior announcement?

          As you say, that would have minimised the panic buying.

          • Gosman 3.1.1.1.1

            Why is the panic buying an issue? What problem does it create?

            • RedLogix 3.1.1.1.1.1

              Given the legislative background work has already been done:

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

              exactly what problem would an immediate ban create?

              • Gosman

                What were the reasons that ALL the recommendations were not taken up by either National nor the new government in 2018?

                • RedLogix

                  Lack of political will at the time is the most probable reason. That calculus has most definitely altered in the past few days would you not agree?

            • WILD KATIPO 3.1.1.1.1.2

              Man if it isn’t idiots on the Left its idiots on the Right.

              Gosman, semi automatics are a military style / grade weapon. There is no need for the general public to have them . Period.

              There is not that much different in the rate of fire between semi automatics and fully automatic weapons. Military weapons are designed to lay down mass suppressive fire to gain a military tactical advantage over an enemy.

              Whether that’s a 19th century Gatling gun or a modern AR- 15.

              There is absolutely NO reason the civilian population needs them, – They are and should be only the preserve of the Police or Military.

              A .22 rifle with silencer and scope will perform the pest eradication quite satisfactorily. A 3.03 or 3.08 bolt action will bring down any deer or pig in NZ. If you need a semi automatic to do the same you need to go back to your gun club and practice, – because hundreds of other hunters have no problem at all bagging their game with a bolt action.

              Get rid of the semi automatic and the issues of excessive magazine carriage and rate of fire becomes moot.

              Its that simple.

              Return the old system of Police register of weapons to individual licensed firearms owners and the black market and criminal markets are starved.

              We no longer rely on paper records- we have computer data banks. There is NO reason to not ban semi automatics to the general public anymore.

              • Gosman

                Again, you may well be correct. This will become apparent in any review of the gun laws or as a result of consultation of any proposed legislation.

            • Skunk Weed 3.1.1.1.1.3

              The Gangs in NZ are already armed to the Max and the NZ Police and Authorities sit on their hands doing Jack Shit, what do you expect ?

              • Dukeofurl

                One guy a few years back was a licensed owner and he legally bought 50 firearms from dealers which he modified and on sold to gangs.
                legally bought 50 firearms !

                Even knowing this the national government in 2017 rejected these provisions – amoung others -of a bi partisan parliamentary committee inquiry

                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.

        • oldand inthe way 3.1.1.2

          And look forward to a flourishing black market yet another income stream for organized crime.

      • Sabine 3.1.2

        its wingers that have these guns, and thus they must be reimbursed for their foolish purchases?

        • RedLogix 3.1.2.1

          Oh god yes … left up to me I’d take them back and charge the owners for the cost of destroying them.

          But they were legal purchases at the time, and I believe the rule of law is more important than giving me some brief vengeful satisfaction.

        • Skunk Weed 3.1.2.2

          No compensation, no reimbursement just ban the f%#king things, you don’t need semi automatics to shoot possums and deer FFS, they are designed for killing Human Beings ?

          • oldand inthe way 3.1.2.2.1

            No one ever uses semis to shoot deer mate. And you don’t need MSSA for possums but you do need a. 22 semi for possums have you ever hunted?? I doubt it.

    • mauī 3.2

      That is a very lax attitude to take, similar to what made this whole event possible in the first place…, it is also quite frankly stupid. By all means the right law changes need to be made but that doesn’t mean pissing around pretending everything is fine for the moment. Immediate action is required, and the law can be firmed up in due course.

    • lprent 3.3

      Start by stopping the import of all semi-automatic weapons and their accessories while “following the usual law making process”.

      This will reduce the number of weapons to destroy, and stop the wannabe terrorists from Panicking and for their gun shops to ramp up demand.

      I’d also suggest that an immediate audit if made on the gun shops today by the police to check that owners and staff checked the licenses for sales and had the required backing documentation – in strict accordance with the existing lax laws.

      • Gosman 3.3.1

        Currently we don’t even know if NZ has a “wannabe terrorist” issue. So far we have one person from Australia who carried out a horrendous crime who may have received help from two or more people. We know almost nothing about these other people at this stage. They might not even have been directly involved with the shooting and whether there are more like them with access to weapons is a total unknown. I prefer ant policies to be developed with mire information than we have to date

        • RedLogix 3.3.1.1

          Currently we don’t even know if NZ has a “wannabe terrorist” issue.

          Every country has this issue; there is a little bit of terrorist in all of us.

        • Peter Christchurch nz 3.3.1.2

          Clearly we do have a ‘wannabe terrorist issue’. We saw that on Friday. The fact he was Australian by birth is completely irrelevant.

          And just look at some of the extremist hate speech on some local blogs and Kyle Chapman and his ilk. If even .01% of those nutters had violent terrorist aspirations, we have a potentially very real danger.

          • Gosman 3.3.1.2.1

            He was radicalised in Australia and he came here on his own to prepare to carry out a terrorist act in some place (initially not NZ) . If there are groups of people like him here then we do have a “Wannabe Terrorist” problem. Until we know for certain then he is it.

            • woodart 3.3.1.2.1.1

              are you argueing because thats your default position? if you could stand back from your laptop and read your own posts with a clear mind(?),you would see that you come across as a dickhead.

              • Gosman

                I’m a dickhead by arguing that we shouldn’t rush in to doing something without following the usual process am I? Then by all means I am a dickhead then.

                • lprent

                  The usual process was followed in the 2017 review. Paula Bennett ignored most of the recommendations without any apparent consultation or explanation. They were similar recommendations to the two previous reviews. The review recommendations if followed in full would have likely have prevented this massacre.

                  That would suggest that the ‘process’ around gun laws is quite flawed at the ministerial level. Perhaps we should look at implementing the review recommendations in full, than then start the process from there.

        • lprent 3.3.1.3

          The issue of the kill potential of semi-autos raised over and over again by our police, security, police union, military and for that matter by most of the responsible hunting groups ever since Port Arthur.

          Basically if you haven’t noticed this, then I’d suggest that you have had your head stuck up your arse for the last couple of decades and should withdraw from the discussion as being simply incompetent at understanding the debate.

          The issue isn’t terrorism or even individual nutters. The issue is that these kinds of weapons are way too risky to have in civilian hands. That is because if you have someone go off the rails and they have access to semi-automatics then they can kill or injure far more people than if they were restricted to bolt or lever or even pump action weapons.

          This massacre was just waiting to happen. It isn’t the nut bar wielding the weapon that is the issue, it is the capability of these kinds of weapons in their hands or of that matter in the hands or a kid or even me or you.

          • Gosman 3.3.1.3.1

            Again you may well be right but I prefer policy to be developed in the usual considered manner not as a result of emotionally laden responses to horrendous events UNLESS there is a clear and immediate situation that HAS to be dealt with otherwise more people will come to harm. That I have yet to see.

            • KJT 3.3.1.3.1.1

              The clear and immediate problem is that huge numbers of semi auto guns are being brought by small dicks, right now!
              Making the perfectly obvious problem, of too many being out there, easily available for anyone with evil intentions, worse.

              • Gosman

                There is ZERO evidence that the people purchasing weapons pose ANY threat to anyone at this stage.

                • Peter Christchurh nz

                  Prior to Friday there was ‘Zero evidence that the people purchasing weapons pose any threat to anyone…’

                  Still happened though. As lprent so well put it above, the weapons themselves are the problem just waiting for some nutter to go off the rails.

            • lprent 3.3.1.3.1.2

              The problem is that with these kinds of things, the clear and immediate vision you are after, is almost invariably seen in the rear view mirror.

              Generally removing access to the materials that may cause high levels of casualties before they can be used is a good idea.

              That is why we closely constrain and control the use of high density explosives, detonators and the materials required to make them. Otherwise you’d find technical people like myself playing with home-made Claymore mines and thinking about our better off dead lists.

              Self-arming firearms are in exactly the same class for technical idiots…

            • left_forward 3.3.1.3.1.3

              Lprent may be right?

              Of course he’s right and has convincingly and comprehensively addressed your distractions.

              Read and think Gos.

              In my view, we simply roll back to 2017 and adopt all of the select committee recommendations.

        • KJT 3.3.1.4

          Fuck off Gosman.

          Is there any daft right wing position, you don’t support?

          • Gosman 3.3.1.4.1

            Your definition of a daft position is supporting a considered and measured approach to any gun control legislative changes rather than rushing through changes under urgency is it? If so then I am guilty as charged.

            • KJT 3.3.1.4.1.1

              No. You want to delay and water down.

              For the same absurd reason, that makes you always take the anti-social right wing position.

              • Gosman

                No I don’t. I have little interest in lax gun control laws at a personal level.

                • Sabine

                  funny, reading your comments here one could assume that you are – on a personal level – very much interested in the laxest laws possible.

                • left_forward

                  Then say so with conviction… and recognise the evidence and driver for change is as clear as day… it does not need to be further examined.

  4. Stuart Munro. 4

    I’m really pretty skeptical of whatever process concluded that an AR15 was not ‘military style’. I know my aesthetics is not universal, but that decision smacks of prodigies of legalistic quibbling inconsistent with the function of public safety regulations.

    • greywarshark 4.1

      There was an interesting interview with Philip Alpers from NZ now in Australia, but still continuing his watch over firearms. He was trying to bring some sanity to the firearm situation here but didn’t get far for his effort. This morning he said that there had been stupid decisions made by government about controls.

      The question was posed on the Radionz interview:

      conflict Canterbury
      9:38 am today
      “Did he come to NZ because our laws have so many holes in them?”

      https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018687053/did-he-come-to-nz-because-our-laws-have-so-many-holes-in-them

      Cabinet ministers will be given an initial briefing today on what changes should be made to the country’s gun laws.

      Philip Alpers is founding director of http://www.GunPolicy.org, a global project of the Sydney School of Public Health, which compares armed violence, firearm injury prevention and gun law across 350 jurisdictions world-wide.

      Kathryn also talks with Nicole McKee of the Council of Licenced Firearms Owners.

  5. RedLogix 5

    This will be a defining moment for Winston Peters; if he has the courage to spend some of his not inconsiderable political capital on this, and actively support this ban, he will have the determined his legacy for decades to come.

    • Dennis Frank 5.1

      You’ve hit the nail precisely on the head. His stance determines both the outcome and the speed it arrives. His reputation and legacy are in question as of now.

  6. James 6

    “New Zealand First’s response to gun control changes has not been great”

    If this is the case then (assuming National don’t move from where they were) then nothing meaningful will change.

    • Wayne 6.1

      James

      It is pretty clear to me that there will be a consensus to ban semi automatics, and presumably the registration of each firearm.

      I personally can’t see how any responsible political party could resist that.

      • RedLogix 6.1.1

        Well said Wayne. Not only this, but it would be a good moment for moderates from all sides of the House to demonstrate that our political system can still achieve responsible, bipartisan decisions, without all the usual point scoring, positioning and rancour.

      • KJT 6.1.2

        I will say that NZ politicians from all sides have done well in this to date.

        A total contrast to some in other countries, in similar situations.

      • cleangreen 6.1.3

        Agreed Wayne 100%

        Government need to make a “token gesture” now for survival of Government.

        Semi- automatic is the first easy way it seems to be suggested.

        Then we can talk about other issues for the other changes later.

        Government has to get back to all the other pressing issues to prepare their agenda for coming budget so we will see.

      • Sabine 6.1.4

        wow, did the National Party did not resist all these recommendation about 2 years ago under Paula Benefit Police Minister National Party?

        Oh you are saying the National Party is not responsible in regards to gun laws? Well done!

        • Skunk Weed 6.1.4.1

          The Pony Boy did F45k All when addressing the Gangs Drugs and Weapons, Jacaranda and Labour have also done 5/8th’s of F4&k All also in addressing gangs, drugs, weapons etc.

          All just hand wringing no hopers IMHO ?

    • lprent 6.2

      I rather suspect that National will have limited choices. Your political sense is a bit deaf.

      National will need the potential victims of bigots to even have a chance of winning the government benches next election.

      And the numbers of irresponsible dumbarses who need a semi-auto to bolster their ego isn’t a viable voting bloc.

      I suspect that most firearm owners would support a ban on semi-autos because only a few use them.

      • Dennis Frank 6.2.1

        Rare for me to approve Brownlee’s stance on anything, but I was pleased with his forthright and appropriate responses to the questions asked of him on the AM Show. If that’s any indication of how moderate conservatives are feeling, the Nat pro-gun lobby could be in trouble…

    • No changes under the Current Government same old, same old IMHO

  7. Doogs 7

    Well Gosman, law changes need to happen, despite the fact that we appear to have fairly stringent ones already. This guy came from Australia, where he couldn’t get the weapons he needed, then obtained them here and did his ugly business in our country. I suspect that had he been able to acquire the weapons in Oz he’d have done it there.

    There is totally and absolutely no need for ANY member of the public to own a semi-automatic rifle. These should only be in the hands of groups such as armed forces or police.

    Some people, mostly the gun advocate type, are saying we should be looking at mental health not gun availability. Well, here’s the thing – however nutty you are you can only do terrible damage if you get your hands on a weapon of mass destruction. It’s the relatively free availability of these awful weapons which is the key factor, no matter how you choose to rationalise otherwise.

    The guy who did this awful act appears to be sane. I don’t know what the official definition of insanity is, but he doesn’t give the appearance of being off his trolley. He is cold, calculating, well organised and focused. He has opened the door to others by showing how it can be done. If we close the door to semi-auto availability then at least we have stopped anyone from killing large numbers of people in a short time.

    • Gosman 7.1

      I don’t see too many people arguing against the need to review and change gun laws in NZ. It is merely the urgency and process which is being debated.

      • Peter Christchurh nz 7.1.1

        The urgency is essential, while the lessons we learned on Friday are still fresh in our minds. Public acceptance of the changes will be almost universal.

        Delay and any proposed changes will become bogged down in endless reviews, reports and politics that will ensure nothing changes. Sadly this is the usual NZ way.

    • Dennis Frank 7.2

      That’s a good appraisal. I agree that the shooter presents himself as sane. However, I see a question mark over the sanity diagnostic now. Dunno how DSM IV, V, VI, or whatever edition is current defines it, but I can’t agree that mass killing of non-violent moslems is a sane response to immigration policy.

      • KJT 7.2.1

        You could argue that the lack of empathy, sociopathy and ruthlessness that allows someone to do this, is a mental illness.
        However these people know perfectly well what they are doing. And they know it is wrong.

        Unlike someone who is actually mentally unwell, and simply doesn’t know what they are doing. Who are more likely to harm themselves than others, anyway.

        The idea that mass killers are mentally Ill, rather than a product of society, is a cop out. The sort of thing organizations, like the NRA, use to avoid their own culpability.

        • Dennis Frank 7.2.1.1

          Their moral compass is pointing in a different direction. Reports of what he wrote in his manifesto suggest that his motivation is exemplary (as per the original meaning – to set an example). Crusader thinking, recycled. He seems to believe, like Brevik, that if you do mass shootings you’ll wake people up to the likely consequences of not eliminating the threat.

          This idea that `other people are just like me’ is part of human nature. Delusional, since we are all unique, but the flawed assumption pervades politics.

          • KJT 7.2.1.1.1

            Not much difference in moral compass, I suggest, between Brievik, and those who invaded Iraq, And are determined on invading Venezuela.

            All, mass murderers.

            When the State sets the example.

      • Peter Christchurh nz 7.2.2

        I guess it is the difference between mental ‘illness’ and social adjustment problems, such as alienation.

        You should read the book by the US psychiatrist who analysed the Nazi war criminals during the Nuremberg trials. In general, they were of above average intelligence and had no mental illnesses, yet justified the most evil of actions by a mix of ideology, peer reinforcement and simply not seeing the victims as actual people.

        • KJT 7.2.2.1

          We could say that the idealogs that accept 300 000 children living in poverty, because “we had too much equality” are mad.

          However they are still, unpunished, and even honoured, members of our society.

          And, yes I have read that book. I see the same demonisation of beneficiaries, the poor, immigrants and others, because it suits those in power to redirect anger from the cause, them, to the symptoms, happening in New Zealand

        • Dennis Frank 7.2.2.2

          Yes, I agree. He exhibits the same mix. It will be interesting to see if his lawyer advises an insanity plea, and if he accepts that advice. Brevik rejected such advice, I seem to recall, explaining that his ideology was perfectly rational. Correct me if I’m wrong (age kicking in, memory sometimes unreliable)…

      • McFlock 7.2.3

        The legal sanity test is different to a diagnosis.

        Quick summary here.

        If someone knows what they are doing and that it is contrary to “the
        commonly accepted standards of right and wrong” (not their own standard), then an insanity plea is likely to be unsuccessful.

        But fucko will probably be looking for an excuse to wank on as a hero. Pleading insanity would undermine that.

        • Dennis Frank 7.2.3.1

          “What exactly determines a mental illness, and whether that illness means the person can’t be held responsible for their actions can be dependant on the judge’s interpretation. If the person is found guilty, they are usually held at a psychiatric facility until they are no longer thought to be a danger to themselves or others.”

          Considering the judge is likely to decide on the basis of professional advice (psychiatrists) I expect the current DSM definition will be the determining guide. The interesting question is whether an ideology unhinges someone or not. I saw a report that the shooter had no criminal record. Family opinion expressed in the media is that he was transformed during his years travelling overseas.

          Are brainwashed people responsible for their behaviour? I believe so. However I can see that a body of dissenting opinion may emerge, based on the inhuman behaviour. Any ideology that provides a moral mandate for killing people ought to be classified as non-humane. When a religion provides that ideology, an awful lot of folk will see adherents as inhuman accordingly. Jungian projection often induces people to copy those they hate, thus the historical escalation of mass killing. He’s a typical example of this part of (in)human nature.

          • solkta 7.2.3.1.1

            I expect the current DSM definition will be the determining guide.

            There is no definition for “insanity” in the DSM5. It is a legal concept not a psychological one. As usual you start prattling shit without any knowledge.

            • RedLogix 7.2.3.1.1.1

              The trips overseas came after his father died of asbestos related cancer after working for James Hardie. If that was the trigger, it will be important to find out what he encountered overseas in the years after this. Clearly something did happen, we just have no clear idea what just yet.

              While the DSM5 and psychology may no longer rely on any technical definition of ‘insanity’, it remains useful in a wider context. Both society and the law do recognise that at some point a mental illness does indeed render someone incapable of making sound decisions. But as Dennis says, the profession will ultimately guide the Courts around the question of sanity, even if they are not relying on a technical definition of such.

              It’s my strong sense this perpetrator will be determined as sane, unless some startling new evidence arises. ‘Brainwashing’ by itself does not cut mustard.

          • McFlock 7.2.3.1.2

            You miss the point. The psychiatric advice will consist of whether he knew what he was doing, and whether he knew what he was doing would be regarded as wrong by any normal person. Any diagnosis of an actual recognised condition would be incidental to that determination.

            I can recall one case of a successful insanity plea, and the person was fully delusional and hallucinating to the degree that he had no idea what he was actually doing and thought the other person was literally something other than human (can’t remember the exact delusion). He was just as much a victim of the act as everyone else.

            • RedLogix 7.2.3.1.2.1

              Good example. The insanity defense exists for very good reason. And while it’s unsatisfying to many, it’s not necessarily the easy out people often imagine it is.

              Based on what we know at the moment, there is no reason to think an insanity defense will apply. While the act may well appear ‘insane’ to almost all of us, there is every reason to think the shooter planned, and committed this with a cold rationality and knew exactly what he was doing and why.

            • Dennis Frank 7.2.3.1.2.2

              Wikipedia reckons psychosis is the correlate diagnostic term. The Jonestown massacre certainly made it seem as if religious cults induce mass psychosis. However, the reluctance of authorities to act in accord with public opinion is understandable…

              • RedLogix

                I can see where you’re coming from, mass psychosis is a real thing. The madness of crowds (something I written about before) is very real. But these are all things each one of us must guard against; and be held accountable for our personal failure to do so.

                • Dennis Frank

                  I’m kinda targeting the ideological component, as in it seems to be what religions and other belief systems share that polarises the incrowd against the outcrowd to produce lethal outcomes.

                  He was quite explicit, as was Brevik, in providing a rationale for defending his incrowd against the invading outcrowd. Doesn’t seem rational to me, but I can see it working as a recruitment strategy due to historical precedent replication.

                  Once we see that ideologies induce polarisation and warp humanity into inhumanity, we have a basis for public policy development. Given that psychologist are missing in action (generally speaking) we can’t look to social psychology to advance public policy. The status quo will persist, therefore, unless we do it ourselves via crowd-sourcing wisdom. The first step is to state as a general principle that ideologies divide humanity into us and them, and the general pattern established by history is that mass violence is a predictable result.

                  • solkta

                    The thing that you describe as “humanity” is itself the product of ideas. Some ideas go in a different direction. That is all.

              • McFlock

                And some other jerk had a narcissistic personality disorder. But that didn’t meet the threshold of being too insane to know what he was doing.

                It really doesn’t matter what a particular fuckwit has medically wrong with them. If the shit they pull was intentional, they knew what they were doing, and they knew most normal people would think it was wrong, then the law suggests they’d be pushing shit uphill to claim insanity as a legal defense.

    • Saintarnuad 7.3

      Won’t change a thing, a person with determined intent will always find a way.

      Say for example the perpetrator of this event used a couple of 5 litre petrol bombs instead. Would the same people calling for banning guns be also calling for a ban on the sale of petrol.

      The truth being a couple of petrol bombs in the confines of a tightly crowed mosque, would have in all probably resulted in a much more horrendous death and injury toll.

      You see your arguments are emotive, not rational or logical.

      Incidentally, the type of firearm used in the Christchurch incident are NOT banned in Australia, but rather regulated very tightly. Secondly, since the Australian legislative measures were introduced, the whole trust in the political system has collapsed, with politicians regarded as untrustworthy. If figures are to be believed, approximately 250,000 semi automatic firearms have simply vanished or unaccounted for now.

      These type of knee jerk bannings just takes us down a far more complex set of circumstances, with such circumstances no longer being able to be effectively managed when previously they were a norm within society and compliance generally observed (except by criminals, and criminals never registered their firearms with police oddly enough).

      Honestly, some posters on this site need to undertake factual research before shooting themselves in the foot with ridiculous emotive nonsense.

      • KJT 7.3.1

        The select committee that previously suggested more restrictions and gun registration did take expert advice.

        The minister at the time, and her party, chose to ignore it. After kickback from the NRA, types.

        If you need a semi auto to make up for your penile inadequacy. Try viagra.

        • James 7.3.1.1

          “After kickback from the NRA, types.”

          Citation?

          Or are you a lying weasel?

          • KJT 7.3.1.1.1

            You bloody well know it was lobbying from the gun lobby, that caused the last round of gun laws to be watered down.
            So. Not sure what you are getting at.

          • left_forward 7.3.1.1.2

            What other explanation is there Hemi?

      • Peter Christchurh nz 7.3.2

        By your logic then let’s legalise Uzi sub-machine guns, RPGs and Semtex. After all, you say the evil will always find a way.

        Vacuous argument.

      • Gabby 7.3.3

        So why didn’t Shatpant use petrol in your opinion staintarnturd?

  8. Brutus Iscariot 8

    The “panic buying” seems to be illogical at best (if it’s true).

    Clearly existing weapons aren’t going to be grandfathered in, and it’s unlikely the buyback price will leave room for profit over the retail price. Which leaves option 3, stockpiling of weapons with an intent to break the impending law.

    • Gosman 8.1

      It is not illogical. It is entirely rational if people feel there will be heavier restrictions placed on gun ownership. any gun buyback will take time and while this is going on people still have the use of the weapons.

      • Dennis Frank 8.1.1

        Aren’t you missing the point? Classic response to a market signal. When valued goods are rare, price goes up. The motive is profiteering. It’s totally rational.

        • Brutus Iscariot 8.1.1.1

          The price should be going down, as these weapons are imminently to be banned.

          An AR-15 is now basically worthless in this country, as the pool of potential buyers will shrink to zero. The only exception is people willing to break the law and possess illegally.

          • Dennis Frank 8.1.1.1.1

            The thing we have learned about prohibition is that it drives demand underground, and the market supplies that demand. Those who want the goods then compete to drive the price up.

            Just like Auckland real estate, just less players in the game. The gangs got wealthy from drug-supplying despite the law – we all know that. When the demand is there, prices go up regardless of the law.

            • Brutus Iscariot 8.1.1.1.1.1

              That’s what i’m implying. For there to be high demand at this point, there needs to be a willingness to break any impending laws.

              • Dennis Frank

                Okay, good point. Add to the 80% of Aotearoans who have broken the marijuana law, the trending towards that proportion who have broken the cellphone driving law, and we get a nation of wannabe outlaws. 😎

          • Skunk Weed 8.1.1.1.2

            Ban these weapons and have an amnesty to hand them in, zero compensation, cut them up and crush them, AK47’s add no value to society IMHO ?

      • Gabby 8.1.2

        Stocking up to onsell d’you reckon gozzer? That why the antagonism towards gun licensing?

      • left_forward 8.1.3

        Its entirely within a norm to wankers without moral compass – something Goz identifies with and apparently defends. But it is not rational, its narcissistic self-delusion.

  9. Whoa, Micky,… with all due respects , it was not in the beginning LPRENT who brought up the issues about semi automatics, it was mentioned by alwyn , SPC , and a number of others who lent weight to that opinion. However it was timely and received with gratitude that IPRENT then posted a very good article on the subject.

    I am grateful IPRENT did that.

    However the next articles may have bearing on not singling out any one group as a security threat but rather one which emphasizes that ALL races, all political , all religious or non religious groups can contain within their members individuals that have a murderous and genocidal bent.

    This would go a long way to dispel stereotypes and a false sense of security among New Zealanders, – it would go a long way to highlight the difficulty’s of security agencies in identifying such lone individuals , and would instill a more fitting public situational awareness and the sense that it is ALL our collective responsibility to maintain that situational awareness.

    I have taken a ton of shit from wankers over these very issues over the last 48 hours and have been depicted as some sort of far right wing fascist because of all this… yet in reality , as I have reached qualifications for head of security [ private firms] , I’ve had to take all this emotive garbage from those who never had anything to do with security issues in this country , never gave a damn, but just blithely carried on like spoilt brats hoping someone else would do all the heavy lifting just so they could continue to act like supercilious ,disinterested , disconnected sanctimonious pricks.

    But this is good.

    If anything can be redeemed from this odious and horrific event, – it is not only the reviewing of semi automatics to the general public , – but a complete ban on them and their sale.

    • alwyn 9.1

      Why thank you kind Sir.

      On this I prefer to simply follow that wonderful line attributed to Harry Truman.
      “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.”
      There seem to be a lot of people who favour this. It isn’t like a aristocratic family where primogeniture is all important.

      On the other hand I would like to think that lprent may choose to adopt the other aphorism attributed to Winston Churchill. When he was proposing to try and get Russia to join Britain in the fight against Hitler he said.
      “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
      After all, on this occasion we seem to be on the same side.

  10. Sanctuary 10

    Ban the sale of these weapons immediately by order in council, with buy back and banning legislation to follow.

    If National and NZ First want to play silly buggers dissolve parliament and fight a snap election on the issue.

  11. Saintarnuad 11

    If you’re going to start a post, how about actually doing some research and quote facts, not media headlines.

    The section of the Act you’ve quoted relates to a very heavily restricted Catagory ‘E’ firearms licence. The alleged terrorist only had a Catagory ‘A’ licence.

    It appears rational discussion is beyond the mental capacity of many who post on this site. If the type of logic employed within your thread were utilised across the spectrum, then surely all knives would have to be banned immediately given how many people killed and injured annually with knives in NZ.

    Or to place it into a more relevant context, maybe we should be banning all Muslim immigrants from NZ, because of the threat of terrorism. We all know only a small percentage of Muslims engage in terrorist activity throughout the world, but hey, let’s ban the lot of them just to be on the safe side.

    You see the problem is this and the facts are relatively simple for anybody capable of rational balanced thought processes. Approximately 1/5th of the population in NZ either own or use firearms without incident, so why demonise so many of our own for being law abiding citizens by unilateral knee-jerk banning. Just in the same way we wouldn’t unilaterally ban all Muslims for being terrorists.

    Rational dialogue as to how best address the matter following consultation with police, firearms owners and alike, then make the necessary adjustments in order to achieve the best outcome.

    • RedLogix 11.1

      then surely all knives would have to be banned immediately given how many people killed and injured annually with knives in NZ.

      True but then your typical knife crime on has just the one victim, not 50 in a matter of minutes. (And keep in mind, if not for the true courage of one man, this number could have easily been double.)

      Given the hundreds that cars kill every year we might contemplate banning them too, but in this case we accept there is a balance of benefit vs cost that we can tolerate. By contrast I genuinely cannot think of any net benefit to high rate semi-autos that would justify their continued presence in our nation.

      Maybe you can.

      • Saintarnuad 11.1.1

        Hmmm, the discussion was not on the banning of high flow semi automatic firearms, as such firearms are heavily regulated as Catagory E or C and these firearms are individually Registered and tracked by Police currently. These Catagory of firearms are not available to the general public at large with a basic Catagory A licence.

        You see I’m very happy firearms in Catagory C and E are tightly regulated, as only those with genuine purpose can obtain them

        The discussion was on the PM’s grandiose banning of ALL semi automatic firearms without consultation. The whole banning mantra just doesn’t work, never has never will regardless of the contraband item in question.

        I did note however, the complete no commentary on banning of Muslims, would that fall into the same analogy as cars perhaps, or high flow semi automatic firearms? I know the argument is a little facetious, however the whole unilateral banning arguments for political gains should be concerning to all, regardless if you’re from the left, right or centre of politics.

        [lprent: Deliberately lying about facts on this site (like you just did about the PM) is something that is dangerous if you want to participate in the discussion here. Moderators tend to regard it as demonstrating a stupid troll masturbating in public – something that most people find offensive.

        Read the site policy.

        If you want to raise a topic yourself, then do so in Open Mike. Don’t do it in posts on other topics. Basically learn not to be a lousy debater. Adding you back into auto-mod in case you feel the need to fondle your ego again. ]

        • solkta 11.1.1.1

          The discussion was on the PM’s grandiose banning of ALL semi automatic firearms without consultation.

          You are lying again. Give a link or shut up. People get banned here for this kind of thing.

        • RedLogix 11.1.1.2

          however the whole unilateral banning arguments for political gains should be concerning to all,

          Yes there is some reason to be generally cautious on this principle. Experience should tell us that bans and prohibitions can and do have unintended consequences.

          However in this specific case we only have to look across the Tasman to see how things have worked out over there. So far it looks like their weapons control laws are working reasonably well, and there shouldn’t be much objection to implementing something very similar.

          As for ‘political gains’ … as Wayne said above, no responsible party will object to this, 99% of kiwis across the board will support it.

        • KJT 11.1.1.3

          As Muslims have never caused a mass murder in New Zealand, and many are here after justifiably fleeing from mass murder, in their country of origin, your argument is specious.

        • Saintarnuad 11.1.1.4

          unsure how I lied about the PM, her comments were well published in both the NZ Herald and Stuff

          I can forward you the links if you like

          [lprent: FFS I have read them. Ok dumbarse. I’ll give you a hint.

          She has neither banned semi-automatic weapons nor said that she would. It isn’t even her decision to make. It’d either have to be done by Parliament or maybe the Executive Council. The AG has stated that he favors doing so. That has about as much immediate effect as me saying I’d want that.

          If you are too stupid to understand the nuances of that, then you are also too stupid to comment on this site. I have no particular wish to be caught in defamation cases caused by you lying about facts. So kicking you off the site is safer for me than letting you b e a dimwit here. ]

          • Saintarnuad 11.1.1.4.1

            Lprent: being banned by you I view as a badge of pride.

            I’ve spent the past hour reading your endless posts throughout this site, most replicating a range of symptomatic behaviours associated with various personality disorders.

            You may note however, I can direct comments and criticisms toward you without making offensive, aggressive or obscene comments.

            You may feel empowered by engaging in such behaviour towards many on this site, but really it just amplifies your personal insecurities and ability to interact with others of differing views. I think away from a keyboard and in the confronts of real life, I’d suggest you’d be a very weak and largely ignored entity who craves attention.

            PS. Amongst your extensive CV it appears you’ve be everything from a farmer, weapons designer, soldier, computer engineer, undertaken multiple degrees from agriculture to computer science (sorry I can’t recall the full list, as it seemed to be some evolving with every post you made), but feel your greatest achievement was missing….fantasist.

            Have a nice day 🙂

            • I feel love 11.1.1.4.1.1

              What I’m dying to know is how do you get that last nail in?

              • Incognito

                Don’t worry, the nails are in and they are self-driving. All good things take time but they are worth the wait.

            • In Vino 11.1.1.4.1.2

              Wondering if you think you have named yourself after St Arnaud.. If so, you need spellcheck.

          • solkta 11.1.1.4.2

            I can forward you the links if you like

            No you can't because you are lying.

    • gsays: 11.2

      @Saintarnuad, please explain how banning military, semi automatic rifles “demonizes” anyone let alone 1/5 of the populace.

    • Jess NZ 11.3

      Here are the details from the expert recommendations and government rejections.

      Specifically addresses Category A in a number of places. Best not rush into comments on others’ mental capacity, it’s bound to come back to haunt you. Why would firearms OWNERS (biased) be better to consult than these firearms EXPERTS?

      https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-response-firearms-select-committee-report

    • [ ” The section of the Act you’ve quoted relates to a very heavily restricted Catagory ‘E’ firearms licence. The alleged terrorist only had a Catagory ‘A’ licence ” ] …

      Who killed 50 people and wounded 48 more using a semi automatic AR-15 with an illegal magazine clip.

      • lprent 11.4.1

        Incidentally, those mags are easy to buy off the net. They also aren’t that hard to make if you have the right kind of engineering gear. Essentially wire, spring, and a shaped exterior case., You’re likely to get far more jams with a home-made

        What is hard to make is the reliable self-arming mechanisms of a semi-automatic.

        • WILD KATIPO 11.4.1.1

          Interesting vid showing the differences between revolvers and semi automatics. Remember of course pistols are not generally legal in NZ barring very specific firearms licenses, simply for the fact that they are too easily concealed and used for criminal purposes,… therefore… why the need for semi automatics ?

          AR15 or Revolvers shoot faster? Firing Rate Experiment – YouTube

          • WILD KATIPO 11.4.1.1.1

            Still confused about semi automatics and rate of fire?

            Just watch this then.

            Shooting an AR-15 semi-auto rifle. – YouTube

            • WILD KATIPO 11.4.1.1.1.1

              And here is the same weapon [ basically ] on fully automatic.

              Full Auto AR-15 – YouTube

            • Grant 11.4.1.1.1.2

              That’s not a bog standard semi is it? I know SFA but is it fitted with a bump-stock?

              • Could be nicknamed the Mickey Mouse and Goofy splat gun for all I care.

                Ban semi automatics in New Zealand.

                • Grant

                  My mistake. I thought you were trying to educate us about the fire-rate of semi-auto’s.

                  • Sam

                    After Friday March 15 2019 there is adsolutly no reason for repeating hand guns, repeating shot guns or shot guns of any kind, repeating long arms or bolt fed machine gun weapons. That kiwis are over reaching by calling for the ban of edgy commercial advertising because of its pseudo intellectual connections with the events of Friday is a signal to those few nutters in love with the idea of machine gun weapons on the open market.

      • Saintarnuad 11.4.2

        Correct, an illegal capacity magazine was used. So maybe as a starting point we should be addressing flaws within the current legislation, rather than arbitrary banning.

        He should not have had access to a high capacity magazine, so maybe the so called “expert committee” should be booted in the bum for not doing their job correctly and addressing such matters. Instead they were to busy perusing personal and political agenda against law abiding citizens firearms, rather than their given task of prevent criminals gaining access to firearms.

        If the blood is on any bodies hands regarding the recent incident, then perhaps that would be the hands of the expert committee who were focussed upon agendas rather than criminal conduct.

        • WILD KATIPO 11.4.2.1

          Its amazing. Your thinly veiled bullshit bringing in all sorts of irrelevancies and non issues instead of focusing on the direct issue at hand.

          Banning semi automatic rifles to the general public.

          You almost make an art form of bullshit.

          So , wanker… wouldn’t it be easier to have a blanket ban of these things than pontificate and humor gormless jackasses like you for the next few years?

          Piss off , mate.

    • Sanctuary 11.5

      Dude if you are going play the intellectual at least do us the favour of not using one of the most obvious logical fallacies of arguing reductio ad absurdum.

      There is no obvious pressing civilian requirement for full power semi automatic weapons and – thank God – we have no right to bear arms.

      Ban them. Now.

      • Brutus Iscariot 11.5.1

        Don’t forget that the Linwood attack ended with a local returning fire, with a firearm they had on hand.

        • Grant 11.5.1.1

          Not a local who brought his own gun.

          I think you are referring to this event: “Mr Aziz said he ran, weaving through cars parked in the driveway, which prevented the gunman from getting a clean shot.

          Then Mr Aziz spotted a gun that had been discarded by the attacker and picked it up, pointed it and squeezed the trigger. It was empty.”

          https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/canterbury/hero-confronted-and-chased-attacker

          • McFlock 11.5.1.1.1

            Not only is Mr Aziz incredibly brave, it also goes to show that the rogue anus was such an inconsequential slimeball that even a collection of firearms and armour couldn’t match him against a man armed only with an EFTPOS machine.

            Fortitude is internal. You can’t buy it online.

            • RedLogix 11.5.1.1.1.1

              Not just courageous to the highest level, but alert and clear headed as well. He has earned in those few moments the enduring respect of a nation.

    • Gabby 11.6

      Are you confusing firearms in general with military style etc etcs on purpose or wilfully staintarnturd?

  12. CHCoff 12

    Was the shooter in balaclava at both crime scenes?
    If so, how do the eye witness accounts corroborate the identity of the caught nut?
    What the background of eye witnesses if possible, particularly if any are significant elements to the overall picture of events.

    Everything has to be looked at from all angles and prisims as much as possible, to ensure there are no get aways from this.

    • Peter Christchurh nz 12.1

      He was not wearing a balaclava. He had a kind of pudding basin helmit on with a cam attached. He filmed his face many times during the live update, both pre, during and post his killing spree. This is why the clip should be available, to stop conspiracy theorists like yourself.

      Your post really does not deserve a reply, as you seem to be questioning the motives of the witnesses in some kind of conspiracy theory.

      This would have to be the most open and shut case ever.

      • CHCoff 12.1.1

        No, the dead and injured NZ citizens deserve no less than un-biased, thorough and non pre-determined open minded questing into every detail in the pursuit of justice to this situation.

        • McFlock 12.1.1.1

          That’s what the court system is for.

          Don’t use the dead to excuse your self-aggrandising hobby.

          • CHCoff 12.1.1.1.1

            No, you do not pre-determine serious investigations with rapid conclusions and risk evidence going cold.

            • McFlock 12.1.1.1.1.1

              Are you a cop or court official directly involved in the case? If not, “you” do not determine a damned thing, and nor do I.

  13. gsays: 13

    I am curious as to what or whom could be a stumbling block or cause hesitation in banning these rifles, designed first and foremost to maim or kill people.

    Surely the hunting lobbies aren’t that large nor so full of poor shooters that they need several rounds every few seconds to hit their target.

    I get it will take some time to draught the correct wording etc to satisfy the legal eagles.

    The only reasonable use for these weapons I have heard is shooters in choppers after deer.

    30 round magazines have no place in Aotearoa.

    • Jess NZ 13.1

      I have a FB friend who implies we shouldn’t do it because this shooter had it as part of his manifesto that implementing gun laws would cause divisions.

    • Dennis Frank 13.2

      The obvious answer: democracy. It produces reps who are just as thick as voters. Trump, for instance. It produced a parliament so thick they failed to produce the appropriate response to the Aramoana massacre. The two thickest parts are known as the National Party and the Labour Party. They did three reviews of the gun laws (the actual years of these reported in our media several times in recent days, but the most recent was 2017) and got it wrong three times in a row. Three strikes and you’re out.

      As regards the time the government lawyers take to draft legislation, those in Oz got the right result in 12 days. Ours have the opportunity to demonstrate similar competence!

      • KJT 13.2.1

        Careful. Your elitist arrogance is showing.

        Not “Democracy”. When did we ever get a vote on gun laws?

        It was decided each time by a few people in parliament. Who, were chosen, not by voters, but by, often undemocratic, party processes.

        Heavily influenced in each case by a few well heeled gun seller lobbyists, and some, who think taking away their firearms is equivalent to castration.

        • Dennis Frank 13.2.1.1

          Interesting to see you arguing that our democracy is undemocratic. I agree that paradox is noteworthy – it seems to often provide a teachable moment.

          • KJT 13.2.1.1.1

            We do not have a democracy.

            When has the population as a whole, ever had a deciding vote on anything, apart from a very few issues, which don’t affect the money.

            We have a choice of a rotating dictatorship of a political class of people, who long ago unilaterally decided they were, Government, not “representatives”.

            The public are rightly suspicious of politicians. Note both left and right wing voters will support any measure that reduces politicians power, such as MMP, and binding referenda.

            Putting absolute power, as we do, with no restriction about from the possibility of a reshuffle next election, in the hands of 60 odd people stupid enough to want to be a politician, was never a good idea.

            • RedLogix 13.2.1.1.1.1

              And when the UK gave their people the power to make an important choice … we finished up with the outstanding success that is Brexit. /sarc

              Like you I wouldn’t argue that our existing democratic arrangements are perfect, indeed I’ve argued here in the past for some quite radical re-shaping.

              But supposing that representative parliaments are ipso facto ‘undemocratic’ is not something even I would try and justify.

              • KJT

                Some very good reasons for Brexit.

                Like leaving the undemocratic bankers benefit, that is the EU.

                Reforming the EU as the ex Syriza finance minister suggests, is probably a better option. But Europeans will never get that choice.

                Assuming those who voted for Brexit were necessarily ignorant, is another piece of elitist bs.

                That the Tory Government is making a total hash of it is unsurprising.

                I am happy for Iprent to biff this derail of his thread to open mike, if he wishes.

              • Gabby

                They gave them the power and proceeded to lie through their teeth to them, ensuring that large numbers were totally confused rodlog.

      • Saintarnuad 13.2.2

        Wrong, what occurred in Australia was a $40 million dollar flop, with approximately 250,000 semi automatic firearms suddenly vanishing without a trace

        No illegal firearms were removed from the streets, not one firearm to be precise, as only law abiding licensed firearms owners complied and surrender their firearms. The criminals funny enough didn’t hand in their guns.

        Since that time there have been numerous we’ll document terrorist murders undertaken. Two of the most recent being by Muslim males, firstly at the Lindt Cafe siege, and secondly at Police HQ in Parramatta. Innocent members of the public were murdered by people having no firearms licence, using unregistered firearms which had been illegal since 1996.

        No it was a massive failure, as those wanting weapons will always find a way. Australia and New Zealand are islands with sparse populations, so our borders are weak and unsecured.

        • RedLogix 13.2.2.1

          Your argument amounts to saying something like … ‘we still have vehicle accidents, therefore the road code is a failure”.

          You would immediately regard that as a silly argument, and it is. So in what significant manner is it different to the one you have made above?

        • Dennis Frank 13.2.2.2

          Perception vs reality? Media has been full of people praising Oz for getting it right. I usually like folks who swim upstream against the common flow (being a nonconformist from way back) but I’m with the majority on this point.

          Perception that their legislation worked seems validated by reality: there has been no copycat since. In the court of public opinion, that will prove so persuasive here as to dictate the outcome from the politicians, I suspect.

  14. dv 14

    Why do members of the public even need military-style semi-automatic rifles?

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/111342456/why-do-members-of-the-public-even-need-militarystyle-semiautomatic-rifles

    Here is a table showing how different country respond to gun laws.
    https://infogram.com/gun-laws-across-similar-jurisdictions-1h7j4dyp591x4nr

    Examples from the table
    aus can us nz
    Ban on military-style semi-automatic (“assault”) weapons Yes Yes Part ban No
    Each shotgun and rifle to be individually registered with police Yes Yes Yes No
    Fine or jail sentence for insecure gun storage Yes No Yes No
    Ban on unrecorded private gun sales Yes Yes Yes No

    Sorry about formatting!!!
    Best to follow the link to the table

  15. ianmac 15

    Guyon had a good interview just before 9 this morning with the guy who was involved with the Australian law change re semi-automatic law change. He was the Deputy PM at the time. One thing he warned was the effect of the US Gun lobby NRA who worked hard in Australia to divert the reform.
    https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018687049

  16. Gosman 17

    I find it interesting that when we have a Terrorist attack from an Islamist that many right wingers tend to demand immediate changes to Counter-Terrorism and immigration laws and when it is done from a White supremacist many on the left demand immediate changes to gun control and freedom of speech laws. Both sides should learn to react less and consider more.

    • lprent 17.1

      When did ‘we’ in NZ have a terrorist attack from an Islamist?

      • Gosman 17.1.1

        Did I state this was happening JUST in New Zealand?

        [lprent: No you didn’t, and you should have – what is the post about?.

        You didn’t this time either despite being given the opportunity to do so.

        Banning you for a week for using a deliberate stupid troll tactic. If you want to exercise ‘free speech’ here then you need to do it responsibly – that means that you do not try to start flamewars with vagueness. And you need to stay at least vaguely on the post topic.]

        • WILD KATIPO 17.1.1.1

          Bloody good job, – he only comes on here to divert and flood the article with side issues and irrelevant examples- as if the rest of us cant perceive what hes up to.

          FFS.

        • dv 17.1.1.2

          ONLY A WEEK LP

          [lprent: He has been pretty effective at robust debate here for quite some time recently.

          This was a reversion to a pattern that he used to use quite a lot, which did nothing for the debate, and used to get him long bans. I usually start at a week before escalation. ]

        • Skunk Weed 17.1.1.3

          At Long F&*king Last this Gosman is a C*&k of the First Order and turns T/S into a disorganised Cess Pit on a Daily Basis I have been banned just for debating with the Clown

          [lprent: After over-reacting perhaps? The idea of this site isn’t to protect against debate. It is to make damn sure that the debate is too wide to allow it to become a silo’ed empty echo hall with a little group of people in agreement sitting in a very small circle. It also tries to make damn sure that no one voice over-rides debate.

          That is what the rules are set up to promote. Gosman usually follows those rules – closely and on the usually right on bounds of acceptance. Just learn not to over-react. It is good training for elsewhere. ]

  17. Anne 18

    If I may be so bold:

    Has ‘Saint Arnold’ been sent to TS to argue the case for the NZ division of the NRA. 😈

    • solkta 18.1

      Yes i think you are right, but he does seem to be a defective unit. I wonder if we could exchange him under warranty?

      • Anne 18.1.1

        Depends on how long he’s been here. The warranty may have expired. Where’s Simon Lusk these days?

    • Kevin 18.2

      Wouldn’t be surprised going by the rubbish he spouts on KB over this.

  18. KJT 19

    Note. New Zealand’s version of the NRA, using a woman to front the media this morning.

    Not the usual neanderthal.

    Must have some PR funding behind them, to polish the public image.

  19. Jum 20

    Thanks JessNZ (1.1) for directing to the list of recommendations accepted or rejected. No 15 is concerning. Paula Bennett rejected ‘Secure storage confirmed before licence or endorsement received’. Was it in place previously?

    Because: about two years ago a poster was stating on the thread below that checking the safe before approval was happening.

    ‘Government announces tighter rules for gun access
    https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/93666888/government-announces-tighter-rules-for-gun-access
    Stacey Kirk11:12, Jun 14 2017

    ‘642 days ago
    PakihiWildChild
    I live in a rural community and everyone I know who has a Firearms Licence has had to own an appropriate safe and had a visit from the Firearms Officer to physically check it before getting approved…’

    And then there was this poster…

    ‘642 days ago
    Aaron J Meikle
    We do not have a firearms problem in NZ – the debate about new laws required is based on a false assumption.’

  20. Richard@DownSouth 21

    I think we also need to ban 5.56mm weapons as well, its a round designed to do massive damage to what it hits…

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

    • greywarshark 21.1

      I understand that some of the ammo is fantastic at exploding in the body and such. This commenter has raised a very valid point – that it should be banned.
      Thanks Richard@DownSouth, we need to go for best practice here and get everything done while there is attention on it, before we sink back into lethargy and BAU again.

      • ianmac 21.1.1

        There were “dum-dum” bullets which I think were outlawed for use in War. They were hollow nosed so that they burst out causing huge damage on impact with bone especially. I thought they were still banned?

        • McFlock 21.1.1.1

          Banned for use in war simply means states promise not to use them against each others’ people.

          • Richard@DownSouth 21.1.1.1.1

            Im not talking about Dum Dum type rounds… 5.56 isn’t designed for hunting, its designed to cause massive damage so you don’t have to be a great shot

            • McFlock 21.1.1.1.1.1

              Yeah I replied to the comment about “dumdum” bullets.

              But on a related note, I think you’ll find that while there are provisions against weapons that are designed to cause excessive harm in warfare (e.g. explosive bullets below a certain calibre or lasers as anti-people weapons), there are two oft-used dodges around that: firstly, the use to target equipment and machines rather than the people in said equipment or machines, and secondly if a bullet is designed to move smoothly through the air at supersonic velocities, it might have an increased tendency to tumble when striking stronger media and therefore transferring more energy to that medium than if it travelled smothely through it. So the additional damage isn’t an explicitly designed feature, and the projectile is legal.

              And all of this only applies to states at war with other states. States and individuals can do whatever they want to their own people.

            • Puckish Rogue 21.1.1.1.1.2

              Ok I’ll bite. How exactly does a 5.56mm round (or .223 equivalent) do “massive damage” more than say a 7.62mm round (or.308 equivalent) given that the 7.62mm is a bigger, heavier round

              • joe90

                Ok I’ll bite. How exactly does a 5.56mm round (or .223 equivalent) do “massive damage”

                Physics.

                Nearly a century before American troops were ordered into Vietnam, weapons designers had made a discovery in the science of “wound ballistics.” The discovery was that a small, fast-traveling bullet often did a great deal more damage than a larger round when fired into human or (for the experiments) animal flesh. A large artillery round might pass straight through a human body, but a small bullet could act like a gouge. During the early stages of the congressional hearing, Ichord asked Eugene Stoner, the designer of the original version of the M-16, to explain the apparent paradox of a small bullet’s destructive power. The answer emerged in the following grisly exchange.

                Ichord: One army boy told me that he had shot a Vietcong near the eye with an M-14 [which uses a substantially heavier bullet] and the bullet did not make too large a hole on exit, but he shot a Vietcong under similar circumstances in the same place with an M-16 and his whole head was reduced to pulp. This would not appear to make sense. You have greater velocity but the bullet is lighter.

                Stoner: There is the advantage that a small or light bullet has over a heavy one when it comes to wound ballistics. … What it amounts to is the fact that bullets are stabilized to fly through the air, and not through water, or a body, which is approximately the same density as the water. And they are stable as long as they are in the air. When they hit something, they immediately go unstable. … If you are talking about .30-caliber [like a bullet used in the M-14], this might remain stable through a human body. … While a little bullet, being it has a low mass, it senses an instability situation faster and reacts much faster. … this is what makes a little bullet pay off so much in wound ballistics.

                https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-bureaucratic-horror-story/545153/

                • Puckish Rogue

                  Just means the type of bullet used not the calibre itself

                  Put it this way if I had to to choose between being shot with a .308 (or equivalent) or a 5.56 I’ll take the 5.56

                  • left_forward

                    So now you have had the physics lesson Puckish, and you agree that they are intended to damage humans, do you agree with Richard?

              • bastables

                Spitzer (small) bullet with the weight in the back, when hitting mass it tries and tumble, as most have relatively thin “wall’s” and if it’s travelling fast enough it will fragment causing multiple wound channels. Heavier, larger round will maintain their integrity and not fragment within the target.

                You can see that when the US switched from full length m16 barrels to the shorter M4 barrels the ss109/m855 5,56mm impacting at lower velocity meant 5,56mm would not fragment as reliably, resulting in the current redesigned ammunition with higher powder charges and redisigned bullets to replicate the preferred ‘fragmenting’ nature of “armour pericing” ss109 in the full length barrels.

                our defence force has had to switch from ss109 as well as it does not fragment in the new LMT MARS-L m4 types.

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO

        • Grant 21.1.1.2

          NZ Police use hollow point ammo last time I read something about it.

    • Skunk Weed 21.2

      Good for possums

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 21.3

      Many rifle calibres will do similar things – nothing special about the 5.56mm. In fact it is a relatively low powered cartridge compared to typical deer calibres.

      5.56mm chosen for military purpose of being able to fire lots of aimed shots quickly, while higher powered cartridges make that harder due to recoil.

      • Puckish Rogue 21.3.1

        Also the cost, a smaller round costs less and the smaller the round the more you can carry (because its lighter and takes up less space)

    • Puckish Rogue 21.4

      So much wrong with this sentence…

  21. UncookedSelachimorpha 22

    I prefer LPrent ban of semi-automatics, rather than banning only ‘assault weapons’

    This is because it is harder to define what an assault weapon is, while “semi-automatic” cuts to the heart of the problem (the ability to fire lots of shots quickly).

    • Puckish Rogue 22.1

      Battle and assault rifles are rifles that have specific features, the term assault weapon, however, was a made up term by lawyers and politicians in the USA

      Basically anything in semi auto and even vaguely “military” in look or design could be deemed an assualt weapon to make it sound more scary and threatening and therefore easier to ban

      • McFlock 22.1.1

        because for some reason “sad, pathetic individuals who need to shoot innocent men, women, and shildren to make themselves leave some mark on the world are strangely drawn to this type of weapon rather than the muzzle-loading muskets that were around at the time the second amendment was drafted” is an insufficient reason to amend the amendment.

  22. SHG 23

    My 2c: immediate ban on semi-automatics, Australian-style buyback of weapons from existing owners, tougher restrictions on and monitoring of ownership. All the background has been done under the last government, all it takes is someone with the will to push it through. Does Jacinda have that will?

  23. Cinny 24

    Miss 14 was pissed off when I told her about the proposed ban. Apparently when the kids go hunting with their dad they use a semiautomatic.

    I did ask her last night if she could come up with a better solution, and she can’t.

    At a guess those that like to use such weapons will be annoyed, but their annoyance is a small price to pay. And those that are annoyed, should think of those who have lost their lives and the families and friends of those who were murdered, rather than their own selfish needs. I liken it to taking lollies off children and the fuss it creates.

    IMHO, ban semi automatics.

    Very proud of our PM on the world stage, amazing.

    As for simon, his morning interview on RNZ was embarrassing to say the least, kudos to Kim Hill for keeping him to task.
    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/384953/christchurch-terror-attacks-national-party-leader-simon-bridges-says-gun-control-laws-need-changing

    • Kevin 24.1

      Sheesh, that interview was like pulling teeth.

      • lprent 24.1.1

        So is the press conference with the owner of Gun City.

        • Matiri 24.1.1.1

          The Gun City press conference made me extremely uncomfortable.

          • lprent 24.1.1.1.1

            Yep. Looked like a pretty standard PR exercise. How to sound sympathetic without saying anything at all.

            You can see that the line is going to be the one pushed by Gosman today. Lets do nothing for a long time and hope it all goes away before our business gets affected..

          • Grant 24.1.1.1.2

            Remember this?

            In my opinion Don McGlashan had the last word to say about this guy and his customers.

          • Gabby 24.1.1.1.3

            It would’ve been held with a view to self promotion surely. Did he mention his address and business hours?

        • Cinny 24.1.1.2

          Have finally caught up re Gun City, woah, one of ‘those’ owns the gun shop, wtf.

          He’s so blatant, unfortunately I know his stereotype rather well. Uncomfortable to say the least.

          I wonder if anyone has done on doco or a real investigation about his backstory etc.

          Sadly the South Island was and sometimes still is a whole different world to the North Island.

      • Gabby 24.1.2

        I thought he was going to cwy, or throw a tanty. Juss let me notanswer Kim, don’t be such a meeanie.

      • alwyn 24.1.3

        It was a shame that Espiner didn’t ask Ardern what she actually meant with her waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle interview.
        We need to get a commitment that she proposes to ban all MSSA weapons. Anything less and in the near future she will flip to whatever Winston tells her his supporters will accept.
        Be very specific before the coming weekend, discuss it with, and get approval from Bridges, and then pass it as a joint proposal before the end of the month.
        Any later than that and Peters will roll her and nothing will be done.

        • lprent 24.1.3.1

          Talking across the house to the opposition party would be a good idea.

          However I think that the AG (David Parker) needs to take a lead role at deciding what the proposal is, and Labour and Greens and for that matter NZ First need to follow that lead.

          That is to make sure that this time we get some legislation that doesn’t have frigging loopholes the size of large breakaway Antarctic ice floes this time.

          The gun law changes after Aramoana were (to put it mildly) crap.

    • Bewildered 24.2

      Cinny you have to let Simon go you can’t post without bringing Simon into every topic I am worried about possible fatal attraction 😊

      • Cinny 24.2.1

        Hehehehehe, Hmmm maybe I should do an Elsa and……

        Let it go…. let it go…..

        Yeah, nah 🙂 😀 🙂

    • Muttonbird 24.3

      Is there a link between Paula Bennet’s role as Police Minister when she watered down the select committee’s recommendations in 2017 and her deafening silence post Friday 15 March 2019?

  24. ken 25

    And people panic buying to try and beat the ban need to be taken note of and watched very carefully.

    • Kevin 25.1

      After reading all day how all these AR15 owners are in it for the sport, we can look forward to a massive increase in numbers at gun clubs.

    • WeTheBleeple 25.2

      I’m not sure that that is true. Media clickbait more likely.

    • lprent 25.3

      I suspect that was simply a bullshit line by someone.

      Offhand, I suspect that some gun shops have pulled some of the military looking weapons off the displays and into the backroom to reduce any aggravation for staff from wannabe urban warfare dickheads, journos, and protesters.

      • Graeme 25.3.1

        And what sort of quiet deals were the gun trade doing to offload them?

        If, and a big if, any compensation is going to be paid when they are banned, it would be at cost price for the trade. Anything the gun shops can off load before any ban is a win.

        My guess, some pretty good deals done quietly over the weekend. (from the trade’s pov, but buyers will probably get what they paid)

  25. Glenn 26

    Accidently came across across a site that I look at for climate change stuff. I won’t even mention the name of the site because I realise now it’s shit. Especially when it’s pushing false flag, mind control, one world government crap about NZs Day of Darkness. Looks like the guy in charge uploaded this rubbish and has gone on vacation to the Tararuas.
    What a loop.

  26. Ad 27

    Great to see that South Otago Gun Club closed down due to the pressure.

    I’m sure there will be more in the deep south who will feel the pressure to come.

    • RedLogix 27.1

      I hoping you might be able to relate to how it feels when the ‘club’ you belong to is so manifestly betrayed by the actions of a few.

      (Oh and to be clear, I’m not scoring a point here … there is sadness enough all round without adding to it.)

      • Ad 27.1.1

        As both a longtime Labour and Catholic convert, I believe I have a working definition of betrayal handy somewhere.

        • alwyn 27.1.1.1

          Jesus. You really are a sucker for punishment aren’t you?
          Oh well. They have, between them, persuaded you that “there will be pie in the sky when you die”.
          At least I hope it is that rather than the example set by Cardinal Pell, and that little chap who boarded with Annette King.

          • Ad 27.1.1.1.1

            Jesus indeed Alwyn you are so right.
            Jesus for both Labour and for the Catholic Church, and he would struggle to see his own teaching in either, despite being the primary ideological origin of both.

            An answer, but not always the right question for sure, and not much help on re-regulating anything.

      • Jenny - How to get there? 27.1.2

        https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/south-otago/betrayed-rifle-club-closes-wake-terror-attack

        Police visited the range yesterday with some of its members.

        Mr Williams would not comment on whether police were investigating claims by Mr Breidahl that he saw club members with the confederate flag – a symbol of white nationalism – and talking with “strong feelings” about the right to carry arms, as well as complaining that New Zealand’s relaxed stance on refugees would lead to terror attacks.

        “At the suggestion of police they have asked us not to comment on those allegations.”

        I hope that the police and security forces are visiting every gun club in the country to assertain if any others are displaying offensive white nationalist symbols like the flag of the racist slave owning Confederacy.

        And finding any, begin the legal process of getting their licence to operate revoked.

        If we wanted to stop the spread of dangerous and racist white nationalism, this would be a step in the right direction.

        • Jenny - How to get there? 27.1.2.1

          Probably wouldn’t be a bad idea if there was legislation banning gun clubs from displaying any sort of political flags or symbols on their premises.

      • Muttonbird 27.1.3

        The South Otago Gun Club had a piss poor culture running right through it. Our mass-murderer chose it for those reasons.

        • RedLogix 27.1.3.1

          This guilt by association thing you have going there … one day it may bite you.

          • Muttonbird 27.1.3.1.1

            I’m referring to this article. In it an ex-forces gun owner complained to police about what he heard at that club.

            A former military machine gunner who visited the gun club where the mosque terror suspect trained says he was deeply troubled by its culture and lodged a complaint with police.

            He was concerned the ethos at the club was the “perfect breeding ground” for a mass shooter and lodged a formal complaint with the police.

            https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/111336647/we-dont-breed-mass-killers-accused-christchurch-shooters-gun-club

            And Russell Brown says this:

            One of the problems with even identifying a likely far-right terrorist is simply picking out his hate rhetoric from the background din of bigotry. They can, to some extent, hide in plain sight.

            https://publicaddress.net/hardnews/these-things-we-must-now-change/

            Now, that ex-rifleman saw a problem in the ‘background din of bigotry’, and acted on it. So immune to it are we that the police didn’t take him seriously and can’t even find the complaint.

            Now I’m not going to sit around becoming more and more immune to that bigotry, I’m going to call it out.

            I shouldn’t have to live in fear for doing so either.

            • RedLogix 27.1.3.1.1.1

              The other night you made a comment saying “We must ensure National never gains power again”. Or words very similar.

              That is pretty unambiguous, it can really only have one logical interpretation … that either we suspend democracy and never hold elections again, or we introduce legislation outlawing the National Party so that it is ineligible to contest for Parliament. Or some variation to similar effect.

              It’s a deeply totalitarian position to take. It’s inexcusable and dangerous. Yet around here it was just part of the ‘background din’. No-one but me took any notice. Nor did I place any great moment on it; it’s the kind of thing duffers (old or otherwise) blither on about when they think no-one important is paying attention.

              Now god forbid, imagine someone from the left, and linked to The Standard, committed something akin to Friday’s horror, or if that group in the Urewera’s some years back had succeeded in assassinating John Key. And then media started trawling through the comments section here as a ‘well-known left wing hate site’. What do you think they might make of your off-hand comment? Or hundreds of similar one’s I’ve seen over the years demeaning and demonising white people for example.

              Note carefully, I’m not interested in scoring points here, I’m not drawing any kind of equivalence. But events do have a way of surprising us, and if we are going to demand accountability from others, we should be damn sure our own house is in order first.

              • marty mars

                Deleted – sorry checked and got it wrong.

              • Muttonbird

                It’s interesting that that comment is what upset you.

                You might have read it as a call to do whatever we can to stop National gaining power again. I am a law abiding social democrat after all and I mostly believe in the system we have.

                I guess it’s the impersonal quality of the online forum which has caused you to misinterpret my comment. No excuse for leaving out the context though.

                As for someone from the left and linked to The Standard committing an atrocity like we just saw, I’m pretty confident acts like that are consigned to the past. The left has been through that horrible phase.

                I think our house is in good order and I’m not quite sure why you don’t think that. Perhaps it’s the natural pessimist in you and a lot of other ex-Labour people.

                We’ve seen today RW blog and news sites and even the National Party itself remove anti-islamic material. We know a couple of blog sites have a major islamophobia problem and are only just addressing those problems now.

                Kiwiblog for instance had no moderation at all but at The Standard several people are responsible for moderating bigotry and do a good job.

                If you think my comment, ‘We must ensure National never gains power again’ warrants a report then you are free to do so.

                • RedLogix

                  If you think my comment, ‘We must ensure National never gains power again’ warrants a report then you are free to do so.

                  Of course not; I had a pretty good idea what you meant based on your general history here. But that’s not the point is it? People make incautious comments all the time that can easily be twisted into something far more sinister … especially when emotions are running high as they are now.

                  I only chose your particular comment because it was proximate, not because it was all that disturbing. I’ve seen some real doozies here over the years though. And the casual demeaning of white people goes on here at a low level all the time.

                  As I said, events have a way of taking us terribly by surprise, and while I agree with you the left in NZ has moved past that kind of activist violence … nothing is impossible either. Certainly no-one in NZ imagined on Friday morning what was going to happen that afternoon.

                  Well apart from one individual that is. And I think there is a point, in all of our rush to condemn casual racism on the right as the root cause (and there is merit in that) … we overlook the undeniable fact that what virtually all of these mass murder shooters have in common, regardless of the cause they espouse, is their relative social isolation. And that without exception, the few people who do know them are terribly surprised and shocked at their actions.

                  We’re highly anxious that an excess of free speech is the cause, when demonstrably what all of these people have in common is a lack of speech.

              • Incognito

                I stumbled onto this comment by accident. The touchstone, for me, is to try and be my own harshest critic. That needs to be given direction and impetus by trying to be the change I want to see. It does not avoid hypocrisy. It does not avoid screwing up. But it does build resilience, determination, and integrity. I cannot ask more of others than I ask of myself and if I can, or do, I am not holding myself to account in a sufficient manner.

              • Jenny - How to get there?

                RedLogix 27.1.3.1.1.1
                18 March 2019 at 10:54 pm
                The other night you made a comment saying “We must ensure National never gains power again”. Or words very similar.

                That is pretty unambiguous, it can really only have one logical interpretation … that either we suspend democracy and never hold elections again, or we introduce legislation outlawing the National Party so that it is ineligible to contest for Parliament. Or some variation to similar effect….

                Hi Red, I don’t think that this was what Muttonbird was suggesting at all.

                Your interpretation of his comment which you claim is ‘unambiguous’ is not unambiguous, it is ambiguous. And in my opinion, you have taken the wrong (and worse) interpretation of it.
                The interpretation I took was. “We must ensure National never gains power again”. not by undemocratic means, but by being the best government that this country has ever had.. People might vote for a government better than even that.

                But why would people vote for a worse government?

                The only reason that I can see that we have the current electoral seesaw between Labour and National, is that there is very little difference between them.

                In 1984 New Zealanders voted against the Muldoon Governement because it was too Right Wing.

                What we got was a Labour Government that was even more Right Wing than that.

                The Labour Government told their working class supporters, ‘there has to be pain before gain’, ‘but bear with us it will get better’. And out of loyalty Labour’s supporters did stick with them and in 1987 again voted for a Labour Government.

                Knowing that they were onto a good thing, conservatives also voted for Labour, the Labour Party almost won the seat of Remuera, only losing by 5 votes. And with both the right and left of the electorate voting for them the 1987 was ‘lanslide election’ for Labour. In the following three years, Labour’s core supporters were rewarded for their loyalty with even more Right Wing neo-liberal reform.

                By 1990, the Labour Government had turned so far Right, that National were forced to campaign on a electoral platform to the Left of Labour. National promised to halt the privatisations of public assets, National promised to reverse user pays in tertiary education, National promised to reverse the Super Sur-Charge. And, the 1990 elections were another ‘landslide election’ but this time in National’s favour. Being a tory government, naturally, National broke all their Left election promises. But compounded this with attacks on the unions and benificiaries with ECA and the benefit cuts.

                Since those times, the electorate has quivered somewhere in the middle like a wounded beast, even though Labour has dialed back somewhat from its hard Right policy positions. The working class base that previously could be counted on to vote in large numbers for Labour have become alienated and stayed away from the polling booths. 

                To huge popular movement for MMP was an attempt to break out of that two party, not too different from each other, grey morass.
                What I would like to see to ensure National never gains power again, is a truly transformative government. Transformative as the Lange/Douglas government was, but in the completely opposite direction. Taking all the best from previous Labour administrations, from Savage to Kirk.

                In my opinion such a government would be unassailable.

                • KJT

                  Agree. And the parties know this.

                  Which is why both pretend to be more socially responsible than they really are, before each election.

                  But, their funding depends on relatively wealthy right wing inclined businesses, who can afford to buy them.

    • Stuart Munro. 27.2

      If he’d had substantial sympathisers there, like as not they’d have joined him.

      The club needs a bit of a sort out I’m sure, but most of the folk will be good solid people. Bet they don’t nurse another viper in a hurry either.

      • Ad 27.2.1

        We will see for sure in the proposed legislation, which the Prime Minister will introduce in 10 days’ time.

        • Jenny - How to get there? 27.2.1.1

          This is leadership

          “Within 10 days of this horrific act of terrorism we will have announce reforms which will, I believe, make our communities safer,”…

          ….”I want to remind people you can surrender your gun to the police at any time, I’ve seen reports that people are in fact already doing this. I applaud that effort and if you’re thinking about surrendering your weapon I would encourage you to do so.”

          Prime Minister Ardern

          If you currently own an AR 15 or thinking of buying one, or any other type of semi-automatic weapon, forget it. You will be required to give them up.

          Get over it.

          • Ad 27.2.1.1.1

            I find it best to assume I’ll be disappointed.

            That means I’m slightly grateful anything good at all happened.

            Which is an appropriate position within this world.

            • Jenny - How to get there? 27.2.1.1.1.1

              You never aspire for greatness, from our leaders, Ad?

              I do.

              I expect it. And I demand it. But it is not what I demand, it is what the times demand.

          • Chris T 27.2.1.1.3

            She hasn’t announced anything yet and she has to get it past Winston

            • RedLogix 27.2.1.1.3.1

              All the signals are that “The Cabinet is absolutely united”. Not looking promising if you are backing Winston to derail anything.

              Winston plays the role as the conservative backstop in this govt, but as Wayne Mapp said here earlier today, no responsible political party is going to stand in the way of an immediate tightening of our gun laws.

              And Winston is a responsible politician.

              • alwyn

                ““The Cabinet is absolutely united”.
                All that need mean is that Tsar Winston has told us what we are going to do and we have all bowed down to his wisdom.
                And why does it take 10 days? In 10 days people will be over it.
                You have to do it this week, not 2 weeks after the the massacre occurred.
                I fear we will end up with no change.

                • lprent

                  I wouldn’t worry about that too much. I for one intend to make damn sure that we get in some effective controls on high-kill rate weapons this time.

                  I was in Dunedin after doing my masters when the killing spree at Aramoana happened. I was always pissed off with the weak changes that happened to gun legislation then. It isn’t something that I’m willing to tolerate again.

                  I suspect that most MPs and a lot of political activists will feel much the same. They just need the support to go and stay public.

                  • marty mars

                    + 1 yep the momentum for change is unstoppable imo which is why the gun lobby have gone the ‘slow down and get it right’ angle. They will lose thank goodness because the pressure isn’t coming off until changes are made.

                    • Michael

                      “I suspect that most MPs and a lot of political activists will feel much the same. They just need the support to go and stay public.” I’m not as optimistic as you are, particularly after Mr Tipple, Mr Lusk and all the other alt-right gun nutters make their views known to our legislators. Which they will during the invitation period Jacinda gave them by not simply banning semi-automatic weapons yesterday (if not sooner). Tipple’s press conference yesterday was a curtain raiser for what’s about to go down. As for Winston and his “in principle” agreement, why would anyone trust anything said by a man whose entire political career demonstrates that he has no principles whatsoever? Jacinda should have given him his marching orders out of her government and gone to the people on the sole issue of whether we want her to do whatever it takes to keep everyone safe from alt-right political operators and their enablers. I reckon she would have won a landlside victory, swept NZF out of Parliament and wiped a few smirks (to use a fashionable term) off the Nats’ faces.

  27. One Two 28

    Adern could set a genuine example by refusing the largest NZ group of users of ‘assault weapons’, from reducing their cachè, [anywhere on planet earth]…

    Remove NZ War Machine from all military theatre…permanently

    That would be a genuine ‘leadership’ statement…

    • lprent 28.1

      And you too can go to a beauty contest and proclaim your adherence to the principle of “world peace”.

      In the art of politics, distractions don’t really help in getting change.

      I know this is hard – but please do try to concentrate on solving one problem at a time.

      • One Two 28.1.1

        It is part of the same problem…one of violence and attrocities against others…using assault weapons…

        NZ allows its armed forces to become part of attrocities committed abroad…some events become public…others do not…

        Either way…violent acts are committed and are tacitly endorsed, passively accepted by NZ govts of the day…

        Yeah ‘It’s hard’ for folks to factor in wider context outside of silos…but vacuums are used to clean floors…and violence is globally interlinked on every level witnessed…

        Low hanging fruit…help yourself…

        • lprent 28.1.1.1

          Let me put it this way. When was the last time you learned that NZ soldier or any of our armed forces had killed 50 unarmed civilians and wounded about the same number in less than an hour?

          They are arguing in Wellington about a juat few probable civilians killed by a squad using automatic weapons and gunships. Does that sound like being anything like the same kill rate?

          Personally I’d let Manning, Hager, at al deal with that – along with those concerned in the military.

          I am far more concerned with an uncontrolled massacre done by a fruit loop fuelled by internet memes up the wazoo and who has unconstrained access to semi automatics. In particular preventing copycats from doing something similar.

          It seems like a much higher risk to all concerned than trying to diffuse other concerns into an urgent and immediate debate.

          • One Two 28.1.1.1.1

            Hear what you’re saying, LP and we’re on the same page with regards to the weapons discussion…

            I’m looking through a wider lens, apparently…that is where the basis for my initial comment came from…

            Absolutely it is appropriate to seek ways to minimize risk of repeat/similar events…but how many hundreds of comments already stated that same narrow view…

            I prefer a wider perspective…it’s how I view the world…

            Banning or severely restricting access to semi auto weapons may or may not prevent something else in Nz…but it will likely lower the risk profile*…

            But it won’t make Nz a safer place than it already was…

            Global involvements which ‘NZ’ has signed up for have and will ensure that violence in Nz will remain…

            Significant improvements require significant and truly radical change…restricting access or a ban, will not lead to truly radical change…

            If folks are comfortable with tweeks…then that is understandable…

            The bar will remains low as a result…

    • RedLogix 28.2

      In the context of a global community of nations, the military should be considered as the equivalent of the nation state police forces. All nation states require a functioning police force in order to prevent a small minority of criminal thugs from preying on the weak and innocent.

      Now think of what it would take to ensure the same among nations; a global federation of nations must also have on hand sufficient military force to face down and suppress any rogue nation that has stepped outside the boundaries. This was the embryonic intent of the UN Blue Helmets.

      Looked at like this it is clear there will always be a need for armed services. The more useful question to ask is, what purpose will they serve?

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 ...
    3 weeks ago