web analytics

The politics of gun control

Written By: - Date published: 7:47 am, March 9th, 2020 - 180 comments
Categories: crime, farming, labour, law, law and "order", national, nz first, police, same old national, uncategorized - Tags:

As we approach the anniversary of the Christchurch massacre you would hope that our politicians had decided to put politics aside and settled on meaningful law changes so that the chances of a deranged shooter killing people on the basis of their religion was reduced.

Regrettably not.

As pointed out by Mark Daalder at Newsroom National wants to change one of the more important elements of the proposed law changes, the test to be applied by the police when determining if someone passed the good character test when seeking a gun licence.

From the article:

In a Supplementary Order Paper submitted on the Government’s Arms Legislation Bill, National’s Police spokesperson Brett Hudson proposes that a test for violent and extremist tendencies should only be applied to people who have been “convicted of an offence under the Human Rights Act 1993 or the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 relating to violent, hateful, or extremist speech or behaviour”.

However, Gun Control NZ’s Nik Green says this would allow many extremists to obtain a firearms license, pointing to the fact that no one in New Zealand has been convicted of such an offense under the Human Rights Act.

Police Minister Stuart Nash said Hudson’s SOP was “very concerning. I do not know why the Nats are not supporting this because it takes guns off gangs and it’s much tougher penalties for gun crime.”

As Daalder points out there have been no convictions under the Human Rights Act that would qualify and convictions under the Harmful Digital Communications Act are difficult to obtain and quite rare.

And the following persons would theoretically not be caught by National’s proposal:

  • The Christchurch shooter.
  • Philip Arps.
  • A young law student who made racist comments about Muslims the day after the atrocity.
  • White supremacists generally who don’t have convictions.

In a minority report in the report back of the Bill National said this:

National Party members do not support this bill. We believe it is improperly targeted and that this firearms reform should be focused on genuine criminal activity and gangs.

This bill does not do that. Instead it places greater responsibility, regulation, and costs on individuals and groups who already obey the law.

To the National Party members, the general policy thrust of this bill appears to be predicated on the notion that applying some more rules to people who already follow the law will somehow make people safer. That flies in the face not only of evidence we received on this bill, but also the evidence received by the select committee inquiry into the illegal possession of firearms in 2016/17.

It takes a lot of chutzpah to convert this issue into a tough on gangs issue.  The Christchurch shooter was not a patched gang member and would not have been caught by this approach.

The proposed provision which Hudson is addressing is very wide.  It says that the Police may (as opposed to shall) find that a person is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence if that person “has been is charged with or has been convicted of an offence in New Zealand or overseas that is punishable by a term of imprisonment (including, but not limited to, an offence involving violence, drugs, or alcohol)”.

People convicted of drunk driving, depositing dangerous litter and petty shoplifting would be caught.  But the section says “may” and “fit and proper person” is not defined in the Act.  It is something the police may take into account when assessing someone’s suitability for a gun licence and presumably do already.  The Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Bill makes it clear that the provision is partial codification of the current fit and proper person requirement.

The essential point must be that gun ownership and usage is not a right.  Just like cars guns can do a lot of damage and being granted the privilege to operate one should be subject to rigorous consideration.  Of course current charges and convictions of whatever sort should be taken into account.  And if they relate to violence or a lack of control on the part of the applicant then they should be given a lot of weight.

It is not just National who are playing politics with the bill.  NZ First is also seeking support at the margins of the electorate to justify meddling in what should be a consensus decision.

From Collette Devlin at Stuff:

The Labour party is struggling to get support to pass a new gun law as NZ First continues to dig its heels in.

The Arms Legislation Bill passed its second reading last month but NZ First MP Ron Mark signalled the party was moving away from supporting core aspects of the Bill, saying the caucus had some reservations.

While he would not go into detail, Mark told Stuff this week there was still “a lot of water to go under the bridge right now”.

The bill, which includes a firearms registry, harsher penalties, and a warning system to show if a person is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence, had been expected to come back to Parliament this week but has been bumped down the order list.

Mark said he was still having “constructive conversations’ with Police Minister Stuart Nash on the issues the party wanted to settle.

The party was looking for a pragmatic way through that protected the rights and privileges of legitimate firearms owners, he told the House last month.

One of those was resolving the question of whether or not police should continue to administer firearms law and a “strong argument” for the need for an arms authority that takes that statutory responsibility.

There were also further conversations to be had around farmers who had problems with pest control and around sporting shooters.

A separate entity being established is bizarre.  The police would continue to handle the day to day management of the Act.  Why separate obligations?  Do we really need another Worksafe?

As for farmers when Federated Farmers say that the ban will not be popular but is needed who would argue to the contrary?  Especially when they said “… a clampdown is the responsible path to take to try to ensure we’re never witness to this kind of tragedy on our shores again.”

And I am struggling to understand what the problem for sport shooters is.  If it is more red tape for the sort of club that the Christchurch shooter belonged to then let there be more red tape. 

If it is that their ability to enter into competitions will be affected as far as I can see the proposed changes do not affect olympic shooting sports.

Gun Control NZ gave this description of what was at stake in its submission on the Bill:

The Regulatory Impact Statement analyses this issue in some depth. Our main comment is that the shooters affected by these changes do not compete in the Olympics or Commonwealth Games. The shooters affected are those who partake in the euphemistically named “Practical Shooting”. “Practical shooting” is better described as combat shooting. Here is a description of practical shooting by Philip Alpers:

11 “Practical” shooting is almost the complete opposite of traditional target shooting sports. Competitors conduct their activities over a “run-and-gun” obstacle course where they face a variety of “real-world” or “practical” shoot/don’t shoot situations, such as firing at the human silhouette of a “hostage-taker” while sparing the “hostage.” Unlike traditional target sports, the weapons used are most often large caliber pistols, assault rifles, and riot shotguns. And although participants use the more innocuous term “practical” when dealing with the general public, among enthusiasts routinely refer to their pastime as “combat” or “tactical” shooting.

In a typical “course of fire,” contestants begin with a rapid draw from a holster, and are then timed as they run, crawl, and sometimes climb through a shoot-’em-up scenario, all while firing at human-scaled head-and-torso targets. Human targets intended to be shot are often referred to as “bad guys.” “No-shoot” targets are often called “hostages.” The highest scores are awarded to “head shots” and “heart shots” because of their heightened lethality, with points awarded for speed of shooting as much as for accuracy.

I do not think the sporting world would be a poorer place if this sort of “sporting” activity was frustrated.

The gun registry is one of the most important of changes.  It is hard to understand why National is opposing it given the important contributions it would make to our collective safety.

All in all I am afraid I have no sympathy for the arguments of the gun nuts. There is no right to bear arms.  It is a privilege that can and should be regulated for the public good.  And NZ First’s and National’s holding up this important reform so they can seek support of those at the margin of public opinion is base.

Parliament should get on with it.  And we should aim for a March 15 passage date.  The victims of the Christchurch Massacre and their families deserve nothing less.

180 comments on “The politics of gun control ”

  1. roy cartland 2

    "A young law student who made anti racist comments about Muslims the day after the atrocity."

    You mean "anti-Muslim comments", or "racist comments"

    [Right you are. Have corrected – MS]

  2. Gabby 3

    It's just possible that the Natses want us to be scared.

  3. Mike 4

    You have displayed a sublime ignorance of every aspect of this. The proposed bill makes us less safe

    • mickysavage 4.1

      You will have to enlighten me Mike. You mean have gun laws like in the US where mass shootings are an extraordinarily regular occurrence?

      • Nickoli 4.1.1

        ….open your eyes, and look at why COLFO are opposing this – and be objective: something you have completely overlooked in the tripe you have published….

        • mickysavage 4.1.1.1

          Still waiting for that list of things I am wrong about.

          • Nickoli 4.1.1.1.1

            Act's position is a good place to start:

            Mr Speaker,
            I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to oppose the Arms Legislation Bill.

            Let me acknowledge the public who presented to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. As a member of that Committee, I heard them. They often received a hostile reception by the Chair whose salary they pay, but they persevered.

            [long cut an paste deleted]

            If you care to go further – David Seymour has a good minority report on the select committee stage of the second tranche. I suggest you go beyond Phillip Alpers and his discredited tripe – lose the sensationalism and bias.

            [Nickoli, you are new here, so a few pointers. One is that if you cut and past (or copy exact words) from anywhere you have to provide a link (or reference). Two, please don’t post long tracts of text. Quote a small amount, and then use your own words to explain the relevance (and link). Please also have a read of the Policy and About linked at the top of every page, these give a guideline on how debate works on TS, thanks. – weka]

            • In Vino 4.1.1.1.1.1

              Tendentious rather than rational.

            • KJT 4.1.1.1.1.2

              The sensationalism and bias is coming from the gun, nuts.

              It is obvious which approach works.

              Japan has tight regulation and control of firearms, and very little gun crime. As did NZ back in the day when all firearms were registered.

              The USA has the right to bear arms, which means the people most at risk is the firearms owners, their family, and children's their school mates.

              • McFlock

                Thing about a register, cops know who was responsible for the firearm thirty days before the crime, or have a burglary/theft report in their hot little hands and were investigating before anything was done with the weapon.

                At the moment, they might have a register from the manufacturer, importer, or retailer, which might give you the first owner ten or twenty years ago. A much colder place to start.

                • KJT

                  Exactly.

                  Have these people forgotten the "law abiding licenced gun owner" who was shooting at police. Tauranga I think. Where they had no way of finding out the type and number of weapons, he had.

                  • McFlock

                    Schrodinger's gun owner: You put the gun owner in a box, and you don't know whether he's a proper person to own a firearm until you open the box and see if he's murdered dozens of people or not.

                    • Incognito

                      Oh, it gets weirder and worse. Because of entanglement, when one nutter goes nuts, inevitably another nutter goes even nuttier. This is on full display in the Land of the Gun Nuts.

            • Macro 4.1.1.1.1.3

              FFS! What a load of arid nonsense. Who could even think that this sort of diatribe actually addressed the issues of making NZers safer from guns? Oh that's right David Seymour.

            • lprent 4.1.1.1.1.4

              There is absolutely nothing in Seymour's rant that bears on the subject. Essentially what he is saying is that people who own weapons or run shooting ranges don't want to act responsibly.

              Nickoli: If you aren't simply a dimwitted troll parrot – totally incapable of making your own argument. Point to anything in his statement that doesn't fit my analysis of Seymours’ idiotic blathering and explain (in your own words) why not..

              • RedLogix

                On another post this morning you mentioned the very poor Police record around database security. What makes you think that they'd do any better with a Gun Register? Even if they don't administer it, I have to assume they'd have privileged access to it.

                And assuming a leaked copy of this register made it's way into the hands of the gangs or other serious crims, they would now have a shopping list of the address, names and detailed contents of every gun safe in the country.

                If I were to get a knock on the door late at night with several masks heavies who knew what guns I had, and required me to hand them over … I'd personally ask them if they wanted a coffee with that while they waited.

                • Sene

                  To the mention of database security by police. Please refer following link and stats.. I wouldn't be trusting police with holding any kind of database secure…

                  Regards…

                  https://nzpca.co.nz/as-arms-bill-hits-parliament-new-corruption-data-exposes-police/

                  The figures obtained under the Official Information Act released by the Council of Licenced Firearms Owners (COLFO) show that since 2011 Police recorded:

                  • 244 instances of unauthorised use of a database
                  • 244 breaches of privacy and confidentiality
                  • 138 dishonesty offences
                  • 21 cases of inappropriate or unlawful disclosure of information
                  • 9 instances of corruption
                  • lprent

                    The original press release at scoop is here. It doesn’t say the period covered by the OIA. But if we assume that it about 9 years, then we’re looking at detected 27 unauthorised use per year in a force that probably averaged about 11,000 employees.

                    It is somewhat less than I’d have expected. I suspect that it compares favourably with something that is private data similar – like the banks or insurance.

                    That isn’t to say that it couldn’t be improved. However it does rather undercut the COLFCO assertions because I don’t think that they’d get any better on the data privacy anywhere else.

                    Look at what the third party vendor SAP potentially exposed up doing with a single data breach.

                    But I guess that the small group of COLFCO/NRA aren’t interested in accurate assessments as in their typical mindless opposition they just don’t want gun shops and arms dealers constrained in their irresponsible pursuit of at least two weapons for every person in NZ without regulation. (which I might add is a deliberate similar assertion to their one about the police data security).

            • weka 4.1.1.1.1.5

              mod note for you above Nickoli.

      • Chelly 4.1.2

        Who licensed and armed [Deleted] in seven weeks of arrival in NZ without checking referees and happily signed over mail order ammo purchases within that time? NZ Police.

        They failed horribly at their job.

        The Labour government was in the process of disbanding local police arms offices in favour of a centralized web based system. What an utter disaster that would've been. It's almost like the government was trying to make the system fail…..

  4. dv 5

    You need to explain why I am less safe under the proposed bill?

  5. Sabine 6

    i don't know much about guns, but for what its worth, the killer of Christchurch was a law abiding gun owner until the day he went for the kill. So would this bill have caught him? Legal gun, legal gun club membership, blahblahblah. I doubt.

    As for 'shooting' a target, yeah, one shoots to kill. Be it the bulls eye on a round or a head on a body – human or animal. Otherwise it would literally make no sense, and fwiw the same will be done with Arrow / Bow, or a Crossbow? So you might want to include this too in the regulations.

    And still, anything coming from government on how to be aware of these guys in our society? How to maybe spot them and report something that may make one uncomfortable? And yeah, the Police, will they do their job, or will they not. Because i still have yet to hear from anyone in Politics or Media, how our police who is very well equipped to spy on Green peace and animal rights group missed the ball on this completly.

    So while some of the regulations proposed seem sensible, registration for one, the rest seems a bid haberdashery, but it again does not address the underlying belly of the beast , namely that you have young mainly white men on this planet that are happy to accumulate weapons – legally i might add – and then go out into places of worship, schools, retreats etc etc etc to kill – and that they seemingly operate globally, with networks, places to meet, training camps and so on and so forth.

    • mickysavage 6.1

      Not allowing semi automatic weapons to be purchased is a start. The intelligence and surveillance aspects are things beyond this particular bill.

      • Sabine 6.1.1

        You can take away a tool, but the intelligence and surveillance ar the most important aspect. Because they failed Mickey, spectacularly failed to pick up this guy and his travels to various known supremacists groups etc etc etc.

        So yeah, you can remove one weapon and still achieve fuck all. And the failure of police and intelligence in NZ in this case was never openly discussed, the surge of the white supremacists in NZ was never openly discussed, heck most people would not even be able to state who the shooter was, because literally that was the only thing that was done successfully, the official hiding and disappearing of a white supremacist middle class boy from Australia who came to NZ to kill and no one did a single thing until he had killed 50 people.

        Banning a type of weapon is not going to prevent the next massacre if these points are not addressed and preferable this should be happening in the open. But that is not something we do in NZ, decent discussions openly, televised at a decent hour, with specialists, police, polititians and activits from all sides. To bothersome, so lets do something – ban something – and hope everyone forgets about the biggest failure of the police surveillance state and the intelligence surveillance state that essentially let to the killing of 50 people.

        • McFlock 6.1.1.1

          Banning the types of weapon that massacre people most efficiently will by definition create an extra point at which the jerk is committing a crime and can be arrested before he starts shooting.

          The last crossbow-utilised massacre was well before smokeless powder, if it ever happened.

          • Macro 6.1.1.1.1

            The last crossbow-utilised massacre was well before smokeless powder, if it ever happened.

            Hmmm Robin Hood and his merry men against the Sherif of Nottinghams? But then they used long bows.devil

  6. Enough is Enough 7

    This is a strange thing to say:

    "…our politicians had decided to put politics aside…"

    People have different views on how to achieve a certain outcome, or to protect the interest of certain people. As you can see all around the world, there is probably nothing more political than gun control.

    A majority of our parliament does not currently agree with the proposed bill. For better or worse that's politics

    • aom 7.1

      It sounds very much as though the politics of the NRA of the US have manoeuvred their way into NZ's national politics. Obviously, democracy is a system of governance that can be subverted by money, influence and personal connections and the implied claim to being a majority. It no doubt sounded hilarious when a small group of activists used the term Bolshevik (majority) to seize power in Russia last century.

      • Nickoli 7.1.1

        Nothing to do with "the politics of the NRA" – it's got everything to do with dog-whistle politics and the scape-goating of FAL holders who have done nothing wrong – yet are called appalling names by the media and have been persecuted by Nash et.al through no fault of their own…. Lets wait to see what an unencumbered Royal Commission finds about who failed here…. and look forward to your squawking should the government ever seize your property without adequate consultation….or compensation….

        • McFlock 7.1.1.1

          You do realise that our murder rate doubled last year because of one law-abiding firearm license holder who up until that day had "done nothing wrong"?

          As for the politics of the NRA, maybe NZ gun whingers shouldn't us NRA material when lobbying NZ politicians.And for more direct links, COLFO has an interesting thing in their newsletter in 2016:

          Meeting with NRA America

          COLFO Chairman Paul Clark will soon be meeting with Tom Mason from the NRA of USA. Tom has been the NRA’s representative to the United Nations for 21 years. He is also an Executive Secretariat to WFSA. They will be discussing the impact of what is happening in the United States and its effect on New Zealand. Paul is reminded of a time in 1992 when the then President of the NRA Mr Corbin visited New Zealand. He came to offer support and solidarity with the firearms users of New Zealand prior to the introduction of the 1992 Arms Regulations. COLFO is looking forward to taking the opportunity of renewing those contacts and discussing our ownership and licencing differences.

          See that bit about the NRA visiting us the last time we were changing the law because of some jerk with a gun? Probably pure coincidence /sarc

          • Nickoli 7.1.1.1.1

            See the issue with the failings of Police and the false-conflation of last year's murder rate with our existing firearms law?

            Also note – the US is a very different jurisdiction with very different issues to NZ – again, you are conflating non-related issues; and ignoring that NZ's law abiding citizens have been treated badly in a knee-jerk reaction from an ignorant parliament – apparently supported by an ignorant public (such as yourself).

            • McFlock 7.1.1.1.1.1

              One dude doubled our murder rate with weapons obtained under existing firearms law. He murdered more people in one afternoon that the rest of NZ, combined, managed in the previous year. That is why the law needs to be changed.

              We restrict some vehicles from our roads because they are too damned dangerous in the wrong hands. Should be the same with firearms.

              And if the US and NZ were "very different issues", NZ politicians wouldn't be lobbied with NRA material from the US.

              • Nickoli

                ….and again, you are jumping the start line: our existing 1983 Arms Act, if administered properly, would have stopped this. As for propaganda – our current crop of hand-wringers ignored all of the people they sought to villainise (who had been deemed fit & proper and passed vetting that many in parliament wouldn't pass). COLFO isn't advocating for the carte-blanche approach of the US – they are advocating to a fair & reasonable approach – and it's impossible to argue the current bulldozing treatment of existing FAL holders has been fair or reasonable.

                • McFlock

                  So where were all these NZers who reckon the Arms Act wasn't being properly enforced before last march? Where are their letters to MPs, their op-eds, their comments here telling everyone that the police are not doing their job?

                  I guess they were happy to quietly break the law as long as the cops let them away with it, like speeding drivers who get a pass instead of a ticket.

                  Now, even if your interpretation is correct, any firearm owner since at least before 1990 has not been properly vetted as a fit person to own a firearm, bolt action .22 up. Obviously, all firearm licenses should be revoked until everone is properly assessed. Would this make you happy?

                  • Incognito

                    Obviously, all firearm licenses should be revoked until everone is properly assessed. Would this make you trigger happy?

                    FIFY

        • KJT 7.1.1.2

          Almost all the guns in "the wrong hands" in New Zealand were obtained from "law abiding licenced owners" which was helped by our ridiculous lack of control over the number and ownership of dangerous weapons. We register cars, why not guns?

          Any one who gets angry about being deprived of his penis substitute, sorry, Semi automatic rifle, is obviously not a suitable person to carry a deadly weapon.

  7. woodart 8

    golden opportunity here "NATIONAL SOFT ON CRIME" headline for the next six months…

    • Graeme 8.1

      Yeah, National support Australia's right to deport those who fail a character test under sec. 501, yet don't want a character test in domestic firearm legislation.

      Dog. Car. Bark.

      • McFlock 8.1.1

        Now that's a juxtaposition right there…

        • Graeme 8.1.1.1

          Blue patches?

          Had dragons in 2014, and turbans in 2017, what's this years funding source….

      • Nickoli 8.1.2

        …idiotic statement right there – do you know what the existing 1983 Act states?

        • mickysavage 8.1.2.1

          I do and I can’t see anything wrong with Graeme’s comment except it might be more accurate to day that National wants a really restricted character test in new bill.

          • Nickoli 8.1.2.1.1

            You're missing that there is a strong character test in the existing 1983 Act – one where (if followed correctly) multiple referees are interviewed, (related and non-related), motivation for attaining a license is checked, security is physically examined (before the granting of a license), history of mental health etc is questioned – and this is just for an A-Cat license….the requirements are more stringent for B, C, D (and E before the current crop of politicians disbanded it)….Now tell me you're familiar with the 1983 Act again?

            • mickysavage 8.1.2.1.1.1

              You mean like when I said “… the section says “may” and “fit and proper person” is not defined in the Act. It is something the police may take into account when assessing someone’s suitability for a gun licence and presumably do already. The Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Bill makes it clear that the provision is partial codification of the current fit and proper person requirement.”

              I take it you did read the post?

    • Nickoli 8.2

      ….yet here we have the Police sitting down with gangs for a "cup of tea and a korero" – despite shooting up Taradale, Wairoa, South Auckland – the list goes on…. and our current government's ACTUAL soft on crime approach….

      • Cinny 8.2.1

        501's are the real issue when it comes gangs, we all know that.

        Our PM clearly made that known to scotty from marketing last week.

  8. Observer Tokoroa 9

    Cease and be Proud

    Winstone is doing his usual big suck up job again. He wants to be friendly with the other loaded gun nutter – namely Simon Bridges. National Voters will hate it.

    No normal person wants lethal Arms in the hands of anybody other than a small list of Military Personel and the Police.

    Certainly no member of Parliament should be allowed to have or to hold any fire Arm. Nor should they advocate lethal Arms.

    But, it is just another Maori effort of throwing a huge spanner in the works. Both Winstone and Simon are showing up their true colours. National voters will be livid.

    Let's get rid of Killer Pakeha – and Killer Maori. No Arms. Come to your Senses !

    Do it now.

    Bjh

  9. UncookedSelachimorpha 10

    Any evidence of extremist views should be a big red flag on any applicant.

    The one proposal I don't like is to require licence renewal more often than every ten years. This will add a lot of cost and resource (which means less resource might be available for assessing each application, if there are more of them due to short licence terms).

    It would be easy to assess whether licence term is a real issue worthy of using up resources – simply compare offences by licenced holders in the first 5 years of a licence term, against the last 5 years of a licence term. If the latter is higher, then that would support reducing the term length – otherwise just leave it alone.

    • lprent 10.1

      The one proposal I don't like is to require licence renewal more often than every ten years. This will add a lot of cost and resource (which means less resource might be available for assessing each application, if there are more of them due to short licence terms).

      So put the price of getting a license up to cover the cost. Effectively what you are saying is that gun-owners are currently not paying for the service of getting a license.

      User-pays should apply in this situation. I can't see any particular reason why everyone else should subsidise gun-owners.

      Use any funds to get more resources for the licensing process.

      FFS I’d like to see a WOF on weapons. About a quarter of all rifles I have seen in private hands could do with a service. And anyone who can’t take care of their weapons shouldn’t have them. They should be put in front of an armourer at least every few years.

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 10.1.1

        " So put the price of getting a license up to cover the cost. Effectively what you are saying is that gun-owners are currently not paying for the service of getting a license. "

        No, I am saying the licence term might not need reducing – there is a renewal frequency that becomes unnecessary and burdensome – for example, how about renewal (re-vetting, interviews etc) weekly?

        User Pays? It sounds appealing but it primarily acts to transfer wealth from the majority to the wealthy (by shifting the cost of services from a progressive tax system, to flat payments applied to anyone wanting to use a service).

        Like many things, responsible firearm ownership is a public good (which some will find an unpalatable concept!), with potential for public harm if not managed / controlled properly.

  10. Observer Tokoroa 11

    Question:

    Do we need to regard a person who has a Lethal Gun, as a Citizen. ?

    Should they lose all the rights of a New Zealander. For instance: No Superannuation. No Health Treatment. No Home. No rented home. ? No Banking facility.

    Removing gangs and, Lethal gun owners, will go a long way to get rid of persons who have no intention of fulfilling the rights of a New Zealander.

    Or do we continue to be bullied by Winston Peters and Simon Bridges!

    Thereby accepting control from the gangs and shooters

    • Nickoli 11.1

      ….You should re-read that statement…. there are plenty of law abiding licensed firearms users… you probably don't hear about them because they don't make the news…. Your neighbour could be one…your doctor…your kids teachers at school….

      Drop the paranoia, get out of your echo chamber and actually question the media – their sensationalist and often incorrect statements have coddled your ability to think freely….

  11. Nickoli 12

    …and yet, if the Police had carried out their role and vetted [Deleted] properly (and followed up on concerns raised about both David Gray…and [Deleted] – notice the trend here….); things may have been very different. The Police failed here, and if we were to wait until the outcome of the Royal Commission (un-curtailed by political interference), we would be able to identify an effective way to address any problem – of which there are few if the 1983 Act was administered properly (GCNZ will not admit this, nor debate those who will de-bunk their "statistics" and outright lies). Remember: the politics and political theatre occurred in the "Buy-Back" (read confiscation), constraint on submission time-frames, and the complete disregard for property rights. If the "Buy-Back" was successful, there should be no hurry now – we are all safe, remember? Alas, the second routing of the law-abiding targets exactly them. Nash the slimy weasel is looking to extend the political theatre – and ignore those who are more vetted and qualified on the issue than he is. Don't get angry Stuart – it's unbecoming of a minister.

    • mickysavage 12.1

      Do you mean that allowing semi automatic weapons to be readily available will decrease the risk of mass killings? THat's nuts.

      • Nickoli 12.1.1

        No, Police properly completing their legislated role will decrease the risk of ALL killings – not just your sensationalist "mass-killings."

        Would Aramoana and Christchurch have happened if Police had fulfilled their role properly? It's a hypothetical, I know, but it's the same argument as your proposing – enjoy your strawman…

        • mickysavage 12.1.1.1

          Quick question, do you consider the situation in the US in relation to guns is:

          (a) Good
          (b) Bad?

          • Nickoli 12.1.1.1.1

            …None of our business – very different jurisdiction, and not one we would ever emulate. Prior to the Police failings of last year; we had legislation that was world class in terms of balancing legitimate use with personal freedom to pursue legitimate, lawful activity.

            I'll leave you with your GCNZ utopian ideals – this is like arguing with a vegan whose thought processes are addled by a false sense of superiority….

            • mickysavage 12.1.1.1.1.1

              Last year showed us that our legislation needed a major rethink. And ignoring the US experience is bizarre. Gun nuts keep talking about the “right”to bear arms. The US shows how bad the consequences of such an approach can get.

              • Nickoli

                "Gun-Nuts" in New Zealand? Please – COLFO, NZDA, GAC etc represent everyday hunters & shooters – none of whom are "second amendment-right-to-bear-arms-Rambo-types" – stop conflating US "gun-culture" with the legitimate and lawful pastimes of thousands of kiwis – who are not responsible for a Police failure….

                • mickysavage

                  Hunting and shooting will still be allowed. More dangerous sorts will run the risk of losing their licence or not being granted one. Gun clubs will have to be more organised. Farmers will not be allowed weapons of mass destruction. We will know how many guns there are and who has them. What is so extreme about this?

                  I see you posted Seymour’s list which is never a good start.

                  I am more than happy that doctors should be required to provide info on clients. I prefer that gun extremists don’t have guns.

                  BTW I did read COLFO’s submission. It was like your comments, full of rhetoric but lacking in hard analysis.

                  • Raymond

                    Iv got a question, so let’s say a gun register is brought in and firearms owners have all correctly registered there guns , scumbag crim turns up steals the guns I’m guessing the first thing the scumbag will do is file the serial numbers off the gun , so what use is gun registration then if the guns doesn’t have any numbers?

                    • Macro

                      Your saying every gun in NZ will be stolen!?

                      You do understand that every gun in private hands is required to be stored in a secured gun safe.

                  • Nick

                    With respect Micky, is this not the pot calling the kettle black? Your article is laden with rhetoric, you used the term "gun nut" for crying out loud. Hardly a term you will see in an analytic or statistical report

                    It is your oppinion and you are entitled to it but I don't see much in the way of hard analysis. You brush on analysis when referring to nationals proposed ammendments(which I admittedly also find so what bizzare), but then resort to posting other (some less than credible) opinions as reference material.

                • KJT

                  Funny how many of the legitimate hunters, are fine with the new laws.

                  Maybe they don't like wannabee rambos blazing away with repeaters in the bush, either. Or "law abiding gun owners" selling their old weapons to gangsters on trade me.

                  And, if gun owner organisations don’t want to be conflated with the US, NRA, stop echoing their “thoughts and prayers” bullshit.

                • McFlock

                  They just send NRA material to NZ MPs, have meetings with the NRA, and get letters of condolence from the NRA when a law-abiding responsible fit and proper gun owner shoots a hundred people in one afternoon.

  12. Poission 13

    It takes a lot of chutzpah to convert this issue into a tough on gangs issue. The Christchurch shooter was not a patched gang member and would not have been caught by this approach.

    Umm that is the party line (gang crime)

    • Nickoli 13.1

      Nash: nothing but flappy lips and headlines – no substance, no accountability, and a wilful ignorance of facts while misusing statistics.

  13. Nickoli 14

    "All in all I am afraid I have no sympathy for the arguments of the gun nuts. "

    The writer had no credibility before making this statement as they sought to use biased examples and obviously had no intention of presenting a balanced article. Then to use derogatory insults and to overlook the real reasons for the frustration with the second tranche shows the writer to be ignorant at best, spreading "hate-speech" at worst – there may be a "gun-nut" living next door to you right now – you probably wouldn't know because they are law abiding and minding their own business….I suggest you do the same unless you want to call for the Police to their jobs properly….

  14. Observer Tokoroa 15

    Impossible Gun Guys

    The Gun Owners must have made a lot of Money by handing their illegal Arms over to the Police.

    But the former owners and gun nutters – are still crying like babies . Why

    Bjh

    • Nickoli 15.1

      A troll by definition, usually has to be smart enough to play devils advocate and promote arguments that challenge the counter-argument….

      Alas, you can't back up your claims with statistics, ignore actual facts, and resort to name calling.

      I wish you well in your ignorance.

      [I am still waiting for you to list the aspects of the law change that are wrong. Can you hold off with the abuse? Otherwise your privilege will be revoked – MS]

      • Nickoli 15.1.1

        …Refer to COLFO's objections. Your approach in your article shows a wilful disregard for the submissions of ~4,000 or so submitters opposed to the current bill….Surely you've read & understood these concerns before ignoring them completely in such a biased article masquerading as "journalism?"

        • McFlock 15.1.1.1

          COLFO's objections?

          Where did you list those? Do you mean ACT's objections that you quoted above, or some other list of objections that you haven't bothered linking to?

          Was Seymour just parroting the gun lobby group's pr verbatim?

        • KJT 15.1.1.2

          4000, out of 250 thousand! licenced gun owners in New Zealand.

          Not really representative.

          Just like Seymour whose supporters, without National's gerrymander, would fit in a phone booth.

      • Bazza64 15.1.2

        Nickoli

        While I support gun owners rights it seems to me the ownership of semi-automatic weapons should only be the military & maybe the police ? Or is there a legitimate reason for an individual to own a semi-auto gun ? I can't think of one, but you might know ?

        Guns can do a lot of damage but a semi auto really raises the risk level if some nutter goes gun feral.

  15. A e 16

    This is a spectacularly unobjective and uneducated point of view on the subject matter. I find it amusing how people on the far side (either side) of the fence quickly lose sight if logic and understanding of the subject and then proceed to spew uneducated waffle as though they have some kind of authority on the subject.

    Congratulations on embarrassing yourself.

    [We have had a few comments like this. How about you detail your concerns in a rational manner? – MS]

    • In Vino 16.1

      "spew uneducated waffle"? A e – Please reread your second sentence, and don't submit it to a Level One NCEA test, because it meets your own definition.

      And I wonder why Nickoli said some insults were 'derogatory' … I have never seen or heard an insult that wasn't.

      If language is the mind's instrument of thought, you guys really need to tool up.

  16. adam 17

    What gives me the absolute shits about this, myself and others have been lobbying ever since the Aramoana massacre to elimite automatic weapons.

    30 years and one more horrific massacre later, these fucktard Tory politicians are playing games with people lives to score points.

    If you can't hunt with a single shot rifle, learn how to shoot better.

    If you want to use assault rifles, join the territorials.

    If you want the right to bear arms, move to the USA.

    • KJT 17.1

      Our predictions when gun registration, was abandoned, has happened, and the gun nuts still oppose registration and restrictions on firearms. WTF.

    • Raymond 17.2

      Did David Grey have an automatic weapon?

      • lprent 17.2.1

        Semi-automatic weapons – which is what the previous legislation largely outlawed. The registration of firearms is primarily designed for preventing nutters accumulating weapon caches. For instance just a quick perusal of David Grey’s arsenal in wikipedia

        The massacre began on 13 November at 7:30 p.m. when Gray confronted neighbour Garry Holden about one of Holden's dogs wandering onto his property. After the confrontation, Gray went into his house, retrieved a Norinco 84S semi-automatic rifle, walked outside and shot Holden multiple times in his chest, before walking over to him and shooting him fatally through the head.[citation needed]

        Nearby were three young girls: Holden's two daughters, Chiquita and Jasmine, and his girlfriend Julie Ann Bryson's adopted daughter, Rewa. The girls ran into Holden's house to hide as Gray walked onto Holden's property. He quickly found Chiquita and shot her in the chest and arm with a Squires and Bingham Model 16 .22-calibre semi-automatic sporting rifle, the bullet lodging in her abdomen.[7] Shortly after shooting her, Gray found the other two girls and killed them.

        and

        Inside the crib police found a .22-calibre Winchester Model 750 rifle fitted with a suppressor, a Norinco SKS semi-automatic rifle, a .22-calibre Squires and Bingham Model 16, an air rifle, hundreds of rounds of .22 ammunition, and approximately 100 rounds of .223 ammunition. Gray was carrying a .22-calibre Remington Nylon 66 as well as the .223 Norinco 84s when he was shot.[4]

        I think that it is kind of hard to argue that these were weapons that should have been in his hands. All placed there by ‘law abiding gun owners and gunshops’. A group of people who clearly need to be monitored because they are manifestly irresponsible based on past experience.

        • Raymond 17.2.1.1

          ”manifestly irresponsible based on past experience”

          oh really, I’m sure you have the official stats to back that up ?

          we both know you do not because the fact of the matter is licensed firearms owners do not commit crime , far more people killed by cars , how will a gun register stop criminals from getting guns ?

          what use is a register when criminals grind the numbers off ?

          your all talking about the wrong issues , for example some of the 501 deportees some how obtained a firearms licence !!! Where’s the information sharing , why did the police issue them a firearms licence ? One of these pricks sold his crim mates 70 odd guns & if you think a register will ever stop that you are delusional .

  17. KJT 18

    Puzzled why you even need guns for "combat" style shooting. Paintball, is more fun.

    Unless you have Rambo fantasies, I suppose?

    • McFlock 18.1

      I guess I'm sort of an anti-gun gun nut.

      The runny-shooty stuff is about balancing physical exertion with precision action at ranges paintballs don't have. Yes, it's modelled on training for killing people, even the winter olympic biathlon, but so are many athletic sports. But then of course it would attract more than its fair share of rambo-wannabes: guns are also power-totems.

      Paintball is more mano-y-mano, but less precision (especially after a few paintballs have been launched).

      But I also really find the 4d engineering of different guns to be really interesting, and how they've evolved over the last few hundred years especially. Even the detours – the brass-cartridge breechloading shotgun that Napoleon passed on, or the large-calibre air rifle that was in service at the same time as the Brown Bess musket.

      The difference between me and the one's bitching that their toys are being taken away is that I recognise the reason we can't have nice things: some people are massive dicks, and if they can't be stopped from doing harm then everyone loses their toys (even the ones who just want to figure out how a rolling block delay actually works in practise). It's why we don't have fire crackers, skyrockets, cars without lights or brakes, or pseudoephedrine.

  18. Tiger Mountain 19

    Nicole McKee is secretary of COLFO and has made various media statements over the past few months. She makes out the organisation is grass roots- looks more like AstroTurf.

    Six months ago COLFO www site had-through two international sport shooting associations-direct links to the NRA in US. This connection seems to have been removed on the current iteration of the site. I mention this because it is a common tactic of the gun lobby who often have a vested interest with gun retailers and manufacturers.

    • McFlock 19.1

      If I were a cynic, I would say the NRA might quietly offer advice and resources (even financing) to gun groups in western countries in order to hold off their own domestic firearms regulations, on the basis that a whole bunch of folks have said that if NZ can ban semi-autos after a massacre then the USA can introduce further restrictions. And this would hurt the gun industry.

  19. Nick 20

    You write about the politics of gun control. This is of course, a valid and interesting line of enquiry.

    Where you will find many commenting have an issue is with your often belittling and apparently biased viewpoint. The article as written proposes that all objections to the bill as written are politicking and takes the default position that the laws are written only with safety in mind and with no political bent or bias.

    By definition, setting an arbitrary date(in this case the anniversary of the shooting) to force a law through is politicking. How can you honestly claim otherwise?

    Your default position of all regulation is good regulation when it comes to gun control is both impractical and nieve. It fails for one to demonstrate how these things make nz safer (the whole purpose of the law) and also fails to consider the nuances of the laws and how they will alter behaviours in practical application.

    For example you say; "And I am struggling to understand what the problem for sport shooters is. If it is more red tape for the sort of club that the Christchurch shooter belonged to then let there be more red tape."

    You fail to understand that a. We allready have a comprehensive safety regime for our ranges, hence why we have a spectacular safety record across the board.

    And b. That extra compliance and expense will result in many of the smaller ranges being closed. That is the closure of safe and controlled places to shoot. This will undoubtably see an increase in adhoc and public land use which will achieve the exact opposite intent of the law.

    So you see while from the outside, better regulation of clubs seems a good idea, but if you look a little deeper you will see that implimenting the law will have the inverse effect. Depending on how the law is interperated I will likely lose access to my local range as I can not attend weekend shoots due to work. There is no Range officer during the week and hence I will not be able to shoot.

    So ask yourself, what purpose does all this "red tape" have? Does it make nz safer? Or does it just make it harder for ranges to provide a safe space for legitimate firearms use?

    The vast majority of people partaking in various sports in New zealand will never represent at an Olympic level, this is not an argument with any weight. The facts are that we have an extremely rigorous, safe and reliable framework in which to allow practical sports shooters to compete while still severely restricting public access to the firearms involved. Read up on our current b cat rules if you would like to further understand the realities of this process. There is room for reasonable compromise that both enhances public safety and allows the sport to continue.

    Further to this, having attended several practical shoots, I can tell you Phillip Alpers description of the competition is fallacious at best and outright dishonest at worst. I suggest should you want to post about how these competitions are undertaken and scored in nz then you may want to speak to someone who actually competes and/or read the rules. They are a friendly and welcoming bunch, they will happily inform you of the reality of the sport. As for the insinuation that shooting a target while moving is somehow more nefarious than shooting a target while standing still, well I just don't buy it.

    My own motivation for participating in these events is to keep my marksmanship sharp to ensure I can make good quick and clean killls while hunting. This is best done in an active environment.

    There are many more examples of this sort of biased reasoning in your article but in the I terest of brevity I will stop here.

    You are well within your right to argue that you believe more firearms control is a good thing. I do however encourage you to seek out more information and present your argument with a better understanding of the culture and application of the firearms here in New Zealand. Conflating us with the American gun culture (somthing Philip alpers seems so keen to do) is sensationalist at best and only hinders reasonable discourse.

    Oh and if you really want to encourage reasonable discourse then I suggest you begin by not belittling anyone with an alternate view to yours by branding them a "gun nut."

    • Cinny 20.1

      Depending on how the law is interperated I will likely lose access to my local range as I can not attend weekend shoots due to work. There is no Range officer during the week and hence I will not be able to shoot.

      Why don't you become a range officer?

      Is the range run by a committee, is it a club? You could join the committee and raise the issue of changing the rifle range hours to suit non weekend shooters at a meeting. Or ask a committee member to do it for you.

      A club usually pays for members to undergo training in order to carry out their duties, like a range officer.

      Most clubs are run by volunteers who give freely of their time to help out. Get involved with your local club. Be proactive about what may have to change to abide with the proposed amendments.

      • In Vino 20.1.1

        I understand what you are saying, Nick. But I think you just have to live with it. I had a parallel situation. I was a small racing boat sailor. On our lake we made people wear buoyancy aids only on windy days where there was risk of violent contact with boom, or capsizing and losing contact with boat. It worked – our club never had a drowning.

        But the national authority got all paternal, and, because someone drowned on a big expanse of sea somewhere, brought in the rule that we all had to wear a buoyancy aid at all times. Stupid on our lake, and an uncomfortable encumbrance in light winds.

        I obediently complied, but one day I went out, raced, capsized, and was pleasantly surprised when I swam and caught up with my boat twice as fast as usual, got up on the centreboard faster than usual, righted the boat and was rapidly back in action. I felt good about it until after the race, when I recognised my buoyancy aid draped over the back of a chair. I had forgotten to put it on, and should have been disqualified… But because people had drowned in rough, open waters, we had to live under those silly rules, and still do.

        I think you are caught in a similar situation. Because some idiotic boofhead killed a whole lot of innocents in Christchurch, and partly because of publicity of the USA's gun problem, public opinion has irrevocably turned, and you normal gun-owners are going to have to tolerate greater red tape and bothersome procedure just to keep doing your thing…

        • KJT 20.1.1.1

          I've been sailing small boats all my life. I cannot imagine a circumstance where you wouldn't wear a lifejacket, unless you can get out and walk.

          The "silly rule" probably saved the next person on your lake when they capsized and the boat hit them on the way over.

          Similarly strict gun registration, in Japan, means gun killings are very rare.

          One workplace accident and we ban or change the cause. 50 people killed with a gun, and we are supposed to do, nothing?

          We abandoned strict controls and effective registration, decades ago. After gun lobby influence and a police force that didn't take it seriously.. Gun crime has been increasing ever since.

          • Nick 20.1.1.1.1

            This is a rediculius over simplified argument. Firearms crime in this country follows violent crime rates. The changes in legislation and management show little to no effect on these rates. The ratios remain fairly constant. The very reason registration was dropped was because it WASN'T effective, and it was full of errors. To claim otherwise is just false.

            Similarly firearms crime in Japan follows their overall homicide rate which at .28 per 100k remains one of the lowest in the world. To corralate this with "strict gun registration" is erroneous. They have low numbers of firearms per capita and have low violence rates. Hence have low firearms violence rates. However next on the list is Iceland with roughly one gun for every three people, and still they have low violence rates and almost non existant firearms homicides. Again, despite the high percentage of firearms the homicide/violence rates lead the firearms violence rates.

            Now, what do we know for certain correlates with low violence and crime rates? Education, quality of life and employment/prosperity.

            Clearly effective regulation plays a part, but evidence shows it is no where near as cut and dry as you make it out to be

            • RedLogix 20.1.1.1.1.1

              Well stated argument Nick.

              The confounding aspect of this argument is that it has little to do with conventional left/right wing economic politics. The proper domain to be thinking about this is along the libertarian/authoritarian axis.

              As a wild arsed guess I'd imagine that gun owners tend toward the libertarian side of this argument, while most gun control advocates fall onto the other side. Personally I'm conflicted; I can see the need to reasonable limits on gun ownership, and at the same time I'm increasingly aware of a conflation of gun ownership and 'white supremacy nutters' etc that is neither healthy nor helpful and is generating a dangerous politicisation and blowback that will not take us anywhere good.

              • KJT

                Not wanting people to get killed is "authoritarian" now?

                I would have thought the opposite.

                Mind you "Libertarians" seem rather OK with child labour, killing trade unionists,, and bombing people.

                I suppose preventing them from doing that, interferes with their, "freedoms".

                • RedLogix

                  Mind you "Libertarians" seem rather OK with child labour, killing trade unionists,, and bombing people.

                  Again the same kind of absurd demonisation that is utterly unhelpful. The vast majority of people of a libertarian inclination (and it exists very much on a spectrum, there are no binary false dichotomies here) believe in no such thing.

                  And it's precisely the same as when you declared that all ACT party members, or anyone with an interest in the alt-right should be denied gun licences.

                  Just to be clear, whenever I do the political compass test thing, I've always scored strongly left wing economically, but very middle of the road on the libertarian/authoritarian axis. When you label me 'reborn right winger' you're completely off base.

            • KJT 20.1.1.1.1.2

              Iceland. Has gun registration and strict controls.

              https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iceland-gun-loving-country-no-shooting-murders-2007-n872726
              “Icelanders believe the rigorous gun laws on this small, remote volcanic rock can offer lessons to the United States”.
              Because registration wasn’t done properly is not an argument against it. It is an argument for it to be done properly.

              I agree with you about education and quality of life. However the same people who argue against gun control, tend to be the ones who argue against the state redistribution required.

              • RedLogix

                Read the whole article. It describes how Iceland invests heavily in a proactive education regime that puts a real value on gun ownership; it protects and promotes a positive, disciplined culture that clearly works.

                They may well strictly regulate a high threshold to ownership, but they don't demonise them as 'nutters, rambos and white supremacist mass murders'.

                • KJT

                  You're funny. I clearly distinguish between RFA style gun nuts, Rambo’s and wannabees are a good description, and the silent majority of licenced gun owners. Which I was one of by the way. 22 range shooting.

                  Even hunted at one stage, but found I have an aversion to killing things, though I still like archery and target shooting. When I have the opportunity. And don’t forget, paintball.

                  If you want to play with assault rifles, join the territorials.

                  I don’t think Iceland has been unfortunate enough to have a visiting Australian white supremacist.

                  • RedLogix

                    I don’t think Iceland has been unfortunate enough to have a visiting Australian white supremacist.

                    And it would seem that if they did, you would have to hope there would be competent controls in place to prevent him getting hold of an arsenal. Certainly looks so from this article.

                    But then again, maybe not. If said person was to remain silent about their intentions and not raise any obvious red flags then it's only hindsight bias that says we 'should have spotted him sooner'.

                    • KJT

                      The same "competent controls" for NZ, Labour Greens are trying to enact, that you are doing a , Pete George, against, on this thread.

                    • RedLogix

                      On the contrary, the Icelandic model looks quite different to the one Labour have introduced. They have put the emphasis on education and instilling a positive, disciplined culture. They're specifically aimed at enabling people to use guns with skill and competency.

                      The NZ rules by contrast are framed around restrictions, prohibitions and putting in place constraints on gun clubs. Yet in NZ it is the gun clubs who broadly speaking undertake a similar education role that in Iceland the state is doing.

                      As for doing a Pete George, well frankly I'll take that as a complement. Yes he annoys the crap out of the tribal lefties here, but he does attempt a conversation between the right and the left, and is one of the few voices to consistently do so. In that he has slowly earned my respect over the years.

          • In Vino 20.1.1.1.2

            In Reply to KJT back at 4.02 – I race sailing dinghies – we have never been required to wear the horribly restrictive full life jacket – only the personal buoyancy aid, which, if you are knocked unconscious, will let you float face-down. They are still a bloody nuisance in light conditions, when we have rescue boats looking after us during racing. The 12 foot skiffs managed to get NZYF (now YNZ) dispensation from wearing them at all, given the energetic movements they have to make rushing from trapeze on one side to trapeze on the other side. Racing sailboats have rescue craft on hand, and I have no recollection of any drownings from any sailboats involved in club racing.

            And yet I still grudgingly agree to wear the damned buoyancy aid. That is what I was telling Nick. I was telling him he had to grin and bear it as I do.

            You did not seem to get the point.

            • KJT 20.1.1.1.2.1

              Yes. I raced sailing dinghies, including the last wooden cherub to win a NZ championship. Not while we owned it, unfortunately. Much more bulky vests than they have now, but we still managed to move around. In a boat where you went through the bottom if you didn’t put your feet in the right place, why we didn’t win a championship. My brother put a hole in the boat 16 metres from the finish line.

              Like gun safety rules, the rule about wearing life jackets, or flotation vests, exists for good reason.

              Not all that long ago, a girl sailing a laser was concussed right in front of us. She is alive because of her lifevest. The patrol boat was several minutes getting to her. There are many other examples, on the coastguard and NZYF, files.

  20. Nick 21

    If the changes go ahead as planned I may have to. However many like me won't, and many ranges won't be able to shoulder the extra regulatory burden.

    I would much prefer that realistic and practical laws are written, rather than box ticking. If there was a history of unsafe practice and events at ranges I could see the value in changing laws. This isn't the case however, as the current rules and regulations achieve their intended goal. The law change will reduce public safety and as such is not fit for purpose.

    The reality is it is hard enough to man the occasional weekend shoot let alone allow for weekday shooting. That is why we have the system we do to allow pre qualified people to use the range at their leisure. It is a system that allows good access and has vigorous controls to ensure safety.

    As for "becoming more involved" I don't have the time nor inclination. I am already heavily involved in 2 other clubs being president of one and a teacher at another. Hence I have an acute understanding of the amount of work it takes for these types of clubs to function and how the proposed regulations will make operating to difficult for many of the smaller clubs, to the detriment of both the individual and the greater public

    [Letting this through. A perfect example of analysis lacking rhetoric – MS]

    • In Vino 21.1

      MS – Did you miss putting a hyphen between analysis and lacking? I think it would help.

      • In Vino 21.1.1

        Sorry to emphasise the point MS, but as you wrote it, it reads like it was a great example of analysis, but it had no rhetoric. Is that really what you meant?

    • In Vino 21.2

      Sympathise, Nick – same problems in my sport. We do what we can.

    • Muttonbird 21.3

      Just can't see what benefits shooting clubs have at all.

      However, if a lot of mis-directed bogans and old people want to shoot guns, so be it. But they need to demonstrate that, under their supervision, it is safe.

      The one which the Christchurch mass murderer trained at clearly showed those gun clubs need massive regulation if they are to become safe.

      Apparently they all sat round the table after a shoot-em-up and discussed what a problem Muslims were…

      …what could go wrong.

      • Nick 21.3.1

        Shooting clubs and ranges create safe environments for people to shoot practice and learn how to safely use firearms. They are an important tool in ensuring the safe and sensible use of firearms in this country.

        The gun clubs are safe, and the historical record shows this. There are allready regulations as to the safe use and operation of said ranges.

        An (alleged) isolated group of bigots will not be identified or regulated out of existence by this law. It creates Increased burden of the operators of the range. It will not stop a few bigoted members from discussing their misguided ideals. If you believe otherwise I happy to listen to listen to your reasoning. Although I must admit, your belittling tone leads me to think you won't have much of a reasoned argument.

        Remember, it was members of this range that identified and first reported this behavior, and their concerns with the shooter. Firearms owners come from all walks of life, all political spectrums all creeds, races colours and genders. We are not all "misdirected bogans and old people"

        • Muttonbird 21.3.1.1

          Shooting clubs and ranges need a good kick up the bum.

          I suspect the operators are part and parcel of the bigoted culture which exists at these clubs (not just the few isolated members as you suggest) .

          This legislation will definitely identify and regulate out of existence these bigots which I believe are a large part of the gun culture in New Zealand.

          While they might not have perpetrated the mass murder themselves, their culture was the environment from which it was allowed to go unseen.

          They need to be more watchful and less bigoted. Here's hoping these laws will ensure that happens.

          • Nick 21.3.1.1.1

            Please go ahead and post a single piece of evidence that suggests there is a prevelence of bigoted or racist culture in gun clubs or shooting ranges in nz. I'll wait.

            After you've done that, please go ahead and post which part of the proposed legislation for clubs and ranges will enable police to identify and subsequently reduce the supposed incidence of bigotry in said clubs. Do they write islamaphobe under interests on their club application form?

            None of the things you have described would have stopped the chch shooter. I know several people who had dealings with him. From all accounts I have heard he was quiet, demure, polite and altogether unremarkable. No confederate flags or fanciful conversations to be seen anywhere.

            You are welcome to come down to a range for a day's shooting and see for yourself. You will find the vast majority of people quite normal. You might even enjoy yourself.

            • Drowsy M. Kram 21.3.1.1.1.1

              Nick, the vast majority of NZ Muslims are quite normal – since you seem to know a lot about NZers who belong to gun clubs, what are your reckons as to the number of NZ citizens of the Islamic faith who belong to a gun club?

              Let's not take our eyes off the 'ball' here. It takes a ‘village’ to ‘raise’ a gun nut.

              "For more than five years, Muslim representatives knocked on every door we could, we spoke at every possible forum. We pointed to the rise of vitriol and the rise of the alt-right in New Zealand, writes Anjum Rahman of the Islamic Women’s Council of NZ"
              https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/17-03-2019/we-warned-you-we-begged-we-pleaded-and-now-we-demand-accountability/

              Disclaimer: Have never owned a gun; tried target shooting with an air rifle once – wasn’t any good (miserable accuracy) and it just didn’t do anything for me.

              • Nick

                Yes thank you. I have several Muslim friends. Not sure what the point is here? I personally don't know many of the Islamic faith who shoot at ranges and clubs, although I generally make a point as to not discuss religion. Again not sure what the point is?

                I'm quite sure that like any other cross section of society firearms owners include some bigots. None of the proposed regulation has the requirements to identify nor tackle this though,ddespite what the above commenter asserts.

            • Incognito 21.3.1.1.1.2

              Whether there’s a “prevelence of bigoted or racist culture in gun clubs or shooting ranges in nz” [sic] is a moot point and a strawman. AFAIK, the gun registration does not specifically target [no pun] gun clubs or shooting ranges per se for that particular reason. However, that’s not to say that there are no clubs where this unsavoury culture does indeed exist and they wouldn’t be the only clubs in NZ, sadly. So, instead of the ‘good’ clubs helping to clean up the ‘industry’, take responsibility, and be good citizens, they whinge and whine till the cows come home, moan about the presumed “intolerable regulatory burden on clubs” as if it is going to kill them (it won’t). The word “burden” was used four times in this context and I’ll assume they’ll vote for NACT hoping for the “bonfire of regulations”. We’re not dealing facts here but with misplaced ‘ideology’ and emotive outbursts and exclamations moonlighting as rhetoric in the hope it will persuade politicians to bend to their will & wishes. And if/when they don’t get their way, they resort to fear mongering, because only they have access to some prescience that mere mortals don’t have, and ‘civil disobedience’. People who act in these immature ways are not fit to carry and use guns of any type IMO. Just saying.

              • Nick

                A strawman?

                It's not an argument I'm making, it was the (baseless) assertion of the above poster which I replied to.

                Thanks but again, I am acutely familiar with the operating of these types of small clubs and I can unequivocally say it will cause closures and removal of access. This is a fact, like it or not.

                You can dismiss this as 'fear mongering' if you like but again no single person has actually come close to demonstrating how this particular part of the law makes nz safer than the current regulatory frame work we have. So making life harder for clubs for no increase of safety and with good chances of an inverse effect is a poorly written and constructed law worthy of criticism.

                Conversely I challenge that you support it not because it makes the community safer, but because its 'gun control' and you have an emotional attachment to the idea of 'punishing the gun nuts'. This is evident in you belittling tone.

                • Incognito

                  Of course, it was a strawman, and one which you gratefully used to suit your narrative against the whole Bill; I cannot see any red flags in the Bill.

                  … I am acutely familiar with the operating of these types of small clubs and I can unequivocally say it will cause closures and removal of access. This is a fact, like it or not.

                  It is a fact that you say it but that does not make it real. I cannot see any proposal in the Bill that justifies this hyperbole. Obviously, you believe it to be true. You have already stated, in absolute terms, that people don’t want to share the burden and thus clubs and ranges will close. Be it as it may, it is a choice people may or may not have to make. If they all think like you, you could well be correct and your ‘wish’ will come true.

                  In any case, shooting clubs and shooting ranges comprise only section of the Bill.

                  So making life harder for clubs for no increase of safety and with good chances of an inverse effect is a poorly written and constructed law worthy of criticism. [my italics]

                  You predict an ““intolerable regulatory burden on clubs”. You predict “it will cause closures and removal of access”. You predict “good chances of an inverse effect”. You predict that nothing in the Bill will lead to “increase of safety”. That’s quite a few predictions, which you seem to believe, but they are not facts. You dismiss the fear among people in our society. Fear that is real and present. And you have the gall to suggest that this Bill could make things worse!? Yes, I’d call that fear mongering. In any case, it is not constructive criticism of the Bill.

                  … but because its 'gun control' and you have an emotional attachment to the idea of 'punishing the gun nuts'. This is evident in you belittling tone.

                  Well, thank you, Dr. Phil, for your insightful analysis. I had no idea why I’d wanted to punish anybody and for what, let alone some gun nuts whom I’ve never met. But hey, if it tickles your fancy. Who do you think I am? The Nanny? The Headmistress? Please, grow up and give me some decent arguments against the Bill or some of the ‘dangerous’ aspects of it. So far, you have been off the mark by a long shot.

    • Cinny 21.4

      Putting aside the fact that guns are designed purely for killing….I'm just trying to get my head around something…

      You say you don't actually have time to shoot, except for the odd weekend.

      You say don't have time to help out at the club, even though you claim that proposed regs would 'make more work' for the club, and you have an understanding of how a committee works.

      Would you rather dismiss any new regulations, even though said regulations were to be put in place in order to prevent death and mass murder?

      Are you against the proposed changes because the membership at the gun club is declining and it's proving difficult to ensure current guidelines are being adhered to? What are these current vigorous controls already in place to ensure safety, that you speak of?

      Thanks.

      • Nick 21.4.1

        Yes, I don't get to shoot as much as I like, I work most weekends so can't attend formal shoots/competitions. The range I am a member of has facility to allow me to use it during the week within daylight hours, provided I pass muster and show a thorough understanding of safe practices during supervised shooting. It is a robust and successful system that facilitates, encourages and ensures people learn safe firearms handling practices, while having good access to a safe shooting facility.

        Again, I really do not have the time to commit to another club, as I run a club with over 100 members in a different outdoor pursuit as well as run and teach 3 nights a week at a martial arts school. I am stretched thin allready. My club/range is well established with a good committee and solid membership, so while my access may be restricted the club itself will continue. Many other smaller clubs and ranges however will not be so lucky.

        I do not dismiss regulations imposed that will have an evidenced and demonstrable impact on public safety. There are many provisions in this bill I support. However the range regulations are but one example where the mechanics simply will not make us any safer, in fact due to the closure of ranges my belief is it decreases public safety. If you see parts of the range certification laws that will help keep people safe then feel free to point them out. I'm afraid I don't see it. It is safer for people to shoot on an established range than in an adhoc evironment or on public land.

        I do get frustrated when pointing this out I get called a gun nut, or bogan or other such belittling term. Also because it is a controversial and emotive subject people are so quick to wholesale adopt/promote and accept measures proposed without allowance for discourse or review. Polititions get legislation wrong all the time, are you so sure that everything in this vast and sweeping bill will achieve the desired outcome?

        To operate a range, you must belong to a regulatory body, for example pistol new zealand. The RB has a set of standing rules which you must adhere to in order to maintain your certification. The range must also be inspected and police certified as well as adhere to any local body rules and requirments. As it stands it is a good balance of practical and robust regulation without over burdening costs and red tape. This is evidenced by the excellent safety records observed on the ranges. A record on average far better than that of police and military ranges.

        I understand not everyone has the time to read and review laws like this in its entirety. I wouldn't have if I didn't have a vested interest. It's not all rhetoric and gun toting temper tantrums. There are real and demonstrable concerns. Concerns that become marginalised and whitewashed with partisan political oppinion pieces like the artical above.

        • Cinny 21.4.1.1

          Thanks for your response Nick.

          I did a little reading last night to try and get up to speed, was surprised to find that once a range is certified it doesn't need re-inspecting for five years. IMO that's a mighty long time between inspections.

          Guns are designed for one thing, to kill. The proposed changes are to help prevent mass murder and death.

          Why are some people so oppossed to the changes? Judging from the comments, most people are thinking only of themselves.

          I find that really sad. It's a real shame that some can't see past their own desire to shoot a weapon and look at the bigger picture.

          It is an emotive topic, but, I’ve had a gun held to my head by a licensed firearm holder. No way on earth I’d want that happening to someone else.

          I’m hopeful that people will start thinking of others rather than themselves.

  21. weston 22

    I cant see the point of labeling people across the board as gun nuts either since its just a put down and theres nothing constructive in it .I think we should take the time to find and make good decisions based on consensus .Theres enough division in society already without adding to it .For myself i just wanna be able to go out an get a bunny or a possum from time to time without it costing me a fortune or being beset with a whole lot of extra rules and regulations . The big baddie in the room is gone the large caliber semi auto is no longer present so personally i cant see what all the drama is about .To me a gun is just a tool for getting food or the occasional unfortunate instance of putting an animal out of its misery but i dont have to hate on those that are passionate about them . Theres even a category of collectible firearms that have never been fired and never will be which increases their value !I recognize my firearms license is a privilege im pretty sure most other gun owners do also

  22. Sasquatch 23

    The truth is, had the terrorist [Deleted] used a bomb (instead of guns) like he mentioned in his [Deleted], none of you would be discussing this right now.

    None of you would be asking for more bomb "control" — I wonder why??

    None of you would be infringing on other people's rights and blaming them for the atrocity.

    Including you MickySavage

    And I bet, none of you would have much to say about it at all really.

    How weird is that.

    • Muttonbird 23.1

      I'm guessing it's because you can't buy bombs over the counter like the Aussie mass murderer did with his weapons of mass destruction.

      • Nick 23.1.1

        With the correct licencing you can in fact buy explosives over the counter, just like firearms.

        • Muttonbird 23.1.1.1

          Is this licensing as easy to get as a gun licence?

          • McFlock 23.1.1.1.1

            Doesn't seem to be. To possess explosives beyond small amounts of gunpowder/smokeless powder you need to "require possession of the substance to carry out your work". For firearms you just need to attend the safety course and some fiddly stuff, you don't have to demonstrate a need. The fit&proper test seems similar, though.

          • Nick 23.1.1.1.2

            Irrelevant. You claimed you can't buy explosives over the counter. I illustrated you can. Notice how there isn't a rampant problem as we have robust regulatory controls?

            Much like how allowing a few sports shooters to possess semi automatics with a robust regulatory framework(say like the current b cat rules which still allow semi auto short arms) poses no noticeable increase in danger to the public but still allows people to continue their chosen sport.

            • solkta 23.1.1.1.2.1

              It seems to me truly idiotic to allow people to own guns merely to play games with them. The more guns there are in circulation the greater the risks.

  23. pete 24

    The proposal to take registration off the police is based on the fact that they cannot run the current registration system that we do have

    I know because I am on it as a collector and pistol shooter

    They consistently get the details wrong every year (Checked 6-monthly) and have sent me two licenses

    We used to have universal registration but abandoned it as it became innaccurate and unworkable

    I cannot see it working in the future – whether anyone here approves or disapproves roughly 75% of semis have not been handed over

    As for this issue being fostered by the NRA in my experience that is incorrect – the opposition to the police agenda and confiscation events has been all homegrown

    There never used to be much of a gun lobby in NZ but there is certainly one now

    Also more fracturing of the rural/city divide IMO

    I am implacably opposed to this legislation and although I have voted Labour in the past I never will again

    • RedLogix 24.1

      I'm pretty conflicted on this whole story. I've never owned a gun in my life, and mostly I've tended toward the anti-gun side of the lobby because the US experience is just so horrendous.

      Yet a very old friend and my son-in-law are both active gun owners and listening to them I'm hearing pretty much the same story you are giving. The perception is that one terrible event is being exploited to push a broader agenda with no justification. And this has created a lot of pushback; both of them have become politicised over this in a way I’ve never seen before.

      Many legal and perfectly law abiding gun owners feel both demonised and intimidated over what is going on. They deeply resent the implication that if they stand up for what they believe are legitimate concerns around gun ownership, they expose themselves to the accusation that somehow they're associating themselves with ChCh and must be potential white supremacist terrorists.

      My friend points out that the Police have a terrible record around security of their databases … and that it would only take one bad leak for every serious crim in the country to have a copy of the name, details and contents of every gun safe in the country.

      I'm now of the view now that sometimes it's better to let sleeping dogs lie, that Labour's ill-advised reaction to ChCh has set in motion wider events that they do not understand nor can control.

      • KJT 24.1.1

        A few assumptions there, Redlogix.

        I live and work amongst the sort of people who use guns, for hunting, as farm tools and for target shooting.

        I enjoy target shooting myself.

        The general view I've heard, is more restrictions on guns are inevitable and necessary.

        Hunters are not keen on having a bunch of idiots with buck fever, and a repeater around them, either.

        Some, like Nick, above, have issues with some of the detail, but not the general idea of registration and restriction. Hopefully that is worked out in select committee.

        Then of course there are, wannabee Rambo's who can be justly described as gun, nuts. We have an example above, in Nicoli.

        Personally I have an issue with the idea that Doctors should be reporting on peoples mental health, to the police. Perpetuating the convenient fiction, that mass killers are mentally ill, and not just, arseholes.

        I can see that as being a real problem within a small community, given current attitudes. It is hard enough now to get mentally ill men to ask for help. For a start the mentally ill are no more of a risk to the public than anyone else. Sadly, some my be more risk to themselves.

        Compulsory reporting of being an entitled racist, misogynistic right wing arsehole would be more effective. Being an ACT member, should disqualify you for a licence, for example😁

        The opposition to registration, and restrictions on semi auto's etc, seems mostly from a vocal minority. As I said, there are many more licenced gun owners, than the ones in associations related to the NRA, like COLPA.

        • RedLogix 24.1.1.1

          Compulsory reporting of being an entitled racist, misogynistic right wing arsehole would be more effective.

          This is precisely the kind of solution that is orders of magnitude worse than the problem it's pretending to cure. It's an authoritarian wet dream.

          The opposition to registration, and restrictions on semi auto's etc, seems mostly from a vocal minority.

          With people like you out there threatening to take their licenses away for merely speaking up … well who can blame the majority for keeping silent.

          • KJT 24.1.1.1.1

            Who is threatening to take their licences away for speaking up?

            My point is there seems to be a great many licenced gun owners, including most of the ones I talk to, who are happy for there to be more restrictive rules on gun ownership. It has little effect on truely "responsible" gun owners.

            Just like good landlords aren't bothered, by laws saying that they cannot be arseholes.

            Same as an employer and now a manager, I have no problem at all with laws requiring both to act fairly and responsibly. They don't affect me, because I already ensure I do that.

            You are OK, for someone who has been mentally ill, to lose their rights, but not someone like the Christchurch shooter?

            • RedLogix 24.1.1.1.1.1

              Who is threatening to take their licences away for speaking up?

              You are. The mere fact of being a member of a political party or even just being white and male is now reason to remove their license according to what you write above.

              Compulsory reporting of being an entitled racist, misogynistic right wing arsehole would be more effective. Being an ACT member, should disqualify you for a licence, for example

              The little smiley at the end really didn't conceal your intent.

              • KJT

                Bit of a stretch there Redlogix.

                Does being a Bliarite take away your reading comprehension skills?

                • RedLogix

                  According to the authoritarian left the all white people are racist and all males are misogynist (at least when they say things you don't agree with). This plus your crystal clear statement that all ACT members should have their gun license removed puts you firmly into the authoritarian camp.

                  So no I didn't have to stretch much. Just joined the rather obvious dots you laid down.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram

                    By that 'logic', many of the "authoritarian left" must be regularly outing themselves as racists and/or misogynists, unless the "authoritarian left" consist solely of women of colour (quelle horreur!), and even women of colour might not be ‘safe‘.

                    Might the proposed gun control regulations be aspirational, a bit like the anti-smacking legislation? Many people were disheartened, horrified and/or downright stroppy at the prospect that they might not be able to legally beat (their own) children, but the world didn't end. Similarly, some gun addicts are concerned about the effects of the proposed gun controls, but they will still be able to shoot – what's the real problem?

                    • RedLogix

                      By that logic, many of the authoritarian left; must be regularly outing themselves as racists and/or misogynists

                      I never said it was logical, but it certainly is the ideology in some circles here. KJT pretty much encapsulated it perfectly.

                      Similarly, some gun addicts are concerned about the effects of the proposed gun controls, but they will still be able to shoot – what's the real problem?

                      Most serious gun owners don't really mind restrictions on semi-automatics. That's not the problem.

                      The real problem is embedded in your comment above … the demonising of legit gun owners as 'nutters', 'rambo's, 'addicts', etc. The real problem is the one I see over and again, give some people a bit of moral authority in the aftermath of a tragedy and they latch onto it to push a wider agenda that has no real justification. Which invites blowback where none existed before.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      So that's the real problem – the hurt feelings of 'demonised' gun-owners. No doubt similar to the hurt feelings of those parents unable to wean themselves off a little judicious child beating, or indeed the hurt feelings of ‘demonised‘ smokers. I reckon most NZ gun owners will get past this – it would be worrying if they couldn't.

                      Worlds Apart
                      "Comparison of these countries in terms of their views on gun ownership and the roles firearms have in suicide and death highlights the reality of 2 very different gun cultures, which have determined their respective countries' responses to tragedy. The stark contrast between these cultures can affect our understanding of how to address gun violence. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern echoed this sentiment recently: “Australia experienced a massacre and changed their laws. New Zealand had its experience and changed its laws. To be honest with you, I do not understand the United States”. Indeed, the 2 countries are worlds apart."
                      https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2748277/political-response-firearm-violence-resulting-mass-casualties-new-zealand-united

                    • RedLogix

                      Yet the left seems more than willing to embrace the 'hurt feelings' of people it embraces as victims.

                      For example the clearly racist smear 'gammon' is openly tolerated here because it hurts the feelings of older white males, who are ideologically responsible for all the evils in the world.

                      But woe betide anyone who dares use (even hypothetically) a racist smear about any other group.

                      The double standard is kind of obvious.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      "Yet the left seems more than willing to embrace the 'hurt feelings' of people it embraces as victims."

                      Maybe I'm guilty of minimising the hurt feelings of NZ gun owners that feel "demonised" (feelings that I don't really understand), yet when I weigh those (perhaps misunderstood) feelings against the afternoon killing of 51 worshippers in NZ, I personally feel comfortable about supporting the proposed gun controls. End of story, for me at least.

                    • RedLogix

                      As I said above, the underlying pattern is how authoritarians exploit legitimate feelings of horror and revulsion in the aftermath of tragedy, and the moral authority this gives them, to impose broader agendas they could not otherwise achieve.

                      Like for example openly promoting the idea that any ACT party members should have their gun license removed. Even if said in ‘jest’.

                    • KJT

                      Redlogix has abandoned logix just so he can be a "smartarse".

                      Must go with being a "born again" right wing apologist.

                      He knows full well I am the last person to be an “authoritarian”.

                    • RedLogix

                      @KJT

                      Then don't say stupid authoritarian things.

                      Consider this; how would you react to this govt banning the Quran because ISIS used it to justify a vastly greater criminal horror than ChCh? Do you think law abiding Muslims might not object to this?

                    • KJT

                      I don't think people who have expressed a wish to have a head on crash, should be allowed to drive a formula one on the Southern motorway, either!

                      People who express political persuasions that advocate killing brown people en-masse, should not be allowed weapons.

                      You can call that an "authoritarian" statement also, if you want.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      "exploit legitimate feelings of horror and revulsion in the aftermath of tragedy"

                      Guessing that as well as "feelings of horror and revulsion", there was also a good deal of disbelief, anger and (later) resignation regarding the "tragedy" of 100 being gunned down in places of worship.

                      Our individual and collective responses to "tragedy" are things that define us. The responses of some gun owners to the proposed gun controls are defining them – wonder if those responses might also be contributing to the ‘demonisation‘ of the (silent) majority of gun owners. Is it too hopeful to imagine that majority thinking – "Please shut up."

                    • RedLogix

                      @KJT

                      People who express political persuasions that advocate killing brown people en-masse, should not be allowed weapons.

                      Seems reasonable, but does this apply to all ACT party members? Anyone who identifies with the alt-right? Anyone who seems a bit entitled, or a bit racist from time to time? Exactly how do you decide the boundary between a legitimate loyalty to one's ethnic group, and a propensity to mass murder?

                      And even if you did set up an authority to make such determinations, you can be assured that exactly the kind of people you don't want making these decisions will put themselves forward to make them.

                      Besides our ChCh murderer never expressed any particular hatred of Muslims as such. Indeed he had traveled extensively in Islamic countries such as Pakistan and expressed how much he enjoyed them. Not exactly a big red flag.

                    • KJT

                      If the feelings of "Horror and revulsion" brings on the gun control legislation, that the researchers who do know what they are talking about, have been advocating for years, that has to be a good thing.

                      Sorry if some of us feel “horror and revulsion” about mass murder.

                      Unfortunately the reason why it has to be "rushed" is so that an emotive and dishonest anti gun control lobby, driven by finance and support from companies that profit from selling guns, will again make it watered down and ineffective, when public attention is turned away from the issue.

                      I notice you didn’t object to an “authority” determining if mentally ill people could own rifles. Even though they are statistically much less likely to Kill other people, as a group, than White supremacists. Very “authoritarian” of you.

                    • RedLogix

                      @KJT

                      Even though they are statistically much less likely to Kill other people, as a group, than White supremacists.

                      Right off the top of my head I can think of at least six mentally ill people who have committed murder in NZ. Two of them with quite personal connections.

                      That they didn't have a framework for mass murder in mind when they committed their killing isn't very relevant. The idea that mentally ill people are very unlikely to kill strikes me as a tad optimistic, if nothing else they're likely to be more of a threat to themselves than anyone else.

                      Mental illness is a form of incapacity that is incompatible with gun ownership, for the same reason that it is also defense in law for homicide.

                    • McFlock

                      Even though they are statistically much less likely to Kill other people, as a group, than White supremacists.

                      […] The idea that mentally ill people are very unlikely to kill strikes me as a tad optimistic, if nothing else they're likely to be more of a threat to themselves than anyone else.

                      I took out the middle bits to show the slide. KJT's point was rates, not numbers.

                      How many full-on white supremacists do we have? A few hundred? A few thousand?

                      How many "mentally ill" people? Hundreds of thousands.

                      Study after study shows that people with mental health issues are more likely to be victims of violent crime than healthy people, and less likely to be perpetrators of violent crime than healthy people.

                    • RedLogix

                      @McF

                      How many full-on white supremacists do we have? A few hundred? A few thousand?

                      Before the left started conflating gun ownership with white supremacy … probably they could have held an annual convention in a telephone booth. Now I suspect they would need to hire a hall unfortunately.

                      Study after study shows that people with mental health issues are more likely to be victims of violent crime than healthy people,

                      True, but some forms of mental illness, schizophrenia in particular, are especially prone to violence of one form or another. Depression and anxiety which are by far the most commonplace illnesses are far more likely to kill themselves than anyone else.

                      However you care to slice and dice the numbers, if the mental illness is to remain an exonerating plea as a homicide defense, this ipso facto disqualifies them from gun ownership.

                    • McFlock

                      No slicing or dicing required. Just attention to what KJT actually wrote about people with mental health problems, which seems to be perfectly plausible:

                      Even though they are statistically much less likely to Kill other people, as a group, than White supremacists.

                    • RedLogix

                      Even though they are statistically much less likely to Kill other people, as a group, than White supremacists.

                      In this country n=1. This is not statistics. Even globally n is still less than a few dozen or so.

                      By contrast I can easily point to a very significant sample of of Muslim extremists who have committed mass murder and worse … all justified by reference to the Quran. Do you think we should ban it?

                    • McFlock

                      Seriously? You're pretending white supremacist murders in NZ are "N=1" (nope) and then pulling the Islamic terrorist diversion?

                      For what? To somehow argue that if WS murders aren't as big a problem as one fuckwit doubling last year's murder rate might indicate, gun owners shouldn't be inconvenienced?

                      Totally making non-gun owners feel safe around firearm owners, there…

                    • RedLogix

                      Twenty years ago I was very close to someone murdered. There was clearly an ethnic/religious dimension to it, so I cannot rule out individual cases where this motivation has been present.

                      But on the political scale we are talking about, I still maintain n=1.

                      Hopefully it will remain that way and we never get to a sample large enough to draw 'statistical' inferences from.

                    • KJT

                      https://qz.com/1182778/the-far-right-was-responsible-for-the-majority-of-extremist-killings-in-2017/

                      That is before we go into the right wing extremists supported by the US Government, elsewhere.

  24. John Chapman 25

    Micky is right the issue has been shamefully hijacked by Seymour and Bridges. Seymour quickly did the math and saw the advantage of having a percentage of the 200,000+ licensed firearms owners voting for ACT. It may well if it goes to plan unseat the Coalition and return National to government. If that happens it will be because we haven't taken the ordinary hunter and sports shooter with on the legislation and gone too far with regulation. Yes the ban on centre fire semis was necessary in the circumstances. Yes we do need a register and yes we do need to tighten up on who is a fit and proper person to own what is a lethal weapon. Do we need tighten up on gun clubs? No there is no evidence to suggest they present an issue. And before we force GP's to dob patients in let's consider the implications particularly in rural communities. Are farmers, hunters or sports shooters going to seek help for depression from their GP knowing that if they do the first thing that will happen is that the police will coming to take away their guns?

    There is a genuine urban rural divide on firearms in New Zealand You'd be hard pressed to find gun owners in Grey Lynn or the Aro Valley. Out here in the Central Plateau I know very few households where there isn't one either for hunting or pest control. In my rural fire brigade literally every member either owns a gun or their partner does. Yet I don't know anyone I would describe as a gun nut. There was an acceptance of the semi auto ban it made sense. The only person I knew who had one was a professional pest control operator – it makes no difference to them the legislation enables them to continue as before on an E Cat license. But as more and more legislation gets rolled out there is a fear stoked by the ammosexual wing of COLFO and some of the less scrupulous gun gun dealers that the end game of government is to ban all firearms and with nothing being done to counter that argument it is seen as just another assault on rural New Zealand by an urban elite. The last thing I want to do is lose the election because we've imposed legislation we didn't need to to fix a problem we didn't have.

  25. Observer Tokoroa 26

    The Threat of Auto Lethal Guns

    Various contributors to this ongoing discussion have mentioned the massive number of Guns / Gunowners in New Zealand.

    One contributor gave the figure of 250,000 licensed Gun men.

    Other contributors carry on scoffing at the Police. For they are held in contempt by the fabulous brilliance of the gun clubbers and their children. "Cops are Stupid". yeah

    To me, some of these numbers look unverified. Some gunners maintain that 75% of devastating auto guns remain in the hands of owners.

    There is obvious stupidity on the part of Winston and Bridges who mistakenly believe they will gain votes by giving open slather to Gunners. Normal intelligent voters do not want the madness of Auto Massive Guns.

    We must eradicate all the persons who cuddle and own, and hide such weaponry.

    In my opinion, Parliament will have to deny Citizenship to persons who do not abide by the Law of this Land. Seriously.

  26. Tiger Mountain 27

    A queasy feeling to see the gun lobby doing their work on The Standard. Enough with the wounded innocence and special pleading you Gun–Nuts!

    Oh that such energy was put into more deserving social issues of our era!

    • Nickoli 27.1

      Tiger Mountain – a comment from ignorance should be ignored…. together with anyone who dismisses the genuine issues faced by legitimate FAL holders as coming from "Gun-Nuts."

      If it's not beyond your level of comprehension, I suggest you actually look at why people are upset and some of the genuine issues that they raise….

    • John Chapman 27.2

      Comments like your's go a long way to explaining why rural New Zealand will sadly be solidly National come September .

  27. Maurice 28

    We well and truly have a gun lobby now – financed to the tune of $102 MILLIONS of taxpayers money paid out for the confiscated firearms – many of them old junk bunny guns with magazines only slightly larger than those still allowed.

    RESULT!

  28. Observer Tokoroa 29

    To: Nikoli

    The Gun Lobby has done nothing but abuse people who refuse to allow you the right to use outrageous lethal Arms.

    Each one of you who whinge cry like litte children, keep saying we do not know what a gun is. Nonsense.! Abuse yourself – Not the sound normal people of our country.

    I for one, will be submitting to Government that Auto Lethal Guns should not be allowed in your hands. – with the exception of a small list of Military Personnel and Police.

    Failure of you or your Gun/ Clubbers to accept the Law of New Zealand should result in denied Citizenship – in this Superb Nation of New Zealand.

    • Nickoli 29.1

      Observer Tokoroa – triggered (pun intended), and still ignorant: your comment "that Auto Lethal Guns " among others shows your ignorance, and intolerance for those whose view is different to yours. As for stripping citizenship? What is this – kindergarten? Did you get expelled from the sandpit?

      • Incognito 29.1.1

        … a comment from ignorance should be ignored…. together with anyone who dismisses the genuine issues faced by legitimate FAL holders as coming from “Gun-Nuts.”

        Sadly, you don’t follow your own advice. No surprises there; do as I say, not as I do.

  29. Observer Tokoroa 30

    You seem upset Maurice

    You and John Chapman have divulged that the National Party will be your heroes and will give you deadly gun money next election. Along with the help of mischievous NZ First.

    National Voters will not be pleased with you. Nor will the present Government voters be enamoured of your armaments.

    Such a small number of NZ people want your deadly dismal bloody auto shooting.

    For the record, you will have the Police enforcing the GunLaw upon you without payment – whether you like it or not.

    All because you want big killing toys going bang bang. And heaps of Christchurch Copy horrible, deadly Killings.

  30. Maurice 31

    Observer Tokoroa

    QUE?

    Your leaps of illogic seem a little strange and a bit deranged …

    We all need more HUGGZ

  31. Observer Tokoroa 32

    You seem upset Maurice

    And abusive.

    All because you want to blaze away on big bang bang Auto Guns.

    New Zealanders in the main, are not proud of you. Far from it.

    • Maurice 32.1

      All we want to do is HUG you … Can you not be inclusive and sharing

    • pete 32.2

      Hi OT

      If by "Auto Guns" you mean machine guns/or full autos they are currently and always have been illegal to fire by private citizens in Aotearoa

      Collectors collect them sometimes

      Semi-Autos are the ones that used to be legal and have now been banned

      Hope this helps

  32. Nickoli 33

    " big bang bang Auto Guns" – You're projecting again…. dial back the hysteria, and understand that the person next to you in the supermarket may be a FAL holder – in which case, they have had more interaction with the Police than you, and been deemed fit and proper (as defined by the law) – you present yourself as irrational – based on many of your comments. Our communities should be more concerned of your actions, than the actions of those who continue to abide by the law, while being disappointed at the way we have been treated.

    Not expecting a rational response – you've proven yourself incapable….

  33. pete 34

    This sort of thing is why we don't believe in a register

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/03/firearms-licences-were-among-personal-details-breached-in-tuia250-security-failure.html

    Remember that one of the main reasons that firearms licensees do not wish to be identified publicly (and therefore look a bit dodgy) is that it is so easy to find out where someone lives and then I am on the Mongrel Mob's target list of where they can get guns

  34. John 35

    The arms act 1983 is claimed by police and their Govt. servants to be past it's use by date, and unfit for purpose. This is true but not for the reasons expressed.

    The 1983 act had public safety as its main tenet, and so licenced owners of firearms as fit and proper people, rather than the previous system of the listing the rifles that people owned. Shotguns have never been registered in NZ, even though they have been the weapon of choice for criminals when cut down.

    Unfortunately, then as now, police were able to have input into arms legislation which resulted in the inclusion of regulatory offences with reverse onus (guilty until you prove your innocence) clauses, and requiring dealers to keep a register of all firearms sold. These additions made what was an otherwise acceptable piece of legislation, unfit for purpose as it destroyed the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty, and so removed the legal protection afforded all other citizens, but denied those who were licenced firearms owners.

    The registration of firearms has never been responsible for the conviction of a murder, except possibly being useful in the framing of Arthur Alan Thomas.

    What a firearms registry will do is create jobs. Lots of jobs. A huge bureaucracy will result to write the list, then maintain the list, licence the owners, licence the clubs, inspect the clubs, inspect the owners, write policies, review the policies, and rewrite the policies. Of course the expanded registry will have to have a home and there will be building jobs, and computer supply jobs, and office equipment jobs. Most of all there will be police jobs. Lots of police, herding the law-abiding, making sure that they comply with every regulation. Meanwhile the gangsters will get on with business as usual.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Tokelau Language Week reminds us to stay united and strong
    Staying strong in the face of challenges and being true to our heritage and languages are key to preserving our cultural identity and wellbeing, is the focus of the 2020 Tokelau Language Week. Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio, says this year’s theme, ‘Apoapo tau foe, i nā tāfea ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • NZ announces a third P-3 deployment in support of UN sanctions
    The Government has deployed a Royal New Zealand Air Force P-3K2 Orion (P-3) maritime patrol aircraft to support the implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions imposing sanctions against North Korea, announced Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters and Minister of Defence Ron Mark. “New Zealand has long supported ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Pacific trade and development agreement a reality
    Pacific regional trade and development agreement PACER Plus will enter into force in 60 days now that the required eight countries have ratified it. Trade and Export Growth Minister David Parker welcomed the announcement that the Cook Islands is the eighth nation to ratify this landmark agreement. “The agreement represents ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Securing a pipeline of teachers
    The Government is changing its approach to teacher recruitment as COVID-19 travel restrictions continue, by boosting a range of initiatives to get more Kiwis into teaching. “When we came into Government, we were faced with a teacher supply crisis,” Education Minister Chris Hipkins said. “Over the past three years, we ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Border exceptions for a small number of international students with visas
    The Government has established a new category that will allow 250 international PhD and postgraduate students to enter New Zealand and continue their studies, in the latest set of border exceptions. “The health, safety and wellbeing of people in New Zealand remains the Government’s top priority. Tight border restrictions remain ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • First COVID-19 vaccine purchase agreement signed
    The Government has signed an agreement to purchase 1.5 million COVID-19 vaccines – enough for 750,000 people – from Pfizer and BioNTech, subject to the vaccine successfully completing all clinical trials and passing regulatory approvals in New Zealand, say Research, Science and Innovation Minister Megan Woods and Health Minister Chris Hipkins. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • International statement – End-to-end encryption and public safety
    We, the undersigned, support strong encryption, which plays a crucial role in protecting personal data, privacy, intellectual property, trade secrets and cyber security.  It also serves a vital purpose in repressive states to protect journalists, human rights defenders and other vulnerable people, as stated in the 2017 resolution of the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Ministry of Defence Biodefence Assessment released
    The Ministry of Defence has today released a Defence Assessment examining Defence’s role across the spectrum of biological hazards and threats facing New Zealand. Biodefence: Preparing for a New Era of Biological Hazards and Threats looks at how the NZDF supports other agencies’ biodefence activities, and considers the context of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020
    New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020 Hon David Parker’s response following Thomas Piketty and Esther Duflo. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, wherever in the world you might be. I first acknowledge the excellent thought provoking speeches of Thomas Piketty and Esther ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Kaipara Moana restoration takes next step
    A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed today at Waihāua Marae between the Crown, local iwi and councils to protect, restore and enhance the mauri of Kaipara Moana in Northland. Environment Minister David Parker signed the document on behalf of the Crown along with representatives from Ngā Maunga Whakahī, Ngāti ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • New Zealand and Uruguay unite on reducing livestock production emissions
    Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor and Uruguayan Minister of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries Carlos María Uriarte have welcomed the launch of a three-year project that will underpin sustainable livestock production in Uruguay, Argentina, and Costa Rica.  The project called ‘Innovation for pasture management’ is led by Uruguay’s National Institute of Agricultural ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • 3100 jobs created through marae upgrades
    Hundreds of marae throughout the country will be upgraded through investments from the Provincial Growth Fund’s refocused post COVID-19 funding to create jobs and put money into the pockets of local tradespeople and businesses, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones and Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta have announced. “A total ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Health volunteers recognised in annual awards
    Health Minister Chris Hipkins has announced 9 teams and 14 individuals are the recipients of this year’s Minister of Health Volunteer Awards.  “The health volunteer awards celebrate and recognise the thousands of dedicated health sector volunteers who give many hours of their time to help other New Zealanders,” Mr Hipkins ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Community COVID-19 Fund supports Pacific recovery
    The Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio says a total of 264 groups and individuals have successfully applied for the Pacific Aotearoa Community COVID-19 Recovery Fund, that will support Pacific communities drive their own COVID-19 recovery strategies, initiatives, and actions. “I am keen to see this Fund support Pacific ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Community benefits from Māori apprenticeships
    Up to 50 Māori apprentices in Wellington will receive paid training to build houses for their local communities, thanks to a $2.75 million investment from the Māori Trades and Training Fund, announced Employment Minister Willie Jackson today. “This funding will enable Ngāti Toa Rangatira Incorporated to provide its Ngā Kaimahi ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Training fund supports Māori jobseekers
    Rapidly growing sectors will benefit from a $990,000 Māori Trades and Training Fund investment which will see Wellington jobseekers supported into work, announced Employment Minister Willie Jackson today. “This funding will enable Sapphire Consultants Ltd. to help up to 45 Māori jobseekers into paid training initiatives over two years through ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago