The firearm thread

[onearmedbandit]

Yes Fraser it was more than just a possiblity it was right that you were wrong, it is is also more than possible that its right that two wrongs dont make a right or indeed that two wrights flew the first plane.
It is also likely that the law changes made in NZ will lower the rate at which people are killed by nutters with rifles, they never needed to have in the first place.
Not that the opponents of the law change will ever acknowledge this fact.

Neither side is willing to talk reasonably with each other (from what I've witnessed and not just in this thread). The arguments just put further divisions between us as society. In my opinion there are so many facets to this debate that all have strong arguments behind them, that there will never be a consensus. I'm not fence-sitting (it's neither figuratively nor literally a comfortable place to position yourself) on the issue, just stating that an emotive subject involving issues such as loss of life and individual freedoms will always leave people unhappy.

[husaberg]

Neither side is willing to talk reasonably with each other (from what I've witnessed and not just in this thread). The arguments just put further divisions between us as society. In my opinion there are so many facets to this debate that all have strong arguments behind them, that there will never be a consensus. I'm not fence-sitting (it's neither figuratively nor literally a comfortable place to position yourself) on the issue, just stating that an emotive subject involving issues such as loss of life and individual freedoms will always leave people unhappy.

There is no need for talk the time has passed for that. The law has changed, no one has lost anything they actually needed, other than the victims and their families and those that have been effected by the reason this law change occurred.

[onearmedbandit]

There is no need for talk the time has passed for that. The law has changed, no one has lost anything they actually needed, other than the victims and their families and those that have been effected by the reason this law change occurred.

Like I say, there are many facets to this that have strong reasoning behind them, both pro and anti law change positions.

[TheDemonLord]

Maybe you should write 51 letters to the families of the victims spelling out how a few peoples right to play bang bang outwesight the rights of those killed in the recent attack then.
i would wager there are more people killed in NZ every year with a firearm, then there were ever registered Sport shooters useing ar15's and similar for any form of organised sport.
if you disagree, i am sure you will be easily able to prove just how popular this sport was in NZ.

I'll take that Wager.

6.6 (on average) per year.
vs
7,000 E-Cat Licence holders (given that only 500 P endorsements have been issued so far - that makes about 6,500 Sport shooters).

Just goes to show how ill-informed you are.

Edit:

I'll also point to that many people did sport shooting without an E-Cat licence, just using A-Cat legal ARs and 5 round Mags - like the 13 YO Girl that's already been mentioned. So, just using the E-Cat numbers is giving a smaller figure than the true figure.

[Beekeeper]

Like I say, there are many facets to this that have strong reasoning behind them, both pro and anti law change positions.

May I paraphrase that?

Like I say, there are many fuckwits discussing this that have strong reasoning behind them, both pro and anti law change positions

[austingtir]

^^Except for the fact nearly all the pro people are communists.

The rest are just misinformed.

[TheDemonLord]

Like I say, there are many fuckwits discussing this that have strong reasoning behind them, both pro and anti law change positions

I'm curious - if someone has a strong reason behind them, how can they be a Fuckwit on a given issue?

Since the term normally denotes some form of ignorance.

[pritch]

Like I say, there are many facets to this that have strong reasoning behind them, both pro and anti law change positions.

Our society has undergone major changes over the years. Locally, and probably elsewhere in NZ, a century ago every small town had a shooting range. Shooting was seen as a patriotic thing to do. Even when I went to high school virtually all boys were taught to shoot.

These days more people live in urban centres. Now solo mums form a large percentage of the population, they know nothing about guns except what they see on TV - and that's all bad. Helen Clarke probably didn't even know anybody who owned a gun, therefore in her mind nobody needed one. Jacinda might be similar except for her husband's occupation. The Nats still have farmers in their ranks so they will be better informed. NZ First have been sympathetic to gun owners in the past and Ron Mark's military experience means that among their members at least he is informed.

So now we have arived at a situation where most of the population is completely ignorant of firearms (apart from what they saw on TV). It's cold comfort that polling that population might show support for firearms law changes. That, however, is the situation. God Defend New Zealand indeed.

[TheDemonLord]

I've actually been talking to a few MPs, and have had some very interesting Chats with some of them, a few names you may even recognize.

Without going into Detail - the Regional MPs are starting to realize that despite the Media/Government spiel, a very large number of people are not happy about this - potentially up to 20% of the voting public.

The compliance rates of the Buyback currently are laughable, and is a very serious indicator as to just how botched this has been.

There's been some under-the-breath acknowledgement from people that voted for the first Tranche that perhaps they were voting with their heart, in the heat of the moment, without actually considering what they were doing.

I've got my hopes as to what will happen next election cycle, the question is whether it will occur.

[husaberg]

Our society has undergone major changes over the years. Locally, and probably elsewhere in NZ, a century ago every small town had a shooting range. Shooting was seen as a patriotic thing to do. Even when I went to high school virtually all boys were taught to shoot.

These days more people live in urban centres. Now solo mums form a latge percentage of the population, they know nothing about guns except what they see on TV - and that's all bad. Helen Clarke probably didn't even know anybody who owned a gun, therefore in her mind nobody needed one. Jacinda might be similar except for her husband's occupation. The Nats still have farmers in their ranks so they will be better informed. NZ First have been sympathetic to gun owners in the past and Ron Mark's military experience means that among their members at least he is informed.

So now we have arived at a situation where most of the population is completely ignorant of firearms (apart from what they saw on TV). It's cold comfort that polling that population might show support for firearms law changes. That, however, is the situation. God Defend New Zealand indeed.

You make a few assumptions there. Most of them disappointingly lacking in any degree of substance.
Whilst there is still a few farmers in the National party, it is not the average or even close to the predominate profession or background ,far from it. It hasn't been for decades.
It also is rather ignorant os those in the other parties that come from farming backgrounds, i know two labour MP's personally off farms one of whom was also a police officer and a president of the police associations who campaigned for the Police to be armed at all times.
All these ""better informed rural types" and Ron Marks an all the rest , all willingly voted for the current legislation.
So don't go making out. "If only" they had there say it would have gone different as they had their say and the legislation went through.
After Aromonana, under the then national government there were sweeping changes o the firearm laws, that were full of loopholes that still allowed the sale of AR15 as long as a few reversible mods were made.
The law then, was designed specifically to ban AR15's and similar designs for A Class, only it never worked.
For the record out of all those posting, i would be one of the few that actually need daily access to a firearm for work. So suggesting those that oppose the law change are not well enough informed is not only insulting, its a total piss take.
The average firearm owner, has lost nothing they ever actually really needed. A few have lost something at best that was potentially handy. But those vocal lost nothing other than a toy.
I do not know a single farmer, that is up in arms about the law change in-fact it has never been mentioned and deal with farmers every day so to make out it a huge issue is at best ill informed.
I deal with farmers every day all year round and thus far not a peep about it.
Anyone, who by some deranged point of view, thinks that any successive government will change the law. Is going to to be up against those that make up 80% of the population that has had to pay for this as too why they are wasting their money that was spend making the country safer to give people access to a firearm they simply do not need.

It also ignores the experience of Australia who experieced a decline in gun violence and no one has repealed the firemarm laws there in successive governments.

[Danger Mouse]

Posted on September 29, 2019
By Dr Muriel Newman
The Government of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is shaping up to be one of the most controlling in New Zealand’s history.

Like all socialist regimes that aim to impose the will of a few onto the many, they will eventually fail because most people by their very nature do not want to be controlled. Socialists refuse to understand that simple truth of the human spirit.

The attraction of socialism is that it sounds so good, especially to those who feel they would benefit from the taxing of others.

Winston Churchill described it well when he said, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy”. While he then went on to say, “Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery”, he was not quite right. There are some who don’t have to share in the misery of socialism – namely the ruling elite.

The reality is that throughout history, socialism – which can be characterised as excessive government control – has led to widespread hardship and oppression. But rather than being persuaded by past failure that socialism doesn’t work, the socialists’ response is to increase Government control.

The relentless expansion of the State is most certainly Jacinda Ardern’s agenda.

After taking office in 2017, her ruling coalition wasted no time in ordering all businesses with workers on the minimum wage to increase their hourly rate by 27 percent from $15.75 to $20 an hour by 2021.

As a result of those directives and a raft of draconian industrial relations law changes – designed to satisfy the demands of the unions – business confidence has now fallen to its lowest level since the Global Financial Crisis.

The Coalition even took a punitive approach to reducing plastic waste. To be seen to be ‘doing something’, instead of supporting businesses who were phasing out single use plastic bags, the Government banned them, imposing fines of up to $100,000 for anyone breaching the prohibition.

New licenses for offshore oil and gas exploration were also outlawed – a whole industry undermined without warning.

Now the Government is in the throes of legislating to penalise emissions of man-made greenhouse gases. This includes an initial 10 percent reduction in the methane produced by cows and sheep eating grass, eventually increasing to 47 percent – threatening the viability of many farmers.

These regulations that are being introduced in the name of climate change – a mania now being led by a 16 year old Swedish child, Greta Thunberg – represent a significant expansion of Government control of the economy. If Labour’s zero carbon legislation is supported by New Zealand First or National, it is expected to be passed by Christmas. Families will then begin to feel the financial pressure, as more of their household budget will be needed to cover the rising cost of power, fuel, and food.

More Government control over freshwater has also been proposed, with farmers again being unreasonably targeted with punitive and costly regulations.

Then there are the attacks on civil liberties, including yet more firearms regulations, and the PM’s call for restrictions on the freedom of expression.

These changes arose in response to the Christchurch tragedy. But instead of waiting until the Royal Commission of Inquiry reports back, to determine exactly what law changes are needed, public outrage and grief created an opportunity for Labour to impose heavy-handed restrictions that, under normal circumstances, would have been rejected by freedom loving Kiwis.

In her haste to be seen to be legislating faster than Australia after their Port Arthur massacre, Jacinda Ardern trampled on democracy and rushed into law blanket bans on guns and parts, undermining the long-established rights of Kiwi firearm owners to enjoy their sport.

Now the next phase of Labour’s attack on gun owners, the Arms Amendment Bill, is being fast-tracked through Parliament, with submissions due on October 23rd – see HERE for details.

The main purpose of the new law is to introduce a firearms register. In addition, it tightens gun licensing requirements by reducing the licensed period from 10 years to 5 years, imposes new regulations and costs on shooting clubs, establishes a new firearms advisory bureaucracy, requires doctors to share medical concerns with Police, and it substantially increases fees and penalties.

Through more controls and restrictions, especially the registration of firearms, Labour is further punishing law-abiding New Zealand gun owners, since criminals and extremists who are responsible for most of the country’s gun crimes are highly unlikely to register their firearms! That was certainly the case in Australia, where 90 percent of firearms used in criminal offences are unregistered.

The gun registration scheme proposed in the Bill is likely to fail. Registration was first introduced in New Zealand in the 1920s but was eventually revoked through the 1983 Arms Act because it was inaccurate and too costly to maintain.

The new approach that was introduced was based on the common sense concept that it is the user, not the weapon, that poses a danger to society. The focus therefore changed to gun owners to ensure they were “fit and proper” and that their firearms were securely stored.

Based on our own experience, the firearm registration scheme being proposed by Labour, will not only become an expensive bureaucratic behemoth costing taxpayers far more than our politicians care to admit, but it will not prevent future tragedies. The only gain will be political – it will be regarded as a ‘win’ by those Labour supporters who would like to see all guns in New Zealand banned.

The Police Minister Stuart Nash has estimated the cost of firearms registration will be up to $53 million over 10 years. But Canada’s experience should provide a warning.

When Canada’s gun registry was introduced in 1995, it was estimated to cost C$2 million. But the price blew out exponentially – to C$3 billion! The government finally abandoned trying to register shotguns and rifles and now just tracks restricted weapons including handguns and semi-automatics.

The problem was that the Canadian Government introduced gun registration in the wake of a mass shooting in Montreal. But firearm registration was not the first legislative crackdown on legal gun ownership – it was the second.

As a result, law abiding Canadian gun owners felt they were being unfairly targeted by their Government. Many protested by refusing to register their firearms. Some actively obstructed the process, by registering other items like soldering guns instead!

There were expensive court battles, and during its entire 17 year existence, Canada’s gun register was said to have recorded no more than a third of the guns otherwise legally owned in the country.

The point was made that registering guns is not like registering cars and boats, which are used on public roads and can be monitored by the police. Instead, most guns are privately owned and used, making enforcement difficult and expensive.

Through her ill-advised law changes just after the shooting, Jacinda Ardern has already alienated gun owners – repeating Canada’s mistakes. As a result, the outcome of gun registration in this country is almost certain to be an expensive disaster.

Not content with gun control in the aftermath of Christchurch, our Prime Minister also set her sights on restricting the freedom of expression.

In an unprecedented move, the Chief Censor was called upon to ban both the gunman’s video of the shooting and his manifesto. By classifying them as objectionable, anyone knowingly possessing or sharing them could be fined up to $10,000 or be sentenced to a prison term of up to 14 years.

Radio New Zealand reported that by August there had been 35 charges relating to possession of the video, leading to 14 prosecutions, 10 referrals to the Youth Court, one written warning and eight verbal warnings. One man is known to have been sentenced to two years in jail.

Hundreds of people are also on a Police ‘watchlist’ for the crime of free expression. The Police turn up at homes asking about opinions on a range of matters including immigration, colonisation, and politics. One person reported being accused by the Police of calling the Prime Minister “a socialist”. It is very troubling indeed when Police come knocking because someone is accusing the PM – a former president of the International Union of Socialist Youth – of being a socialist!

Under Labour, our free society is no longer free. But it’s going to get worse.

Not satisfied with just banning the video of the Mosque shooting in New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern wanted it prohibited world-wide. She began working with the French President Emmanuel Macron on the “Christchurch Call”, an initiative to suppress terrorist content on the Internet.

Strong concerns were expressed that this could lead to the wholesale censorship of the Internet. Indeed, that is what now seems to be occurring.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Dr Bronwyn Howell, a programme director at Victoria University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, has been closely following these developments and is now concerned that the Christchurch Call is leading to widespread social engineering:

“Facebook’s September 17 announcement that it has updated its definition of dangerous individuals and organizations, and would be extending its initiative to use algorithms to redirect individuals using terms associated with searches for white supremacy to resources focused on helping people leave behind hate groups to include Indonesia, Australia, and New Zealand, constitutes a significant development.

“Since March, US search queries on Facebook using terms algorithmically determined to be associated with white supremacy have been redirected to Life After Hate, an organization founded by former violent extremists that provides crisis intervention, education, support groups and outreach.

“While there may be considerable popular support for Facebook’s use of algorithms in this manner, there are equally as many questions raised about the legitimacy of attempts to use platforms to ‘socially re-engineer’ or ‘reprogram’ individuals.”

Dr Howell asks where is the mandate to override an individual’s internet request, to deliver a pre-selected search result. She believes such an intervention would normally only be possible following a transparent and accountable process agreed by the community of users collectively.

However, the reality is that Jacinda Ardern’s Christchurch Call appears to have encouraged Facebook and other Internet players into a greater use of censorship. It is highly likely they are responding to political pressure that if they do not do so voluntarily, a regulatory regime will be imposed on them.

The changes already made are significant. Try posting information on Facebook denying man-made global warming and you are likely to receive a notice telling you it has been categorised as “fake news” by their “fact checkers” and banned. You may also be told that if you persist in posting such content then your page or group will be downgraded so it does not feature in search rankings.

That Facebook’s ‘fact checkers’ claim the earth is now warmer than during the Medieval and Roman warm periods, raises concerns that they are conforming to crowd hysteria, and have become puppets of political control rather than the bastions of free expression and the truth.

It’s the same story with material supporting the role of colonisation. A meme for example, stating that poor social statistics for Maori were caused by such things as poor parenting, substance abuse, violence, and welfare dependency, rather than colonisation, was labelled as hate speech by Facebook and banned.

Whether such developments are the direct result of Jacinda Ardern’s closed-door talks with social media organisations is impossible to tell, but they certainly raise concerns that this new state of censorship is a taste of what’s to come in New Zealand if Labour delivers on their promise to introduce hate speech laws.

So while the mainstream media discourse is occupied with daily news, the bigger and more important story is the theft of personal freedoms as New Zealand heads down a path to state control.

No democracy can survive without free speech and open public discourse. The suppression of controversial ideas – whether genuinely offensive or just contrary to the views of the liberal elites – is a worrying step toward tyranny.

[husaberg]

Newman a pom who was a Act MP, that was never once elected as a seat MP.

[frogfeaturesFZR]

Newman a pom who was a Act MP, that was never once elected as a seat MP.

Hows that relevant to what she’s written ?
Can’t see the link ?

[austingtir]

Hows that relevant to what she’s written ?
Can’t see the link ?

Its not and he forgets half his acolytes in the Greens and Labour are list mp's too. So anything they say including on gun control should be irrelevant....


I repeat we have unelected bureaucrats (many of which are outright communists) dictating to us what we can and cant do and say.... and people wonder why half of the UK is fed up with the EU.... and yet we have a similar parliamentary system to bloody Germany of all places.....

This is why I keep saying we need to get rid of list MP's and move to Australia's system.

[husaberg]

Hows that relevant to what she’s written ?
Can’t see the link ?

lets see how that relevant to what shes written anyone else have an idea why a right wing pom has been, who never even was able to win an election for a electorate seat alone lead a party knows better or is a reliable source of unbiased information........leading up to an election where the party she belonged to is teetering on not even getting a seat and has only got a seat in the last few election as National doent run anything against them in a safe right wing seat.