NZ bans semi-automatic and assault rifles after mass shooting

[sonos99]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and how many criminals will be registering all their semi auto weapons?

As usual, only law abiding people will be affected.

Let's not forget that NZ has a huge gang problem.

Obviously criminals won't register weapons they are probably stolen anyway as criminals cannot legally buy weapons. 

All laws only affect law abiding people. That why they are called law abiding. 

NZ does have a gang problem that's why NZ have restrictions on gun ownership. Do you believe we should allow them to legally buy guns? 

[xylophone]

13 minutes ago, ShortTimed said:

I obviously hit a nerve with you in my earlier post and I apologize for not being able to convey my opinion more delicately. I have nothing but respect for Kiwis.

No offence taken.

 

13 minutes ago, ShortTimed said:

I don’t see why gun legislation could not have been discussed several months from now.

Because NOW is the time and the right time.

 

14 minutes ago, ShortTimed said:

But you have made it clear all Kiwis wanted this restrictive all along. Thats different from what I read though, which is this legislation had failed in three earlier attempts.

I never said that ("all along") but it is NOW clear from the reaction of a majority of Kiwis, that this legislation should be enacted...........if for no other reason than, what is an automatic weapon designed for war doing in the hands of ordinary citizens? It makes no sense.

[sonos99]

5 hours ago, Spidey said:

Even with the Uk's very restrictive gun laws, this is exactly what happens in the UK although I don't think that professionals, in the UK, use helicopters or semi automatic weapons. It's more humane to use precision weapons where a single shot is usually sufficient for an instant kill.

 

 

You are correct a one shot kill is definitely preferred. Most hunters in NZ will aim for this. They will usually use bolt action rifles. Also they will only shoot what they can carry out.

 

In NZ all the game animals are introduced from other countries. NZ has no native wildlife except for birds and a few fish and insects. DOC or the Dept of Conservation in NZ regards all introduced species to be pests and a threat to native species so has effectively declared war on them. They certainly do not care about humane kills. They extensively use 1080 poison which no doubt causes a painful and lingering death. They are also responsible for performing culls where they will use semi autos from helicopters. Concessions are also granted to commercial hunting companies who will also use semi autos from helicopters. The commercial helicopter hunters also try for a one shot kill so less meat is damaged. The venison is recovered and sold. 

 

Most hunters in NZ regard the game animals as a valuable resource. They hate the use of 1080 poison and see the helicopters as competition. 

 

It is a controversial topic in NZ especially the use of 1080 poison. 

 

The terrain in NZ is much more rugged than the UK. Helicopters are used to quickly access remote areas and they can cover a lot of ground quickly and are used to transport out the carcasses. If anyone is interested there is a documentary about the early commercial helicopter deer recovery business called "Deer Wars" which is probably available on the web. 

[ShortTimed]

I never said that ("all along") but it is NOW clear from the reaction of a majority of Kiwis, that this legislation should be enacted...........if for no other reason than, what is an automatic weapon designed for war doing in the hands of ordinary citizens? It makes no sense.

 I would respond to your question by saying most every weapon on the planet was designed for war. From a knife to a bow & arrow to modern firearms. 

As time passes, they become outdated and they are adapted for other uses, some practical such as a kitchen knife and some purely for hobby such as bow & arrow (which is no different from target range enthusiasts). And law-abiding citizens have shown responsibility is having continued access to these old weapons of war.

 

I don’t own the types of weapons That are under review in NZ. I am simply offering a counterpoint to opinions being introduced.

 

Lastly, to address your position that the time to change the law is NOW that “the reaction is clear”, well that goes back to my original statement in all this.

 

NOW when the iron is hot because in a few months when the headscarves are put back in the dresser and Kiwis have been able to process this emotionally exhausting crisis, then they may not be so convinced and their “reaction” may return to where it has been historically.

 

In fact, I have now read that very same claim made by NZ lawmakers themselves. That they need to act quickly to pass their agenda.

 

If that were tried in Canada after a crisis then I would be feeling that I was being manipulated in my time of grief. Or said another way, played for a fool.

 

BTW, you are a Kiwi who obviously supports gun control so you see this differently than the interviews I have been watching of Kiwis on the other side of the coin who don’t appear pleased this is getting ram-rodded through.

 

Hey, I am sounding like a broken record. I wish your Country the best and all of the Kiwis who have posted their insight for me here.

 

 

 

 

 

[ShortTimed]

I think this is a non-biased brief history of firearm laws in NZ for those like myself who are not fortunate enough to be Kiwi:

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/385058/a-short-history-of-nz-s-gun-laws-from-cutlasses-to-semi-automatics




Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Nyezhov]

15 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Unsurprisingly when we started talking about the National Firearms Act we were also talking about the NFA, them being the same thing.

 

The NFA is federal law and includes an outright ban on all fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986. there is no amount of tax you can pay to have one.

Thats not exactly true. There are what are called Dealer Samples, but thats some convaluted process.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2019 by Nyezhov

[sonos99]

2 hours ago, Spidey said:

Easier in the UK, we don't have a constitution, we just have the laws of the land. Never understood the need for a constitution.

 

I'm surprised that New Zealand has a constitution. Whatever would Her Majesty say? It's just not British.

I might be wrong but I believe I read somewhere that there are only 3 countries which do not have a formal written constitution. Those 3 countries being the UK, NZ, and Israel 

 

NZs constitution is made up of many different parts including UK statues (Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Succession Laws etc), NZ laws such as the Constitution Act 1986 (I think), Court cases and various customs and conventions. 

[evadgib]

Of interest to this board:

 

[Hanaguma]

Who was it that said "never let a good crisis go to waste"...

 

In the case of NZ, there are  a few facts to consider. First, there is no actual crisis of gun violence. Less than 10 murders a year are committed with guns of all kinds.  Any evidence that the proposed law will have any impact on this already tiny number? 

 

Second, the law does NOT ban "military grade weapons" or "weapons of war". Militaries use fully automatic weapons, wouldn't be caught dead (sorry, bad use of phrase) using civilian imitations that are not full auto. These weapons are not available to civilians. 

 

Finally, the "if it just saves one life...." argument. It's infantile.  The same could be said in favour of banning tobacco, or alcohol, or sugary drinks, or cars, or ... all are easily preventable with a simple act of government...

[ShortTimed]

Of interest to this board:  

 

 

Thanks for posting this clip by Katie Hopkins.

 

Spot On.

 

And ties into this topic of the new gun laws as part of this thoroughly over-the-top reaction by a political leader.

 

Such an emotional reaction by a Country’s Leader should be frowned upon not glorified.

[Scott]

Off-topic post and reply removed.

[johnnybangkok]

On 3/22/2019 at 6:14 AM, evadgib said:

Of interest to this board:

 

You immediately lose any credibility in your argument if all you can produce is the far-right, xenophobic, racist, desperately trying to stay relevant Katie Hopkins. 

The woman is a failed reality show contestant (coincidentally from The UK Apprentice of Trump fame) and has been sacked from more jobs than I have had. I quote from her Wikipedia profile:- 

Throughout her career, Hopkins's social media presence and outspoken views, specifically regarding race, migrants, obesity and social class, have attracted significant controversy, criticism, media scrutiny, protests and petitions. Hopkins has been accused of racism by journalists, advocacy groups and politicians for her comments about migrants. Her role at LBC was terminated in May 2017 following her comments on Twitter about the Manchester Arena bombing.^[3][4]

 

 

Edited March 23, 2019 by Scott
Edited for Fair Use

[Nyezhov]

5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

You immediately lose any credibility in your argument if all you can produce is the far-right, xenophobic, racist, desperately trying to stay relevant Katie Hopkins.

You immediately lose any credibility in your argument if all you can produce is a series of ad hominems agaist the proponent of an idea. Thats all to common among the left

 

So tell me, what does she say thats wrong and why?

[johnnybangkok]

3 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

You immediately lose any credibility in your argument if all you can produce is a series of ad hominems agaist the proponent of an idea. Thats all to common among the left

 

So tell me, what does she say thats wrong and why?

Pretty much everything actually. Her tirades are so full of false equivalencies as to be laughable. Her (and her likes) ALWAYS go on about the 'loss of our culture'. Being British I see no loss of culture in any shape or form by the influences of Muslims. But I guess if I look hard enough then I'm sure I will find something if it was just to confirm my already xenophobic bias. And being atheist I have no time for ANY religions and think they are all just glorified cults but what I don't do is paint everyone with the same brush and scaremonger like Katie Hopkins does. I don't blame all whites for the atrocities of this man in NZ; I don't blame all Muslims for the sins of the few; I don't blame all Americans for Trump.

It is very easy (and also very lazy) to cherry pick incidents such as KH does ALL the time to confirm her bias. People in NZ are rightly showing their sympathy, solidarity and support to a community who have suffered a terrible loss. So they wear a headscarf for a day and attend some memorials, is that 'prostrating themselves' and 'giving up their culture'? Of course it isn't. They will mourn for a time and go back to being New Zealanders. And anyone who says differently is just trying to stoke up anti-Muslim sentiment in an attempt to stay relevant.

Her 'point' is almost as pathetic as she is.        

[evadgib]

10 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

You immediately lose any credibility in your argument if all you can produce is the far-right, xenophobic, racist, desperately trying to stay relevant Katie Hopkins. 

The woman is a failed reality show contestant (coincidentally from The UK Apprentice of Trump fame) and has been sacked from more jobs than I have had. I quote from her Wikipedia profile:- 

Throughout her career, Hopkins's social media presence and outspoken views, specifically regarding race, migrants, obesity and social class, have attracted significant controversy, criticism, media scrutiny, protests and petitions. Hopkins has been accused of racism by journalists, advocacy groups and politicians for her comments about migrants. Her role at LBC was terminated in May 2017 following her comments on Twitter about the Manchester Arena bombing.^[3][4]

 

You missed the bit about being a Sandhurst-trained military intelligence officer or to have countered anything she actually said.

[simple1]

11 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Pretty much everything actually. Her tirades are so full of false equivalencies as to be laughable. Her (and her likes) ALWAYS go on about the 'loss of our culture'. Being British I see no loss of culture in any shape or form by the influences of Muslims. But I guess if I look hard enough then I'm sure I will find something if it was just to confirm my already xenophobic bias. And being atheist I have no time for ANY religions and think they are all just glorified cults but what I don't do is paint everyone with the same brush and scaremonger like Katie Hopkins does. I don't blame all whites for the atrocities of this man in NZ; I don't blame all Muslims for the sins of the few; I don't blame all Americans for Trump.

It is very easy (and also very lazy) to cherry pick incidents such as KH does ALL the time to confirm her bias. People in NZ are rightly showing their sympathy, solidarity and support to a community who have suffered a terrible loss. So they wear a headscarf for a day and attend some memorials, is that 'prostrating themselves' and 'giving up their culture'? Of course it isn't. They will mourn for a time and go back to being New Zealanders. And anyone who says differently is just trying to stoke up anti-Muslim sentiment in an attempt to stay relevant.

Her 'point' is almost as pathetic as she is.        

Excellent post - thank you

[Kieran00001]

On 3/22/2019 at 5:13 PM, Spidey said:

Easier in the UK, we don't have a constitution, we just have the laws of the land. Never understood the need for a constitution.

 

I'm surprised that New Zealand has a constitution. Whatever would Her Majesty say? It's just not British.

 

We do have a constitution, it is just not written into one single piece of legislature.  We have the Act of Union, statute law, common law, parliamentary conventions and works of authority, together they are our constitution.

 

You are surprised that constitutional monarchy's have constitutions?  If you read Dicey's, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, you will see that it is very much a British thing and no problem with the Queen.

[ThaiBunny]

So much for saying there's already a ban, or even that everyone supports it - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-24/new-zealand-gun-law-reform-christchurch-shooting/10933132

[Spidey]

4 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

We do have a constitution, it is just not written into one single piece of legislature.  We have the Act of Union, statute law, common law, parliamentary conventions and works of authority, together they are our constitution.

Which is exactly what I said, we don't have a constitution we have the law of the land, I include Acts of Parliament in that, of course. Do you argue, just for the sake of arguing?

Edited March 24, 2019 by Spidey

[sonos99]

24 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

So much for saying there's already a ban, or even that everyone supports it - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-24/new-zealand-gun-law-reform-christchurch-shooting/10933132

There is not a ban. You use to be able to purchase a semi auto rifle with a 7 shot or less magazine with a standard Category A license. These have now been reclassified as MSSA s Military Style Semi Autos. So it is now illegal to own these weapons if you only have a Category A firearms license. You can still buy and own these weapons if you have firearms license with the E endorsement. 

 

Of course not everyone is happy about this. However I believe all the political parties have said they will back this so the new legislation will pass through Parliament with a large majority. 

[Kieran00001]

39 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Which is exactly what I said, we don't have a constitution we have the law of the land, I include Acts of Parliament in that, of course. Do you argue, just for the sake of arguing?

 

But that is a constitution, that is what I am arguing, just claiming it is not one because it does not have constitution written at the top does not mean it is not one, as you would have understood should you have read Dicey's works.

[Spidey]

9 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

But that is a constitution, that is what I am arguing, just claiming it is not one because it does not have constitution written at the top does not mean it is not one, as you would have understood should you have read Dicey's works.

Google British Constitution see what results you get. No written constitution. End of. Unless you want to quote the Magna Carta.

[Anythingleft?]

Not what happened in the UK. Very draconian penalties for gun possession. Get caught with a gun, 5 years. And yes, if you don't surrender your gun you will get a visit and a jail sentence. The majority of guns in the hands of criminals came via thefts/burglaries from law abiding citizens. Remove guns from society and you remove guns from criminals.
 
Gun crime has reduced dramatically. Mass shootings down to zero.
 
As for the constitution, constitutions can be changed.

Don't kid yourself that there are no guns left in the UK, there are more now than ever before...

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

[Spidey]

8 minutes ago, Anythingleft? said:

Don't kid yourself that there are no guns left in the UK, there are more now than ever before...

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk
 

Any evidence of that?

[Anythingleft?]

Any evidence of that?

Plenty if you research it from the national crime agency
Legalized weapons marginally down in use for illegal activities but illegal weapons being used on a dramatic increase for the last 3 years....



Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

[Kieran00001]

35 minutes ago, Anythingleft? said:

Plenty if you research it from the national crime agency
Legalized weapons marginally down in use for illegal activities but illegal weapons being used on a dramatic increase for the last 3 years....



Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk
 

 

That is true, its increased in the past few years, but what has that to do with gun control?

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, Anythingleft? said:

The entire argument of more restrictions and less guns equals less crime is the focus of your post is it not?

There is now more gun crime and there are more illegal guns available, yes registered legal weapons have reduced in volume due to the restrictions and vetting in place

That has not made any difference though has it.....

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk
 

Do you have evidence that there is more gun crime now than 23 years ago? Don't bother looking, I can assure you that you won't find it.

[Kieran00001]

9 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Do you have evidence that there is more gun crime now than 23 years ago? Don't bother looking, I can assure you that you won't find it.

 

Its complicated by the fact that the first few years following the ban saw anything being used to appear to be a gun included within firearms offense stats while they had not been included previously and are not included in later years. So on the official stats we see a sudden increase in gun crime following the ban, actually doubling in number, but when the stats were analyzed we saw that there was actually a decrease in use of guns in crime but an increase in the use of toy guns in crime.  It is this use of toy guns by criminals that the gun nuts use as reasoning to lift the ban on real guns.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 6:43 PM, sonos99 said:

Obviously criminals won't register weapons they are probably stolen anyway as criminals cannot legally buy weapons. 

All laws only affect law abiding people. That why they are called law abiding. 

NZ does have a gang problem that's why NZ have restrictions on gun ownership. Do you believe we should allow them to legally buy guns? 

No. I believe that there should be a waiting period and then a proper commission set up to investigate the entire weapons situation with submissions from the public. Rushed legislation is usually bad legislation with all sorts of unintended consequences.

[sonos99]

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No. I believe that there should be a waiting period and then a proper commission set up to investigate the entire weapons situation with submissions from the public. Rushed legislation is usually bad legislation with all sorts of unintended consequences.

There have already been 2 investigations into the weapons situation in NZ. There was an independent review requested by the govt which was performed by a retired judge - the Thorp Report in 1997. More recently 2016 a review of the gun laws was performed by a parliamentary committee.