New Zealand launches gun 'buy-back' scheme for weapons banned after Christchurch mosque attacks

By Charlotte Greenfield

 

FILE PHOTO: A view of Gun City gunshop in Christchurch, New Zealand, March 19, 2019. REUTERS/Jorge Silva

 

WELLINGTON (Reuters) - New Zealand's government on Thursday launched a multibillion-dollar, six-month "buy-back" scheme to compensate owners of powerful but newly banned semi-automatic weapons prohibited in the wake of deadly attacks on two mosques in the Southern city of Christchurch.

 

Finance Minister Grant Robertson and Minister of Police Stuart Nash said in a joint emailed statement that NZ$208 million ($135.97 million) had been set aside to compensate owners of the banned semi-automatic firearms up to 95% of the original cost.

 

They would have until Dec. 20 to hand in their weapons.

 

"Police have detailed plans in place for the next step, which is the collection of firearms from the community. It will be a huge logistical exercise and is expected to get under way in mid-July," Nash said.

 

Parliament passed the gun reform law - the first substantial changes to the country's gun laws in decades - by a vote of 119 to 1 in April.

 

The vote came less than a month after its worst-ever peacetime mass shooting in which 51 people were killed and dozens injured in attacks on two mosques in Christchurch.

 

The new curbs bar the circulation and use of most semi-automatic firearms, parts that convert firearms into semi-automatic firearms, magazines over a certain capacity and some shotguns.

 

Existing gun laws had provided for a standard "A-category" gun license covering semi-automatics limited to seven shots.

 

Police estimated around 14,300 military style semi-automatics would be covered by the new legislation, though the government said it was difficult to predict the exact number.

 

Almost 700 weapons had already been handed in before the compensation scheme was launched and almost 5,000 had been registered by owners with police while they awaited collection.

 

"There is high uncertainty around any (costs), owing to the lack of information on the number of prohibited items, their type and condition," Robertson said, adding that better estimates of the total cost would be available once the buy-back was under way and the government would top up the amount if needed.

 

The government has also begun work on a second arms amendment bill to tackle issues regarding a gun registry, among others. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told reporters on Monday that she expected the government to announce its plans for the law in the next few weeks.

 

With a population of just under 5 million, New Zealand is home to an estimated total of 1.5 million firearms, making it the country with the 17th highest rate of civilian firearm ownership in the world, according to the Small Arms Survey.

 

(Reporting by Charlotte Greenfield, editing by G Crosse)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-06-20

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

Sorry officer all my guns were lost in a tragic boating accident have a nice day.

As a New Zealander, my favourite thing about this scheme is how outraged American social media commenters are about something that doesnt affect them in the slightest

Well done NZ. Like Australia, when something bad happens you act to reduce the chance of it happening again.

 

US, keep sending thoughts and prayers as the solution.

In OZ we destroyed the weapons. I thought, then and now, we should have exported them to the US.

Well done Kiwis.

10 hours ago, jimmyyy said:

Sorry officer all my guns were lost in a tragic boating accident have a nice day.

Yep, gun laws are stupid. There will still be shootings and everyone will be sitting ducks unable to defend themselves. 

Government has ZERO idea how much it's going to cost at a time when the economy is falling, and there are major problems with domestic violence, drugs and gangs that need large amounts of money to combat.

Anyway, no gang member is going to hand back their assault weapons.

 

Some gun organisation is apparently going to sue ( or something ) the government as the buy back scheme is flawed, and it has barely begun. I heard that on the radio this morning, but can't find a link yet.

Edited June 21, 20197 yr by thaibeachlovers

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Government has ZERO idea how much it's going to cost at a time when the economy is falling, and there are major problems with domestic violence, drugs and gangs that need large amounts of money to combat.

Anyway, no gang member is going to hand back their assault weapons.

 

Some gun organisation is apparently going to sue ( or something ) the government as the buy back scheme is flawed, and it has barely begun. I heard that on the radio this morning, but can't find a link yet.

What price do you put on a human life?

6 minutes ago, billd766 said:

What price do you put on a human life?

How many people are killed in car accidents in NZ as compared to being killed by assault style guns? Loads more.

Perhaps we should ban cars.

 

The gun ban isn't going to save a single life. The gangs won't be handing theirs in, and mass shootings are ( so far ) incredibly rare in NZ.

If the government really cared about lives, they'd get rid of the gangs that sell drugs that do kill lots of people.

Edited June 21, 20197 yr by thaibeachlovers

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How many people are killed in car accidents in NZ as compared to being killed by assault style guns? Loads more.

Perhaps we should ban cars.

 

The gun ban isn't going to save a single life. The gangs won't be handing theirs in, and mass shootings are ( so far ) incredibly rare in NZ.

If the government really cared about lives, they'd get rid of the gangs that sell drugs that do kill lots of people.

Of course it will save lives even if only 10 guns are handed in.

 

Governments are hampered by rules, regulations and laws.

 

Why not send the military in (after granting them a complete amnesty) and let them kill all the members of the gangs?

 

A poor try at diverting the topic from the NZ government wanting buy back weapons to banning cars.

53 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Of course it will save lives even if only 10 guns are handed in.

 

Governments are hampered by rules, regulations and laws.

 

Why not send the military in (after granting them a complete amnesty) and let them kill all the members of the gangs?

 

A poor try at diverting the topic from the NZ government wanting buy back weapons to banning cars.

I was just pointing out that the government is making a lot of noise about something that will not save lives- a single shot rifle can kill as easily as one with a 30 round mag. Mass killings are virtually unknown, so why are they telling us it's necessary when far more people are killed by other means. They don't know how much it's going to cost, when they can't afford it anyway.

There are better ways to reduce the risk, but this government is criminalising the law abiding, while doing sod all about the real criminals- the gangs.

I'd rather they had more cops on the roads to do something about the terrible drivers that threaten me every time I drive in the countryside, than spend millions on a somewhat pointless exercise that penalises the law abiding.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How many people are killed in car accidents in NZ as compared to being killed by assault style guns? Loads more.

Perhaps we should ban cars.

 

The gun ban isn't going to save a single life. The gangs won't be handing theirs in, and mass shootings are ( so far ) incredibly rare in NZ.

If the government really cared about lives, they'd get rid of the gangs that sell drugs that do kill lots of people.

I see your logic, now think what you would do if some nutter went and killed some of your family or close friends

Would you still allow guns for all ??

Just wondering

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I was just pointing out that the government is making a lot of noise about something that will not save lives- a single shot rifle can kill as easily as one with a 30 round mag. Mass killings are virtually unknown, so why are they telling us it's necessary when far more people are killed by other means. They don't know how much it's going to cost, when they can't afford it anyway.

There are better ways to reduce the risk, but this government is criminalising the law abiding, while doing sod all about the real criminals- the gangs.

I'd rather they had more cops on the roads to do something about the terrible drivers that threaten me every time I drive in the countryside, than spend millions on a somewhat pointless exercise that penalises the law abiding.

Because cars are made for transport. What are guns made for?

 

banning guns does have an effect. Australia is proof.

Edited June 21, 20197 yr by Sujo

3 hours ago, monkeycu said:

I see your logic, now think what you would do if some nutter went and killed some of your family or close friends

Would you still allow guns for all ??

Just wondering

Relatives of victims are not good as judge or jury.

 

I do agree with this law and buy back, but throwing in relatives of victims is imo not good.

15 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Government has ZERO idea how much it's going to cost at a time when the economy is falling, and there are major problems with domestic violence, drugs and gangs that need large amounts of money to combat.

Anyway, no gang member is going to hand back their assault weapons.

 

Some gun organisation is apparently going to sue ( or something ) the government as the buy back scheme is flawed, and it has barely begun. I heard that on the radio this morning, but can't find a link yet.

"Government has ZERO idea how much it's going to cost at a time" Well for the USA it would bankrupt them.

 

"Anyway, no gang member is going to hand back their assault weapons" presume anyone caught with illegal weapons would hit hard by the full force of the law, not only that if they can trace the last registered keeper of the gun they may also find themselves in hot water.

 

13 hours ago, billd766 said:

What price do you put on a human life?

In  reality  virtually  zero depending  on  whose  agenda,  even  armies  sacrifice soldiers.

6 hours ago, Sujo said:

Because cars are made for transpor

Ask the people in London who got mowed  down and  killed by "fruitcakes" on London Bridge.

2 hours ago, Chazar said:

Ask the people in London who got mowed  down and  killed by "fruitcakes" on London Bridge.

Sad you justify a comparison between a car and a gun. One meant for transportation, one for killing.

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Sad you justify a comparison between a car and a gun. One meant for transportation, one for killing.

Sad you cant see that the car is an equally useful weapon for  killing...........especially in Thailand