The heat on the gun laws at Select Committee hearing

RNZ:  Select committee hears out feedback on gun law reform

Emotions ran high during a select committee seeking to change the country’s gun laws today, with opponents taking aim at the speed at which the bill is being rushed through Parliament and supporters saying it can’t come soon enough.

The Finance and Expenditure committee has received about 10,000 written submissions on the proposal to ban military-style semi-automatic guns, like those used by the man accused of murdering 50 people as they prayed in two Christchurch mosques last month.

However, only 20 or so oral submissions were heard by MPs – the subject of much consternation among some firearm enthusiasts.

Police Association president Chris Cahill…

…praised the government and the opposition for their decisiveness in getting the legislation through Parliament.

Mr Cahill raised some serious concerns, though, about possible exemptions to the law, including for specially licensed dealers, “bona fide collectors”, museum curators and people using firearms for dramatic productions.

He said they were only required to remove a part from a firearm in order to make it inoperable. But he said this still was not safe as it was possible to reattach it.

David Tipple…

…said that if they passed the law in its present form, “you would be helping him win”.

Gun City continued selling the firearms used in the attack even after the prime minister said they would be banned.

“Rushing this good-feel [sic] law is causing division. It is bad law and it will result in serious injustices. Worse, it ignores what went wrong. There are no loopholes in the existing law, this happened because he broke numerous laws.”

After his appearance, Mr Tipple told reporters what action he believed New Zealanders should take.

“Which one of us after this event doesn’t have a warm fuzzy when we see a hijab? We have all grown in empathy with that community because of that event. That is how we beat that mad Australian; when we get together and not divide. When you stop lynching me as a gun owner.”

There were submissions from people seeking exemptions…

…including Andrew Edgecombe from the Antique and Historical Arms Association, who said his members were feeling “victimised, marginalised and criminalised” because of their chosen interest.

Ben Allen from Airsoft NZ asked that plastic airsoft guns be exempt because, although they may look a bit like military-style semi-autos, they wouldn’t be able to to fire actual bullets.

Pistol New Zealand, too, asked that legitimate target shooters be exempted.

Martin Taylor from Fish and Game, which represents some 40,000 hunters, said while the organisation supported the bill, he was concerned about the six-month deadline.

“With the nature of the large number of weapons that have to be bought back we wondering whether six months is actually practical,” Mr Taylor said.

The most contentious submission was by gun rights blogger Mike Loder, who called Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern a “tyrant” for rushing the law through.

“I watched the prime minister literally laugh when she announced that new gun laws will be rushed through. A journalist said would people be able to make submissions? She literally laughed. That is a tyrant.”

Nuts like that will make it easier for MPs to justify a clampdown on semi-automatics weapons that are designed to kill people.

Stuff: Tipple spat with journalists

Gun City owner in heated exchange with media before making gun law reform submission at Parliament.

Stuff: Tears and tension over gun law

It’s now or never, or it’s knee-jerk “good-feel” lawmaking that lets the terrorist win, select committee hears.

Stuff opinion: How gun lobby may fight back

Tactics are likely to mirror those used by tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries.

It is not a singular ‘gun lobby’. There are a quarter of a million licensed firearm owners who have a variety of views on what legal restrictions should be put in place.

Newsroom:  The rollercoaster ride of firearms reform

Parliament has been pushed and pulled between emotion and detail, conspiracy and research in its bid to carry out gun law reform in hyperdrive. But some say there’s no other way, as Laura Walters writes.

There were moments of specificity throughout the marathon day of oral submissions on firearms reforms to Parliament’s finance and expenditure committee.

But by and large, the appearance of more than 20 submitters was a chance to give those most affected by the Christchurch terror attack, and the subsequent decision to ban a raft of dangerous weapons, a chance to say their piece.

The speed at which the Government has moved to change the country’s gun laws makes your head spin.

For those MPs involved, as well as the experts, public and media witnessing the democratic process in action on Thursday, it was a stark reminder why laws are not usually made this way, and shouldn’t be.

Politicians are clearly aware of the responsibility resting on their shoulders, and the tight timeframe in which they have to get this law right.

Law Society president Tiana Epati again emphasised the speed when she talked about the ability of the society’s criminal experts to consider Crown Law advice on the bill overnight on Wednesday.

While there was good reason for speed, Epati said the society had been unable to dig into the definitions and possible unintended consequences of the drafting; the legal experts wanted just a couple more days.

I personally think that tighter laws are overdue and should happen, but have concerns over the rushed process.

 

 

 

Previous Post
Leave a comment

41 Comments

  1. unitedtribes2

     /  5th April 2019

    Im a gun owner who has a bolt action and a semi auto .22 rifles. The only reason i have the semi is that a friend who didn’t want to renew his gun license gave it to me.. I use the bolt action to keep rabbits under control. I shoot about 3 a week. Yesterday I got the semi out and put it though a trial to see which gun would be most effective. The bolt action is still the best. I don’t think I would be any more effective at controlling rabbits with the semi. In Central Otago it would be a different story but I doubt it would be for most shooters in NZ. My semi will be legal or illegal depending on what mag I use so it would seem to me it will be my choice if I keep it or not. Probably take Jacinda’s offer up once I see how they are going to compensate.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  5th April 2019

      Im no expert but if your semi has an interchangeable magazine then its illegal right now without you having an E endorsement.
      That was the whole point of the gun laws , the interchangeable magazines of legal guns. Only legal semis will be those with a small sized fixed magazine.
      The compensation will be for used price so not sure how old but you will be taking it up. Further gun laws to come will bring in more stringent laws regarding who owns what.

      Interesting to hear yesterday that the Police had over the term of the last government, been scaling back resources for firearms control – lack of money

      Reply
      • Andrew

         /  5th April 2019

        “I’m no expert but if your semi has an interchangeable magazine then it’s illegal right now without you having an E endorsement”

        Incorrect. It was not whether or not the rifle has an “interchangeable magazine” that made it automatically an E-Cat licensed firearm. That was only one of the conditions that “may” have moved an A-cat to an E-cat.

        For example, if unitedtribes2 was using the semi-automatic .22 rifle in its standard form without any modifications with a standard 10 round detachable magazine, no pistol grip (forward or rear), then it would have remained an A-category firearm. Should unitedtribes2 have been using the .22 with a aftermarket 25 round magazine, or fitted it with a pistol grip, then it would have been immediately in the E-Category and they would have got into trouble if caught using it.

        The majority of rifles, bolt action or semi-automatic, have detachable magazines (or have the ability to be fitted with them). The old E-cat provision was for; at any time, the semi-automatic rifle must be used with a 7-round or less detachable magazine or otherwise capacity. Should the A-cat rifle be fitted with anything larger than 7 rounds, either factory, or aftermarket, or having a pistol grip, or any other of the provisions of an E-cat MSSA, then it was immediately an E-cat endorsed weapon.

        The biggest fuck up in all of this, is that you could purchase E-cat accessories without an E-cat endorsed license. Even required no license FFS. This is where the real problem lay.

        This is what happens when politicians try and save the world from themselves and have no clues about the laws they are writing and the unintended consequences of those laws. How someone without a firearms license could rock into a hunting store and purchase a 100 round barrel magazine for a E-cat rifle, is absolutely beyond me.

        Fixing this alone would have greatly reduced Mr Tarrants’ ability to inflict as greater damage as he did (allegedly at this stage until proven guilty).

        In my humble opinion, these new laws go way too far and demonise the majority of legitimate and law abiding hunting and gun owning members of society. We have an E-cat endorsed license for a reason, just fix the laws around what you can buy without a license. Banning won’t solve anything, never has done, never will do. Sure it will make it harder for someone like Tarrant to perpetrate mass murder, but where there is a will there is a way. “Banning” all semi-automatic rifles because they “look like” military automatics will do nothing to stop nut cases like this.

        We still have a very low homicide by firearm rate, despite what some in the media would have you believe. We could have achieved the same ends by banning Australians from having a firearms license in NZ. As, after all, is was not a kiwi that did this.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  5th April 2019

          banning did work in Australia, even better the overall gun deaths dropped too. Thats likely the reason he came here!
          You repeat those false gun lobby lines like they mean something , btw ‘what happened to guns dont kill people , people do’- I suppose once it gets to 50 dead from hollow nose bullets from high capacity magazines on semi- automatic rifles it becomes ‘rhetorical’

          Reply
          • Andrew

             /  5th April 2019

            “banning did work in Australia”

            Has it though? Their homicide by firearm rate is higher than ours. Their police carry firearms as standard whereas ours don’t. I know where i would rather live. Mass shootings in NZ and Australia are/were already very rare. Bet you won’t be saying that after the next mass killing in Australia whenever that may be.

            I am not repeating any false gun lobby lines. Those lines are my own and my own only.

            “hollow nose bullets” could you please link to where it has been reported as to the type of ammunition that was used please? I have not see it mentioned yet, though i could easily have missed it.

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  5th April 2019

              Still havent explained why an Australian came here especially for his massacre.- No mosques in NSW?

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  5th April 2019

              No armed police here, and he wanted to make the point that even NZ wasn’t safe, that nowhere was (he said that, I’m guessing about the unarmed police being a bonus)

      • Andrew

         /  5th April 2019

        and to also take into account the “new” changes where there is a moratorium in place stopping the sale and transfer of said firearms which are now illegal for non e-cat license holders.

        unitedtribes2 semi-automatic .22 rifle is still legal and an A-cat firearm, because there was a specific carve out for .22 or smaller rifles that have a detachable magazine of no more than 10 rounds, as well as semi-automatic shotguns that have a standard tubular magazine that can hold no more than 5 rounds.

        Reply
  2. David

     /  5th April 2019

    We appear to be in a situation where the media and commentariat are in agreement with pretty much anything Ardern proposes regardless of cost or effectiveness and thus receives little scrutiny, also anyone who disagrees publicly is in for a slapping for daring to have a different opinion.
    It is not a universally popular policy and gun folk are a little bit passionate so lets see if a politician/party makes a break.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  5th April 2019

      Ardern has been busy with other stuff. Nash who is a hunter and gun owner has been working with National and the other parties on the details. Thats not what you call commentariat.
      The only MP opposed is a failed Dancing with Stars contestant, whom never would have owned a gun or been hunting . A dweeb. Good luck with him on your side

      Reply
      • David

         /  5th April 2019

        Nash and National and Ardern are not the commentariat, you miss the whole point as usual in your rush to reply to everything I say..I am flattered but please

        Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  5th April 2019

        He went through almost to the end and was not voted off; it was an obvious jack-up by the judges who organised a ‘dance off’ to get him off. I don’t know if that’s him in that photo; it looks photoshopped to me.

        ‘Who would never’, not ‘whom would never.’ You have no way of knowing that he’s never owned a gun or gone hunting. I can assure you that he is not a dweeb;he has a brilliant mind.

        Even 3 news acknowledged that he was opposed to the speed of the legislation, not the content.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  5th April 2019

          Brilliant mind ….hahahaha, cant even tell the time,
          Act drops 20% in party vote since he became sole MP.
          Clearly hes listening to people like you …rather than you know real people…hahahaha

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  5th April 2019

            Don’t troll, please. You are coming across as unpleasant, gratuitously spiteful and just rude and nasty. I don’t know what your problem is, but don’t take it out on me, please.

            Reply
    • Patzcuaro

       /  5th April 2019

      Commentariat definition – “members of the news media considered as a class”

      Universally – “everyone; in every case”

      Very hard to get universal agreement on firearms control, Tipple would probably want to sell automatic weapons and some are against guns full stop.

      With firearms control I think we should err on the side of caution and take the opportunity to have something good come out of the tragedy by banning all semi automatics over .22 calibre and shotguns with magazine capacity greater than five shots.
      This may infringe on a few people’s freedoms but will save lives in the long term.

      Reply
  3. Ray

     /  5th April 2019

    10,000 and only 20 got to speak, one an obvious loon, and two more representatives of the police after the police got a whole day to put their case the previous day.
    Hmmm.
    I wonder if the police will be able to explain their failure to register every firearm the last time they tried, when the next tranche of laws come up?
    Cost overrun, computer program not fit for purpose or ineptitude?

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  5th April 2019

      Technology has changed a lot from days of paper forms and mainframe computers. People will do things online , police will use smart phones ( they use them now for all sorts of things) to check up on owners licenses and gun details when out and about, maybe they will use retired cops for a lot of the ‘process’ rather than front line cops as of course gun owners are mostly law abiding

      Reply
      • Pink David

         /  5th April 2019

        “Technology has changed a lot from days of paper forms and mainframe computers.”

        Queensland when to introduce a new payroll system for Queensland Health. Budget was $6.9m in 2006

        In 2013 it had cost $364m and did not work. It was projected that another $836m was require for it to be running by 2018.

        Government’s ability to deliver successful software projects remains fantasy.

        “maybe they will use retired cops for a lot of the ‘process’ rather than front line cops as of course gun owners are mostly law abiding”

        Perhaps you are missing the meaning of the word retired?

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  5th April 2019

          If you knew anything about payroll for where there could be 300,000 employees , you wouldnt say that.
          Governments use private contractors for these projects, like private companies they can go horribly wrong too- the world around you that relies on computers shows how wrong you are.

          Reply
          • Pink David

             /  5th April 2019

            “If you knew anything about payroll for where there could be 300,000 employees , you wouldnt say that.”

            Did I set the budget at $6.9m? Explain to be how a project going from $6.9m to $1,200m isn’t a total and utter fiasco.

            “Governments use private contractors for these projects, like private companies they can go horribly wrong too- the world around you that relies on computers shows how wrong you are.”

            Government software projects are the worst run, and poorest performing projects. Success rates are very low, and long cost and time overruns, and failure, are the norm.

            The idea that it is simply newer technology that means such a system could work successfully is quite simply laughable.

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  5th April 2019

              The original budget wouldnt be $6.9 mill.- that buys you nothing at that scale other than an ‘investigation’ of what to do.
              Relying on reporters you mostly havent the faintest idea about how computing works let a lone a brand new database design , code and hardware. If its a news.com.au story there is often a bigger nonsense from the headlines and story.
              Anyways there are many computer stuff ups around, the good ones dont get headlines, why are you choosing that one in Qld over say Novapay here in NZ – another ‘payroll’

            • Gezza

               /  5th April 2019

              It’s a tricky one for departments. In mine the problem was always at Top & Senior Management level. We went through the period of downsizing that saw the mantra that “internal IT staff waste too much time & money on pet projects. It is not our core business, it will be much cheaper & more cost effective to outsource this to the experts.

              After that, there was nobody in Top or Group or Operations management who had the barest clue about IT. Private companies took them to cleaners with rampant overcharging & poor performance, even often getting the department to pay for THEIR stuff ups.

              Made you weep tears of frustration at times. Your manager would just sit there, looking blank, as you outlined the latest problem, & do nothing except sign off the next bill.

            • Gezza

               /  5th April 2019

              I’m smiling as I write this, but it wasn’t funny at the time. We went through so many inept top down restructurings, similar things happened with record keeping, because people who knew how to sequence & maintain paper systems, & would have designed specs for our new windows environment were simply declared irrelevant now & pushed out.

              Every unit then devised its own rules, within the windows standard parameters? Some OIA requests became a nightmare to do because not everything covered by requests was printed out & on a paper file.

              You would have to go into a unit’s drive & go through their folders based on whatever someone had named it. When you opened it, there could be dozens of documents & not all finals were named, & not all FINALs were the final.

              You had to open them all, & read them – you couldn’t rely on date saved.

              And often emails seeking comments, worldwide, were covered. Managers from all over the globe & NZ would have replied to the one which emanated from Head Office. Many would Reply To All, & a string of comments would be generated. Others would reply individually & directly, either initially or at at some point in the chain, leaving you with having to read & compile mutliple overlapping documents.

              And many would have their emails set to indent reply. I remember getting one email from a brach manager overseas, with another email icon attached. It simply said. “Look at this. Unbelievable!”

              When opened & printed out it went on for pages and pages and pages. And from about halfway through (I didn’t even know this was possible) it had become just an endless string of vertical characters. 🙄 😀

            • Pink David

               /  5th April 2019

              “The original budget wouldnt be $6.9 mill.- that buys you nothing at that scale other than an ‘investigation’ of what to do.”

              It was.

              “Relying on reporters you mostly havent the faintest idea about how computing works let a lone a brand new database design , code and hardware. If its a news.com.au story there is often a bigger nonsense from the headlines and story.”

              I’m not relying on reporters. There was an entire commission of inquiry into it.
              As for me not having “the faintest idea about how computing works let a lone a brand new database design , code and hardware”, well, I do know very well how this works. hence my statement “Government’s ability to deliver successful software projects remains fantasy.”.

              “Anyways there are many computer stuff ups around, the good ones dont get headlines, why are you choosing that one in Qld over say Novapay here in NZ – another ‘payroll’”

              So you now agree with my statement: “Government’s ability to deliver successful software projects remains fantasy.”. I chose it because I use it as a case study in training project management.

              Novapay’s cost overruns were, in relative terms, only tens of millions, not a billion in the case of Queensland Payroll.

            • Pink David

               /  5th April 2019

              ” “internal IT staff waste too much time & money on pet projects. It is not our core business, it will be much cheaper & more cost effective to outsource this to the experts.”

              Now that actually might be true. It does not, however, mean that they will be any more successful at outsourcing than they would be doing it in house. There is a lot of skill in outsourcing successfully that a person with the title ‘Manager’ very likely does not have.

              “Made you weep tears of frustration at times. Your manager would just sit there, looking blank, as you outlined the latest problem, & do nothing except sign off the next bill.”

              Yes, it does. Don’t underestimate the power of allowing a manager to say ‘it’s the contractors fault!’ though.

            • Duker

               /  5th April 2019

              I looked up the Queensland COI into the QH Payroll.

              “The contract price for the system was $6,194,932.9841. It increased ultimately by a factor of more than four: to $25.7M.
              What you are talking about at over a Billion was the wider Queensland Government Shared Services computer project.
              eg ‘The decision to use the Housing solution as a basis for the Interim Solution was just one of a number of poor decisions motivated by a perceived need to rush the delivery of a replacement for the LATTICE system.’
              mumbo jumbo but indicates they were far beyond a hospital payroll.

              Thats what I mean you dont even know enoughto read the full report but get dribs and drabs from newspapers. Real answer is DONT use IBM for these sort of projects but back in that era they were seen as having all the answers.

              http://www.healthpayrollinquiry.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/207203/Queensland-Health-Payroll-System-Commission-of-Inquiry-Report-31-July-2013.pdf

            • Pink David

               /  5th April 2019

              “What you are talking about at over a Billion was the wider Queensland Government Shared Services computer project.”

              Not correct. There are the actual contract values, the costs incurred to the various parties, and then there is the actual impact costs.

              ” The contract price negotiated for the design and
              implementation of the new payroll system was agreed at $6.19 million but by the time the system was put
              into operation the amount paid to IBM had exceeded $37 million. The Government’s own costs, incurred on
              its side of the implementation, were a further $64 million. ”

              “In May 2012 KPMG provided another review. It noted that the costs incurred in operating the system to that
              date had exceeded $400 million. The estimated costs of making the system function for the next five years
              is another $836 million.”

              “Thats what I mean you dont even know enoughto read the full report but get dribs and drabs from newspapers.”

              You completely fail to understand what you read, then just throw in this nonsense for good measure. Really there is no value in any discussion with you.

              “Real answer is DONT use IBM for these sort of projects but back in that era they were seen as having all the answers.”

              That’s not the answer the commission of inquiry came too.

            • Duker

               /  5th April 2019

              Running costs aren’t a development cost..duh

  4. Jack

     /  5th April 2019

    Lots of learned argument here and elsewhere about semi-automatic military and military style rifles, but nothing about semi-automatic pistols. If I recall correctly the teacher and schoolkids murdered at Dunblane, Scotland in 1996 were killed by a pistol club enthusiast with four pistols. I’m sure that some if not all were semi-automatic. Drastic change in UK law governing pistols followed. We seem to have a good opportunity for forward thinking post-Christchurch – or am I missing something? Will it take an NZ Dunblane to deal with semi-automatic pistols?

    Reply
    • As of 3pm 21 March 2019 changes were made by an Order in Council to bring two additional groups of semi-automatic firearms within the definition of a Military Style Semi-automatic (MSSA) firearm:

      a semi-automatic firearm that is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch or less rimfire cartridges) that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges;

      https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearms-and-safety/firearms-approved-use-new-zealand

      “semi-automatic firearm” presumably covers pistols.

      But pistols are already restricted anyway.

      Anyone owning pistols, restricted weapons or militarystyle semi-automatic firearms (MSSA) is required to have security of a higher standard than that required for sporting firearms (‘A’ category) owners.

      If you wish to possess a pistol you are required by law to hold an endorsement on your firearms licence. You are required to either belong to a Pistol Club recognised by the Commissioner of Police (B endorsement), or, be a bona fide collector (C endorsement). Pistols can only be fired on an approved Pistol Club range. You need to obtain a special permit, known as a ‘permit to procure’, from the Police so you can buy a pistol.

      https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/the-arms-code-2013.pdf

      Reply
      • Jack

         /  6th April 2019

        Thanks Pete. I guess I can’t get my head around any sort of administrative or legal arrangement which permits any multi-shot pistols, especially high power semi-automatic pistols, to be in the hands of Joe Public. Sporting pistol shooting or not.

        Reply
        • Actually Sensible

           /  7th April 2019

          And yet, Jack, hundreds of thousands of such guns have been in the possession of legal license holders for decades and used every day around the country without issues, UNTIL Ardern and Nash reduced police staff numbers to vet applicants, made buying guns online possible, AND THEN our Government’s Immigration people let this murderer in from Australia (with his history including travel to Turkey, Pakistan and North Korea for goodness’ sake!), AND THEN one or two of Chris Cahill’s union members issued him a license after ‘some’ vetting. But – you can’t get your head around all the people who DID NOT commit, aid or abet this evil crime? Yeah, Tui.

          Reply
          • “reduced police staff numbers to vet applicants”

            I don’t think that happened. Police numbers have been increasing.

            “made buying guns online possible,”

            That’s been possible for years.

            What changed last year was you could apply online rather than in person “to become a gun dealer, get a firearms licence, import a restricted weapon, or get a permit to buy a MSSA [military style semi-automatic]”, but that wasn’t a process used by Tarrant, what he purchased was not then an MSSA, he converted weapons by adding high capacity magazines illegally.

            “AND THEN our Government’s Immigration people let this murderer in from Australia”

            He was let in two years ago. He wasn’t a murderer when he entered the country.

            “AND THEN one or two of Chris Cahill’s union members issued him a license after ‘some’ vetting”

            He got a firearms license in November 2017, before the online form was

            Reply
            • Actually Sensible

               /  7th April 2019

              Well Jack, there’s this (but thank you for the reasonable rebuttal) :

              ***

              Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern oversaw recent changes which meant gun licence holders did not need to visit police stations when applying for permits for assault rifles, but could instead apply online.

              Previously under the Arms Act, if someone wanted to become a gun dealer, get a firearms licence, import a restricted weapon, or get a permit to buy a MSSA [military style semi-automatic], they had to physically deliver an application to their nearest police station.

              For example, if someone with an E-category endorsement was buying an MSSA, they would have to visit their police station for a permit, show the permit to the seller, and then take the weapon back to police.

              * Police firearms staff proposed restructure could affect more than 350 jobs
              * The Christchurch mosque shooter was able to get hold of large capacity magazines with ease
              * Christchurch attack: Government has agreed to gun law changes, will tell public within week

              Under the changes, which came in just before Christmas, that process could be done online, and the firearm shown by video call. Police could ask to see the weapon in person if they were not satisfied they had identified it.

              The Prime Minister’s office says the changes were designed to allow for paperwork to be done electronically and didn’t remove the requirement for face-to-face vetting when someone applied for a firearms licence before applying for access to an MSSA.

              The accused gunman got his New Zealand firearms licence in November, 2017 and began buying weapons soon after, including online from Gun City in Christchurch.

              Ardern was the chair of an executive committee which ushered through changes to arms regulations.

          • Blazer

             /  7th April 2019

            you forgot the ‘in’ in your user name.

            Reply
            • Actually More Sensible than you - not a high bar though

               /  7th April 2019

              Awesome refuting technique you employed there sirrah…

            • Please don’t keep changing your pseudonym. It guarantees each comment will be stopped in moderation, and it is contrary to the terms of use here.

          • Jack

             /  7th April 2019

            I have no argument at all with the sensible and responsible gun owners in the is country. I have personally owned high-powered rifles for years for hunting and have been an active pistol club member (single shot .22 target). My point is simply that it is difficult to commit mass murder with a semi-automatic pistol if you can’t get get your hands on one – or the magazine extenders or ammunition. Is a 9mm Glock or Browning really designed with precision target shooting at paper targets in mind, or for shooting people centre-of-mass, quickly and efficiently? The current responsible owners of semi-automatic pistols will get over it (or join the Defence Force or Police) – and prospective owners will not have to face the problem.
            I don’t think your comment on Police numbers is particularly relevant, but internal Police policies (and their political drivers) do appear to have verged on the confused if not incompetent over the years. As with GST there is no security to be gained in trying to manage a host of exceptions. Don’t you agree?

            Reply
            • Actually Usually Sensible and I am this time too

               /  7th April 2019

              So, Jack, your argument is that any gun you don’t see a need for should be taken from existing legal owners and banned for the future. And existing legal owners should just ‘get over it’.

              The thing is – what will you do when there is something that Jack or the Family of Jack want, or want to keep, and Jack Model Deux sez “nope, we’re taking that off you”. Will you go “OK sure, because I have long loved the principle that other people can decide what I need.” Do you agree?

  5. Mostly Sensible and Actually a Productive Taxpayer

     /  7th April 2019

    Jack, re police numbers:

    ***

    Police arms officers were told in January they would be restructured, with 76 district-based positions disestablished and 280 casual vetting staff positions cut entirely.

    They would be replaced by 36 field-based positions and 47 centralised positions at a facility in Kapiti.

    Reply
  6. Jack

     /  7th April 2019

    Thanks for your observations MSAPT – but you take my post too far. As I have said, my issue is with military-purpose/style firearms generally, and yes, I do think that current owners can be expected to get on with life in the interest of the greater good. We do it all the time. I have no “long loved ….. principle that other people can decide what I need” – but occasionally in a democracy you have to accept the final decisions of those who are elected to power. Insistence on setting your own limits of behaviour, irrespective of the interests of the community is not a democratic sentiment but an anarchic one. My views are a personal contribution to the democratic debate. That is all.
    Re the Police, there’s no evidence to suggest that a proposed re-organization of staff assigned to gun control could not result in an improvement in management. Seems irrelevant now, as I’d be surprised if any firearms management policy proposed in January will avoid close scrutiny post-Christchurch.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s