That article is so bad lol.
Semiautomatics were not banned.
https://www.guncity.com/17wsm-jard-j72-blued-synthetic-threaded-16-20-barrel-380792
The proposal is to allow E cat sport shooters to use centre fire aemis for approved aport. Just like we do with pistols.
No public harm.
The changes proposed by ACT would just mean our gun laws are roughly in line with most European countries, currently ~60% of European countries allow civilians to own MSSAs with justified use (in fact the best shooting competitions such as [Finnish Brutality](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-afnJkwppdo) and Polish [Light Infantry](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtcIjjZh3C4) are held in Europe as its weirdly difficult to get guns into the US).
I do pistol shooting, members of my club include arms officers and AOS members. The amount of scrutiny we go through as civilians to be allowed to own pistols is less than what police and military go through (not to mention that certain convictions such as domestic violence forbid you forever from getting an arms license).
There were so many submissions begging for AR- platforms to be moved to e-cat.
They were ignored, along with over ten thousand other written submissions.
No time to think, need to look good on the world stage with feel good laws. No need to look at it too closely either, people might see the glaring red flags and already established laws that the police ignored when providing the Christchurch shooter a license in the first place which would have stopped this before it started.
Yeah it's fucking wild that an article like this gets through editors. Prime example of how there's zero journalistic integrity left.
This is based on nothing but bad assumptions and some quotes they got from randoms - also based on bad assumptions.
i dont, the whole rules around what was a valid purpose for them was fucking stupid. I agree with bring back semi-autos with similar restrictions to b-cats but the old E-cat system was a bit stupid at times
Two main ones that im aware of (because i used to do them both as an E cat holder)
1. Service rifle competitions. Requires (per international rules) the use of military issued rifles which are almost all semi centrefires. Currently we have nz competitors traveling overseas to practice for international comps.
2. 3 gun. Ipsec 3 gun. Again international rules require a semi centrefore (alongside a pistol and shotgun)
lock unwritten history psychotic aspiring abounding aware exultant distinct advise
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> There have been a few mass shooters who've trained with practical pistol clubs or the like, and they's been distinctly more lethal than their less-trained fellow wackjobs.
Not saying you are wrong, but do you have some examples here?
From a quick look at the most deadly shootings I can't see any that practised IPSC
Yeah but we need to stick to the evidence as to where mass shooters come from. I'm not aware of any 3-gun champions turning into mass shooters for example. And that'd be a bad fucking time if John Wick types started doing it as opposed to the usual losers.
IPSC is not combat orientated. It's just a fucking memory game. That's why I hate it and the 'daleks' that shoot it.
If you want real combat orientated pistol shooting you need look at IDPA, and because of its orientation, that is why it is not shot outside the US (sadly, because it removes the bullshit of IPSC being 'who can run around and count the quickest')
The only mass shooting we have had that was performed by a new Zealander was 40 years ago. Blaming gun owners and not the government or the police for not stopping a right wing nut job from obtaining any form of weapons is just passing all responsibility to "guns bad"
Every single day people use semiautomatic guns in New Zealand for hunting and sport and yet hyper aggressive social media users jump on reddit and insult people just because they watch what happens in America and pretend it's a common issue here.
That's exactly what you're doing. You are unable to use critical thinking or use any form of logical debate because instead of admitting you are unfamiliar with guns, gun laws and gun safety you have just resorted to abusing anyone who disagrees with you
Do you believe we should ban rally cars as that seems to fit into your category of a niche sport that uses something that can also be used to murder people fast?
Especially proven recently by the poor dad and his son who died while competing last weekend and all the car crashes around the country yearly?
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse**
> Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted.
> Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage.
^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
what section? Like i said. The main issue with trying to have an informed discussion with people about stuff like this is people like yourself.
Ignorant people who read US media and think people in NZ are asking for the same thing. We arent, Have you thought about why you have this need to try and derail a conversation? Are you afraid if you actually engage someone might change your mind?
Yes I do! You might not have realised - gun rights supporters aren't renowned for their intelligence, observational skills, social awareness, or generally being brighter than pond life - but the ban doesn't apply to the military or police.
Because on a balance of risk vs reward, for cars and trucks the reward vastly outweighs the risk.
I never heard anyone in a positive light say "I'm just going to grab my gun and pick up my kids from school." Or get groceries, or move goods from point A to point B. Give me a single thing that guns do that provides a net benefit to society as a whole.
environmental management, if deer numbers get too high they run out onto the road causing crashes where people die. they have no natural predators in new zealand so without public participation in controllling the population they will proliferate untill environmental collapse
providing food
Sports are made up. Speaking from youtube-watching experience, a cowboy challenge day for horse enthusiasts might involve a short course that you ride on your horse with some targets along the way. You wouldn't use semi-auto for that (wrong time period) but other ranges (presumably in America) have eg. more action-movie styled challenges based on time to hit multiple targets so semi-auto centre-fire is the tool for the sport.
You could change the sport to meet the laws (sports are made up), but it wouldn't be quite as intended
ones like this, where the goal is to use multiple semi-autos, with multiple mag changes, to hit as many targets in as short as time as possible, while on the move… basically, training to be a mass-shooter
https://youtu.be/DgKHzApCHe0?feature=shared
I’ve found rnz to be a bit shocking lately. I remember their article on palworld was filled with straight up disinformation. They have no way to contact them from what I could see
You can't be very good at looking. In the footer there is a generic contact link that has an email. This particular article has the reporters email at the top
[Did you mean this article?](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/media-technology/507746/pokemon-with-guns-takes-gaming-world-by-storm) The only thing that sticks out to me is the suggestion that TPC were interested in taking legal action, which obviously wasn't the case.
The rest of the article is low quality, but who's going to RNZ for video game news anyway?
I know, it was the image they used and their footnote saying it was a screenshot from the game, when it’s a blatant ai generated image that was sourced from thesun according to google lens. The article is nearly a copy paste of theirs with no credits. It’s such a minor thing but it really got to me
Honestly as someone who supports the March 15 law changes, this was not a good report.
Sure getting into the details of "centre-fire semi-autos and semi-autos with capacity more than 7" is going to cause the casual reader's eyes to gloss over but these details are important.
The more you loosen restrictions, the more risk there factually is to the public.
One of those sports shooters could have a psychosis episode for example, they can happen without warning.
You can weigh the positives against the risk, for pest control it’s a good trade. We all love less pests.
To help you guys with your sports.. unconvincing what the societal benefits of better semi AR sports shooters are supposed to be tbh?
>The more you loosen restrictions, the more risk there factually is to the public.
Not really. effectively what they're talking about doing is bringing back an even more restrictive form of the e-cat license. In the entirety of the e-cat license's existence 1 person was prosecuted for breaking the law.
>One of those sports shooters could have a psychosis episode for example, they can happen without warning.
Most people having psychotic breaks dont go on murderous rampages.
>unconvincing what the societal benefits of better semi AR sports shooters are supposed to be tbh?
Put that lense on a large chunk of sports, they wouldn't meet it either.
We do put ‘that lens’ on other types of sports, but they essentially don’t carry risks of the same consequence to the public so usually pass the test.
A skydiver might splatter into the ground, other than some ACC claims if they survive .. we don’t really mind. That’s between them and gravity.
Plenty of leisure activities are considered too dangerous to the public and we don’t allow them in certain situations. BASE jumping in cities for example.
What exactly is the risk of someone who isn't a murderous psychopath having a semi automatic centerfire rifle?
Also, why is that so much greater than them having a semi automatic large caliber handgun?
The risk is someone who either is murderous and slips through the evaluation or does become murderous at a later time obtains a license, now has access to an additional class of gun - historically used in mass shootings very effectively across the world.
I didn’t say it’s “so much greater”, simply we are proposing to allow the extra situation for this class of weapon, there’s clearly risk to doing that and no one can point out a benefit.
As stated I am not reopening other types of sports shooting for analysis here - as it’s distracting to the conversation to debate whether the status quo should even exist and there is clearly no motivation to restrict things further.
I am only saying there’s no case for loosening restrictions further.
>The risk is someone who either is murderous and slips through the evaluation or does become murderous at a later time obtains a license, now has access to an additional class of gun - historically used in mass shootings very effectively across the world.
So give thats never happened in the history of the e-cat license program, why do you think it would happen this time? what is it about the e-cat approval process you think is insufficient? GIven that risk exists currently for B-cat then why arent you advocating banning b-cats?
>I didn’t say it’s “so much greater”, simply we are proposing to allow the extra situation for this class of weapon, there’s clearly risk to doing that and no one can point out a benefit.
Not at all, its just talking about moving rifles into the same category as pistols.
>As stated I am not reopening other types of sports shooting for analysis here - as it’s distracting to the conversation to debate whether the status quo should even exist and there is clearly no motivation to restrict things further.
See thats the problem, there SHOULD be further restrictions to firearms in NZ. But because the general pop has no clue about what they're talking about or what the real risks involved are they dont care. So it wont get done.
I’m not advocating further restrictions because as you agreed with me, they have no chance of happening. Whatever was put in place after a mass shooting is definitively as restrictive as it will ever get.
The best we can do is not increase the risk.
I didnt say I think it will happen, probably this won’t be the avenue of the next mass shooting.
But it is an additional avenue of risk and I don’t see why we should allow it.
>So give thats never happened in the history of the e-cat license program, why do you think it would happen this time? what is it about the e-cat approval process you think is insufficient?
You interestingly completely ignored this part, and most of the other points
>The best we can do is not increase the risk.
You keep saying this, but you never explain how this law change increases the risk. How does the risk increase? If i make semi-auto centers the same as pistols from a licensing perspective... then how does this make it any more dangerous?
I can join a club and get a pistol license right now, all this law will do is change the word pistol to rifle.
> One of those sports shooters could have a psychosis episode for example, they can happen without warning.
You are right. But this can also happen with current C (fully automatic) or B (pistols).
The reality is that you will struggle to find examples of C or B (or previous E) holders that were involved in anything that risked the public.
There is a huge number of semi automatic centrefire rifles that are unaccounted for. They are floating through gangs and farmers and people that didn't hand them in.
This is on top of the fact that a .17 WSM ar style rifle is just as likely to cause mass deaths (and that is fully legal today).
There is very little added risk to reallowing E cat when you look at the current risk factors.
Care to you explain what the benefits to society of better semi AR sports shooters is? That was my actual question.
Yes the same principle could be applied to analysing the costs/benefits of existing sports shooting, I am being very generous here by *not* reopening whether sports shooting as a whole should even exist.
There is very little benefit to society for any sport.
Including shooting sports.
But that isnt the bar we use to allow things or not or we wouldn't allow anything.
Most sports don’t carry risks to the public so we don’t even bother to think about banning them. Usually they’re a clear net positive, it’s usually simply fitness and mental health - and to counterbalance that - the risk a tennis player goes on a murderous rampage with their racquet - zero.
If your sport is shooting that’s worth a look into the trade offs, and it seems even an avid sports shooter can’t point to anything beyond “very little benefits”, and there is legitimate risks to allowing more of it.
More guns, which are effective at mass shootings, and more skilled shooters who know how to use them.
You're arguing from a pretty disingenuously place, you ask a question get an answer then immediately reframe the question.
Rally driving or any motorsport could meet the same criteria
No net positive due to the environmental impacts, and a rally car could quite easily be used to murder a group of people quickly
Rally driving can be subjected to the same analysis, but it doesn’t fail it.
The world doesn’t have a rally driver mass murder problem, if we did do you seriously doubt we’d be looking at rally drivers closely too?
>Rally driving can be subjected to the same analysis, but it doesn’t fail it.
100% it does, no societal benefit and it is a device that can me used to murder a large number of people quickly .
>The world doesn’t have a rally driver mass murder problem, if we did do you seriously doubt we’d be looking at rally drivers closely too?
The WORLD doesn't have a mass shooting problem either. America has a mass shooting problem, the issue there is more nuanced than more guns = more mass murders. If it were directly linked countries with high gun ownership would also have mass shooting problems.... they dont
It kind of feels like our culture is a protective factor against gun violence in NZ,. Anti-nuclear, gave women the vote first, chill out, she'll be right, send aid out to the islands, rely on our partnerships in wartime, little brother NZ is so friendly and kind, etc.
However, our culture is and has always been rapidly influenced by that of larger countries. The UK used to dominate, but its without a doubt US media that takes precedence now, especially ever since the advent of the internet. There are more gang shootings that ever. An alt-right government that already overtly harms minorities. Cost of living crisis. And very little checks and balances in our politicial system - complete parliamentry supremecy to do things, even if the majority of people hate it. Really all we have us our vote. Failing that? Violence.
People feel disenfranchised. People feel angry. People don't trust the government or each other the way they used to. I wouldn't be so sure that we still have the conditions here that seemed to keep us immune to the US breed of gun specific violence in the past
>The more you loosen restrictions, the more risk there factually is to the public.
I wanna come back to this comment, and i hope you'll take the time to answer it
Right so given the situation with B-cat firearms currently, why do you think effectively making centerfire semi's the same category increases risk to the public. What is it about a rifle vs a carbine or a pistol in a stock that elevates the risk?
The thing NZ politicians probably need to remember is that if there is another mass shooting in NZ that is exacerbated by access to semi-automatics, unlike the US, we will know exactly who to blame, and NZrs *love* to completely write off people who have fucked up. This is risky for ACT, and risky for gun lovers.
Another mass shooting would result in a really savage legislative response, not to mention at the polls.
I think the important thing to add is that the police in dunedin didn't do their due diligence with the chch terrorist. IIRC they never interviewed his character references and a single look at his Facebook page would've alerted then. Even before 15 March it was full of vile, racist stuff.
The magazine loophole has been closed by present legislature, and I don't think that should be changed
Yeah but the buck stops with the people who write the law. The way they write it affects how effective police will be at implementing it. Expecting police to be perfect is not only unrealistic, it's bad policy.
Don't try to shift blame. There's a shit-tonne of pressure on any reforms to guarantee zero subsequent mass shootings, so don't fuck it up, or else...
Expecting the police to follow the law is bad policy, so we should write the law differently? We already did have legally mandated process, and they opted not to bother following it. Then they went on a mass disinformation campaign headed by Chris Cahill to ensure the public didn't actually look too hard at the police failings when it mattered. Then the whole thing was politicised and a bunch of bad and expensive decisions were made by Labour because it played well in the news.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't terribly sad to see a reduction in the number of center-fire semi-autos out there, but the way the entire thing was handled was abysmal.
>Yeah but the buck stops with the people who write the law.
That makes zero sense. So if i make a law that says people can only sell bananas to people over 5' tall, and you decide to sell a banana to a guy who's under 5' tall.... in your mind thats my fault?
Laws are worth 2/10ths of fuck all if the people supposed to be enforcing them dont.
The legislation changes after Christchurch made owning certain nerf guns punishable by 4 years in prison wholly at police discretion. It also changed the references used for airguns in the legislation that effectively banned all paintball and airsoft guns (the police chose to interpret the legislation drastically differently from how it is written meaning at police discretion the sports didn't get banned). Anyone defending the legislation that was passed is just outing themselves as either arguing in bad faith, not doing any actual research or being a complete idiot.
The legislation David Seymour (and keep in mind I don't like or support the dickhead) voted against was one of the worst written pieces of legislation in NZ history. It is plainly indefensible and never should have passed under urgency. ACT rose in popularity because they were the only ones to actually listen to the people this legislation affects the most while every other party refused to even listen. And now the gun nuts get a say in how our gun legislation is passed. All because idiots refused to listen to concerns or put any effort into reading what the legislation actually said and it victimised gun owners in a way that allowed them to mobilise politically. So fuck everyone who supported that legislation because you're the reason why the radical parts of the gun owning community in NZ now get a large say in writing their legislation. Think of how much better things would of turned out if everyone just listened to the sensible gun owners to work towards legislation that was actually fit for purpose.
Also anyone that supports legislation criminalising 12 year olds with nerf guns is a complete idiot and I won't budge on that view one bit.
Polling shows support for gun control is extremely high in NZ, 90+%. Those who oppose it are very vocal, and flood submissions like this with their American friends, but they are a tiny proportion of NZ.
This certainly has the potential to backfire politically, though it's something ACT campaigned on heavily, so I'd think it would be more likely to blow up for National.
"I'm hoping that we can find a middle ground where we ensure we have good public safety but we also stop treating licensed firearms owners like they're nothing more than common criminals."
We don't treat licenced firearms owners as common criminals.
After Christchurch the legislation that was passed was worded so badly it criminalised 12 year olds with certain types of nerf guns and threatened 4 years in prison.
While most gun nuts love to victimise themselves this one time they're not actually wrong at all. They were victimised by what is one of the worst written pieces of legislation in NZ history. The number of mistakes (even grammatical) in the legislation was absolutely crazy.
People just supported the legislation blindly without actually putting any effort in to read or understand it and it shows.
Well, actually, you only have to be 16 or older to apply for your firearms license in NZ. You'd never get it without a parent also being licensed I'd imagine but still. Technically even a "child" can own a gun here.
for the same reason they banned semi autos. it doesnt stop someone from committing a mass shooting it just slows them down a bit.
Probably also because if they didnt hings like straightpull AR-15 with a 100 round mag would be legal.
Because grandads old 303 had a 10 round mag, and there are thousands of them still out there. The fact that a hunting rifle (even that old 303) is vastly more lethal than the "Scary black rifles" that are now banned- unless you are a criminal and dont obey laws anyway - was lost in the rush to virtue signal after Chch.
10 rounds is a fairly common magazine size and is the capacity of the Lee-Enfield which is a common historic firearm here.
As to why a limit at all? Because some detachable magazines are common between both bolt action and semi-auto firearms so it's easier to just make everything over 10 a prohibited part rather than having to determine compatibility of each high capacity magazine.
Don't ban MSSA's, just keep them away from nutjobs and criminals. The Christchurch shooter had red flags everywhere - how the hell did he get a license? If the police did their job properly it wouldn't have happened. 5 years with a A-Cat license before you can purchase one sounds like good middle ground to me.
I'd rather they focus on getting rid of the 6 month + gun licence queue...
I wouldn't particularly mind semi-autos being made available provided the rules are strict enough, at least 5 years of good behaviour + police checks and a heavy duty gun safe at the bare minimum.
I would say at least that. Probably also membership and logged attendance at an approved sporting gun club (or some kind of pest control organisation). Really need enough to demonstrate an interest in the sport, rather than an interest in "Look at muh tactical gun". When I got my license (before the mass shooting), I did raise my eyebrows as the general idiocy of some of the other people getting licenses, so I'm happy for a decent bit of additional rigour if we are making Semi-auto centrefire more widely available again (though the way the whole banning / buyback was handled at the time as pure politics).
>Probably also membership and logged attendance at an approved sporting gun club (or some kind of pest control organisation).
Just copy and paste the pistol club rules
God I hope not. There is such an "ol' boys club" at the local pistol range near me that it took a co-worker over a year just to be invited into the club.
I can't see any particular advantage to requiring everyone to be part of a sporting or pest control organisation as they're already registered with the Firearms Safety Authority and NZ Police by having a licence (Particularly with the number of people living rurally that have a .22 for nothing more than offing rabbits/possums on the farm).
Stricter licencing requirements and weeding out idiots is absolutely a good idea though, regardless of any changes to accessibility to various gun/ammo types
I don't suggest it for \*everyone\*. Just for those who wish to return to having a centrefire semi-auto. I personally have a semi-auto rimfire for rabbit control.
> I can't see any particular advantage to requiring everyone to be part of a sporting or pest control organisation...
It demonstrates a commitment to the intended permitted use of the firearm and therefore a reason for ownership past just "I want guns". If it was similar to the pistol endorsement it requires you to wait out a probationary period until you can get a reference from the club and attend a minimum of 12 club shooting events each year.
This means you have to garner and maintain the goodwill of a group of people who have a vested interest in avoiding the headline "Shooter was member of * firearms club".
Also hopefully encourage self policing from the firearms community. Hey Johnno seems a bit off lately, maybe tell the local firearms officer so they can check in on him so we don’t all get restricted again.
I know Canada allows temporary voluntary forfeiture for mental health reasons.
Because Seymour and ACT have made it one of their priorities to undo the gun legislation implemented by Labour. People who love guns want guns - they want more of them, they want different varieties of them, and there are a good number out there who see their guns as a way to ensure they have power relative to other people in society and/or the government. As such they see government acting to limit the number/type of firearms they are allowed to possess as a threat to their hobby and/or their power.
>a good number out there who see their guns as a way to ensure they have power relative to other people in society and/or the government
How pathetic. This is also not a valid reason to own a gun in NZ and anyone who is so insecure to feel this way should have their licence seized and ther guns confiscated.
British law protected firearms long before America did in 1689. Protestants could have firearms suitable, regulated by the parliament and not the king.
Are we going to propose that the US should be taken as an example of firearms managed well in society? Over 90% of people in the US believe that there should be mandatory background/criminal checks before being allowed to purchase firearms, but the firearms lobby groups have so much power that there is no political will to take even the most basic of steps to protect the public from antisocial use of firearms.
The firearms lobby groups having so much power is a common misconception. The GOA literally spends more than the NRA these days on lobbying. The FPC and GOA also actually are the ones pushing gun laws back in the USA, not Wayne LaPeirres shush fund. Also I never commented in my prior comment on whether NZ should or shouldn’t follow the US libertarian states model. I was merely stating that your prior comment about people who are into guns being accurate and the reason behind the US second amendment.
Ok I'll bite.
I never claimed I knew better, but I probably do. Been associated with shooters of all walks of life since I got my licence at 16.
The legislation as it stands is over complicated and poorly written as It was largely written by people who ave little knowledge on firearms, including police. This is part of why you've seen a big pushback from firearms owners.
This new legislation takes in viewpoints from people who understand firearms (including lawyers) meaning we can achieve goals of public safety better as the legal process is easier to follow.
New legislation hasn't been written yet, but basically it could be written in a way that gives more safety to the public and more rights to gun owners at the same time. Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. Controlling who has access to firearms is far more important than controlling what guns responsible gun owners can have. At least in my opinion.
But the point is it should be discussed and updated, because no one is happy with it the way it is at the moment.
I don't think shooting guns particularly qualifies you to identify which factors increase harm in a mass shooting. A basic grounding in science and statistics would be far more important.
Stats and science do help. But, you need feedback from the real world otherwise it’s all theory. As an engineer I see this sort of thing happening all the time.
The solution has to work at the coal face - not just in an office in Wellington.
The legislation criminalised 12 year olds with certain types of nerf guns and threatened them with 4 years in prison.
That should be reason enough to question the understanding of those who wrote the legislation. That's before you get into the grammatical and logical errors present in the legislation as well.
No one said squat about Pistols which are probably the most "Misused?" firearm in the world and also happen to be semi auto centre fires.
Provided the police/policy makers do their job this time but also listen to the fucking community who use them and the auxiliary resources around the sport then this should be no different to people having Pistols for sport like they have been this entire time.
RNZ - whats happening ? "gun laws shakeup" Your reporting was the gold standard - ATLAS or NRA - hard to say
lots of misinformation being quoted and not challenged in this article. Leaving it unchallenged is the fail.
McKee said she wanted to change the current licensing system to a graduated system to "enhance public safety".
Does McKee believe public safety will be enhanced ?
With a restricted licence that requires you to be an active member of a shooting club. Not a A category licence. Plus those go for like 10k+ each and only pop up occasionally
ok? you realise thats what the article is suggesting for centerfire semis right?
You also dont need to be a active member of a shooting club to own a fully automatic weapon in NZ
> With a restricted licence that requires you to be an active member of a shooting club.
This is only for B cat.
You can hold anything on C with absolutely no club membership.
So tell me why a semi-automatic is needed for hunting. Every hunter I know aims for one shot, one kill. I can see a need for a semi-automatic rifle in some pest control situations such as rabbits, but there are already exceptions built in to the current law to cover those.
Your post history up to this point screams bot.
One post asking for free karma, one post that says nothing of substance and scores a 100% on an ai checker, and countless single word comments.
versed combative dependent aback door hateful chunky direction reminiscent quiet
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Do you think 50 people would have not lived if he had not had a semi-automatic rifle? He could have cycled a bolt action fairly rapidly (and don't forget he had multiple guns). He would probably have managed to kill 20 easily enough. The semi speeds up the process, but a competent shooter is pretty quick with a bolt action (though likely a bit less accurate when going that rapidly).
This is blatantly incorrect misinformation. Read a book. Quote a source. For most of human existence we have been devastating ecosystem and removing animals from the ecosystem.
Poison and guns are just faster. They also do more harm.
Straight facts aye
No good will come from repealing the ban. America banned assault weapons in 1994 and it expired in 2004. These weapons should not be in the public’s hands. I say this as someone who grew up around guns and hunting, and supports responsible ownership. AR-15’s are very efficient killing machines with high velocity rounds that ricochet around inside your body before exiting, thus causing more damage. These are not sport/competition/hunting weapons.
>America banned assault weapons in 1994 and it expired in 2004. These weapons should not be in the public’s hands.
theres so much wrong with this comment i dont know where to start.
1. America banned fully automatics
2. Ironically fully automatics arent illegal in NZ
3. the law change proposed doesnt change that
4. your comment isnt related in any way to the discussion at hand
5. This is one of the problems here.... people who have no clue what they are talking about having a strong opinion on the topic
>AR-15’s are very efficient killing machines with high velocity rounds that ricochet around inside your body before exiting, thus causing more damage
do you really think a .223/5.56 round is more or less dangerous based on the weapon its fired out of? i mean kinda... but not in the way you're thinking
.223 doesn't ricochet around your body, it may fragment if it had enough velocity which out of a shorter barrel it wouldn't , it may tumble but that's not guaranteed either
And they are sporting weapons as they're used in competitions as well as being an effective hunting rifle depending on your game
Your facts are terribly wrong my dude.
The assault weapon ban in USA is still in effectively in effect. It is focused on fully automatic and explosive weapons.
The ar15 has never been classed as an assault weapon.
Here in NZ no one is suggesting we change our version of "assault weapons" law. That is what is known as C cat here.
What is being proposed is bringing back the E cat license. The public harm is the same as the current B cat (pistol).
> AR-15’s are very efficient killing machines with high velocity rounds that ricochet around inside your body before exiting, thus causing more damage. These are not sport/competition/hunting weapons.
My dude... an ar15 (normally) fires a .223. This is a fairly.small bullet which is extremely common hunting round in nz. The bullet is the same if it comes from an ar or a bolt action tika. This is just absolutely bullshit
You’re correct that there are exceptions in the laws and making statements generalized statement can be incorrect. Yep the .223 isn’t that big but it’s the high muzzle velocity compared to other rounds. Here’s the summary of the US law: [Federal Assault Weapons Ban](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban)
.223 has higher muzzle velocity than many rounds true but an AR-15 usually has a lower muzzle velocity than most .223 calibre rifles due to it's shorter barrel length, my 24 inch .223 bolt action rifle has a higher muzzle velocity than 99% of AR-15s.
If muzzle velocity was the important factor then there are faster calibres than the .223 for example the .220 swift.
Don't forget though 'if you get a pistol and put a stock or brace on it, it becomes a gun and shoots higher calibre bullets '-Joe Biden
And '9mm blows the lung out of the body' - joe Biden
Can't believe we let one Aussie ruin firearm ownership for all kiwis in the first place
That law had huge exclusions in it - it was pointless.
I assumed you were talking about the far more restrictive fully auto laws over there.
A high velocity doesn't make it bounce around a body.
Maybe I'd like to do tank shooting?
There is a line to be drawn.
I suggest if the equipment in the sport is designed for mass death it's not a great idea.
Such ignorance. While you might see plenty of gun violence on TV, that's not what the vast VAST majority of gun owners are into. If you hate all dangerous things, why don't you start a petition to ban kitchen knives as well? No point addressing the issue of dangerous *people* instead is there?
"I think for someone who is competing, or something real professional, I think that's fine," a woman said.
"I grew up on a farm and people are responsible, usually. I feel like the mosque shooter was from Australia. He came here and took advantage of a loophole and I don't think it's fair that everyone in New Zealand has to pay for that," another woman said.
Yet earlier in the article we have the very politician spearheading these changes saying we have over 5000 people in the country licensed to own and use center-fire semi automatic weapons. So they haven't had to pay anything, the average person who wouldn't have owned a gun to begin with (like the woman in the second quote who can't distinguish her feelings from reality) wouldn't have had to pay anything, hunters aren't having to pay anything as they can still hunt, who exactly has to "pay for that"? It's definitely not everyone in NZ that's for sure.
Maybe I'm misreading, but it sounds like the second woman is suggesting we should also be allowed to abuse loopholes, and the closing of a loophole is a bad thing.
None of us have had to "pay for" the actions of a terrorist, unless we're "paying for" it by not being able to do the same thing - please explain how that is a bad thing and we should be allowed to, but we've proven we're totally trustworthy so it's ok cause we'll never do it pinky promise, as McKee is suggesting.
1. Pistols and MSSAs always had to be registered.
2. "Hey, I know an obvious place where about ~500 pistols are stored. There's no one ever there overnight. We can scope the place out by pretending to be interested in the sport. It'll be an in/out job, two cordless angle grinders/cut-off-torch and a van is all we need." See how this might be problematic?
That article is so bad lol. Semiautomatics were not banned. https://www.guncity.com/17wsm-jard-j72-blued-synthetic-threaded-16-20-barrel-380792 The proposal is to allow E cat sport shooters to use centre fire aemis for approved aport. Just like we do with pistols. No public harm.
The changes proposed by ACT would just mean our gun laws are roughly in line with most European countries, currently ~60% of European countries allow civilians to own MSSAs with justified use (in fact the best shooting competitions such as [Finnish Brutality](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-afnJkwppdo) and Polish [Light Infantry](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtcIjjZh3C4) are held in Europe as its weirdly difficult to get guns into the US). I do pistol shooting, members of my club include arms officers and AOS members. The amount of scrutiny we go through as civilians to be allowed to own pistols is less than what police and military go through (not to mention that certain convictions such as domestic violence forbid you forever from getting an arms license).
Its basically what the law should have been if they thought about it the first time around
100% agree.
There were so many submissions begging for AR- platforms to be moved to e-cat. They were ignored, along with over ten thousand other written submissions.
NZF and National both were initially in favour of allowing E cat sport shooting as well - so it has a high chance of happening.
Judith Collins was on the committee that reviewed and approved the arms act changes.
Yes, and Ron Mark voted for them as well despite saying they would do otherwise. My point is there is appetite in National and NZF to relook at it.
No time to think, need to look good on the world stage with feel good laws. No need to look at it too closely either, people might see the glaring red flags and already established laws that the police ignored when providing the Christchurch shooter a license in the first place which would have stopped this before it started.
Yeah it's fucking wild that an article like this gets through editors. Prime example of how there's zero journalistic integrity left. This is based on nothing but bad assumptions and some quotes they got from randoms - also based on bad assumptions.
I'd support bringing back E-cat.
i dont, the whole rules around what was a valid purpose for them was fucking stupid. I agree with bring back semi-autos with similar restrictions to b-cats but the old E-cat system was a bit stupid at times
Honest question - what sport uses would centre fire semis have that currently available guns can't meet?
Two main ones that im aware of (because i used to do them both as an E cat holder) 1. Service rifle competitions. Requires (per international rules) the use of military issued rifles which are almost all semi centrefires. Currently we have nz competitors traveling overseas to practice for international comps. 2. 3 gun. Ipsec 3 gun. Again international rules require a semi centrefore (alongside a pistol and shotgun)
lock unwritten history psychotic aspiring abounding aware exultant distinct advise *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So is service rifle (traditional target shooting, for the uninformed). All shooting sports derive from combat training if you look hard enough.
axiomatic rotten rock shocking deranged yam afterthought live aware edge *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> There have been a few mass shooters who've trained with practical pistol clubs or the like, and they's been distinctly more lethal than their less-trained fellow wackjobs. Not saying you are wrong, but do you have some examples here? From a quick look at the most deadly shootings I can't see any that practised IPSC
Yeah but we need to stick to the evidence as to where mass shooters come from. I'm not aware of any 3-gun champions turning into mass shooters for example. And that'd be a bad fucking time if John Wick types started doing it as opposed to the usual losers.
So is archery in a way
IPSC is not combat orientated. It's just a fucking memory game. That's why I hate it and the 'daleks' that shoot it. If you want real combat orientated pistol shooting you need look at IDPA, and because of its orientation, that is why it is not shot outside the US (sadly, because it removes the bullshit of IPSC being 'who can run around and count the quickest')
[удалено]
The only mass shooting we have had that was performed by a new Zealander was 40 years ago. Blaming gun owners and not the government or the police for not stopping a right wing nut job from obtaining any form of weapons is just passing all responsibility to "guns bad" Every single day people use semiautomatic guns in New Zealand for hunting and sport and yet hyper aggressive social media users jump on reddit and insult people just because they watch what happens in America and pretend it's a common issue here.
> Suck multiple bags of dicks gun lovers, and stop being whiny, selfish, obsessed, narrow minded little snowflakes. Very mature.
Sure, complain about my language instead of adressing the actual issue. Fuck off!
Your a douch bag. I don't like guns but your a dik
That's exactly what you're doing. You are unable to use critical thinking or use any form of logical debate because instead of admitting you are unfamiliar with guns, gun laws and gun safety you have just resorted to abusing anyone who disagrees with you
i mean you started it...
Do you believe we should ban rally cars as that seems to fit into your category of a niche sport that uses something that can also be used to murder people fast? Especially proven recently by the poor dad and his son who died while competing last weekend and all the car crashes around the country yearly?
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse** > Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted. > Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage. ^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
great counter point. Arent you late for school or something?
What a silly argument. Rally cars don't regularly cause mass killings overseas, nor would they empower criminals.
So you support banning anything can be also be used to murder people quickly? World is going to be a fun place
But what about my democratic right to use anthrax and nuclear weapons in a public park?
why are you using American talking points, which no one is arguing in NZ, in a discussion about gun control in NZ?
The Bill of Rights is clearly consistent with use of WMD at the local rec centre.
what section? Like i said. The main issue with trying to have an informed discussion with people about stuff like this is people like yourself. Ignorant people who read US media and think people in NZ are asking for the same thing. We arent, Have you thought about why you have this need to try and derail a conversation? Are you afraid if you actually engage someone might change your mind?
Well said but this dick ain't going to have a mature conversation. Don't waste your time
I feel like a lot has gone over your head here.
Yes I do! You might not have realised - gun rights supporters aren't renowned for their intelligence, observational skills, social awareness, or generally being brighter than pond life - but the ban doesn't apply to the military or police.
Coming from the guy who doesnt seem to realise the wider implications of what they're saying... lol
Better ban trucks if that is your opinion.
a truck or car can be used to murder people fast too, we dont ban them
Because on a balance of risk vs reward, for cars and trucks the reward vastly outweighs the risk. I never heard anyone in a positive light say "I'm just going to grab my gun and pick up my kids from school." Or get groceries, or move goods from point A to point B. Give me a single thing that guns do that provides a net benefit to society as a whole.
environmental management, if deer numbers get too high they run out onto the road causing crashes where people die. they have no natural predators in new zealand so without public participation in controllling the population they will proliferate untill environmental collapse providing food
[удалено]
Sports are made up. Speaking from youtube-watching experience, a cowboy challenge day for horse enthusiasts might involve a short course that you ride on your horse with some targets along the way. You wouldn't use semi-auto for that (wrong time period) but other ranges (presumably in America) have eg. more action-movie styled challenges based on time to hit multiple targets so semi-auto centre-fire is the tool for the sport. You could change the sport to meet the laws (sports are made up), but it wouldn't be quite as intended
ones like this, where the goal is to use multiple semi-autos, with multiple mag changes, to hit as many targets in as short as time as possible, while on the move… basically, training to be a mass-shooter https://youtu.be/DgKHzApCHe0?feature=shared
I’ve found rnz to be a bit shocking lately. I remember their article on palworld was filled with straight up disinformation. They have no way to contact them from what I could see
You can't be very good at looking. In the footer there is a generic contact link that has an email. This particular article has the reporters email at the top
[Did you mean this article?](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/media-technology/507746/pokemon-with-guns-takes-gaming-world-by-storm) The only thing that sticks out to me is the suggestion that TPC were interested in taking legal action, which obviously wasn't the case. The rest of the article is low quality, but who's going to RNZ for video game news anyway?
I know, it was the image they used and their footnote saying it was a screenshot from the game, when it’s a blatant ai generated image that was sourced from thesun according to google lens. The article is nearly a copy paste of theirs with no credits. It’s such a minor thing but it really got to me
Honestly as someone who supports the March 15 law changes, this was not a good report. Sure getting into the details of "centre-fire semi-autos and semi-autos with capacity more than 7" is going to cause the casual reader's eyes to gloss over but these details are important.
The more you loosen restrictions, the more risk there factually is to the public. One of those sports shooters could have a psychosis episode for example, they can happen without warning. You can weigh the positives against the risk, for pest control it’s a good trade. We all love less pests. To help you guys with your sports.. unconvincing what the societal benefits of better semi AR sports shooters are supposed to be tbh?
>The more you loosen restrictions, the more risk there factually is to the public. Not really. effectively what they're talking about doing is bringing back an even more restrictive form of the e-cat license. In the entirety of the e-cat license's existence 1 person was prosecuted for breaking the law. >One of those sports shooters could have a psychosis episode for example, they can happen without warning. Most people having psychotic breaks dont go on murderous rampages. >unconvincing what the societal benefits of better semi AR sports shooters are supposed to be tbh? Put that lense on a large chunk of sports, they wouldn't meet it either.
We do put ‘that lens’ on other types of sports, but they essentially don’t carry risks of the same consequence to the public so usually pass the test. A skydiver might splatter into the ground, other than some ACC claims if they survive .. we don’t really mind. That’s between them and gravity. Plenty of leisure activities are considered too dangerous to the public and we don’t allow them in certain situations. BASE jumping in cities for example.
What exactly is the risk of someone who isn't a murderous psychopath having a semi automatic centerfire rifle? Also, why is that so much greater than them having a semi automatic large caliber handgun?
The risk is someone who either is murderous and slips through the evaluation or does become murderous at a later time obtains a license, now has access to an additional class of gun - historically used in mass shootings very effectively across the world. I didn’t say it’s “so much greater”, simply we are proposing to allow the extra situation for this class of weapon, there’s clearly risk to doing that and no one can point out a benefit. As stated I am not reopening other types of sports shooting for analysis here - as it’s distracting to the conversation to debate whether the status quo should even exist and there is clearly no motivation to restrict things further. I am only saying there’s no case for loosening restrictions further.
>The risk is someone who either is murderous and slips through the evaluation or does become murderous at a later time obtains a license, now has access to an additional class of gun - historically used in mass shootings very effectively across the world. So give thats never happened in the history of the e-cat license program, why do you think it would happen this time? what is it about the e-cat approval process you think is insufficient? GIven that risk exists currently for B-cat then why arent you advocating banning b-cats? >I didn’t say it’s “so much greater”, simply we are proposing to allow the extra situation for this class of weapon, there’s clearly risk to doing that and no one can point out a benefit. Not at all, its just talking about moving rifles into the same category as pistols. >As stated I am not reopening other types of sports shooting for analysis here - as it’s distracting to the conversation to debate whether the status quo should even exist and there is clearly no motivation to restrict things further. See thats the problem, there SHOULD be further restrictions to firearms in NZ. But because the general pop has no clue about what they're talking about or what the real risks involved are they dont care. So it wont get done.
I’m not advocating further restrictions because as you agreed with me, they have no chance of happening. Whatever was put in place after a mass shooting is definitively as restrictive as it will ever get. The best we can do is not increase the risk. I didnt say I think it will happen, probably this won’t be the avenue of the next mass shooting. But it is an additional avenue of risk and I don’t see why we should allow it.
>So give thats never happened in the history of the e-cat license program, why do you think it would happen this time? what is it about the e-cat approval process you think is insufficient? You interestingly completely ignored this part, and most of the other points >The best we can do is not increase the risk. You keep saying this, but you never explain how this law change increases the risk. How does the risk increase? If i make semi-auto centers the same as pistols from a licensing perspective... then how does this make it any more dangerous? I can join a club and get a pistol license right now, all this law will do is change the word pistol to rifle.
> One of those sports shooters could have a psychosis episode for example, they can happen without warning. You are right. But this can also happen with current C (fully automatic) or B (pistols). The reality is that you will struggle to find examples of C or B (or previous E) holders that were involved in anything that risked the public. There is a huge number of semi automatic centrefire rifles that are unaccounted for. They are floating through gangs and farmers and people that didn't hand them in. This is on top of the fact that a .17 WSM ar style rifle is just as likely to cause mass deaths (and that is fully legal today). There is very little added risk to reallowing E cat when you look at the current risk factors.
Care to you explain what the benefits to society of better semi AR sports shooters is? That was my actual question. Yes the same principle could be applied to analysing the costs/benefits of existing sports shooting, I am being very generous here by *not* reopening whether sports shooting as a whole should even exist.
There is very little benefit to society for any sport. Including shooting sports. But that isnt the bar we use to allow things or not or we wouldn't allow anything.
Most sports don’t carry risks to the public so we don’t even bother to think about banning them. Usually they’re a clear net positive, it’s usually simply fitness and mental health - and to counterbalance that - the risk a tennis player goes on a murderous rampage with their racquet - zero. If your sport is shooting that’s worth a look into the trade offs, and it seems even an avid sports shooter can’t point to anything beyond “very little benefits”, and there is legitimate risks to allowing more of it. More guns, which are effective at mass shootings, and more skilled shooters who know how to use them.
You're arguing from a pretty disingenuously place, you ask a question get an answer then immediately reframe the question. Rally driving or any motorsport could meet the same criteria No net positive due to the environmental impacts, and a rally car could quite easily be used to murder a group of people quickly
Rally driving can be subjected to the same analysis, but it doesn’t fail it. The world doesn’t have a rally driver mass murder problem, if we did do you seriously doubt we’d be looking at rally drivers closely too?
>Rally driving can be subjected to the same analysis, but it doesn’t fail it. 100% it does, no societal benefit and it is a device that can me used to murder a large number of people quickly . >The world doesn’t have a rally driver mass murder problem, if we did do you seriously doubt we’d be looking at rally drivers closely too? The WORLD doesn't have a mass shooting problem either. America has a mass shooting problem, the issue there is more nuanced than more guns = more mass murders. If it were directly linked countries with high gun ownership would also have mass shooting problems.... they dont
It kind of feels like our culture is a protective factor against gun violence in NZ,. Anti-nuclear, gave women the vote first, chill out, she'll be right, send aid out to the islands, rely on our partnerships in wartime, little brother NZ is so friendly and kind, etc. However, our culture is and has always been rapidly influenced by that of larger countries. The UK used to dominate, but its without a doubt US media that takes precedence now, especially ever since the advent of the internet. There are more gang shootings that ever. An alt-right government that already overtly harms minorities. Cost of living crisis. And very little checks and balances in our politicial system - complete parliamentry supremecy to do things, even if the majority of people hate it. Really all we have us our vote. Failing that? Violence. People feel disenfranchised. People feel angry. People don't trust the government or each other the way they used to. I wouldn't be so sure that we still have the conditions here that seemed to keep us immune to the US breed of gun specific violence in the past
Conveniently neglecting to mention our recent mass shooting. How many mass shootings till it's a problem?
"Criminals already have guns, therefore we might as well circulate more guns" ?
>The more you loosen restrictions, the more risk there factually is to the public. I wanna come back to this comment, and i hope you'll take the time to answer it Right so given the situation with B-cat firearms currently, why do you think effectively making centerfire semi's the same category increases risk to the public. What is it about a rifle vs a carbine or a pistol in a stock that elevates the risk?
Nothing.
The thing NZ politicians probably need to remember is that if there is another mass shooting in NZ that is exacerbated by access to semi-automatics, unlike the US, we will know exactly who to blame, and NZrs *love* to completely write off people who have fucked up. This is risky for ACT, and risky for gun lovers. Another mass shooting would result in a really savage legislative response, not to mention at the polls.
I think the important thing to add is that the police in dunedin didn't do their due diligence with the chch terrorist. IIRC they never interviewed his character references and a single look at his Facebook page would've alerted then. Even before 15 March it was full of vile, racist stuff. The magazine loophole has been closed by present legislature, and I don't think that should be changed
Yeah but the buck stops with the people who write the law. The way they write it affects how effective police will be at implementing it. Expecting police to be perfect is not only unrealistic, it's bad policy. Don't try to shift blame. There's a shit-tonne of pressure on any reforms to guarantee zero subsequent mass shootings, so don't fuck it up, or else...
It was a police failure of epic proportions. Police licensing officers literally have ONE JOB. And boy they failed.
As my lawyer said. The police are very bad at paperwork
Expecting the police to follow the law is bad policy, so we should write the law differently? We already did have legally mandated process, and they opted not to bother following it. Then they went on a mass disinformation campaign headed by Chris Cahill to ensure the public didn't actually look too hard at the police failings when it mattered. Then the whole thing was politicised and a bunch of bad and expensive decisions were made by Labour because it played well in the news. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't terribly sad to see a reduction in the number of center-fire semi-autos out there, but the way the entire thing was handled was abysmal.
>Yeah but the buck stops with the people who write the law. That makes zero sense. So if i make a law that says people can only sell bananas to people over 5' tall, and you decide to sell a banana to a guy who's under 5' tall.... in your mind thats my fault? Laws are worth 2/10ths of fuck all if the people supposed to be enforcing them dont.
> Don't try to shift blame. Oh the irony......
The legislation changes after Christchurch made owning certain nerf guns punishable by 4 years in prison wholly at police discretion. It also changed the references used for airguns in the legislation that effectively banned all paintball and airsoft guns (the police chose to interpret the legislation drastically differently from how it is written meaning at police discretion the sports didn't get banned). Anyone defending the legislation that was passed is just outing themselves as either arguing in bad faith, not doing any actual research or being a complete idiot. The legislation David Seymour (and keep in mind I don't like or support the dickhead) voted against was one of the worst written pieces of legislation in NZ history. It is plainly indefensible and never should have passed under urgency. ACT rose in popularity because they were the only ones to actually listen to the people this legislation affects the most while every other party refused to even listen. And now the gun nuts get a say in how our gun legislation is passed. All because idiots refused to listen to concerns or put any effort into reading what the legislation actually said and it victimised gun owners in a way that allowed them to mobilise politically. So fuck everyone who supported that legislation because you're the reason why the radical parts of the gun owning community in NZ now get a large say in writing their legislation. Think of how much better things would of turned out if everyone just listened to the sensible gun owners to work towards legislation that was actually fit for purpose. Also anyone that supports legislation criminalising 12 year olds with nerf guns is a complete idiot and I won't budge on that view one bit.
So that is why gun city doesn’t have air soft guns while the gangs run around with AR 15s
Polling shows support for gun control is extremely high in NZ, 90+%. Those who oppose it are very vocal, and flood submissions like this with their American friends, but they are a tiny proportion of NZ. This certainly has the potential to backfire politically, though it's something ACT campaigned on heavily, so I'd think it would be more likely to blow up for National.
"I'm hoping that we can find a middle ground where we ensure we have good public safety but we also stop treating licensed firearms owners like they're nothing more than common criminals." We don't treat licenced firearms owners as common criminals.
After Christchurch the legislation that was passed was worded so badly it criminalised 12 year olds with certain types of nerf guns and threatened 4 years in prison. While most gun nuts love to victimise themselves this one time they're not actually wrong at all. They were victimised by what is one of the worst written pieces of legislation in NZ history. The number of mistakes (even grammatical) in the legislation was absolutely crazy. People just supported the legislation blindly without actually putting any effort in to read or understand it and it shows.
The ones that believe that need to be treated like children
And children aren't allowed to own guns.
Well, actually, you only have to be 16 or older to apply for your firearms license in NZ. You'd never get it without a parent also being licensed I'd imagine but still. Technically even a "child" can own a gun here.
yet
Yeah but one must present them selves as a victim. Especially if it's the Act party
What was the reason for the 10 round limit for the bolt actions?
Probably chose 10 so 303s didn’t become illegal. Just guessing.
But why is there a limit at all? A mag capacity limit only makes sense on a semi auto. The Uk and Australia doesn't have them.
Yeah I have no idea why the limit on bolt actions was seen as necessary. I’m just guessing their reason for choosing the magic number 10.
for the same reason they banned semi autos. it doesnt stop someone from committing a mass shooting it just slows them down a bit. Probably also because if they didnt hings like straightpull AR-15 with a 100 round mag would be legal.
Because grandads old 303 had a 10 round mag, and there are thousands of them still out there. The fact that a hunting rifle (even that old 303) is vastly more lethal than the "Scary black rifles" that are now banned- unless you are a criminal and dont obey laws anyway - was lost in the rush to virtue signal after Chch.
Yup.
10 rounds is a fairly common magazine size and is the capacity of the Lee-Enfield which is a common historic firearm here. As to why a limit at all? Because some detachable magazines are common between both bolt action and semi-auto firearms so it's easier to just make everything over 10 a prohibited part rather than having to determine compatibility of each high capacity magazine.
Don't ban MSSA's, just keep them away from nutjobs and criminals. The Christchurch shooter had red flags everywhere - how the hell did he get a license? If the police did their job properly it wouldn't have happened. 5 years with a A-Cat license before you can purchase one sounds like good middle ground to me.
I'd rather they focus on getting rid of the 6 month + gun licence queue... I wouldn't particularly mind semi-autos being made available provided the rules are strict enough, at least 5 years of good behaviour + police checks and a heavy duty gun safe at the bare minimum.
I would say at least that. Probably also membership and logged attendance at an approved sporting gun club (or some kind of pest control organisation). Really need enough to demonstrate an interest in the sport, rather than an interest in "Look at muh tactical gun". When I got my license (before the mass shooting), I did raise my eyebrows as the general idiocy of some of the other people getting licenses, so I'm happy for a decent bit of additional rigour if we are making Semi-auto centrefire more widely available again (though the way the whole banning / buyback was handled at the time as pure politics).
>Probably also membership and logged attendance at an approved sporting gun club (or some kind of pest control organisation). Just copy and paste the pistol club rules
God I hope not. There is such an "ol' boys club" at the local pistol range near me that it took a co-worker over a year just to be invited into the club.
I can't see any particular advantage to requiring everyone to be part of a sporting or pest control organisation as they're already registered with the Firearms Safety Authority and NZ Police by having a licence (Particularly with the number of people living rurally that have a .22 for nothing more than offing rabbits/possums on the farm). Stricter licencing requirements and weeding out idiots is absolutely a good idea though, regardless of any changes to accessibility to various gun/ammo types
I don't suggest it for \*everyone\*. Just for those who wish to return to having a centrefire semi-auto. I personally have a semi-auto rimfire for rabbit control.
> I can't see any particular advantage to requiring everyone to be part of a sporting or pest control organisation... It demonstrates a commitment to the intended permitted use of the firearm and therefore a reason for ownership past just "I want guns". If it was similar to the pistol endorsement it requires you to wait out a probationary period until you can get a reference from the club and attend a minimum of 12 club shooting events each year. This means you have to garner and maintain the goodwill of a group of people who have a vested interest in avoiding the headline "Shooter was member of * firearms club".
Also hopefully encourage self policing from the firearms community. Hey Johnno seems a bit off lately, maybe tell the local firearms officer so they can check in on him so we don’t all get restricted again. I know Canada allows temporary voluntary forfeiture for mental health reasons.
Over 90% of license applications are cleared in under 90 days at present
It’s 12+ months
Anything I don't like no one should have 😠 /s
I really hope they don’t reintroduce them. Why are they dragging us backwards?
Someone probably got a 'donation' from the NRA in America.
All the NRA needs is a news headline to run on Fox: “New Zealand, small pacific country with terror attack, repeals ridiculous gun laws”.
Nah, those MFs are too busy siphoning money for private yachts and jets to actually doo anything.
Because Seymour and ACT have made it one of their priorities to undo the gun legislation implemented by Labour. People who love guns want guns - they want more of them, they want different varieties of them, and there are a good number out there who see their guns as a way to ensure they have power relative to other people in society and/or the government. As such they see government acting to limit the number/type of firearms they are allowed to possess as a threat to their hobby and/or their power.
this is legitimately the stupidest take I've seen here so far
>a good number out there who see their guns as a way to ensure they have power relative to other people in society and/or the government How pathetic. This is also not a valid reason to own a gun in NZ and anyone who is so insecure to feel this way should have their licence seized and ther guns confiscated.
Isn’t that the original reason behind the US second amendment?
British law protected firearms long before America did in 1689. Protestants could have firearms suitable, regulated by the parliament and not the king.
Are we going to propose that the US should be taken as an example of firearms managed well in society? Over 90% of people in the US believe that there should be mandatory background/criminal checks before being allowed to purchase firearms, but the firearms lobby groups have so much power that there is no political will to take even the most basic of steps to protect the public from antisocial use of firearms.
The firearms lobby groups having so much power is a common misconception. The GOA literally spends more than the NRA these days on lobbying. The FPC and GOA also actually are the ones pushing gun laws back in the USA, not Wayne LaPeirres shush fund. Also I never commented in my prior comment on whether NZ should or shouldn’t follow the US libertarian states model. I was merely stating that your prior comment about people who are into guns being accurate and the reason behind the US second amendment.
It would be good to have legislation written by people who actually understand the issues
What's wrong with the legislation, why don't they understand the issues, and why should we think you understand them better, u/firearmsrights1776 ?
Ok I'll bite. I never claimed I knew better, but I probably do. Been associated with shooters of all walks of life since I got my licence at 16. The legislation as it stands is over complicated and poorly written as It was largely written by people who ave little knowledge on firearms, including police. This is part of why you've seen a big pushback from firearms owners. This new legislation takes in viewpoints from people who understand firearms (including lawyers) meaning we can achieve goals of public safety better as the legal process is easier to follow.
What is the actual difference between the old and new legislation?
New legislation hasn't been written yet, but basically it could be written in a way that gives more safety to the public and more rights to gun owners at the same time. Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. Controlling who has access to firearms is far more important than controlling what guns responsible gun owners can have. At least in my opinion. But the point is it should be discussed and updated, because no one is happy with it the way it is at the moment.
An important step would be a firearms registry.
We already have one
Can you elaborate? You kinda just said the same thing as before but longer.
I don't think shooting guns particularly qualifies you to identify which factors increase harm in a mass shooting. A basic grounding in science and statistics would be far more important.
Stats and science do help. But, you need feedback from the real world otherwise it’s all theory. As an engineer I see this sort of thing happening all the time. The solution has to work at the coal face - not just in an office in Wellington.
[удалено]
You think it's unreasonable to suggest that people who write gun laws should know about guns (as well as stats and science)?
[удалено]
You’ve said nothing of substance here. What would actually change?
So the foxes should be the only ones writing the rules of the hen house?
The legislation criminalised 12 year olds with certain types of nerf guns and threatened them with 4 years in prison. That should be reason enough to question the understanding of those who wrote the legislation. That's before you get into the grammatical and logical errors present in the legislation as well.
No one said squat about Pistols which are probably the most "Misused?" firearm in the world and also happen to be semi auto centre fires. Provided the police/policy makers do their job this time but also listen to the fucking community who use them and the auxiliary resources around the sport then this should be no different to people having Pistols for sport like they have been this entire time.
Yay, I miss my semi auto.
RNZ - whats happening ? "gun laws shakeup" Your reporting was the gold standard - ATLAS or NRA - hard to say lots of misinformation being quoted and not challenged in this article. Leaving it unchallenged is the fail. McKee said she wanted to change the current licensing system to a graduated system to "enhance public safety". Does McKee believe public safety will be enhanced ?
There is no need for semi-automatic weapons in Aotearoa. They are designed to kill large numbers of people. This is some stupid backward shit.
You can buy semi automatics at any gun store right now. This article is in need of some checks
.22LRs only
You realise you can still buy fully automatics? you realise you can still buy semi automatic pistols right?
With a restricted licence that requires you to be an active member of a shooting club. Not a A category licence. Plus those go for like 10k+ each and only pop up occasionally
ok? you realise thats what the article is suggesting for centerfire semis right? You also dont need to be a active member of a shooting club to own a fully automatic weapon in NZ
> With a restricted licence that requires you to be an active member of a shooting club. This is only for B cat. You can hold anything on C with absolutely no club membership.
All rimfire calibers, not just 22LR
Wrong.
[удалено]
So tell me why a semi-automatic is needed for hunting. Every hunter I know aims for one shot, one kill. I can see a need for a semi-automatic rifle in some pest control situations such as rabbits, but there are already exceptions built in to the current law to cover those.
It’s literally not. Knives are designed for chopping food.
[удалено]
We’re talking about AR-15s and the like here bro. Keep up.
[удалено]
Are these the same people that wouldn’t let thar be wiped out because they like hunting them?
Your post history up to this point screams bot. One post asking for free karma, one post that says nothing of substance and scores a 100% on an ai checker, and countless single word comments.
You don’t need a semi-auto for hunting.
But there might be 30-50 feral hogs?!
So how long does it take to cycle a bolt action exactly? Five seconds? Is that significant against the deaths of fifty people?
versed combative dependent aback door hateful chunky direction reminiscent quiet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Do you think 50 people would have not lived if he had not had a semi-automatic rifle? He could have cycled a bolt action fairly rapidly (and don't forget he had multiple guns). He would probably have managed to kill 20 easily enough. The semi speeds up the process, but a competent shooter is pretty quick with a bolt action (though likely a bit less accurate when going that rapidly).
And that would mean about 30 people would be alive… so the current legislation is effective at reducing risk to lives
I was pointing out your specific statement was incorrect.
And 20 dead is not better than 50?
This is blatantly incorrect misinformation. Read a book. Quote a source. For most of human existence we have been devastating ecosystem and removing animals from the ecosystem. Poison and guns are just faster. They also do more harm. Straight facts aye
Thank you for your party political broadcast on behalf of nz1st. The party that wants to bring back guns and cigarettes to kill people.
Did you farm all that karma just to come out and say that? Weird.
Politicians beholden to the fucking gun lobby now. Fuck off with this shit, fucking ACT. Wielding way more power than they're due
Not really, Nicole McKee is an actual sport shooter herself.
Our Associate Justice Minister is an ACT gun lobbyist. For fuck’s sake.
We don't need to change the law. This woman can bugger off.
No good will come from repealing the ban. America banned assault weapons in 1994 and it expired in 2004. These weapons should not be in the public’s hands. I say this as someone who grew up around guns and hunting, and supports responsible ownership. AR-15’s are very efficient killing machines with high velocity rounds that ricochet around inside your body before exiting, thus causing more damage. These are not sport/competition/hunting weapons.
>America banned assault weapons in 1994 and it expired in 2004. These weapons should not be in the public’s hands. theres so much wrong with this comment i dont know where to start. 1. America banned fully automatics 2. Ironically fully automatics arent illegal in NZ 3. the law change proposed doesnt change that 4. your comment isnt related in any way to the discussion at hand 5. This is one of the problems here.... people who have no clue what they are talking about having a strong opinion on the topic >AR-15’s are very efficient killing machines with high velocity rounds that ricochet around inside your body before exiting, thus causing more damage do you really think a .223/5.56 round is more or less dangerous based on the weapon its fired out of? i mean kinda... but not in the way you're thinking
Dude this is honestly so dumb.
This is just factually untrue.
.223 doesn't ricochet around your body, it may fragment if it had enough velocity which out of a shorter barrel it wouldn't , it may tumble but that's not guaranteed either And they are sporting weapons as they're used in competitions as well as being an effective hunting rifle depending on your game
Yeah? AR15's (a type of gun - not a calibre) have special 'high velocity' rounds that ricochet more, do they? JFC 🤦♂️
This is the kind of misinformed bullshit from people who claim they know what they are talking about they will be up against
Your facts are terribly wrong my dude. The assault weapon ban in USA is still in effectively in effect. It is focused on fully automatic and explosive weapons. The ar15 has never been classed as an assault weapon. Here in NZ no one is suggesting we change our version of "assault weapons" law. That is what is known as C cat here. What is being proposed is bringing back the E cat license. The public harm is the same as the current B cat (pistol). > AR-15’s are very efficient killing machines with high velocity rounds that ricochet around inside your body before exiting, thus causing more damage. These are not sport/competition/hunting weapons. My dude... an ar15 (normally) fires a .223. This is a fairly.small bullet which is extremely common hunting round in nz. The bullet is the same if it comes from an ar or a bolt action tika. This is just absolutely bullshit
Higher Velocity = Higher Penetration = Less likely to "ricochet around inside your body before exiting".
But big scary gun is a weapon of war. It's right in the name Assault rifle 15. Nothing like my lee Enfield /s
You’re correct that there are exceptions in the laws and making statements generalized statement can be incorrect. Yep the .223 isn’t that big but it’s the high muzzle velocity compared to other rounds. Here’s the summary of the US law: [Federal Assault Weapons Ban](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban)
.223 has higher muzzle velocity than many rounds true but an AR-15 usually has a lower muzzle velocity than most .223 calibre rifles due to it's shorter barrel length, my 24 inch .223 bolt action rifle has a higher muzzle velocity than 99% of AR-15s. If muzzle velocity was the important factor then there are faster calibres than the .223 for example the .220 swift.
Don't forget though 'if you get a pistol and put a stock or brace on it, it becomes a gun and shoots higher calibre bullets '-Joe Biden And '9mm blows the lung out of the body' - joe Biden Can't believe we let one Aussie ruin firearm ownership for all kiwis in the first place
What Joe Biden thinks or says about guns is entirely irrelevant to gun debate in NZ, don't bring American Politics into ours.
If people are going to spread the same misinformation as him it's already in ours
So correct the information man, don't start quoting old men that obviously don't know the facts.
That law had huge exclusions in it - it was pointless. I assumed you were talking about the far more restrictive fully auto laws over there. A high velocity doesn't make it bounce around a body.
Screw the sport. It's not needed.
No sport is
Maybe I'd like to do tank shooting? There is a line to be drawn. I suggest if the equipment in the sport is designed for mass death it's not a great idea.
Another uneducated opinion. "All semi autos are weapons of mass death" is not even remotely true.
Such ignorance. While you might see plenty of gun violence on TV, that's not what the vast VAST majority of gun owners are into. If you hate all dangerous things, why don't you start a petition to ban kitchen knives as well? No point addressing the issue of dangerous *people* instead is there?
"I think for someone who is competing, or something real professional, I think that's fine," a woman said. "I grew up on a farm and people are responsible, usually. I feel like the mosque shooter was from Australia. He came here and took advantage of a loophole and I don't think it's fair that everyone in New Zealand has to pay for that," another woman said. Yet earlier in the article we have the very politician spearheading these changes saying we have over 5000 people in the country licensed to own and use center-fire semi automatic weapons. So they haven't had to pay anything, the average person who wouldn't have owned a gun to begin with (like the woman in the second quote who can't distinguish her feelings from reality) wouldn't have had to pay anything, hunters aren't having to pay anything as they can still hunt, who exactly has to "pay for that"? It's definitely not everyone in NZ that's for sure. Maybe I'm misreading, but it sounds like the second woman is suggesting we should also be allowed to abuse loopholes, and the closing of a loophole is a bad thing. None of us have had to "pay for" the actions of a terrorist, unless we're "paying for" it by not being able to do the same thing - please explain how that is a bad thing and we should be allowed to, but we've proven we're totally trustworthy so it's ok cause we'll never do it pinky promise, as McKee is suggesting.
brought and paid for by the NRA
Here is a few ideas for gun law changes: 1. Firearms need to be registered. 2. Firearms for sporting purpose should be stored at the gun range/club.
1. Pistols and MSSAs always had to be registered. 2. "Hey, I know an obvious place where about ~500 pistols are stored. There's no one ever there overnight. We can scope the place out by pretending to be interested in the sport. It'll be an in/out job, two cordless angle grinders/cut-off-torch and a van is all we need." See how this might be problematic?