Look at the ABC website for the photo of the NZ fern on the Opera House roof (sorry, tried BBCode but that end in a complete mess).
I saw that Gee D. I've always liked the Opera House and I thought it looked stunning.
NZ should have banned those kind of weapons at the time of the Port Arthur killings. I really think we have been far too complacent - maybe even smug - and I include myself in that, which is why it has been such a shock.
Alan mentioned the "good guy with the gun at the scene" at the first Mosque who was shot. There was a man at the second Mosque who chased off the gunman using (of all things) an eftpos device, otherwise the toll would have been greater there.
Heard a bloke on TV opine that if the shooter didn't have a semi-automatic and had to reload after each shot, the people who tried to stop him might well have succeeded. I am utterly ignorant of guns and proud of it, but I choose to believe that.
I also want to affirm my strong support for the right of people to own and use guns in Australia in compliance with our existing laws. In my opinion hunting in season and shooting at ranges are legitimate recreational activities.
It's still tone deafness in this context. The thread isn't about justifying legal ownership in rural areas. To be fair the recent NZ terrorism is about a fascist racist using guns.
But farmers using guns for varmint control is s stupid thing to bring up when the thread had been about misuse.
But farmers using guns for varmint control is s stupid thing to bring up when the thread had been about misuse.
While it might certainly feel righteous to whip ourselves up into a maelstrom of indignation at the horrors humans are able to inflict on each other, we serve no benefit by hardening other people's stances. Considering some common-sense compromises to establish that we're rational beings who can be reasoned with is a necessary step to changing minds. That's all I saw them doing, even as they affirmed essential agreement with the underlying premise of assault weapons being unnecessary for civilians.
It's also deeply ironic that @NOprophet_NØprofit should be inveighing against tone deafness after this crassness on the Brexit Anxiety thread in All Saints
Hope everyone is watching the various hakas being performed in solidarity with Christchurch victims, some by school chilfren. Very moving, just google haka Christchurch.
Hope everyone is watching the various hakas being performed in solidarity with Christchurch victims, some by school chilfren. Very moving, just google haka Christchurch.
"Moving" is a good word. I felt much the same way.
It is not stupid to mention farmers and their guns No Prophet, Jacinda Ardern has asked people to hand in guns, and even before she did at least one farmer has done so and asked that they be destroyed. He said that the convenience for him was not worth the possibility of it getting into the wrong hands. Also a chain that sells to hunters and fishers has voluntarily withdrawn these kinds of guns from sale.
Of course there is also the gunshop owner who spouts the line that this is not the right time to discuss banning some guns - sound familiar?
If the question is "what minimal action on gun can we take?" then the issue of farmers (and others in rural areas) is irrelevant - because, if the idea is to simply ban semi-automatic rifles then it's unlikely that farmers/hunters/etc have those guns anyway (or, if they do then a similar gun that isn't semi-automatic would be equally effective for their needs).
On the other hand, if the question is about a substantial revision of gun laws then you need to start with questions like "what are legitimate reasons for anyone to own a gun?" and "what sort of guns are needed for those purposes?". In that case farmers etc are relevant, because guns to protect livestock from feral dogs or other predators, or to control rabbits or other animal likely to damage crops, becomes one of those legitimate reasons to own a gun. And, they'd be a group of people who would find that a total ban on guns makes life very much harder.
I think there's also an issue of what are acceptable limits on people's freedom. Many people who like guns are volunteer firefighters in rural areas, or otherwise involved in valuable community service - soldiers, police, firefighters, ambos - outdoor types. One doesn't have to be the other, but in Australia there is a fair crossover I reckon. The bloke I know who's into guns drives a tugboat (a lifelong dream of his was to work on the water), and is an ex-cop.
When our gun laws came in I had to change the way I did stuff precisely zero times. They had no negative effect on me whatsoever, but some of these people are like car enthusiasts. They like the toys that shoot the best, the loudest, the longest, and yes they think of them as their toys like any other enthusiast. They admire the craftsmanship of their XB58Q like a porsche owner might admire the shine on their duco. For those people, Australia's gun laws are an impost. Something they want - a semi-auto weapon that they can fire at a target and go 'whoop!' - they can't have. And the guns they can own have to be securely stored or left at their club. They have to be licensed. So this affects their lives. I reckon that if these people comply with our gun laws then they personally are making a contribution to the general safety of my country. I reckon they deserve a thanks, especially now when people tend to play stacks on the mill with them.
Yes, and everyone who wants to drive at 150mph whilst texting but isn't allowed to should also be given a thanks as they too are generously contributing to the general safety.
I think there's also an issue of what are acceptable limits on people's freedom. Many people who like guns are volunteer firefighters in rural areas, or otherwise involved in valuable community service - soldiers, police, firefighters, ambos - outdoor types. One doesn't have to be the other, but in Australia there is a fair crossover I reckon. The bloke I know who's into guns drives a tugboat (a lifelong dream of his was to work on the water), and is an ex-cop.
When our gun laws came in I had to change the way I did stuff precisely zero times. They had no negative effect on me whatsoever, but some of these people are like car enthusiasts. They like the toys that shoot the best, the loudest, the longest, and yes they think of them as their toys like any other enthusiast. They admire the craftsmanship of their XB58Q like a porsche owner might admire the shine on their duco. For those people, Australia's gun laws are an impost. Something they want - a semi-auto weapon that they can fire at a target and go 'whoop!' - they can't have. And the guns they can own have to be securely stored or left at their club. They have to be licensed. So this affects their lives. I reckon that if these people comply with our gun laws then they personally are making a contribution to the general safety of my country. I reckon they deserve a thanks, especially now when people tend to play stacks on the mill with them.
What does being a volunteer firefighter have to do with liking gun toys?
If the question is "what minimal action on gun can we take?" then the issue of farmers (and others in rural areas) is irrelevant - because, if the idea is to simply ban semi-automatic rifles then it's unlikely that farmers/hunters/etc have those guns anyway (or, if they do then a similar gun that isn't semi-automatic would be equally effective for their needs).
If that is the question, then we still have to discuss whether this assertion is true. You can't just assert farmers into irrelevance - you have to actually demonstrate this, which would require some kind of discussion.
What does being a volunteer firefighter have to do with liking gun toys?
Nothing, I don't think, other than the fact that these people are (quite reasonably) viewed as archetypal heroes, in Australia. I suspect SimonToad is saying that the whole gun thing needs to be approached in a manner which doesn't alienate folk who very much are part of the social contract.
For myself, I was horrified to discover, in the wake of this tragedy, that there are somewhere in the order of 1.5 million guns in New Zealand. That's almost one gun for every three people, including all the under-eighteens who can't own one. And we aren't all wilderness-dwellers! Amongst other things, it's likely to mean that some - perhaps many - of those who do own guns, own a fuck-load of guns. And that really, really, bothers me. Even if they're only rifles. The whole 'wanting to build up a collection of guns' - it's just not associated with a healthy approach to life and society, in my mind.
And yet, and yet. My Dad had a gun - just a standard .22 calibre rifle - and we did live in the country and have actual need of it for killing stock and vermin. I was taught how to use it, when I was about twelve, and how to break it down and store the parts safely, and all the rules. When I think of it - when I remember back? It was a gorgeous thing - it was a feast for the senses. It had a lovely weight, not too much, not too little - it was beautifully balanced, it had a plethora of smells associated with it, the oiled wood of the stock, the tang of the metal parts. The smell of gunpowder. The anticipation. The noise. It was...kind of a sensual thing. And that's coming from someone who's broadly against guns. I can totally see how seductive they could be, how you could potentially want to own them, amass them, just for the sheer love of the things themselves. I think SimonToad is not wrong with his comparison to car enthusiasts, here. However, on balance, while it may be that many of these collectors are innocent aesthetes, it just can't be a good thing, for society, to have arsenals, hanging around.
If the question is "what minimal action on gun can we take?" then the issue of farmers (and others in rural areas) is irrelevant - because, if the idea is to simply ban semi-automatic rifles then it's unlikely that farmers/hunters/etc have those guns anyway (or, if they do then a similar gun that isn't semi-automatic would be equally effective for their needs).
If that is the question, then we still have to discuss whether this assertion is true. You can't just assert farmers into irrelevance - you have to actually demonstrate this, which would require some kind of discussion.
Farmers are only relevant in the question of banning semi-automatic guns if it can be demonstrated that they really need such guns for control of feral dogs (or other form of vermin). I have never seen anyone make that case. I admit to only knowing one person who lived on a farm and had guns, a former colleague from Texas who grew up on a smallholding - he admitted to having three guns, different tools for different jobs in the event of an animal bothering the stock: for most purposes, a shot gun practically guaranteed to hit anything in the yard; a rifle when either extra range (something nearer the boundary of the property) or accuracy (if the family dog was out there); a hand gun for anything that made it onto the porch. I guess if anyone's likely to consider a semi-automatic is essential to kill vermin on the farm it would be a farmer from Texas, but a plain ol' simple rifle was the right tool for the job.
Farmers are only relevant in the question of banning semi-automatic guns if it can be demonstrated that they really need such guns for control of feral dogs (or other form of vermin).
Sure. I don't see how you determine what farmers "really need" without involving farmers in the discussion.
I think everyone agrees that semi-automatic weapons make it easy for someone with bad intentions to kill a lot of people. That's the threat, and so a decent reason to consider banning them. But any discussion must consider the uses to which ordinary law-abiding gun owners put their weapons - even if you are certain that the outcome is going to be "sorry, but your convenience / hobby / whatever isn't as important as preventing the next mass shooting".
Certainly there are NZ farmers who are turning in the semi-automatics they have used for pest control, because they share this opinion, and are prepared to give up some convenience.
Basically, I think before enacting a ban on particular kinds of weapon (or indeed anything at all), you have to go through all the classes of people who currently use that kind of weapon - just like you said, and I agree, that if you were considering a more complete ban on guns then you'd have to go through all the classes of people who currently use guns of any sort.
For the class of people that are gun enthusiasts, they can continue to be gun enthusiasts under safe restrictions. People liking things is simply not adequate cause to subject the general public to risk of death.
For the class of people that use guns as tools to do a job, let them use other tools for more of it. In the vast majority of situations, high-velocity human-lethal lead is a poor general solution.
We decided as societies to ban use of asbestos without needing to ponder the feelings of asbestos installers. We forced auto manufacturers to include safety features that many did not want to pay for, because it was for the general good. Gun restrictions need not be any different.
That being said, I see no practical solution to the horrifying array of guns already distributed. But it is clear that tightening restrictions on the supply of new weapons is a necessary part of the solution.
I think the situation in the US is different from the situation in Australia because here we already (I believe) have in place adequate gun laws to protect the community from mass shootings. So in Australia, these people are already gun enthusiasts opeating under safe restrictions. Sometimes they argue for changes in their favor, and they organise politically to try and get elected on a state and federal basis. That's all fine, and I recognise that our context is different, because people who like guns are treated like pariahs in the political space. Mainstream politicians go to great lengths to hide any deals they make with the Shooters & Fishers (their political party).
One of the changes they wanted in Australia, in response to the discussion between Alan and Leorning, was to allow the importation of the Adler shotgun. Now I don't understand the technicalities and am no doubt wrong, but this gun apparently enabled you to get your shots off quicker, but still wasn't a semi-auto. What was argued, in part, was that if you were hunting bush pigs, and your first shot didn't kill the beast, you needed a weapon like the Adler to be safe. Hunting bush pigs was something you need to do if you're a farmer, I am told. It all reminded me of the film The Gods must be Crazy. Some people got really pissed off that the Government said "Yeah, nah".
Yes, and everyone who wants to drive at 150mph whilst texting but isn't allowed to should also be given a thanks as they too are generously contributing to the general safety.
I saw your comment when I was up late last night @JonahMan and I almost conceded on the spot. I am easily influenced you see. But thinking about it over toast and coffee I realised that the difference is that before the Port Arthur Massacre, what these people were doing and the guns they owned were perfectly legal. Overnight they had to change what they were doing. As a Grumpy Old Bastard (although I wasn't back then) that would shit me up the wall. I would be slicing and dicing, saying this bit is OK, but that bit isn't and bloody politicians and people don't understand and all that. So a bit of consideration is warranted I reckon, and not just for those who owned weapons in 1996.
Rook, I would suggest a gun amnesty to reduce the number of weapons in the USA, but I think the country is so different in the way people view guns that it wouldn't work like it did here. People started surrendering their weapons almost as soon as the Port Arthur Massacre happened, and I saw a report that the same is happening in NZ too. It needs shock value, and there just isn't the same sense of universal national shock in the USA. The right heads to the bunkers in the US. That doesn't happen here. Do you remember if it was different when Columbine happened?
It needs shock value, and there just isn't the same sense of universal national shock in the USA. The right heads to the bunkers in the US. That doesn't happen here. Do you remember if it was different when Columbine happened?
Shock has little or no value for us. All the mass shootings are shocking, but there are so fucking many of them. You hear about it, you shake your head and cuss, and you get on with your day. When Newtown didn't move the needle, I gave up thinking anything would.
It's important to note that gun control here is not only of ownership. Those who are allowed to have firearms are required to keep them in secure cupboards which from memory must not show the contents. Police are able to conduct random searches ensure that standards are maintained.
Legally guns have to be kept in a weapon safe here. That has not stopped thefts from occurring or the odd person who legally owned guns going on a rampage.
Years ago when the rules were different I remember seeing my uncle's rifle in the hot water cupboard. I think the bolt was in another locked cupboard in the shed and he didn't have any ammo.
--Believe it or not, there are folks who believe (with variations) that the Sandy Hook/Newtown shootings never happened, and that the gov't set up the hoax to turn people against gun rights.
Of all the things to make a conspiracy theories about...gaaaa!
--I'm not sure how people in Colorado felt about gun rights after Columbine, though I think that, nationally, that spurred some of the talk about arming school staff.
Later, some guy dressed up as the Joker from the Batman TV and movie series, and shot up a theater showing the new Batman movie. Afterwards, gun sales went up. That boggled me: I get being terrified of going to the movies and having it happen again. But...if an armed movie patron (P1) were to shoot at a (possibly not yet identifiable) shooter, in a semi-dark theater, someone else would be apt to get hurt. Other armed patrons might get confused and think P1 was the original shooter, and shoot *them*. When the cops arrive, they might think that anyone they see with a gun is P1, and act accordingly.
--Any move in the US to restrict or take away guns would most likely make things worse, and possibly have tragic consequences, like both cops and gun owners getting shot. And many non-owners might buy guns, on the grounds that the gov't was invading homes and lives, taking away constitutional rights, and the country was going to hell in a hand-basket.
That's before even considering the many private militias...
Legally guns have to be kept in a weapon safe here. That has not stopped thefts from occurring or the odd person who legally owned guns going on a rampage.
It's a whole lot better than nothing, though, isn't it? At least it stops unsuspecting toddlers and momentarily angry teenagers from doing something they'll regret forever.
Years ago when the rules were different I remember seeing my uncle's rifle in the hot water cupboard. I think the bolt was in another locked cupboard in the shed and he didn't have any ammo.
My Dad kept his gun in the garage, just hanging on a hook - but yes, the bolt was usually elsewhere.
Shock has little or no value for us. All the mass shootings are shocking, but there are so fucking many of them. You hear about it, you shake your head and cuss, and you get on with your day. When Newtown didn't move the needle, I gave up thinking anything would.
It's important to note that gun control here is not only of ownership. Those who are allowed to have firearms are required to keep them in secure cupboards which from memory must not show the contents. Police are able to conduct random searches ensure that standards are maintained.
I recall I had a look at the UK laws, and how they'd developed, several years ago for one of these threads. My recollection of that is that in the UK there are both licenses for people to have guns and permits for each individual weapon. Gun ownership requires the background checks such that the police are satisfied that you're someone who isn't likely to do something illegal, it also requires a statement as to why you need a gun with the particular gun you want matching that requirement (that also means if you have a shotgun and want to buy another then you need to justify why you need two guns). If granted permission to own a gun then there are conditions attached to that including storage (locked cabinets with ammunition secured separately). The husband of someone I know at work used to own a shotgun (used for shooting clay pigeons on their rural property) which was stolen when thieves broke into their house, entering the loft space and using power tools to open the cabinet holding the gun - he lost his gun license for failing to secure the gun properly (not taking steps to prevent others knowing there was a gun on the property).
UK laws have been progressively tightened up for a century (early impetus to make the laws tighter was the number of guns brought back from the front at the end of WWI), and has always included the question of why a gun is needed. Self defense or defense of property or others has always been excluded as a valid reason to own a gun. Following more recent mass murders several recreational activities have been removed from the list of acceptable reasons to own a gun; the right to shoot at targets for fun is considered inadequate reason to own a gun. The top two reasons for owning guns now would be shotgun licenses for farmers who occasionally need to protect their stock from feral dogs or foxes, or for hunting (rabbits, grouse and the like), or rifles for hunting deer. If you go hunting in the Highlands then a) you would first need to demonstrate an ability to kill with the first shot (so, no need for large magazine guns or semi-automatic rifles) and b) would be accompanied by a professional game keeper (who would also have a gun and could put in a second shot to kill an injured animal if needed) - both steps mean that a hunter shouldn't have any need to put two bullets into an animal in quick succession, if you can't hit what you're shooting at then you shouldn't be out in the wild with a gun.
Those are the sort of questions asked here but I'm not sure about the double check you describe. Certainly there has to be separate secure storage of weapons, ammunition and bolts, and I have a vague recollection of a prosecution and loss of licence along the lines you describe. Whatever is done requires a will to enforce it and that is certainly present amongst police in NSW; I can't speak of other states.
I recall I had a look at the UK laws, and how they'd developed, several years ago for one of these threads. My recollection of that is that in the UK there are both licenses for people to have guns and permits for each individual weapon.<sniped>... it also requires a statement as to why you need a gun with the particular gun you want matching that requirement (that also means if you have a shotgun and want to buy another then you need to justify why you need two guns). <sniped>
Following more recent mass murders several recreational activities have been removed from the list of acceptable reasons to own a gun; the right to shoot at targets for fun is considered inadequate reason to own a gun. <sniped> If you go hunting in the Highlands then a) you would first need to demonstrate an ability to kill with the first shot (so, no need for large magazine guns or semi-automatic rifles) and b) would be accompanied by a professional game keeper (who would also have a gun and could put in a second shot to kill an injured animal if needed) - both steps mean that a hunter shouldn't have any need to put two bullets into an animal in quick succession, if you can't hit what you're shooting at then you shouldn't be out in the wild with a gun.
Close but not quite right. Firstly the person has a licence to hold/purchase certain guns, only rifles need to be permitted as you need to explain why you need a certain calibre and also the amount of ammunition you can buy at one time and how much you can hold in your (seperate cabinet at) home. Such as .22 lr, rabbits and small vermin and usually the amount is in the 00`s as people usually shoot them at night and nipping into town to get another 50 (usually the smallest amount you can get) isn`t possible. These rifles can also be semi auto as it helps as rabbits can be prolific but the magazines are usually 5-10 shot. Here (uk) we have laws about the minimum calibre for different animals, fox .22cf (centre fire, a larger cartridge case than .22lr etc), roe deer, .240 (.22cf scotland), others .240 etc. The land shot over with rifles is also checked for suitability/safety too. you can ask for a rifle to shoot targets, however you would probably need to be a member of a gun club, or have many acres of open wild space with a lack of walkers.
Shotguns; you can have as many as you want, you don`t need to justify the amount just the reason you need/want them for, so clay pigeon shooting, game/vermin shooting, wildfowling etc. These too have different calibres to suit the use of the gun and the user. Due to the different birds and animlas that can be shot they can be likened to tools for a specific purpose, you would not use a 12lb fencing maul to hammer a panel pin, the same goes for shotguns (and rifles). You can get semi auto shotguns but these tend to be limited to 3 shots, they are not an easy thing to reload and a normal shotgun can be reloaded faster (I have not gone into the reason, for brevity sake, why semi auto shotguns are used even if they are difficult to reload).
Is there any scope for using wedge politics to split or soften support for weak gun laws in the USA? I'm trying to think about issues that the constituency might differ on with sufficient passion. The only one I can think of seems too extreme for me: trying to proscribe organisations with a white nationalist bent on the grounds that they support terrorists.
I'm interested in US gun control not only because of my general interest in the US, but because they are such a bad influence on our own gun-owning community. Right-wingers have always seen us as fertile recruiting ground, and it is our own fault given that we were formally and enthusiastically racist until the 1970's. So there is rational self-interest behind my probing.
I am still mad at australia because I only found out LAST NIGHT that we forcibly repatriated non-white refugees between the end of WW2 and I think 1951. God we were bastards./tangent
I read that the Islamic call to prayer is going to be broadcast on NZ radio.
Which seems like a touching tribute to a beleaguered community.
But, I guess, also carries risks as it possibly buys into the White Supremacist conspiracies.
I don't follow, why does it buy into White Supremacist conspiracies? It might be an affront to their sense of entitlement but I can't follow the conspiracy line.
I read that the Islamic call to prayer is going to be broadcast on NZ radio.
Which seems like a touching tribute to a beleaguered community.
But, I guess, also carries risks as it possibly buys into the White Supremacist conspiracies.
I don't follow, why does it buy into White Supremacist conspiracies? It might be an affront to their sense of entitlement but I can't follow the conspiracy line.
White supremacists believe that there is a secret invasion underway and that "they" (the government under secret Jewish control) are undermining white civilization (pretend for a moment that there's a single entity which can be called "white civilization"). Playing the call to prayer over the radio will be taken as an obvious confirmation that this conspiracy is true. Of course, the convenient thing about conspiracy theories is that everything is a confirmation that they're true.
Assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics have been banned in New Zealand after Jacinda Ardern, the prime minister, announced sweeping and immediate changes to gun laws following the Christchurch mosque shootings.
<snip>
“In short, every semi-automatic weapon used in the terrorist attack on Friday will be banned in this country,” said Ardern.
The ban on the sale of the weapons came into effect at 3pm on Thursday – the time of the press conference announcing the ban – with the prime minister warning that “all sales should now cease” of the weapons.
Ardern also directed officials to develop a gun buyback scheme for those who already own such weapons. She said “fair and reasonable compensation” would be paid.
I'm guessing that the immediate nature of the ban was to prevent stockpiling.
Does the NZ government have any plan to implement a national firearms registry? I would think that is more important than a semiautomatic weapons ban (although that is important too).
That is because you are a sane and reasonable person. Honestly. It's when conspiracy theories do start to make some sense to you, that you need to be concerned.
"Assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics have been banned in New Zealand after Jacinda Ardern, the prime minister, announced sweeping and immediate changes to gun laws following the Christchurch mosque shootings."
I'd like to shout out to our leader of the opposition, right now, who I usually am SERIOUSLY not a fan of, for not being any kind of a prick at all about anything this week. He has not attempted to shoulder his way into the spotlight, he hasn't tried to make hay of any of the failings that have been identified in the wake of this thing, and he's actually come out in fulsome support of this legislation, though it's likely to upset his base a lot more than Ardern's. In a world where bipartisanship seems to be currently in hibernation, it's a rare moment, and I'm heartened by it.
Yes, he and the Opposition have done well (also not usually a fan). The only Party I have heard not supporting the action is the sole Act MP, whom we all know is a wally. Interest groups such as Federated Farmers and some hunting groups have also come out in support.
When a woman in Auckland noticed a courier van full of newly bought weapons that people had bought online hoping to beat the ban she complained and NZ Post has them on hold and is not currently accepting guns for delivery. (They were labelled so it was obvious they were firearms.). Trade Me (New Zealand market - like e-Bay) has stopped selling guns too. Previously all firearms had to be couriered.
Obviously NZ didn't have sufficient checks on gun ownership, but I was once a character witness for a friend when he renewed his firearms licence (usually they ask a partner, but he doesn't have one and I have known him for 30 years). I found the couple of hours answering questions about his character quite gruelling.
Anoesis - a definite yes to gunsafes. In the small town where I grew up a young boy shot and killed his brother before they were compulsory.
It looks like you guys are going better than we did. I remember some serious opposition to our gun buybacks and bans in 1996, including a couple of massive protests.
There may yet be some pushback. Judith Collins, a former Minister of Police, and now an Opposition MP, has stated that when she brought in some changes to gun laws some of those opposing cited the Second Amendment and "the right to bear arms" apparently unaware that the American Constitution doesn't apply in NZ and there is no right to bear arms. :rolleyes:
(Actually I think they probably did a cut and paste of American information without thinking about its application to New Zealand, but either way it did no good for their cause.)
But there is no evidence One Nation was successful in any of its efforts to extract funding from the NRA, Koch Industries or any of the other American groups the two men met on their trip.
Sorry, I should've explained who they were. Did not want to give a link to their hateful policies or website. One of their number, a former Labor leader in opposition, has just gained a seat in New South Wales' upper house...
"Assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics have been banned in New Zealand after Jacinda Ardern, the prime minister, announced sweeping and immediate changes to gun laws following the Christchurch mosque shootings."
I'd like to shout out to our leader of the opposition, right now, who I usually am SERIOUSLY not a fan of, for not being any kind of a prick at all about anything this week. He has not attempted to shoulder his way into the spotlight, he hasn't tried to make hay of any of the failings that have been identified in the wake of this thing, and he's actually come out in fulsome support of this legislation, though it's likely to upset his base a lot more than Ardern's. In a world where bipartisanship seems to be currently in hibernation, it's a rare moment, and I'm heartened by it.
Jacinda taking all the leaders of political parties with her to Christchurch paved the way for everyone to work together. She didn't try and hog the spotlight, although it was glaringly on her. I hope she gets to take a day off at some point.
Three recent suicides, two by young survivors of the Florida school shooting and one father who lost his child in the Sandy Hook massacre, are just heartbreaking. It demonstrates how far reaching and long lasting the consequences of these horrific gun crimes are. For every person who took his own life there are probably hundreds living with unrelenting sorrow and anxiety.
Three recent suicides, two by young survivors of the Florida school shooting and one father who lost his child in the Sandy Hook massacre, are just heartbreaking.
They are as much casualties of gun crime as those who were shot on those awful days. They won't be included in the statistics, which are awful enough already, but they deserve to be.
There is a factoid circulating (which I cannot confirm) that more kids were shot in the USA last year than USA active military and police members. If accurate, that means having a parent with a gun is more dangerous than serving in Iraq.
Comments
I saw that Gee D. I've always liked the Opera House and I thought it looked stunning.
NZ should have banned those kind of weapons at the time of the Port Arthur killings. I really think we have been far too complacent - maybe even smug - and I include myself in that, which is why it has been such a shock.
Alan mentioned the "good guy with the gun at the scene" at the first Mosque who was shot. There was a man at the second Mosque who chased off the gunman using (of all things) an eftpos device, otherwise the toll would have been greater there.
I also want to affirm my strong support for the right of people to own and use guns in Australia in compliance with our existing laws. In my opinion hunting in season and shooting at ranges are legitimate recreational activities.
The tone deafness is even worse because the terrorist who shot all these people owned the guns legally.
So go jump in a lake you two.
With all due respect the title is Fucking Guns, not fucking extremists, or fucking gun laws.
But farmers using guns for varmint control is s stupid thing to bring up when the thread had been about misuse.
While it might certainly feel righteous to whip ourselves up into a maelstrom of indignation at the horrors humans are able to inflict on each other, we serve no benefit by hardening other people's stances. Considering some common-sense compromises to establish that we're rational beings who can be reasoned with is a necessary step to changing minds. That's all I saw them doing, even as they affirmed essential agreement with the underlying premise of assault weapons being unnecessary for civilians.
"Moving" is a good word. I felt much the same way.
Of course there is also the gunshop owner who spouts the line that this is not the right time to discuss banning some guns - sound familiar?
On the other hand, if the question is about a substantial revision of gun laws then you need to start with questions like "what are legitimate reasons for anyone to own a gun?" and "what sort of guns are needed for those purposes?". In that case farmers etc are relevant, because guns to protect livestock from feral dogs or other predators, or to control rabbits or other animal likely to damage crops, becomes one of those legitimate reasons to own a gun. And, they'd be a group of people who would find that a total ban on guns makes life very much harder.
When our gun laws came in I had to change the way I did stuff precisely zero times. They had no negative effect on me whatsoever, but some of these people are like car enthusiasts. They like the toys that shoot the best, the loudest, the longest, and yes they think of them as their toys like any other enthusiast. They admire the craftsmanship of their XB58Q like a porsche owner might admire the shine on their duco. For those people, Australia's gun laws are an impost. Something they want - a semi-auto weapon that they can fire at a target and go 'whoop!' - they can't have. And the guns they can own have to be securely stored or left at their club. They have to be licensed. So this affects their lives. I reckon that if these people comply with our gun laws then they personally are making a contribution to the general safety of my country. I reckon they deserve a thanks, especially now when people tend to play stacks on the mill with them.
What does being a volunteer firefighter have to do with liking gun toys?
If that is the question, then we still have to discuss whether this assertion is true. You can't just assert farmers into irrelevance - you have to actually demonstrate this, which would require some kind of discussion.
Nothing, I don't think, other than the fact that these people are (quite reasonably) viewed as archetypal heroes, in Australia. I suspect SimonToad is saying that the whole gun thing needs to be approached in a manner which doesn't alienate folk who very much are part of the social contract.
For myself, I was horrified to discover, in the wake of this tragedy, that there are somewhere in the order of 1.5 million guns in New Zealand. That's almost one gun for every three people, including all the under-eighteens who can't own one. And we aren't all wilderness-dwellers! Amongst other things, it's likely to mean that some - perhaps many - of those who do own guns, own a fuck-load of guns. And that really, really, bothers me. Even if they're only rifles. The whole 'wanting to build up a collection of guns' - it's just not associated with a healthy approach to life and society, in my mind.
And yet, and yet. My Dad had a gun - just a standard .22 calibre rifle - and we did live in the country and have actual need of it for killing stock and vermin. I was taught how to use it, when I was about twelve, and how to break it down and store the parts safely, and all the rules. When I think of it - when I remember back? It was a gorgeous thing - it was a feast for the senses. It had a lovely weight, not too much, not too little - it was beautifully balanced, it had a plethora of smells associated with it, the oiled wood of the stock, the tang of the metal parts. The smell of gunpowder. The anticipation. The noise. It was...kind of a sensual thing. And that's coming from someone who's broadly against guns. I can totally see how seductive they could be, how you could potentially want to own them, amass them, just for the sheer love of the things themselves. I think SimonToad is not wrong with his comparison to car enthusiasts, here. However, on balance, while it may be that many of these collectors are innocent aesthetes, it just can't be a good thing, for society, to have arsenals, hanging around.
Sure. I don't see how you determine what farmers "really need" without involving farmers in the discussion.
I think everyone agrees that semi-automatic weapons make it easy for someone with bad intentions to kill a lot of people. That's the threat, and so a decent reason to consider banning them. But any discussion must consider the uses to which ordinary law-abiding gun owners put their weapons - even if you are certain that the outcome is going to be "sorry, but your convenience / hobby / whatever isn't as important as preventing the next mass shooting".
Certainly there are NZ farmers who are turning in the semi-automatics they have used for pest control, because they share this opinion, and are prepared to give up some convenience.
Basically, I think before enacting a ban on particular kinds of weapon (or indeed anything at all), you have to go through all the classes of people who currently use that kind of weapon - just like you said, and I agree, that if you were considering a more complete ban on guns then you'd have to go through all the classes of people who currently use guns of any sort.
For the class of people that are gun enthusiasts, they can continue to be gun enthusiasts under safe restrictions. People liking things is simply not adequate cause to subject the general public to risk of death.
For the class of people that use guns as tools to do a job, let them use other tools for more of it. In the vast majority of situations, high-velocity human-lethal lead is a poor general solution.
We decided as societies to ban use of asbestos without needing to ponder the feelings of asbestos installers. We forced auto manufacturers to include safety features that many did not want to pay for, because it was for the general good. Gun restrictions need not be any different.
That being said, I see no practical solution to the horrifying array of guns already distributed. But it is clear that tightening restrictions on the supply of new weapons is a necessary part of the solution.
One of the changes they wanted in Australia, in response to the discussion between Alan and Leorning, was to allow the importation of the Adler shotgun. Now I don't understand the technicalities and am no doubt wrong, but this gun apparently enabled you to get your shots off quicker, but still wasn't a semi-auto. What was argued, in part, was that if you were hunting bush pigs, and your first shot didn't kill the beast, you needed a weapon like the Adler to be safe. Hunting bush pigs was something you need to do if you're a farmer, I am told. It all reminded me of the film The Gods must be Crazy. Some people got really pissed off that the Government said "Yeah, nah".
I saw your comment when I was up late last night @JonahMan and I almost conceded on the spot. I am easily influenced you see. But thinking about it over toast and coffee I realised that the difference is that before the Port Arthur Massacre, what these people were doing and the guns they owned were perfectly legal. Overnight they had to change what they were doing. As a Grumpy Old Bastard (although I wasn't back then) that would shit me up the wall. I would be slicing and dicing, saying this bit is OK, but that bit isn't and bloody politicians and people don't understand and all that. So a bit of consideration is warranted I reckon, and not just for those who owned weapons in 1996.
Rook, I would suggest a gun amnesty to reduce the number of weapons in the USA, but I think the country is so different in the way people view guns that it wouldn't work like it did here. People started surrendering their weapons almost as soon as the Port Arthur Massacre happened, and I saw a report that the same is happening in NZ too. It needs shock value, and there just isn't the same sense of universal national shock in the USA. The right heads to the bunkers in the US. That doesn't happen here. Do you remember if it was different when Columbine happened?
If slaughtering a score of six year olds plus some of their teachers isn't sufficient "shock value" for the U.S., I'm not sure what would be.
Years ago when the rules were different I remember seeing my uncle's rifle in the hot water cupboard. I think the bolt was in another locked cupboard in the shed and he didn't have any ammo.
--Believe it or not, there are folks who believe (with variations) that the Sandy Hook/Newtown shootings never happened, and that the gov't set up the hoax to turn people against gun rights.
Of all the things to make a conspiracy theories about...gaaaa!
--I'm not sure how people in Colorado felt about gun rights after Columbine, though I think that, nationally, that spurred some of the talk about arming school staff.
Later, some guy dressed up as the Joker from the Batman TV and movie series, and shot up a theater showing the new Batman movie. Afterwards, gun sales went up. That boggled me: I get being terrified of going to the movies and having it happen again. But...if an armed movie patron (P1) were to shoot at a (possibly not yet identifiable) shooter, in a semi-dark theater, someone else would be apt to get hurt. Other armed patrons might get confused and think P1 was the original shooter, and shoot *them*. When the cops arrive, they might think that anyone they see with a gun is P1, and act accordingly.
--Any move in the US to restrict or take away guns would most likely make things worse, and possibly have tragic consequences, like both cops and gun owners getting shot. And many non-owners might buy guns, on the grounds that the gov't was invading homes and lives, taking away constitutional rights, and the country was going to hell in a hand-basket.
That's before even considering the many private militias...
(:help:) (:banging head against wall:) (:votive:)
My Dad kept his gun in the garage, just hanging on a hook - but yes, the bolt was usually elsewhere.
On that note: https://newsthump.com/2019/03/18/us-sends-specialist-thoughts-and-prayers-team-to-new-zealand-after-novice-pm-foolishly-contemplates-real-action/
UK laws have been progressively tightened up for a century (early impetus to make the laws tighter was the number of guns brought back from the front at the end of WWI), and has always included the question of why a gun is needed. Self defense or defense of property or others has always been excluded as a valid reason to own a gun. Following more recent mass murders several recreational activities have been removed from the list of acceptable reasons to own a gun; the right to shoot at targets for fun is considered inadequate reason to own a gun. The top two reasons for owning guns now would be shotgun licenses for farmers who occasionally need to protect their stock from feral dogs or foxes, or for hunting (rabbits, grouse and the like), or rifles for hunting deer. If you go hunting in the Highlands then a) you would first need to demonstrate an ability to kill with the first shot (so, no need for large magazine guns or semi-automatic rifles) and b) would be accompanied by a professional game keeper (who would also have a gun and could put in a second shot to kill an injured animal if needed) - both steps mean that a hunter shouldn't have any need to put two bullets into an animal in quick succession, if you can't hit what you're shooting at then you shouldn't be out in the wild with a gun.
Shotguns; you can have as many as you want, you don`t need to justify the amount just the reason you need/want them for, so clay pigeon shooting, game/vermin shooting, wildfowling etc. These too have different calibres to suit the use of the gun and the user. Due to the different birds and animlas that can be shot they can be likened to tools for a specific purpose, you would not use a 12lb fencing maul to hammer a panel pin, the same goes for shotguns (and rifles). You can get semi auto shotguns but these tend to be limited to 3 shots, they are not an easy thing to reload and a normal shotgun can be reloaded faster (I have not gone into the reason, for brevity sake, why semi auto shotguns are used even if they are difficult to reload).
I'm interested in US gun control not only because of my general interest in the US, but because they are such a bad influence on our own gun-owning community. Right-wingers have always seen us as fertile recruiting ground, and it is our own fault given that we were formally and enthusiastically racist until the 1970's. So there is rational self-interest behind my probing.
I am still mad at australia because I only found out LAST NIGHT that we forcibly repatriated non-white refugees between the end of WW2 and I think 1951. God we were bastards./tangent
Which seems like a touching tribute to a beleaguered community.
But, I guess, also carries risks as it possibly buys into the White Supremacist conspiracies.
I don't follow, why does it buy into White Supremacist conspiracies? It might be an affront to their sense of entitlement but I can't follow the conspiracy line.
White supremacists believe that there is a secret invasion underway and that "they" (the government under secret Jewish control) are undermining white civilization (pretend for a moment that there's a single entity which can be called "white civilization"). Playing the call to prayer over the radio will be taken as an obvious confirmation that this conspiracy is true. Of course, the convenient thing about conspiracy theories is that everything is a confirmation that they're true.
And that was certainly quick.
I'm guessing that the immediate nature of the ban was to prevent stockpiling.
I'd like to shout out to our leader of the opposition, right now, who I usually am SERIOUSLY not a fan of, for not being any kind of a prick at all about anything this week. He has not attempted to shoulder his way into the spotlight, he hasn't tried to make hay of any of the failings that have been identified in the wake of this thing, and he's actually come out in fulsome support of this legislation, though it's likely to upset his base a lot more than Ardern's. In a world where bipartisanship seems to be currently in hibernation, it's a rare moment, and I'm heartened by it.
When a woman in Auckland noticed a courier van full of newly bought weapons that people had bought online hoping to beat the ban she complained and NZ Post has them on hold and is not currently accepting guns for delivery. (They were labelled so it was obvious they were firearms.). Trade Me (New Zealand market - like e-Bay) has stopped selling guns too. Previously all firearms had to be couriered.
Obviously NZ didn't have sufficient checks on gun ownership, but I was once a character witness for a friend when he renewed his firearms licence (usually they ask a partner, but he doesn't have one and I have known him for 30 years). I found the couple of hours answering questions about his character quite gruelling.
Anoesis - a definite yes to gunsafes. In the small town where I grew up a young boy shot and killed his brother before they were compulsory.
(Actually I think they probably did a cut and paste of American information without thinking about its application to New Zealand, but either way it did no good for their cause.)
But I continue to be most unimpressed with Erdoğan: I weep.
One Nation wanted millions from the NRA while planning to soften Australia's gun laws
Thank you for the reporting, Al Jazeera.
Thankfully:
Sorry, I should've explained who they were. Did not want to give a link to their hateful policies or website. One of their number, a former Labor leader in opposition, has just gained a seat in New South Wales' upper house...
Jacinda taking all the leaders of political parties with her to Christchurch paved the way for everyone to work together. She didn't try and hog the spotlight, although it was glaringly on her. I hope she gets to take a day off at some point.
So much for protecting the family.