New Zealand Gun Law Reformation Passes First Reading, 119 to 1
68 replies, posted
A bit late to the party, but this is what I found:
(Only need to watch between 00:10-00:20)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XFL27CdYx4
It requires a manual operation for every pull of the trigger, so it's not technically semi-auto, but you can imagine someone who spent good time practicing being able to fire decently fast. I imagine these are the same types of devices they are imagining here:
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/1383/26e9ecc0-c3bc-4f8b-88cf-3ad3cfb3bc5b/image.png
So even people seeking compliance with existing laws might be penalized, because of the vague wording of "or near"
You can argue about whether or not the law is a good one and whether or not it should be changed, but the law is the law and if you disagree with the law, you should fight it with public opinion and courts, not by not following it; you don't get to just not follow laws that aren't convenient to you and then cry injustice when you get arrested.
You can get some steel for the receiver, slide, magazine, trigger, hammer, and safety mechanisms, .45 sized piping, springs for the recoil spring and magazine follower and bam, you've made a 1911.
Look at a man in the Philippines make them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq1TXEE_QK4
His comment was aimed towards the fucknuggets that commit these atrocities, not the people who legally and safely own firearms.
I say curbing the means of mass killings, because it won't stop them, that's obvious. It will just make it harder to kill large numbers of people at a time.
Fixing underlying issues which are broad and have many reasons like extremism, facism and mental illness will never happen. I don't know a single government in the entire world organised enough to tackle this problem.
No it wasn't.
So for the actions of a few, the entire collective must suffer. If you lack trust in the government to fix the actual issue, why would you trust them with taking away one of the few things that allows people to protect themselves from the issue.
This doesn't appear to be a simple process at all. It's a workshop of people hiding out in the jungle on the run from law enforcement that then goes through a smuggling network. If the video you posted is accurate. The high rate of poverty is also mentioned as a factor for why people do that.
Nobody is being made to suffer.
Using a video of someone handcrafting a gun to argue that "banning guns is useless because people can just make them themselves" is misleading.
If it were as reliable, cost-effective and time efficient as buying a gun through legal channels, you'd just see amateur gunsmiths undercutting arms manufacturers everywhere.
Not to mention that it assumes that everyone already has the necessary equipment and free time. If it were that easy to do, you wouldn't see terrorists, the one type of people who you'd think would take full advantage of it, be ran out of a pub by people equipped with nothing but bar stools like what happened in the UK.
Because taking guns is obviously a lot easier than fixing deep rooted mental health issues/ideologies?
What the fuck lmao?
Holy shit some people actually though he was calling for violence.
God damn does no one understand context.
Dude in the video it shows it's a well made copy, to the point where it's sold to be properly finished and given fake badging/serial numbers to make them look legit enough for sale to international buyers.
Tell me how that's not undercutting manufacturers?
Holy fuck you don't give a shit either, you're the type of person to put a band aid on an artery wound.
Where the fuck is this pussy foot mentality of "Eh, they're just Nazi's " coming from, because I don't like it.
Tell me how manufacturers even stay afloat if it's as easy as you claim? How is the market not inundated with handmade weaponry if everyone and their mother can do it?
You're not exactly showing the bigger picture there. This video is nothing more than anecdotal evidence, you'll have to provide actual stats if you want to show that manufacturing your own guns is functionally identical to buying them and that it makes any form of gun ban worthless.
That's not even the point I was making, they're undercutting manufacturers by being able to pass off clones as near perfect copies to the point they end up at times in the legal markets. That's an issue. It's like currency counterfeiting, but more dangerous because of the innate nature of the objects in question. Hell, there were also several thousand pistols seized in Europe that are commercial grade and to boot, a unique design, but I can't find the article and it's making me kinda mad to be honest.
But that's not relevant to the initial point? You focus on the single word "undercut" but ignored the gist of the argument.
If one goes to make a comment that requires 'context' to avoid coming off as advocating mass murder it probably should be re-worded so it doesn't come off as such.
And that guy didn't re-word or restrain the comment.
If we applied this logic equally to other political topics, sanctuary cities would be cut off from federal aid, illegal immigrants in the country would be detained en masse for years until their trials, and the DEA would be kicking down doors of medical marijuana users at gun point. Also a huge portion of American history and even current fucking events are about the things changed through either passive noncompliance or active civil unrest.
Hi I used to assemble guns for a living and it’s REALLY not that hard or requires any special skills. Just because you guys are ignorant about one of the most simple machines to make in existence, doesn’t make firearms manufacturing some sort of arcane art lost to the ages. Some Nerf gun modifications are more complex in comparison.
You only need a few extra parts added to Joey’s list to make an open bolt fully automatic submachine gun. It’s like the next easiest thing to make. Someone published a freaking hardcover book/guide on how to make one using nothing but hand tools and things commonly available in a hardware store.
It’s also uploaded on several places but I’m not going to post links for obvious reasons.
Okay so do you want to answer the questions I'm asking or are you just going to reiterate the content of purvisdavid1's video in text form?
Like, no shit, I know manufacturing a gun isn't rocket science. That doesn't address the issues I've brought up.
Nah, I’ve answered more than enough of your “questions” in previous threads. Plus we both know no one is going to have reliable statistics about how many people illegally have improvised firearms, just like we both know statistics will never reliably show that feature based weapons bans have any meaningful effects on gun violence without any supporting legislation to background checks etc...
You might as well be making the stupid "people will just use knives instead" argument if you're going to suggest there's no difference in effectiveness between different kinds of firearms.
Not sure where you're going with the scare quotes here. They're questions. No idea how you can argue they aren't.
If you're not going to explain inconsistencies when they're pointed out I don't see why you even bother debating.
Good thing I'm not defending feature based weapon bans then? And yeah if you don't have statistics to back it up or at least ways to explain the associated inconsistencies don't make bold claims like "gun bans have no effect because people will just smith them instead".
I swear, you keep complaining about my posts yet you consistently get them wrong.
In the context of a mass shooting against unarmed victims? No there really isn’t unless you’re using a muzzle loader or some other ungodly contraption.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU
Axel, I think the round and round nature of these conversations may stem from your apparent belief that we will not support any gun control measures coupled with our impression that you take a hardline anti-gun stance.
I have enumerated several different possible gun control schemes that would actually work and are designed around statistical evidence to target major sources of crimeguns and to help catch criminals before they act based on patterns of criminal behavior.
I am not alone in this - catbarf and Zombinie have made similar posts.
While it would be slightly off topic, could you dedicate a post to clearly outlining your opinions on the gun issue at large and what steps you think should actually be taken? I think establishing some common ground would be very beneficial.
Seems like there are some serious differences in approaches between those incidents though. In Columbine their goal was for explosives to do most of the work. If the explosives had worked it's likely hundreds would have been killed. When that didn't work they more or less went person to person and enjoyed the sadism. And I know one of them had a tech 9 with a 52, 32, and 28 round magazine. With the Christchurch shooting it seems like he knew he was going to be doing everything with the rifle and killed quickly and indiscriminately. I really hate reading into this shit.
I wouldn't put it that way, you make it sound like the problem stems from ideological differences rather than disagreements over the arguments that are used. The former is definitely not what I take issue with, and I'm hoping what you have a problem with is the latter as well.
Well, for starters I don't think I've ever disagreed with a policy you guys have suggested. They seem documented for the most part and don't have much in terms of drawbacks (except maybe government expenses I guess). I just don't necessarily think they're sufficient. Strict safe storage laws and a permit system that no longer assumes that people are inherently capable of safely owning and operating a weapon on their own would also be a pretty important step IMO. Also I think we've disagreed over the extent background checks should have in the past but I don't recall exactly where you stand on that so I'm not quite sure.
I'd say that's about all I would argue concerning the US given how the political climate there and firearm oversaturation make it basically impossible to go any further (and even then the permit part is a stretch). I also don't support AWBs or other half-baked legislation, you have provided evidence as to their inefficiency, and as I've said earlier they're just a half-measure anyway.
For other countries, though, I'm not really opposed to stricter laws, especially when the vast majority of the population doesn't really take issue with them. Even the strictest laws, from what I can see, are still lenient enough to let people operate firearms as a hobby or out of necessity. For instance, I was able to go to a range a couple times and practice with semi-auto pistols (along with a revolver that had a hell of a kick) under supervision of an instructor, even though I didn't have a permit nor a club license. Heck, I think hunting licenses are too leniently given and sometimes awarded to utter morons, like that French hunter a few months back who accidentally shot a cyclist.
And I find that some of these stricter laws have merit, too. For example, the fact that, without a permit (which requires proper justification), you aren't allowed to store a firearm under firing conditions, and have to store ammo separately (along with putting a lock on the gun itself). That sort of thing wouldn't fly in the US, but I think here it goes a long way to prevent accidental deaths (and even suicides to an extent).
So you'll probably find me a bit more defensive in threads relating to countries with stricter gun laws than the US. They don't have the same pro-gun cultural and legal background nor the same amount of proliferation, so it's a very different context. In the case of this thread though, the proposed NZ gun law sounds a bit too much like an AWB for me to take it seriously. Although it applying to the whole sub-group of semi-autos rather than the nebulous "assault weapons" might lead to it having more of an impact, if any.
Honestly, lately I haven't really made much of a point in favor of strict gun laws as much as against bad argumentation on the pro-gun side, the latest to date being:
Attempts to reshape the narrative to their advantage, by using confirmation bias to pretend their side is the only rational one and put themselves in the role of the victims.
Use of the "criminals don't follow laws" leitmotiv to try and shut down more nuanced and substantiated discussions on the impact of laws on criminality.
Trying to make statistical evidence say more than its actual conclusions, without at least pairing it with logical reasoning
Ethnocentrism, like when American posters try to argue that everything outlined by their constitution and the bill of rights is a universal human right, including the 2A
Very loose and convenient interpretations, such as when the same posters tried to contort and combine UDHR articles to argue that gun ownership is a human right
Using a sad event to stoke hatred against the gun laws boogeyman, without much regard for whether those laws were actually the root cause...
... And while using double standards regarding when something is considered a root cause or not.
When this is pointed out, posters either going into irrelevant tangents, attacking the form rather than the substance, or outright resorting to insults, and under no circumstance even bothering to acknowledge the elephant in the room.
Bringing up anecdotal evidence, like in this thread "people can just build their guns themselves, so nothing will change" but refusing to address or explain the contradictions it brings up.
While some of those can be honest mistakes, others are outright intellectually dishonest. And all are worth addressing, which is why I did. It doesn't mean that I completely oppose whatever point these aim to support, just that I find those particular arguments to be irrational. And you should care about this, too, if you want to be and be perceived as rational.
Principally I have no issue with safe storage laws. It makes good sense to keep your guns locked up where grabbing hands cannot reach them, be those the hands of a child or a burglar - although an exception would have to be made for having at least one readily accessible when you're at home, otherwise it wouldn't do you any good in the event of a break-in. To add to that, I think it should be illegal to leave guns, especially loaded guns, in cars, since that's where the majority of crimeguns come from.
Principally I am not opposed to the Swiss permit model. It makes good sense to require a course on safe practices prior to beginning your collection. Additionally, the permit would reduce the load on the background check system - because if you have a permit, you are obviously in good legal standing.
However, safes are expensive - extremely expensive. My problem with safes is that to have a good safe that actually works you will spend in excess of $1200 on the safe. That's a lot of money - especially for someone on a tight budget who might be able to maintain a hobby with inexpensive (<$200) guns but could never afford to drop $1200 on a safe. Additionally, many domiciles cannot support safes - apartments, trailers, etc. Basic locking cabinets aren't really sufficient storage solutions except to keep kids out of them.
The problem with introducing a permit system in the United States is that we have a long track record of using permits to build registries and registries to confiscate guns. This is a major trust issue for American gun owners. I think the vast majority of gun owners would be 100% fine with a sane permit model if it could somehow be guaranteed to not be turned into a weapon against us later.
As for background checks, I'd be fine with requiring a background check for each and every purchase of a firearm - including private purchases - if those private parties could call the FBI and have a background check run on the recipient. Currently only FFLs can run background checks, so requiring background checks for private purchases creates a situation where two people who live right next door might have to drive 2 hours to the nearest FFL to arrange a check. Moreover, the background check needs to be improved, as it doesn't have access to mental health records that might disqualify you from owning a firearm.
Other countries are of course responsible for their own affairs, but it's frustrating to see ineffective legislation being applied in other countries and hassling law abiding people there when better options can be found. New Zealand's reactive legislation for example is completely over the top. A total semi auto ban is not a proportionate response, nor will it prevent or reduce the tolls of further massacres. It just deprives law abiding people of lawfully owned property for no real reason.
Bear in mind that NZ already had a decent permit structure, background checks, et al, and now that system is being used to serve gun owners notices that their semi autos are now illegal and must be turned in. That is the concern we have with permit systems.
Not going to get into the last section of your post as I'm at work and don't have time to write up as deep of a response as it deserves. Just know that while I don't really disagree with what you've put there, we see most of your bullet points coming from the anti gun side and it creates a feedback loop of mounting frustration in which good debate habits start to crumble.
What do you mean by "readily accessible"? Can't secure safes be unlocked in a matter of seconds? Leaving even a single firearm unsecured kind of defeats the purpose, since it's all a child needs for an accident to happen.
I'd argue it would still be better than nothing, even if insufficient to prevent burglary, stopping kids already tackles half of the problem. Basic cabinets with locks can also still act as a deterrent, rather than a true obstacle to thieves. Like bike locks, which aren't anything a couple pliers can't stop, but still deter small fry.
As for the cost, it's ironic that the countries where public funding would be manageable are the ones where gun ownership rates are low, and those also are countries where gun ownership is considered a privilege rather than a right. So even there, the idea probably wouldn't gain much steam.
I don't know, from what I've seen it seems a lot of gun owners are opposed to it out of principle, based on their interpretation of the second amendment a permit system would be unconstitutional.
Seems to me that a lot of issues with US gun regulation have more to do with its implementation than its general principles. You'd think giving access to those service to everyone would be a given.
Even if I think gun regulations should apply consistently to every type of firearm, I wouldn't be so categorical regarding the complete lack of impact banning of semi-autos would have. I get that magazine size ultimately changes very little when it comes to fire rate, but it seems to me that only having access to non-auto weapons would have a significant impact, and at least put shooters at a disadvantage during standoffs with police. Also, contrary to "assault weapons", semi-auto weapons seem to be used rather consistently by criminals, so it may have more of an impact on that front. I'm just guessing there, though.
I mean, permit system or not, you'd still be violating the law if you don't turn them in. The lack of a registry only makes it easier to do, and I don't think that's the right route to take. I'm all for civil disobedience under certain circumstances, but voluntarily violating firearms regulations, however baseless they may be? That sounds like a very bad idea to me.
Yeah, and I see them to. I just rarely bother addressing them since you generally take care of it yourself, and I'd rather focus on pro-gun points which are more often left unaddressed.
No, getting into a safe is usually quite a process and even if it 'only' takes 20 seconds, that's 20 seconds on top of having to get to the safe in the first place.
Maybe - all gun cabinets down to the very cheapest are already lockable though. It's just that those locks are of questionable utility.
That's a reflexive response at this point. Gun owners feel cornered and are clinging to whatever they can dig their heels in on. In principle it would not be counter-constitutional - the Supreme Court has ruled that constitutional rights of felons (and unstable people) can be limited, and the permit system essentially serves to ensure that you are legally qualified to own a firearm. Assuming there wasn't a charge for the permit, it just serves to make sure you're on the up and up - which is perfectly constitutional.
Yep.
From examining historic mass shootings it appears that the type of weapon used matters very little as long as it's some type of repeater. Simply firing as fast as you can with a semi auto will probably result in a hit rate of less than 20%, especially if you are moving and whatever you're shooting at is also moving. A bolt action rifle or pump shotgun forces the user to focus and choose only the shots he knows he will land. Also, mass shootings typically do not involve rapid fire anyway. The general pattern is strolling around executing people who are frozen in shock. For this, any type of repeating arm is sufficient. The death toll of a shooting event seems to be more of a factor of the amount of planning that went into it - figuring out how to trap as many people as possible in one place and reducing to the maximum possible extent the odds of any armed resistance. Schools and churches are regularly targeted for these reasons.
Is it possible that a categorical ban on semi autos will have an effect? Yes, it's possible, but it's a vague, unsupported possibility. This will sound callous, but statistically speaking the potential fire rate of the weapon used usually has demonstrably no impact, and even in those very rare situations where it might possibly have an impact, you are talking about pretty slim margins of added effectiveness.
The lack of a registry discourages the ban in the first place. Knowing it's easy to go door to door and collect the object of a ban will make lawmakers far more likely to take that step.
As an aside, I will absolutely, whole-heartedly support violating firearms regulations that endanger historic arms. New Zealand has lots of interwar and WW2 era semi automatics and I don't see any provision in law for their protection, which is concerning. When it comes to modern stuff I'll generally say it's the law and even if it sucks it's not worth the risk of breaking it, but if we're talking about 60, 70, 80 year old guns I cannot in good conscience as a historian support mindlessly lobbing them into a smelter.
A college student at Virginia Tech killed 33 people with two pistols and 10-round magazines. We've had mass shootings regularly carried out with low-capacity handguns and shotguns, and not a semi-automatic rifle or 30-round mag in sight. 'Mass lethality' is buzzwords; a rifle might be generally more effective but against unarmed, defenseless people the weapon used doesn't make all that much of a difference.
If New Zealand suffers another mass shooting, nobody is going to say 'Thank goodness only 33 people died, we don't need any further restrictions'. No matter where the bar is set, any time a shooting occurs it will be argued that the weapons available to the public are too effective and should be further restricted.
The fact that you’re conflating semiautomatic weapons with assault rifles tells me you haven’t really informed yourself about the subject or have any understanding about the actual capabilities of these weapons. Video games, movies, and the media don’t accurately reflect the capabilities of most firearms, even manual action firearms like lever rifles or pump shotgun.
Hypothetically even if you had any statistics to back up that some guns may be inherently less lethal than others specifically in the context of a mass shooting (which is grasping at straws at best), what makes you think banning assault weapons (aka semiautomatic rifles) would be a preferable solution as opposed to just addressing where and how the system failed in this case?
The questions people should be asking are “how did the system fail and allow an obvious nut job to obtain a firearms license; how was he able to join a gun club with no one noticing (which I thought was another prerequisite to have access to weapons? Not 100% sure on that) how did he get an illegally configured rifle without the proper licensing; and what appropriate measures should we take to prevent idiots from bypassing the system in the future?”.
Not “how lethal are guns supposed to be?”.
You’re basically trying to argue that retroactively prosecuting people for victimless crimes, using law enforcement to confiscate possibly over a few million different unregistered firearms (depending upon how vague or arbitrary the definitions of the new legislation are), and paying out an unknown amount of tax dollars to compensate anyone who does comply, is somehow a better use of resources than just fixing the point of entry where this guy was able to obtain a weapon he was not qualified to possess?
This line of thinking is just flat out dumb. Nationality has nothing to do with this argument either as I don’t think American laws and standards should be applied to New Zealand. Also estimates put New Zealand at about 1.5 million guns in a population of about 4,5 million, so you’re wrong about that as well. Lastly, the New Zealand shooter got really lucky since everyone in the room did the absolute worst thing possible by bunching up into a big pile in the corner of the room instead of scattering towards the nearest exits. Except for the one guy who tried to charge the gunman and was promptly shot.
Other people are probably not as pissed off as I am at the moment so I may be overreacting, but even though you’re not directly advocating for bans like this, the impression I’m getting is that you are complacent with them being enacted in the absence of other far more effective measures. If that’s not the case though, I won’t hold it against you.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.