Assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics have been banned in New Zealand

[[FnG]magnolia]

“In short every semi-automatic weapon used in the terrorist attack on Friday will be banned in this country,” said Ardern.

“I absolutely believe there will be a common view amongst New Zealanders, those who use guns for legitimate purposes, and those who have never touched one, that the time for the mass and easy availability of these weapons must end. And today they will,” 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.

The Government has fallen short of banning all semi-automatic weapons, acknowledging that a number of low calibre semi-automatic weapons were vital in New Zealand's pest control efforts.
“We have also acknowledged that some guns serve legitimate purposes in our farming communities, and have therefore set out exemptions for 0.22 calibre rifles and shotguns commonly used for duck hunting. These will have limitations around their capacity," said Police Minister Stuart Nash.

By way of background, both .22 calibre and those types of shotguns are lower calibre staples in most farmers' gun cabinets, and are widely used in smaller pest and game control, like Rabbits and Ducks. (source: here)

I can see this getting a lot of support and although the challenges in drafting workable legislation in such a tight timeframe will be a complex issue, this feels like a positive step.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Not sure if anyone has made the point but group punishment is a dodgy road to go down. Taking legally owned property from the law abiding can be extended to anything else once you start.

Many people have made this point but the Government is not taking legally owned property from law abiding citizens - it is taking property that was once legal and is now no longer legal from citizens who have an appropriate way of remaining on the right side of the law by way of buy back.

It is of course political not practical or why else do motor vehicles that can exceed the speed limit exist? They aren't needed, kill people and are therefore dangerous but it would be political suicide to ban them as well as expensive to compensate owners.

A car's primary function is to transport people and things from A to B. A gun's primary function is to maim or kill things. The fact that a car can be used as a weapon is less relevant than a gun is used as a weapon (notwithstanding the arguable cases where the use of it as a weapon is not detrimental to human life).

Sensible controls of whatever it might be is sensible but I really dislike outright bans. Once you've been on the wrong end of one it looks a little different...

The ban is very specific in what it targets. Very specific.

To those talking of knee-jerk reactions rather than quick actions, I'd point you to the success Australia had when it underwent a similar change. This is not without precedent and can demonstrably work to reduce (not eliminate necessarily) the type of event which happened last week.

The part which I half-expected but kind of hoped wouldn't come up in the thread is this notion of "no, a country I don't live in shouldn't do this thing and here are some arguments I have with it" rather than "the worst that can happen is that nothing improves and the law may be revised or revisited but if it does make a change, well then ..."

But no, your 'freedoms' don't allow you freedom of thought.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

The argument was simple and effective - KoolPC said "Lives Matter More" and my argument proved that it doesn't, thats it.

The way I did that was to reverse the most common "anti-gun" argument used on here - that guns kill people so they must be banned and there is no reason to own them - so I showed that cars killed over 5000% more people in the UK during 2017 than guns did yet, despite that fact, people will still find all manner of excuses as to why vehicles that killed 1710 people should not be banned yet guns, which only killed 32, must be banned and there is no reason to keep them, which disproves "Lives Matter More".

So, a nice simple argument which highlights is just how poorly thought-out the "guns must be banned because they're dangerous" argument really is when shown in context to other deaths and it also shows that "fear" is far more important than logic when it comes to firearms i.e 1710 road deaths creates less "fear" because "well they're accidents" etc i.e. not deliberate, yet 32 gun deaths are deliberate acts of murder, so we "fear" those far more. So we take away the object causing that "fear" i.e. banning guns, so that we'll feel safer, despite not actually doing anything to prevent the real mass killers like road deaths etc which again shows that Lives don't Matter More.

Again, I know my argument is 100% pants on head silly but that doesn't mean it's not right

Is this a UK example where gun laws have already been introduced? Because that's an unfair comparison. You also didn't note the number of cars in circulation versus the number for guns in circulation and both of these points ignore the basic design argument which is cars are for transport and guns are, broadly speaking, designed very much to injure, maim, or kill things. So I agree it's a silly argument but I disagree that it's right (or the double negative if you prefer).

It's a hard to resolve problem, that's for sure

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I agree, experience tends to remove most fears so people with experience of firearms (like yourself and I) have less fear of them than Joe Public who only sees them in Hollywood or in the news or occasional Police use. So when the government says "handguns are banned" for example, it makes people feel much safer when in reality all it does is make them 0.01% safer at most (the number of illegal uses of legally held handguns divided by the total number of legal handguns), yet the ban has massive effects on legal owners, gun shops, firearms manufacturers, ammunition manufacturers, gun ranges, target makers, national sport teams, Olympic teams etc and all just to make people "feel" safer, which is all the government is really concerned with.

I appreciate where you're coming from but people feel "much safer" when mass shootings don't occur - see Australia for a prime example of positive change. It goes a lot further than GOVT BANS SOME GUNS = PEOPLE FEEL SAFE. People feel safe because they are safe because the Bad Thing that happened hasn't been repeated.

Having said all of that, I can understand why you don't see it that way. It does suck when an infrequent occurrence impacts the 'good guys'. I can see that being difficult to swallow (I mean that genuinely as even writing it I was aware it sounded like sarcasm - it is not).

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Not being able to see things from others perspective is also a problem here. Someone who lives in a big city in the UK probably has no need for a firearm (other than recreational), someone from Montana who lives out in the wild with grizzlys, wolves and cougars might feel outraged that some idiot from the UK is questioning his rights to own a firearm with the "Ameticans are stupid and nobody needs a gun" mentalist attitude. The world is a large place and not everything is black and white, I think gun ownership has its place in a well developed modern thinking democracy, it most definitely isn't for everyone though as is seen by acts of terrorism by lunatics, regardless of if the weapons are legal or not. All I can hope is people fact check their arguments beforehand,

I'm broadly in agreement with this. It's easy to look inwards and be intentionally ignorant of what else is out there. You'll note I'm being quite open with my agreement because ...

the no mass shootings in australia since guns were banned is especially stupid since a 10 second Google can show you this isn't true. You would have to be an absolute fool to believe everything the media tells you.

You'll have to provide reliable sources for that. Guns were not banned is probably the place you want to start at ...

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Hence my point. It's been mentioned quite a few times here and in the deleted threads as such, when its factually inaccurate.

No. You are saying guns are banned in Australia.

no mass shootings in australia since guns were banned is especially stupid

This is not true.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Thank you for the clarification. My mistake.