Gun Control

Noncompliance Kneecaps New Zealand's Gun Control Scheme

As of last week, only around 700 weapons had been turned over.

|

Once again, responding to a horrendous crime by inflicting knee-jerk, authoritarian restrictions on innocent people proves to be an ineffective means of convincing people to obey. Specifically, New Zealand's government—which also stepped up censorship and domestic surveillance after bloody attacks on two Christchurch mosques earlier this year—is running into stiff resistance to new gun rules from firearms owners who are slow to surrender now-prohibited weapons and will probably never turn them in.

Officials should have seen it coming.

"Police are anticipating a number of people with banned firearms in their possession won't surrender them," Stuff reported at the end of May, based on internal government documents.

As of last week, only around 700 weapons had been turned over. There are an estimated 1.5 million guns—with an unknown number subject to the new prohibition on semiautomatic firearms—in the country overall.

Traditionally relaxed in its approach to firearms regulation, and enjoying a low crime rate, New Zealand has no firearms registration rule. That means authorities have no easy way of knowing what guns are in circulation or who owns them.

"These weapons are unlikely to be confiscated by police because they don't know of their existence," Philippa Yasbek of Gun Control NZ admitted. "These will become black-market weapons if their owners choose not to comply with the law and become criminals instead."

Yasbek's organization advocates registering all guns in private hands. But that won't help with gathering guns already in the possession of owners appalled by the government's attack on the rights of innocent people—government attacks, it's worth noting, that come in response to the crimes of one man who explicitly anticipated just such a response.

"I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse," the killer wrote in a document he released to explain his crimes. "The gun owners of New Zealand are a beaten, miserable bunch of baby boomers, who have long since given up the fight. When was the last time they won increased rights? Their loss was inevitable. I just accelerated things a bit."

Politicians fulfilled the murderer's predictions with panic-driven legislation.

That gun owners would, in large numbers, defy restrictions should have been anticipated by anybody who knows the history of government attempts to disarm their subjects—or who just glanced across the Tasman Sea to Australia.

"In Australia it is estimated that only about 20% of all banned self-loading rifles have been given up to the authorities," wrote Franz Csaszar, professor of criminology at the University of Vienna, after Australia's 1996 compensated confiscation of firearms following a mass murder in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Csaszar put the number of illegally retained arms in Australia at between two and five million.

"Many members of the community still possess grey-market firearms because they did not surrender these during the 1996–97 gun buyback," the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission conceded in a 2016 report. "The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission continues to conservatively estimate that there are more than 260,000 firearms in the illicit firearms market."

Just as Australian police named "outlaw motorcycle gangs, Middle Eastern organised crime groups, and other groups engaged in trafficking illicit commodities such as drugs" as beneficiaries of the prohibition-fueled black market in firearms, underground organizations are similarly poised to prosper in New Zealand. Gangs in the island nation announced very loudly after the new legislation was introduced that they wouldn't be surrendering their own weapons.

"Will gangs get rid of their weapons? No," one prominent gang leader told Stuff. "Because of who we are, we can't guarantee our own safety."

So Kiwis who actually do comply with the confiscation scheme will put themselves at a disadvantage relative to violent gangs that don't intend to obey.

They would also be putting themselves at a disadvantage relative to the government, which is retaining its own weapons despite a distinct lack of competence (in April, a police station provided one-stop, discount gun shopping for an enterprising burglar) and intends to further squeeze the country's liberty. Even before the latest law has been fully implemented, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is planning more gun legislation, including registration. Additionally, the Security Intelligence Service stepped up domestic spying after the mosque attacks and saw a big boost in its funding courtesy of the latest budget.

Arguably, defiant gun owners are just being realistic in seeing little to gain by obeying restrictive laws that have their greatest impact on those who pose no threat to their neighbors.

Fulfilling internal police expectations, some Kiwis openly boast of defying the law—especially with compensation rates set well below the value of the firearms that are supposed to be surrendered. The low turn-in numbers suggest they're matching words with action.

And who can claim to be surprised? By refusing to comply with restrictions, New Zealand gun owners are just following in the footsteps of their counterparts in Australia, Europe, and the United States. In each of these places, and many more besides, gun owners ignored laws, kept their property out of sight, and frustrated efforts to disarm them.

If New Zealand's political class had looked to the history of gun control efforts they would have seen that they were walking a well-trodden path that leads to a dead end. But then again, if they had enough foresight to know that ill-considered restrictions on personal liberty are usually counterproductive and often breed rebellion, they probably wouldn't have gone into government.

Advertisement

NEXT: If Cops Don't Die From Incidental Fentanyl Exposure, a Drug Treatment Specialist Warns, They 'Could Become Addicted to It Instantly'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “These weapons are unlikely to be confiscated by police because they don’t know of their existence,” Philippa Yasbek of Gun Control NZ admitted. “These will become black-market weapons if their owners choose not to comply with the law and become criminals instead.”

    Feature.

    1. Law abiding citizens yesterday, criminals today. They did nothing different.

      1. exactly right

    2. There are NO gun laws that can prevent gun violence. They can only disarm law-abiding citizens; the criminals will keep THEIR guns. Then how does a 120-pound woman defend herself against her 250-pound rapist?

      1. What? Did New Zealand ban all guns? If not, why can’t the woman use a legal gun?

        1. Because without a semiautomatic, she’d better make that first shot count.

        2. Your misogyny disgusts me. You expect womyn to carry around a heavy revolver while her would be rapist/murderer gets to tote a lightweight compact semi-auto? Fuck you very much sir.

      2. Exploding vagiba

        1. Well that’s the best place for a typo

      3. I am sure progressives will tell you that the woman just needs a safe space. I believe the Ruger LC9 9mm is a better way.

    3. “Yasbek’s organization advocates registering all guns in private hands. But that won’t help with gathering guns already in the possession of owners…” – hence the vehement opposition to firearms registration in the US. You can’t confiscate what you can’t find, and this again proves that registration is the first step to confiscation.

      1. Cappmann: Right you are. One of the first things Hitler did when he came to power was to have all the guns registered. Then when he knew where all the guns were, he had them confiscated. If I’m not mistaken, that didn’t exactly work out so well for the Jews.

    4. One mentally disturbed man goes nuts and kills a bunch of muslims and that is a reason to confiscate the firearms from millions of peaceful law abiding citizens.

      WHAT MADNESS IS THIS?

      1. Libtard madness. That’s what kind of madness.

      2. It’s not a “reason”, but just an excuse for something they’ve been wanting to do for along time.

      3. Next, someone in New Zealand will intentionally drive their car through a crowd and kill some people – and New Zealand will ban automobiles.

        (Of course, that might be easier to enforce, it’s harder to hide an automobile.)

      4. Brenton Tarrand is not, and was not mentally disturbed. He is perfectly sane.

  2. So keep your weapon but don’t get caught with it. This equivalent of an executive order by the NZ Prime Minister was haled as being “what leadership looks like” by American progressives. While the majority of us would likely resist such a ban here we’d be in the same situation: owning a gun ex post facto and thereby being deemed a felon by default. I for one enjoy using my various weapons and do not care to go into hiding over them. I would suggest NZ gun owners get their act together and actually resist their overreaching government.

    1. “So keep your weapon but don’t practice with it or dare use it for actual self-defense.”

      FTFY

      As a gun owner found out in upstate NY. He defended himself against a home invasion with his father’s pistol he inherited. Because he hadn’t jumped thru all the hoops to transfer the registration, he was arrested on a firearms charge.

      Same thing will happen with “red flag” gun laws. Or do you think the writers at Reason wouldn’t report any Trump supporter if they could? Because ‘Orange Man Bad’ excuses anything.

        1. Thanks for the link.

    2. The long game here, is that once these guns are illegal to own, you can’t use them anymore for a wide range of purposes. You can’t practice with them where you might be caught, you can’t hunt with them, if you engage in self defense with them you’re screwed.

      They become all downside, and very little upside.

      Now, existing gun owners are probably going to be pissed off enough, and stubborn enough, to hold onto them anyway. But, the next generation? You have to expect a LOT of inherited guns to be turned over, and little interest in the next generation becoming gun owners.

      All the gun owners of New Zealand buy with this defiance is some breathing space. They haven’t averted to end of this right, they’ve just delayed it. If they don’t turn things around and get those guns relegalized within a decade or two, their eventual defeat is already a done deal.

      1. …But, the next generation? You have to expect a LOT of inherited guns to be turned over, and little interest in the next generation becoming gun owners.

        That’s a good point. It depends upon how this generation raises the next. Non-semiauto rifles are still legal in NZ if I understand correctly. Shooting and hunting and firearm ownership should be strongly encouraged for the young. The moral authority of the elders of families should encourage it. If the culture is maintained or expanded, the ban could be reversed as people will demand those kind of firearms.

        If they don’t turn things around and get those guns relegalized within a decade or two, their eventual defeat is already a done deal.

        That’s a good reason for elders of families to use their moral authority to inculcate a little “outlaw culture” among the next generations. When someone as respected as grandpa sits down with the kids who he’s taken shooting all their lives and shows them this really cool illegal semiauto he’s going to hand down to them, and that possessing it is illegal and they’d better be careful of the government, then outlaw culture will be inculcated under the moral authority of grandpa.

        1. That’s “inculcate in the next generations”. reason comments don’c allow editing or deleting. Corrected comment reproduced below.

      2. …But, the next generation? You have to expect a LOT of inherited guns to be turned over, and little interest in the next generation becoming gun owners.

        That’s a good point. It depends upon how this generation raises the next. Non-semiauto rifles are still legal in NZ if I understand correctly. Shooting and hunting and firearm ownership should be strongly encouraged for the young. The moral authority of the elders of families should encourage it. If the culture is maintained or expanded, the ban could be reversed as people will demand those kind of firearms.

        If they don’t turn things around and get those guns relegalized within a decade or two, their eventual defeat is already a done deal.

        That’s a good reason for elders of families to use their moral authority to inculcate a little “outlaw culture” among the next generations. When someone as respected as grandpa sits down with the kids who he’s taken shooting all their lives and shows them this really cool illegal semiauto he’s going to hand down to them, and that possessing it is illegal and they’d better be careful of the government, then outlaw culture will be inculcated in the next generations under the moral authority of grandpa.

    3. Vote them all out in the next election. Vote conservative, they are not pathologically afraid of an armed citizenry.

    4. the Politician is gone in a couple of years whereas your firearm will last you a lifetime

  3. The man who did the murdering was not even a new zealander, yet they decide to control their own citizens instead of their own border. sounds familiar doesn’t it.

    1. They should build big giant moat around the country. Fill it all in with sharks. That will stop those damned foreigners!

      1. With frickin laser beams on their heads!

        1. PETA likes this, but only for today if it can kill humans.

    2. Every time there is a shootout, the liberals run around trying to take up the guns of those who didn’t do it. Proof of faulty liberal logic.

      1. More than that! They try to confiscate the weapons of those who would have gladly risked their OWN LIVES TO STOP IT, if they were only allowed to. Go ahead, leftists, DO THIS in the USA and you’ll get INSTANT civil war. And it won’t last long.

        1. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

          New Zealand’s government may find that what was written in our Declaration of Independence applies to people everywhere.

    3. The most exceptional part of the whole thing is that he explicitly stated that he wanted to compel the New Zealand government to enact stricter gun control laws, using his act of terrorism as justification.

      Congrats, Jacinda, you stupid cunt, you gave him exactly what he wanted.

      1. Right. Instead of seeing to what the people who elected you need, you are pandering to the lusts of a sinking murderous foreigner.

        Your priorities AND loyalties are in the loo. I hope your “loyal subjects” revolt and give you a piece or THEIR collective mind. Use that to replace the piece of the warped mind of that murderous nutjob. What, will you have the inmates direct the caretakers at the asylum?

    4. Exactly as he predicted.

  4. Maybe New Zealander’s don’t like the idea of turning their country into a predator safe hunting ground where they are the prey and the predators are both crooks and government officials.

    1. and the predators are both crooks and government officials.

      But you repeat yourself …

      1. Not all crooks are government officials.

        But all government officials are crooks.

  5. Maybe they can get Swalwell to help them out; he seems to have a plan for handling resistance.

    1. NZ is not a member of the nuclear club; so Swallows Well’s plan to deal with malcontents would not work there.

      1. I just figured he would say “On my first day in office, I will call the prime minister of New Zealand and offer to nuke their gun nuts!”

        1. And you’d likely be right.

    2. Well… he should have a lot more free time now

  6. New Zealand had 4,509,900 people and 45 homicides in 2014, a homicide rate of 1 per 100,000.

    San Francisco County in California also had 45 homicides in 2014 but its population was 850,424, for a rate of 5.29 per 100,000.

    With such an enviously low homicide rate how can gun confiscation make the country safer? Unless they mean safer for criminals.

    1. Well LiborCon, since you assume confiscation, it would make mass killings, however unlikely, harder to accomplish, and maybe limit casualties. Might even put an end to mass killings, if would-be shooters decided they weren’t equipped to accomplish whatever it is they want by going nutso.

      I concede that given the low gun violence profile, it might take a very long time to be sure mass killings had been affected. But maybe there is more to safety than gun casualty statistics. Maybe a feeling of living in safe surroundings is something which some people value—not gun nuts, I suppose, but some people. Those people might even include some gun owners who weren’t gun nuts.

      1. The safety of your surroundings cares little for your feelings. Study after study proves that gun free zones creates nothing but victims who, up until the moment they are attacked, “feel safe.” It is a delusion that leads only to complacency and victim-hood.

        Head in the sand like an Ostrich is a sorry way to live your life. Better to face the dangers of reality of life head on, take responsibility for your own safety, and derive your sense of security from your knowledge that you are prepared as best as you can be for whatever life throws your way.

        1. Note that Stephen Lathrop writes that maybe we should infringe on civil rights so people fee safer.

          Would de jure racial segregation be justified if it made David Duke feel safer?

          1. Actually, the black homicide rate is quite a few times greater than the white homicide rate. Maybe that would justify racial profiling and abrogation of the 14th Amendment if we apply the gun-control mentality .

        2. I said “a feeling of living in safe surroundings,” not “feel safe.”

          Your romantic take on social safety enforced by private arms is noted. Do you get that from the movies, or from NRA newsletters?

          I suggest your family would be better prepared “for whatever life throws your way,” if life could not throw your way an assault-style semi-auto wielding nut job to shoot up your kids’ school. You apparently think if you can have one of those, your kids will be safe at school.

          Maybe you should story-board that, or something, to see how it comes out. Try to keep romanticism out of it. Stay practical. Use all your deep well of experience with gun combat in school buildings to draw on.

          1. I had a situation literally LAST NIGHT where having a gun was useful. Somebody tried to break into my car. By the time I got outside, they had apparently bolted… However if they hadn’t bolted, and were hopped up on meth and feeling angsty, I would have been VERY glad that I am an American with the right to own a handgun capable of blowing a meth heads brains out with a single shot. I’m not a kung fu master or 6’6″, so having access to the great equalizer is mighty useful.

            This isn’t the only time in my life I WISH I’d had a gun handy either. Given that I’m not even middle aged yet and have had multiple incidents where a firearm would have come in handy, I’m glad I can have them. I’m getting my concealed carry permit soon too, so I can actually have one handy (which I didn’t in the other instances when I would have liked to have one) next time some shit comes up.

            The truth is guns don’t make people less safe… They make people more safe. We’ve created a culture of victimhood because so many people have turned into pussies who piss their pants at the mere thought of a gun. If every single household in the USA owned a couple guns, I bet home invasions would go down to near zero. Strangely when guns were allowed in schools, like when my dad was a kid and took his to school for shooting club, there weren’t school shootings.

            Mass shootings are a problem created by the media covering these things so intensely, and some broken shit in our culture. Not the guns themselves.

            1. Vek, isn’t there some tendentious database about purported defensive gun uses you could report that incident to?

              1. Ugh. You’re just too much man.

                I don’t see how any sane person can be so flippant about something this straight forward. It’s not like I wanted some dick trying to break into my car in the middle of the night… But it happens. My neighbor came out when he heard my car alarm, and discovered his car HAD been robbed, because his didn’t have an alarm.

                I don’t want to deal with shit like this… I want a magical utopian world where drug addicts DON’T try to steal my shit… But since we live in the real world, I’m glad I have the option of protecting myself. I obviously didn’t have to in this situation, BUT if the guy hadn’t run, and was acting crazy, it’s nice to know I have the option. Even if he’d still been there I would have done by best to avoid having to shoot him, but people get attacked by robbers they catch in the act all the time.

                The fact that you can’t see the obvious utility in that for good and decent people is ridiculous.

          2. I said “a feeling of living in safe surroundings,” not “feel safe.”

            No difference. They’re already living in safe surroundings. Read the above statistic. You exaggerate dangers out of paranoia and for political purposes.

            I suggest your family would be better prepared “for whatever life throws your way,” if life could not throw your way an assault-style semi-auto wielding nut job to shoot up your kids’ school. You apparently think if you can have one of those, your kids will be safe at school.

            The perp would substitute pistols, revolvers, shotguns, or non-semiauto rifles. Just as deadly because the victims are unarmed and unable to save themselves. It’s happened plenty of times. Your kids will be just as safe if everyone had one, especially teachers. Plus, your kid will be much safer with respect to long term dangers of government tyranny and holocaust.

            Try to keep romanticism out of it. Stay practical. Use all your deep well of experience with gun combat in school buildings to draw on.

            Realistically, the perpetrators are deterred by the possibility of armed resistance. They don’t want to be shot and paralyzed, and if their escape is via suicide, they don’t want to be incapacitated.

            I am a combat veteran of Vietnam (medic, infantry) and a jr. college instructor. If someone emters my building intent on doing harm with a gun, then I want a gun. Having a gun would make me far safer than any gun-control scheme ever could. See “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott. It is FAR more practical to have one’s own gun than confiscate millions of guns from millions of people. Anyone could be trained to use a firearm in self-defense in those scenarios. We’ve trained plenty of high-school dropouts in the military.

      2. You seem to want to make the term “gun nut” a pejorative. It’s not. “Nut” means enthusiast – it doesn’t equate to “killer”. A “killer” will be that, gun or no gun.

        Far as “living in safe surroundings” goes, any kind of confiscation of legal guns doesn’t get there – “an ARMED society is a polite society”. Further, but just as true – “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”.

        The liberal goal of outlawing gun ownership just proves that liberalism is a mental disease.

        1. Racklefratz, for years, I avoided “gun nut” as unnecessarily pejorative. I like to be polite. I wish everyone would try to be as polite as I try to be.

          Alas, reading these blog pages convinced me that policy was hindering my comments, because too often I needed to distinguish responsible gun owners from the others, and was depriving myself of the most succinct way to do it. If you would ever like to hear at length why I chose “gun nut” in a particular instance, just say so and I will try to oblige.

          1. If somebody who is 60 years old owns a dozen firearms are they a gun nut? How about 2 dozen?

            Keep in mind that would equate to purchasing about one every 2-4 years throughout their adult life. Spending a couple hundred bucks every few years for a hobby isn’t all that crazy. Different guns are different to shoot, hence offer a different thrill. There’s nothing nutty about that. It’s little different than somebody collecting guitars or whatever, although is potentially more useful if some shit every goes down.

            1. Vek, that’s about how many firearms I had owned by the time I was 40. I am not a gun nut, and never was.

              What distinguishes a gun nut isn’t ownership of guns—although ownership in large numbers of some particular guns may be a tell. The usual gun nut field marks are: a blustery attitude about what guns can do; fetishization of gun trivia; romantic self-assurance, which betrays a Hollywood/NRA gun education; voluble scorn for people who lack gun experience; assertions of imaginary prowess, betraying unfamiliarity with ordinary frustrations which attend unsuccessful gun use; paranoia about gun confiscation; bristling defiance, plus talk about insurrection and civil war.

              1. Late reply here but I do not see quite as clear a delineation as you do; I’ve been involved in shooting sports for a while and the people I encounter at such events are, with very rare exceptions, characterized by safety, consideration, and overall good sense. Persons such as you broadly describe are generally not tolerated by clubs and ranges. Having said that, I find I share some views you would characterize as “paranoid” regarding the intent and plan of government entities to deprive myself and others of a responsible use of firearms.

              2. Honestly, I don’t even know that I believe some of the “better” things you say… Like that you’ve owned a number of guns (more than me!), hunted, etc. The way you speak about other things makes me think you’re just saying that shit to try to gain cred or something… Because nobody I know that has ever grown up around guns gets as ridiculous as you on your tirade.

                The fact is it IS a legitimate concern that the government wants to disarm us. THEY DO. “Reasonable” gun control laws all got passed many decades ago… The only things left are BS that will be ineffective and infringe peoples rights. Since anybody who can read statistics, like politicians, should KNOW this up front, it makes a fella wonder what their REAL reason for wanting to take away all decent weapons is.

                As for the rest of your stuff… Yeah, I think some of the guys who think they’re Rambo are a bit silly too… But is that any less ridiculous than people who have other hobbies that I think are dumb? People that obsess over sneakers or whatever? Not really. Anyway, you’re not even worth having a rational discussion with…

        2. “an ARMED society is a polite society”

          And enforced politeness is a totalitarian nightmare. Worse, when it is some cowboy doing the enforcing.

          1. Where do you get this stuff? Stop painting us with your broad brush.

            1. Read the comments. That one was from Racklefratz. It’s not like he made it up, of course.

          2. Better cowboys than all-encompassing government.

      3. Really? McVeigh killed 169 people with a panel truck, fertilizer and diesel fuel. People intent on mass killing will find a way to kill. The mass shooting vs gun ownership argument is a red herring. Why is the reaction of the left always to punish everyone for a crime committed by one? We dont impose draconian restrictions on every car owner because of drunk drivers.

  7. Not original to me, but appropriate;
    ” . . . we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . “

    1. CORRECT! A great man said that!

    2. What is left out of this account is that, at the time that Great Man said that, Englanders were largely disarmed, which they voluntarily did as a knreejerk reaction to “the war to end all wars”, recently ended, leaving them defensless. The man who said the above had been warning that the losing nation in that “war to end all wars” had been steadily and stealthily rearming herself and preparing for war again…. and had been since within five years of the end of the “war to end all wars”. But no one would listen to him, the Great Man. His astute observations and valid conclusions served to get him marginalised, sent off to some far off corner of the realm, to serve as a bean counter…..
      So, what about the England that had voluntarily disarmed herself, and was now facing anhiliation by the supposedly vanquished former foes?

      Well, the truth is, we Yanks had mercy upon them, and via a grassroots movement donated tens of thousands of firearms of all types, willigly, and wiht no compensation, which were then transported to England and distributed amongst the common man throughout England. Thus the “Home Guard” were rearmed, and were able to fend off the looming invasion.

      So now England are disarmed AGAIN, in spite of their earliere history. As are Australia. BOTH have unacceptably high violent crime rates, where EnnZed, with very lax gun laws, have enjoyed one of the lowest crime rates on the planet for decades.

      1. Actually most of the Home Guard ended up with US Army surplus M1917’s and M1919 MG’s (this was in place by mid-late August 1940, well before any possible German invasion).

        The firearms donated by individual US citizens were largely unused and unissued and were disposed of except where needed for specific requirements (e.g pistols for officers).

        1. And still they failed to learn their lesson.

      2. What is left out of this account is that, at the time that Great Man said that, Englanders were largely disarmed, which they voluntarily did as a knreejerk reaction to “the war to end all wars”, recently ended, leaving them defensless.

        Yeah, all they had was the army they brought back from Dunkirk, the RAF, a powerful navy, and no adversary which could cope with the English Channel. Plus enormous support on the way, from the U.S.

        1. Dude… If Hitler hadn’t blown a couple small things, he could have taken England easily. The Brits knew it at the time too, which is why they took the threat seriously. Hitler just blew it. I have every faith that the British, being a strong people with a sense of national pride back then (as opposed to a defeated and crushed people now) would have fought a bitter guerilla campaign… Which may have paid off eventually. But they would have been conquered.

    3. Oh ffs accidental flag, sorry

  8. New Zealand just made thousands of felons by decree.

    1. Feature not bug, as they say. But regardless, as a member of our own Congress recently stated, “I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.”

  9. I try to see both sides of the registration issue, but I have trouble following this logic. Assume for a moment, there exists a perfect list of who owns exactly what weapons. How is that list going to stop a mass-murder like in Christchurch, or even the odd “Stick-em up” kind to street robberies?

    I can only see the list as useful to ease confiscation sometime in the future for “emergency purposes”. Am I wrong?

    1. Nope. 100% correct.

    2. Guns exist and are abundant. So are knives and ball peen hammers for that matter. Any law enacted by government to control the sale and use of guns would affect the law abiding citizens making them lawbreakers. The effort would be to keep criminals away from guns but any law would not do that because they are already criminals, right? So, they tell me that I have to register all my guns so that they know who has them but if I resist, I become a criminal. It’s all so insane, they really understand this too, it’s just that they want to disarm the world so they are the only ones that have guns like Nazi Germany.

    3. Registering firearms to fight crime is useless. Criminals don’t leave their guns at a crime scene.

  10. Why is it that every time there is a shootout, the liberals run around trying to take up the guns of those who didn’t do it. Proof of faulty liberal logic which leads to totalitarian tyranny.

    1. Don’t let them off the hook. Lefties want to get rid of guns so the citizens cannot challenge the Police State.

      All other reasons for gun control are lies.

  11. If only they had required registration.

  12. I bet the sales of shovels went WAY up in New Zealand.

    Socialism is just a disease of the brain.

    1. If you ever think it is time to bury your guns, it is actually time to use them.

  13. “These will become black-market weapons if their owners choose not to comply with the law and become criminals instead.”
    Sort of like what Trump did to bump stock owners in this country.

    1. Bad decision but just imagine what his [2016] opponent would have done to gun rights given the opportunity to rule by decree.

      1. Not an argument. I am sick and fucking tired of wasting my vote on team Red for the sake of literally only one issue and then when they are in power with their President and the entire congress they do fuck all to advance my rights vis a vis that issue. Not only do they fail to repeal gun laws, not only do they fail to enact the HPA or carry reciprocity, not only do they fail to roll back unconstitutional executive orders enacted by [CENSORED], they infringe even fucking more! Fuck team Red, fuck their little bitch sellouts in the NRA, and fuck Donald John Trump.

        From this day forward my only vote is for Civil War 2 Electric Boogaloo.

  14. If gun bans really work, maybe they should try the same thing with drugs, eh? They should ban Heroin, Cocaine, Meth, etc., and maybe that would stop the drug trade too, right?
    Oh wait…. Never mind.
    Only a person who is in denial of reality would believe that a “ban” would actually eliminate whatever is “banned”. It has never worked, never will.

    1. Drugs are compact, light weight for value, easily concealed, readily smuggled, consumable, and induce repeat sales to the same customers—minimizing the danger of being found out while recruiting new customers. There is no end to the market for drugs. Plus drugs are extremely profitable to sell. Drug smuggling is a natural candidate to be practiced as a business, for profit.

      Guns are heavy for value, not compact, hard to conceal, hard to smuggle, and they are durables which discourage repeat sales. Any particular gun market readily becomes saturated, requiring illicit sellers to take dangerous chances while constantly trying to recruit new customers. And guns are less profitable to sell than drugs. Gun smuggling has historically been practiced more for ideological reasons than because anyone thinks it is a good business.

      Not a good comparison.

      1. “”hard to conceal, hard to smuggle,””

        Chicago and NYC disagree.

      2. Drugs are more profitable, for sure. But bans on firearms are just about as effective as bans on drugs — meaning not at all. Bans (or exceptionally high taxes) in some localities, also make beer, cigarettes, and other things very profitable for criminals. An artificial control over just about anything will result in a black market.

      3. You sound like a leftie who has no knowledge whatsoever of guns.

        When you are in a life-threatening situation, the value of a concealed gun becomes infinite as no drug can ever hope to be. Prior to that unfortunate situation, it is cheap insurance.

        People who want guns banned despise women and the elderly, the groups who would be most negatively impacted by such bans. Crime never goes down as a result of such bans, but the honest weak become more frequent victims. All of those crimes that DIDN’T happen because someone was armed become crime statistics, forgotten to everyone but their loved ones.

        1. Johnny Galt, you sound like someone with a lively imagination about guns, and not much caution about what you say. You don’t sound like any of the people I used to hunt with, whose practical experience using guns in rugged country made them cautious about who to go into the field with. You don’t sound like my friends with Vietnam combat experience, either.

          Sounds to me like you think guns deliver more Truth, Justice, and the American Way than anyone can reliably expect. Could you say more about limits—like the ones imposed by distractions, adversity, happenstance, fatigue, bad lighting, dehydration, poor footing, and surprise? I suggest handling guns for real requires a bit of personal modesty, plus practical experience using guns to kill in various uncontrolled conditions—which I am not getting from your comment.

          1. Ugh. Ever heard of YouTube? You can watch tons of videos of people who have used guns in self defense in a ton of bad situations. Once in awhile the media even reports on them! I can recall several in my highly liberal area just in the last couple years that I happened to hear about. A guy saved his convenience store clerks life by plugging a robber who was beating him to death. A guy shot an active shooter right by the Space Needle. Etc.

            Lots of normal people protect themselves ALL THE TIME with guns.

      4. Guns are heavy for value, not compact, hard to conceal, hard to smuggle, and they are durables which discourage repeat sales. Any particular gun market readily becomes saturated, requiring illicit sellers to take dangerous chances while constantly trying to recruit new customers. And guns are less profitable to sell than drugs. Gun smuggling has historically been practiced more for ideological reasons than because anyone thinks it is a good business.

        So then it is even harder for a gun ban to work, since guns are not used up and have a service life of decades?

        1. Michael, sort of true. See my comment on that very problem down the page, where I discuss how to make a gun buyback program work.

          Note also, the long service life is, statistically, a two-edged sword. For instance, I think most pro-gun advocates suppose that a lawfully owned pistol has only an infinitesimal chance of being used in a shooting. But those advocates are mistakenly relying on annual shooting figures to support their reasoning. If you want to know how likely a pistol is to shoot someone, you have to do it differently.

          First, add up the number of annual fatal and non-fatal pistol shootings (leaving suicide cases out). Then accumulate those annual shootings over time—to do that you multiply annual shootings by the typical service life you assume for a gun. That gives you the number of shootings during the service interval. All the pistols taken together must account for that number. So divide by the number of pistols you assume have been in circulation during that interval. Do that, and you discover that the typical pistol probably has notably more than a 1% chance of shooting someone during its service life.

          There is too much uncertainty about how many guns are in circulation, and how many have gone out of service, to be sure of the calculation. All you can expect is a rough figure. But on some reasonable assumptions, the percentage of pistols eventually used to shoot someone could be as high as 3%. I think even 1% is a far higher percentage than pro-gun advocates have been prepared to admit. But I doubt if you do the math for yourself you will find any reasonable premises which would lead to a much smaller result.

          Note also, if you reduce your assumption about the average number of pistols in service during the service interval, then the shooting percentage goes up. If you increase the chosen service interval, the shooting percentage goes up. So to get the smallest shooting percentage figure you think is reasonable, you need to assume the largest possible number of pistols, and the shortest possible service life. Have fun.

          1. This is wrong because of a fundamental misapplication of statistics. Your method assumes that gun use is randomly distributed, and that’s not only a risky assumption, it’s one we know to be false.

            Guns (or handguns, since those are far more likely to be used in homicide) do not have a random probability of being use: the guns locked in my safe have an almost zero probability of being used over their useful life as I’m not going to use them (I hope, a lot) for that, and I’m not going to sell them to a gang member or drug dealer.

            Since most homicides are within the broader a bit of the drug trade, if you want to curb gun violence you need to end the drug trade (and all major regulations for which a black market could reasonably develop, like high taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana in California).

            Then the circumstances that prompt people to use extra-legal dispute resolution services will cease, and we’ll be down to run of the mill armed robbery. While bad, the volume just isn’t there.

            Alternatively, you could propose a gun ban for the people who have been lawfully identified as the class that is likely to commit homicides – and you’d probably get at least conservative support for it, even if not from libertarians…… except we’ve tried that, and felon gun bans empirically don’t get you the ends you want.

            And well intended stripping of rights from other people that doesn’t even gain the desired result is just evil.

            1. the guns locked in my safe have an almost zero probability of being used over their useful life as I’m not going to use them (I hope, a lot) for that, and I’m not going to sell them to a gang member or drug dealer.

              Robert Beckamn, how many guns you got? Try to be a bit more reflective. The guns you mention are quite likely to outlive you. You have no notion what will become of them after you die. Even if you plan for the future carefully, you will be dead, and beyond any ability to affect what actually happens. Even retired police guns commonly end up in criminal hands. You will be dead, and government will be left trying to cope with effects you say will never happen.

              You may will your guns to law-abiding heirs, and your heirs may later become criminals. You may plan to destroy your guns before you die, and die suddenly before you get around to it. The executor of your estate may decide the law requires your guns be auctioned. You can’t reliably control the future of your guns. You may not think you have to take that into account. But government gun policy does have to take that into account. Policy cannot be made just for you.

              Studies have shown that crime gun types track the introduction of new gun types, but with a time lag on the order of decades. So all those safely kept AR-pattern semi-autos? And the latest and greatest from Glock? The nation hasn’t begun to see the criminal effects it can expect from them, and won’t see those effects full strength for years to come. That doesn’t mean they aren’t coming.

              A more general point about the statistical approach. Once again, policy cannot be made just for you. Policy has to cope with everyone, and unfortunately for the convenience of individuals, government is not empowered to make laws which don’t apply alike to everyone. So statistics it will be.

              The 2A can’t mean government is not entitled to make needed policy regarding public safety. Gun rights boosters who are certain that they are never going to be part of the problem (irrationally certain—a dementia-racked future is a statistical possibility for all of us, and an episodic statistical certainty among any group as large as presently-lawful gun owners), will nevertheless have to get used to the notion that obeying laws made for everyone is not punishment. It is just obeying the law.

              By all means, use your political powers, and your legal rights, to affect policy and legal outcomes to match your preferences. Do the best you can. Do not suggest that others do not enjoy the same powers and rights you enjoy. Or that they are not entitled to use their powers and rights to do the best they can.

              The 2A is not the only thing in the constitution. People have a collective right to self-government. They have an individual and collective right to peaceable free assembly. They enjoy individual rights to petition government. They have a right to a republican form of government. Government enjoys a power to suppress insurrections. Government enjoys a power to regulate the militia. Government has a power to promote public safety, and to suppress and punish crime. All of those have implications which together prove the 2A right to bear arms cannot be untrammeled—no matter how much gun advocates say otherwise. The 2A is not the only thing in the constitution, and it cannot be interpreted as the negation of everything else.

              1. In the comment above, I meant to have said, “a psychosis-wracked future,” not, “a dementia-racked future.”

              2. You’re ALSO missing the fact that in reality a single gun owned by a sketchy person is likely responsible for multiple shootings, whereas the vast majority are never used at all.

                Your averaging thing is simply an irrelevant computation. I bet .01% of guns commit 80% of the shootings or something ridiculous.

              3. Stephen, you have a problem with your statistics, contained in the following:

                “First, add up the number of annual fatal and non-fatal pistol shootings (leaving suicide cases out). Then accumulate those annual shootings over time—to do that you multiply annual shootings by the typical service life you assume for a gun. That gives you the number of shootings during the service interval. All the pistols taken together must account for that number. So divide by the number of pistols you assume have been in circulation during that interval. Do that, and you discover that the typical pistol probably has notably more than a 1% chance of shooting someone during its service life. ”

                Statistics don’t work that way. The “odds” don’t “add up” that way. In any given year, if the number of pistols used to injure someone is X, and the quantity of pistols is Y, then if you calculate the number of pistols over say, ten years, then you need to use 10X and 10Y. You cannot simply change one integer in the equation.

                On the other hand, If the number of pistols and injuries are static, then “odds” would never change. Of course they are not. So maybe we will look at that, too.

                In 2017, there were 14,542 homicides committed with firearms, with an estimated number of perhaps 390 million firearms. In 1999, there were 10,828 homicides committed with firearms, with an estimated number (the estimated number less the number of new firearms* reported at ) of about 278 million.

                Therefore, the odds of any particular firearm being used in a homicide in 2017 was 1 in 26,245. The odds in 1999? 1 in 25,674. Given that the total number of firearms, not to mention their distribution in the population, are all, well, at least slightly, fuzzy numbers, I am not sure the difference is statistically relevant.

                (if you wish to calculate crime-related, non-fatal firearms injuries, that number is, fairly consistently, about nine times as high as the number of fatalities)

                So, the odds of being harmed, even slightly, by any given firearm, in any given year, is about 1 in 2500. So, if you live to be 1250 years old, you have a 50/50 chance of being injured by someone with a gun. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

                *https://www.datagraver.com/case/yearly-growth-of-new-firearms-in-the-united-states

                1. Correction, should read that the odds of being “killed” by someone with a firearm in any given year is about one in 25,000.

                2. Albert, I can make this very simple for you, at least as a general thing. Of course, it cannot be whittled down to a precision calculation, because of missing information, and the dynamics of guns moving into and out of service.

                  The general case:

                  1. There is some discoverable typical service life for a pistol. That service life is on the order of decades at least, not one year.

                  2. Taking that service life as a particular range of dates, there is some characteristic statistic which approximates the number of pistols in circulation during that interval.

                  3. All the pistols in circulation must account for all the pistol shootings which occurred during that range of dates.

                  4. If we want to disregard suicides, but otherwise discover how likely it is, statistically, that each pistol will, during that range of dates, be used to shoot someone, fatally or non-fatally, we can find that number. We divide the aggregate number of shootings by the typical number of pistols (which is our statistical approximation of all of them). Once again, all the pistols in use must account for all the pistol shootings which occur during the range of dates equivalent to the service life expected for the pistols.

                  I will give you an example with some made up numbers (Don’t quibble with made-up numbers. These could be way off. Use numbers which seem right to you, and do this yourself.) Assume a service life for a pistol of 50 years. Assume the number of pistols in circulation during the last 50 years has averaged 250 million. Assume during the last 50 years there were an average in each year of 12,000 pistol homicides, and 100,000 non-fatal pistol injuries—totaling 120,000 shootings per year. Multiply by 50 years, and you get 6 million shootings, which 250 million pistols must account for. Divide all the shootings by all the pistols, and you get a chance that any particular pistol will account for a shooting of 0.024, which means 2.4% per pistol.

                  Try it yourself, see what you come up with, and show your work.

                  1. What is important to the argument is the frequency of illegal firearms use — uses which take place over time.
                    Please do remember that there are more than two variables necessary to take into consideration when describing crimes and gun use, even at the basic levels: 1) The total number of crimes, 2) the total number of guns utilized, 3) the total population (of which said offenders are a sub-group), 4) the total number of guns in circulation, and 4) time. Elements 2 and 3 are a bit more difficult to get accurate numbers on.

                    This is how ALL crime statistics are compared. This is how we judge the rise or fall in crime the prevalence of crime. Again, your number is pretty meaningless (and no, I didn’t bother doing the math).

                    I do feel certain that if I used your formula on the transportation industry, and it was accepted as relevant, that a whole lot of people would consider to be tempting fate, and maybe even suicidal, to ride in an automobile. or, for that matter, to open their front door.

                    1. AlbertP, I think you must have followed the math this time. That’s why you changed the subject to automobile risk, right?

                    2. It seems we won’t come to any kind of meeting of the minds here. I am not surprised. You maintain that since guns are too often used to hurt people, that they are too costly to society. I maintain that the cost to society is not the result of the presence of guns, but rather that the wrong people sometimes, and sometimes to often. get their hands on one.

                      I remember a study from a few decades ago that found that just over fifty percent of all violent crimes involved a motor vehicle. Should we blame the automobile? It seems quite obvious to me that a burglar or a bank robber would find it much more difficult to make a get-a-way without a motor vehicle, and therefore maybe not be so willing to risk getting caught? (sarcasm)

                      I have been surveying and analyzing homicide statistics internationally, nationally, regionally, by State, and, in the cases of California, Oregon, and Nevada, even on a county-by-county basis. I have compared homicide rates and looked for links for possibly mitigating causes due to variances in income, income disparity (GINI coefficient), the poverty rate (supplemental), rurality, the presence of gun laws, or the lack thereof, and with gun ownership rates. This has been a bit of a hobby of mine for about thirty years. It’s fun, and very revealing.

                      Mostly what I have found is inconsistency. In CA, the AG office’s report found a weak-to-moderate link between population density and violent crime on a county-by-county basis. That pretty much sums up what I found in my surveys, as well. And even there, there are too many instances of it “not being so” to rely on to construct generalized policies.

                      At any rate, I hope you and yours have a nice weekend.

                  2. No, I didn’t follow the math. It’s statistically irrelevant. What are you trying to prove? In my numbers, which I consider relevant, I made allowances for time, the change in the number of weapons in circulation, and changes in the population.

                    In 2017, the most recent figure the CDC has, all gun injuries and deaths totaled 127,542 in a human population of 325,719,178. The rate for homicides is 4.46 per 100,000, and for injuries, 34.82 per 100,000.

                    The population of firearms is estimated as high as 390 million, which means that, even if a different firearm was used in each event, right at 1 in every 3,048 firearms were used to illegally hurt or kill someone. That is 0.032%. (rounding up the number). That is what is relevant.

                    That risk does not increase, assuming the rate does not increase, no matter how many “years” you multiply it by.

                  3. Hello Stephen,

                    I have an idea, lets put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak. I will use your system, but rather than deal with injuries, I will deal with defensive gun uses (GDUs).

                    In the last 30 years, there have been a total of about 42 million violent crimes committed in the US. Don’t quote me on those numbers, but rest assured I used the same formula for both sides of the equation. In that same time period, there have been about 48 million GDUs. In a population of 390 million firearms, that means that just about 12% of firearms were utilized, during their “life.,” to prevent a crime. And please note, burglary is considered a violent crime. That number, in a vacuum, is just about as irrelevant as your 2.4%.

                    1. AlbertP, so now you have followed the math, and now you want to change the subject to defensive gun use?

                      Why not just a simple concession? Something like, “Yeah, the probability that a particular pistol will someday be used to shoot someone is indeed shockingly high. I hadn’t realized that. Maybe that’s why some folks who favor gun control seem to think pistols are more socially dangerous than most pistol owners do. I wonder if all those pistol owners might reconsider how safe it is to have them around.”

                    2. With all due respect, Stephen, I repeat: the numbers exist in a vacuum, even if seemingly “significant.” That counts for both DGU and criminal uses. Statistically, given how long I have been driving, I “should” have been in at least three accidents. Considering that I have driven way more miles than the average driver, my “odds” of being so involved are even higher. But somehow, I have managed NOT to get into a single one. For that matter, my step-father, who drove for over sixty years, had one accident. My mother and father, who each drove for close to sixty years each, like me, had not one, For that matter, my mother never even had a moving violation. Not one.

                      Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with who is behind the wheel?

                      Even if we assume the numbers are relevant, then, since DGU’s outnumber criminal uses by almost five-to-one, then one could argue that people with guns prevent far more crimes than are committed. Therefore, overall, guns are hardly socially dangerous, but, rather, quite the opposite. This, of course, is also a number in a vacuum, and is irrelevant and misleading.

                      And as far as being “socially dangerous,” well, I have no way of understanding how a gun can be seen as thus. Some people might misuse them, just as some people, at any given moment, are misusing almost anything you can name to harm someone, somewhere. It’s the people who are doing harm, not whatever they happen to be using, whether it be a gun, a knife, or a computer. But you know this.

                    3. AlbertP, you are now back to arguing that government policy should disregard statistics. Instead, it should take each person’s virtues individually into account. It should craft an AlbertP policy, just for AlbertP.

                      That is off the mark for the obvious reason that government can’t make policy that way—it has to make one policy which fits everyone at once—hence, government must use statistics.

                      It is also off the mark for another reason, which I am guessing you overlook. You mention that you have been driving for close to 60 years. That means that whatever guns you have will presently pass into other hands, because you will be dead before the guns wear out.

                      That’s true for everyone, of course. Which is why government gun policy must not only account for people, but also account for the risks which attend the guns themselves. We know the guns do matter, regardless of the people. At the extreme, no one without a gun in his hand is likely to commit a gun crime. Per thousand guns, pistols deliver more crime to society than shotguns. Arguments that there are no social risks which relate directly to guns themselves are just silly.

                      Also silly? Defensive gun use statistics. Get back to me on those when they are collected systematically by police, and measure only defensive instances where someone was shot in justified self-defense. Otherwise—as at present—the basis for the defensive statistics is completely unrelated to the basis for the crime statistics. But of course you know that.

              4. “Studies have shown…”

                By all means, please reference the sources of you conclusions, as we all know just how reliable “studies” tend to be!

                1. Source (if memory serves):

                  Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun: Paul M. Barrett

                  Maybe you have that book. Why don’t you look it up?

                  1. Actually, there are roughly 200,000,000 firearms in the U.S., a conservative estimate, and roughly 10,000 firearms homicides per year. 10,000/200,000,000 = 1/20,000 = 0.00005=0.005% per year raw probability it will be used in a homicide. That’s once every 20,000 years if it lasts that long. For the probability to be greater than 50%, use the formula, years=log(1−0.5)÷log(1−10,000÷200,000,000)= 13,862 years.
                    It would take more than 138 centuries or 13 millenia before it would be more likely than not that any one gun would be used in a homicide.

                    For all “gun deaths”, including suicides, say 40,000/year. That’s 40,000/200,000,000 = 2/10,000 = 1/5,000=0.0002=0.02% per year, which is once every 5,000 years. In that case, it would take log(1−0.5)÷log(1−40,000÷200,000,000) = 3,465 years, more than
                    34 centuries or 3 millenia for it to be more probable than not that any one firearm would be used in any “gun death”. In each case, that time is likely well beyond the life of the firearm.

                    If the life of the firearm is 1,000 years the probability of it being used in a homicide is 1−(1−10,000÷200,000,000)^(1,000)=0.0487717646 or about 4.9%. And the probability of use in any “gun death” is 1−(1−40,000÷200,000,000)^(1,000) = 0.1812856236 or about 18.2%. And that’s over a period of 1,000 years or 1 millenium.

              5. Actually, there are roughly 200,000,000 firearms in the U.S., a conservative estimate, and roughly 10,000 firearms homicides per year. 10,000/200,000,000 = 1/20,000 = 0.00005=0.005% per year raw probability it will be used in a homicide. Over 100 years, that would be 0.5% per century raw probability. For the probability to be greater than 50% would take 100 centuries or 10 millenia or 10,000 years before it would be more likely than not that any one gun would be used in a homicide.

                For all “gun deaths”, including suicides, say 40,000/year. That’s 40,000/200,000,000 = 2/10,000 = 0.0002=0.02% per year, which is 2% per century. In that case, it would take 25 centuries or 2,500 years for it to be more probable than not that any one firearm would be used in a homicide.

                1. Actually, there are roughly 200,000,000 firearms in the U.S., a conservative estimate, and roughly 10,000 firearms homicides per year. 10,000/200,000,000 = 1/20,000 = 0.00005=0.005% per year raw probability it will be used in a homicide. That’s once every 20,000 years if it lasts that long. For the probability to be greater than 50%, use the formula, years=log(1−0.5)÷log(1−10,000÷200,000,000)= 13,862 years.
                  It would take more than 138 centuries or 13 millenia before it would be more likely than not that any one gun would be used in a homicide.

                  For all “gun deaths”, including suicides, say 40,000/year. That’s 40,000/200,000,000 = 2/10,000 = 1/5,000=0.0002=0.02% per year, which is once every 5,000 years. In that case, it would take log(1−0.5)÷log(1−40,000÷200,000,000) = 3,465 years, more than
                  34 centuries or 3 millenia for it to be more probable than not that any one firearm would be used in any “gun death”. In each case, that time is likely well beyond the life of the firearm.

                  If the life of the firearm is 1,000 years the probability of it being used in a homicide is 1−(1−10,000÷200,000,000)^(1,000)=0.0487717646 or about 4.9%. And the probability of use in any “gun death” is 1−(1−40,000÷200,000,000)^(1,000) = 0.1812856236 or about 18.2%. And that’s over a period of 1,000 years or 1 millenium.

      5. Hard to carry and conceal? What do you think people carry?? 44 magnums with 8 inch barrels? I carry a 9mm wearing a t shirt and shorts and no one can see it and carry it all day.

        1. TxJack 112, the remark was comparative, and in reference to smuggling. So put on your t-shirt and shorts, and see how well you fare carrying $200,000 worth of 9mm pistols, vs. $200,000 worth of fentanyl.

  15. people may not be complying but it sure is hard to practice shooting your gun without getting noticed, at least on an island country

  16. […] We will not comply. Here’s a good article to consider BEFORE you try to destroy the Second Amendment. https://reason.com/2019/07/08/noncompliance-kneecaps-new-zealands-gun-control-scheme/ […]

  17. […] Turns out, gun owners in New Zealand aren’t turning them in. […]

  18. There seems to be two different strains of argument running through the NZ firearms owners community.

    There are those who are pissed about the entire exercise and there are those who are pissed about the amounts offered for each confiscated firearm. I’ve got a boot in each camp. I feel particularly bad for the guys who have semi-autos that are way more historical and/or collectable than my AR15. The loss of M1’s and other WW2 era semis is sad and pointless (much like this government).

    Meanwhile there is no point in telling Dimcinda that she’s doing exactly what the terrorist wanted. “That’s not the case” is her answer which is as blatant evidence of mental incapacity as anything else she’s done.

    1. I wonder if there is any provision for the recall of public officials who act foolishly in the discharge of their duties of office. If so, how long before a bunch of Kiwi decide to simply have done with this tart? She is proving herself mentally incompetent and/or corrupt. Time to wave bye bye.

      1. Nope there isn’t really any such mechanism in our parlimentary system. In theory the Governor General could order a new election if the current mob could no longer govern (i.e. pass a budget). But since they’re highly unlikely to take their snouts out of the trough, it’s also highly unlikely to have an early election.

        The good news is that many/most firearms owners feel betrayed by the NZ First party which had promised to look after their interests and has utterly failed to do so. Next years election could well see them turfed out (again). Equally it could also see a Labour/Greens government free to impliment as much of their BS as they want. The libertarian inclined ACT party has been cozying up to us shooters meanwhile, and may get something of a boost in numbers. If even 1/4 of firearms owners voted ACT they’d get 2 or 3 extra MP’s.

        1. NZ gun owners have no one to blame but themselves. There are 300,000 such in NZ which is 12% of all voters.

          That is massive political power if wielded correctly. They could elevate any minor party to a position of wagging the tail, or destroy the chances of a major party holding power.

          Yet where is the organization? Where was the trenchant indignation at such a cynical and opportunistic law change?

          There’s a great lesson in all this, and it’s about the power of culture and of emergency events to allow the state to control almost anything through messaging and guilt.

          1. Actually it’s around 250,000 firearms license holders. Or about 9%.

            And there is a large underswell of discontent about this. It will be interesting to see just how many (or few) owners turn up at the first “great destruction circus” later this month.

            Something to keep in mind with the figures JD Tucille quotes in his article – up until recently there hasn’t been an official methodology for reporting a firearm for confiscation/destruction which is large part explains the low numbers. Nor was there any price scheme for what was to be paid for firearms and accessories. All there was, was a police webpage you could self-report with. The numbers using this were initially boasted about but they’ve shut up since – drawn your own conclusions about that.

            The prices they came up with have been roundly described as rubbish by the community – there is a court case being lodged for proper recompense.

            Meanwhile we get to watch Jacinda and her fellow window-lickers looking like the smug morons they are.

            1. You exemplify the problem I was pointing out. You natter on about prices, etc. when the problem is the lack of organization by NZ gun owners to demand through real political power (their voting numbers) that no guns should have been made illegal in the first place.

              They lay down and joined the “conversation” about the “process” and about proper compensation when that was exactly what the confiscators wanted. They framed the debate and you stepped compliantly into the frame. They won before any law was ever passed.

              Where are the statements by NZ gun lobbyists for this law to be repealed? Where’s the threat to use a powerful voting block to swing an election? Nowhere. And that’s why Kiwis deserve everything they’ve gotten so far.

              1. We’ll know whether this is the case or not after the first one or two confiscation circuses. As I’ve mentioned previously the libertian(ish) ACT party has come out against this and said that if it held the balance of power then it’d repeal the law. I’ve also mentioned the backlack against the NZ First party which was voted in by shooters as the party that would protect their rights.

                As for us being “a block”, I don’t think we are. There is one other party promising repeal of the laws in an attempt to get shooters votes – the NZ Conservative party. Even if they were the only such party they’d still not get my vote – everything else about them and their policies makes my skin crawl. I’d rather just continue with my current policy of civic disobedience.

                1. Not a gun owner, when I came back to NZ from Oz I decided the compliance requirements were to onerous. Given that a vote for NZ First effectively delivered a Labour/Greens government at the last election, I’m guessing quite a few of their voters are reconsidering their options.

    2. What is total bullshit about this too is that the government is going to destroy them all. Why the hell don’t they sell them wholesale to the US market at least?

      Oh, because they progtards just hate guns irrationally. Let’s destroy these valuable items, that are perfectly legal in this other place still, and waste tax payer money… Because guns are icky!

  19. Holy mackerel! Kiwi resolve to maintain their freedom outshines all other oppressed people in history. Aussie resistance approximates U.S. states of New York and Connecticut at about 80 percent. I’m astonished that New Zealand oppressors impressed only .04 percent of their firearms owners. That means 99.96 percent have thumbed their collective nose at the new law and especially Jacinda Ardern, chief oppressor. The next election cycle will be very interesting.

    1. You can be certain that the people who turned in guns did not turn in all of their guns. I have kept one registered .22 bolt action rifle I bought to teach my son to shoot. It is in the closet waiting to be turned over “if and when”.

      1. I dropped my phone and in the act of catching it I appear to have flagged your comment. This was entirely by accident. This incident highlights the need to give us the ability to undo such things as flagging a comment accidentally. Much like our unrequited need for an edit button here.

  20. It’s good to see that someone is ignoring the desire of the establishment to ban firearms. I would actually like to see gun rights expanded throughout the world, as the right to self defense is a fundamental human right. Perhaps the way to do so is to adopt the model that helped get pot legalized (and put an end to Prohibition) in this country. Flood these counties – say, almost all of Europe – with firearms, and at some point the governments will have to re-legalize them, because they will have no choice. Doing so isn’t wrong, instead, it’s a clear case of civil disobedience.

  21. Note: the mosque shooter’s statement given in this article (below) is part of his long political manifesto as published online at the time of the attacks.

    It is ILLEGAL for New Zealanders to read, possess or distribute this document under penalty of up to 14 years in prison. That means any Kiwis actually reading it here are in technical breach of the law.

    What a great little country.

    “I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse,” the killer wrote in a document he released to explain his crimes. “The gun owners of New Zealand are a beaten, miserable bunch of baby boomers, who have long since given up the fight. When was the last time they won increased rights? Their loss was inevitable. I just accelerated things a bit.”

    1. Can you provide a link? I promise I’ll only follow it while I’m outside of New Zealand.

      1. Google is your friend.

        1. Google isn’t your friend. If you’re trying to find this particular bit of text, they’re not even a neutral, you’re not going to be able to find it easily.

          Now, DuckDuckGo, they’re not your friend, but they’re not your enemy, either.

          The killer’s manifesto.

          1. Google was not my friend, not by any means. DuckDuckGo, after a considerable amount of poking around, led me to http://serbiastrong.com/, where Tarrant’s manifesto is posted.

            An initial glance tells me this is going to be 74 pages of sloganeering, and thus much harder to get through than the Unabomber’s manifesto.

            1. And, keep in mind, he was just trying to egg the New Zealand government on into doing exactly what they did. He’s not necessarily expressing his actual opinion of anything, he’s trying to be scary enough from a particular point of view to induce a panicked over-reaction, or maybe just provide a useful pretext. And succeeded at that.

              Whether he actually agrees with anything he wrote, I don’t know.

              1. I skimmed through most of it after the shooting happened… His is also doing a LARGE amount of trolling in there! He’s a white nationalist who said that Candace Owens helped radicalize him. LOL

          2. Google is your friend, is figurative. It means: go search for it. But congrats on your success, and on your pedantry.

      2. The decision of the NZ Chief Censor (yes, such an office exists) about the banning of manifesto, is here:

        https://bit.ly/2HMcIkb

        It provides instructive reading as to how the state can justify total censorship of a political document–just words and ideas–and easily get away with it in a country that is held by many to be a fine guardian of human rights.

  22. How can a government ‘buy back’ a gun they never owned in the first place?

    Tell your government to go pound sand.

    F2A

  23. Might Molon Labe have a familiar ring?

  24. […] Reason reports New Zealand gun laws are progressing as expected. Gun owners angered by the government’s defacto blaming of the law abiding for crime are very slow to turn guns in and many will never turn in their guns voluntarily. https://reason.com/2019/07/08/noncompliance-kneecaps-new-zealands-gun-control-scheme/ […]

  25. Arguably, defiant gun owners are just being realistic in seeing little to gain by obeying restrictive laws that have their greatest impact on those who pose no threat to their neighbors.

    I take no position on whether it is wise for New Zealand, with a low gun crime rate, to try to ban and buy back a class of firearms. But I do suggest there is a way to get it done:

    1. Unambiguously define the prohibited class of guns.

    2. Ban manufacture, imports, and sales (including private resales) of the prohibited class, under severe criminal penalties.

    3. Impose registration requirements on the prohibited class, but without requiring immediate buy-back. Add a proviso that unregistered guns cannot participate in a government buy-back program, and are permanently subject to uncompensated confiscation, except in the case of sales by the estates of the dead.

    4. Initiate a voluntary buy-back, requiring payment of twice new market value for every weapon. Let registration serve as proof of ownership for the purposes of buy-back compensation. For unregistered guns, impose no proof of ownership requirement. Let anyone who voluntarily presents an unregistered gun of the prohibited class receive the compensation, and remain legally entitled to keep the money.

    5. Ban inheritance of guns in the prohibited class, and require the estates of those who die to sell the guns to the government for the usual double-value price, and without criminal penalty for previous non-registration.

    It would take a while, but I suggest that would get the job done eventually. To help the process along, I also suggest that government undertake the manufacture of high-quality firearms made to conform to legal requirements. In addition to the compensation mentioned above, those could be offered without cost in exchange for any non-conforming guns turned in—but only in the case of registered guns.

    A program such as that would put incentives on the side of cooperation with registration and the buy-back program, while discouraging defiance. It would let current owners keep their registered guns until they die. It would have the further advantage of avoiding any reasonable charge that it amounts to a gun ban.

    It would be expensive. Probably, what has most crippled previous gun buy-back efforts is that they have attempted to do it too inexpensively.

    1. I’m would imagine that our founding fathers thought government might be up to something like that some day. Therefore using the words “shall not be infringed”

      1. Where is the 2A infringement in letting someone keep a contraband gun for life? Where is the 2A infringement in giving someone a good gun for free, as an inducement to give up a contraband gun? Where is the 2A infringement in paying double value for a voluntary buyback which the gun owner is at liberty to ignore, and keep the gun?

        1. The fact that one banned any type of gun in the first place is the infringement.

          Did you know that you can STILL buy a full auto machine gun in the USA if you have a clean record? The reason for that is the 2A. Basically when the shitty pols WANTED to ban them in the 20s/30s, they were able to get a prohibitively high tax put on them, to try to get around the 2A. And when that shit heel Reagan likewise wanted to ban them, he only prohibited the manufacture of new ones, allowing the old ones to be grandfathered in.

          The truth is they should still be legal to make and sell new without a bunch of BS… Because it wouldn’t make shit all of difference. There weren’t mass shootings all the time in the 70s or 80s with these things. It was irrational fear then, just as now. IIRC it has been decades since a full auto gun owned legally was used in a crime.

    2. Nobody wants to ban guns, but here is the detailed procedure for doing so!

      1. KevinP, note: I said, “a class of firearms.” You said, “ban guns.” See the difference?

        I also proposed, if you read the whole thing, that the government give people very good guns for free, after paying them double value for surrendering guns from the contraband class voluntarily. And I even proposed letting them keep their contraband guns for their entire lives, if that is what they prefer to do.

        I further said this program would avoid any reasonable charge that it amounts to a gun ban. But here you are, saying it amounts to a gun ban. I don’t think that is reason talking. I think it is habit.

        1. So screw the future generations because I got mine?

          You’re a piece of work.

        2. But it can only be reasonably seen as a gun ban, of a specific class of guns. You may think it good policy, and it’s been done in the past (1986 ban on new machine guns), but that doesn’t mean it’s not a ban on guns, especially since it’ll be seen as analogous to the initial steps of most major gun bans of the 20th century that ended particularly poorly for Jewish people in Germany.

          I agree with your assessment though, that’s the sort of tactic that would actually work, if the real purpose is to confiscate guns (either all or just a subset). But if the real purpose is to exercise power over your political enemies, and many people think it is, then this would only be a stepping stone, as the process as punishment is the very point.

          See also the pronoun fight for a similar issue where power appears to be the point.

          1. Yes, Robert Beckman, if we are talking the U.S., and not New Zealand, of course it enables a gun ban of a specific class of guns. That class being unreasonably dangerous guns, as determined by the only available process which is publicly accountable, which is the political process. I understand gun advocates don’t like that. I don’t understand what makes them think they get to decide, and nobody else gets a say. While gun advocates prevail in the political process—as they presently seem to be doing—they will get to decide which guns are unreasonably dangerous, and which are not. If they decide mistakenly, they will lose control of the politics, and others will decide. Both sides will have to conform their politics to events. That’s life in the USA. Best system ever, right?

            But you are making me a bit queasy with, “But if the real purpose is to exercise power over your political enemies, and many people think it is . . . ” Can you say more about how you see that politically-involved gun use playing out? Is that outright insurrection you are talking about? Is it intimidating political opponents by showing up conspicuously armed to protest their assemblies? Defying duly enacted and legitimately tested-in-court guns laws? What are you talking about?

            1. He’s talking about the progressives are only banning them to crush the will of their political enemies for the sheer power trip of it. You’re dense.

              And none of these styles of gun are unreasonable dangerous. If you adjust for demographic differences, the USA has a comparable murder rate to all the lovely European countries that are almost completely disarmed. AS DID NEW ZEALAND. It’s the PEOPLE, not the guns, that are the problem.

  26. All these confiscation laws do is raise the worth of my weapons.

  27. This has to be some of the most delusional crap spewed by Reason to date.

    How has mass non-compliance “kneecapped” the law? It’s still on the books, waiting for some gun owner to get discovered by the cops.

    Yeah, the non-compliant gun owners still have their guns. But they are, for all intents, and purposes completely worthless.

    The owners can’t shoot them. They can’t legally sell them. They have to keep them hidden; anyone could be a snitch.

    In Tuccile’s fevered imagination, this is a great victory. In reality, this is a massive loss and unless the law is repealed and overturned, it’s just going to get worse.

    1. Spock, your common-sense remarks ignore the principal “reasoning” which backs pretty much all gun nut advocacy these days. The guns are still worthwhile for one purpose—insurrection against New Zealand tyranny.

      1. That’s only one reason that gun owners put forth. Target shooting, hunting, self defense, are others.

        The fact that you would refer to lawful gun owners as “gun nuts’ shows your bias against them.

        1. No bias. “Gun nuts,” shows me distinguishing feckless gun wielders from the others. I can do that after long years’ association with the feckless ones. That taught me what to expect.

          I learned that: “target shooting,” means riddling traffic signs, junk cars, and old barns. “Hunting,” means firing blind into thickets, to see if a deer jumps out. “Self-defense” means living a boring life, which you liven up by keeping your pistol in hand when the package delivery guy knocks.

          Most gun owners don’t do those sorts of things, but gun nuts do. Oh yeah, and gun nuts threaten insurrection.

      2. I own several weapons that would fall within the NZ ban. I acquired them legally and keep them safely locked up when not in use.

        As for “use” this includes competition, recreation, occasional hunting, and should it ever be necessary self defense. I live in a rural area and that sort of thing matters when you have seconds to respond any law enforcement may be at least 20 minutes or more away.

        As for insurrection, yes that is a valid and constitutional reason to keep and bear arms.

        And so your point is…?

        1. Well, one point would be that the constitution empowers suppressing insurrections. How do you square that with, “As for insurrection, yes that is a valid and constitutional reason to keep and bear arms?”

          Do you suggest keeping arms on contingency—in anticipation of insurrection—is a constitutional purpose, but bearing arms during an insurrection is not? Or do you think the constitution, operating as a kind of perpetual motion machine, authorizes both arming insurrectionists, and suppressing them?

          There is also a practical point about insurrection which has long puzzled me. I can’t think of many (or maybe any) historical instances where a pre-existing right to arms supported an insurrection that would not have succeeded otherwise. Seems like the usual way insurrectionists in history got armed was by taking arms from their adversaries, or by getting arms from foreign enemies of their adversaries. Historical examples of both methods abound. Do you know of any reach-in-the-gun-safe insurrections which worked out?

          Why isn’t having arms in advance of an insurrection just a way to make yourself a target for disarmament? Isn’t that what happened to the militia army at Bunker Hill? Even after they repelled the British attempt to seize their Concord armory, they were compelled to break off at Bunker Hill, for want of gunpowder. The British had seen them coming, and cut off powder imports years before.

          Even long after Bunker Hill, Washington was in despair for want of gunpowder, after learning he had only enough to issue eight ounces per man. Only arms seized from the British (Ticonderoga, a ship at sea, a Bermuda armory raid), or imported from abroad, saved the revolution—with the exception of the final instance, when an entire navy imported from France played the decisive role.

          I worry a bit that what the ostensible “insurrectionist” purpose—dreadful as it sounds—is tending toward is something more likely, and maybe even more dreadful—which would be armed political intimidation of people right wingers regard as enemies. Would you think if that happened it would be a good thing, or a bad thing?

          1. God you’re dense.

            Sure, if shit ever gets real one might need more weapons… But do you not realize that having to make saaay a million fewer guns allows you to purchase other items that may be needed? Do you know how many guys in the revolution or civil war used their own guns? Or other rebellions, like those of the Scottish against the English? Or a million other instances.

            It helps. In the modern American context, private firearms owners own more weapons theoretically suitable for combat than every army in the world. IIRC there are 15 million AR-15s alone. Add in other similarly good weapons, like Mini 14s, AK-47s, etc and the number is still higher… Add in higher caliber hunting rifles that have decent mag capacity, and you’re getting into crazy numbers.

            So in the USA, if we ever needed to pull guns out of the closet to defend the country, whether that’s against a would be domestic tyrant or a foreign tyrant, we could do it 100% with no extra guns needed. Fortunately we manufacture our own powder and all the other items necessary to defend ourselves nowadays too, so no imported powder needed!

    1. People under the influence of the ‘liberal gene’ have been a problem for humankind since Cain killed his brother Abel in a fit of jealousy. “jealousy” is one of the many symptoms of people born with the ‘liberal gene’.

  28. […] Noncompliance Kneecaps New Zealand’s Gun Control Scheme […]

  29. […] Reason now reports, New Zealand gunowners aren’t handing in the legally obtained-but-since-declared-illegal […]

  30. […] Reason now reports, New Zealand gunowners aren’t handing in the legally obtained-but-since-declared-illegal […]

  31. Another word to the wise for the Kiwis, especially Ardern; doing EXACTLY what the shooter asks you to do in his own manifesto is probably a bad idea. Don’t play into the hands of accelerationism.

  32. […] Learn more about the stiff-necked Kiwis here. […]

  33. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    Looks like the gun-grabbers in NZ politics are going to find out who holds the real power in their country come election time.

  34. Is anyone under the impression that it was the gangbangers who turned in their guns?

  35. […] Noncompliance kneecaps New Zealand’s gun control scheme. […]

  36. […] As of last week, only around 700 weapons had been turned over. There are an estimated 1.5 million guns—with an unknown number subject to the new prohibition on semiautomatic firearms—in the country overall. – Reason.com […]

  37. They gun owners aren’t criminals. The government just forgot the plot.

    They’re job is to ensure safety AND liberty for their citizens. They’ve chosen instead to go with a campaign issue that will ensure neither safety no liberty.

    In short, The government has chosen the more criminal path, not the gun owners.

    1. More like, their government is reverting to type.

      The Declaration of Independence had some lovely fictions about how “Governments are instituted among Men” to secure rights. But the truth is that governments are just highly evolved protection rackets. They were instituted to prey upon men, not secure their rights.

      With a great deal of risk and ingenuity, you can, for a while, force governments to do some useful stuff along with the preying upon you. The most useful thing just being keeping some other governments away…

      But, in a bitter irony, success at this leads people to forget that government isn’t their friend, it’s a caged monster being forced to act against its own nature. Then you relax your vigilance, grant it more and more power and freedom to act as IT sees fit, and, suddenly, you wake up one day and find you’re back on the menu.

      New Zealand’s government is setting the table today, and I suspect the gun owners of New Zealand still haven’t woken to just what they’re facing, they think it’s just a well intentioned mistake, rather than the first step in rendering them helpless.

    2. “In short, The government has chosen the more criminal path, not the gun owners.”

      But isn’t that what governments become…criminals?

  38. “If New Zealand’s political class had looked to the history of gun control efforts they would have seen that they were walking a well-trodden path that leads to a dead end. ”

    Yes, but at least they “did something.”

  39. Gun confiscation is the major issue for wannabe tyrants here in America too.
    After all, an unarmed society is easier to control and oppress than an armed one.
    Just ask Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Castro.

  40. […] Monday, when Reason magazine reported what appears to be massive non-compliance with a semi-auto ban in New Zealand in the […]

  41. […] Monday, when Reason magazine reported what appears to be massive non-compliance with a semi-auto ban in New Zealand in the […]

  42. […] But a funny thing happened on the way to full and unquestioned confiscation compliance. As Reason’s J.D. Tudcille writes, […]

  43. […] Monday, when Reason magazine reported what appears to be massive non-compliance with a semi-auto ban in New Zealand in the […]

  44. […] Monday, when Reason magazine reported what appears to be massive non-compliance with a semi-auto ban in New Zealand in the […]

  45. […] Reason now reports, New Zealand gunowners aren’t handing in the legally obtained-but-since-declared-illegal […]

  46. […] But a funny thing happened on the way to full and unquestioned confiscation compliance. As Reason’s J.D. Tudcille writes, […]

  47. […] Noncompliance kneecaps New Zealand’s gun control scheme. […]

  48. Is it not ironic that even though the media loves to point to Australia as the model for gun confiscation, they never report that only 20% of all guns have been surrendered? Also ironic they have said NOTHING about the mass defiance in NZ. You have two nations with small populations and yet law enforcement and the government is powerless to enforce their bans.. However, the media is determined to push the issue because they think it will work here, or at least Chuck Todd does.

    1. Yup. And the figures in Europe are equally ridiculous. IIRC in Germany it is estimated to that like 80% of the firearms owned are illegal.

      It’s still bullshit though. Now those people can’t use them for recreational purposes for fear of arrest.

  49. What this story clearly illustrates as does others in the past, in response to any “crisis” the first response is to deny liberty and suspend individual rights. That is always the pattern and precisely why the Founders included the Bill of Rights which is a limitation on the government, not the people.

  50. […] people elsewhere in the world also have a bit of rebelliousness. Here are some excerpts from a column in Reason about what’s been happening in New […]

  51. It’s good they’re not complying… But it is whack that these laws are on the books. They need to fight to reverse this shit.

    A few of the eastern European countries are actually loosening up their gun laws. Many states in the USA are getting freer too. Other than those, I can’t think of anywhere on earth going the right direction on gun laws.

  52. Why is it those most rabid in their support of gun bans never actually understand the firearms they seek to ban?? I have seen so many talk about the danger of a typical AR because of the size of the bullet fired. They never seem to grasp a typical AR fires a 22 caliber bullet which is far smaller than 99% of all handguns. They freak out about how it looks rather than how it operates. In addition, they also never seem to grasp their desire to “feel safe” is irrelevant when it comes to deciding how I will defend myself.

    1. They understand fully.
      They also understand the politics necessary to abolish a constitutional right without outright repeal.

    2. It all fairness, it ain’t all about the caliber… The total kinetic energy from a 5.56 is considerably higher than most hand gun rounds, on account of all that extra powder!

      1. “It all fairness, it ain’t all about the caliber… The total kinetic energy from a 5.56 is considerably higher than most hand gun rounds, on account of all that extra powder!”

        This is absolutely true. However, terminal ballistics are equally important. At the closer ranges, a slower-moving, heavier, larger-caliber pistol bullet can do more damage, and even import more energy on the target, than a smaller, lighter, high-speed bullet which, depending on the design, might fragment immediately on contact (like the BT bullets fired from my 220 Swift), or, in the case of FMJ bullets, pass clean through, and waste all that extra energy bouncing off a concrete wall. At longer ranges, of course, other factors apply. But don’t underestimate the real-world usefulness of pistols with good bullets at close range. 🙂

  53. […] But a funny thing happened on the way to full and unquestioned confiscation compliance. As Reason’s J.D. Tudcille writes, […]

  54. […] “As of last week, only around 700 weapons had been turned over. There are an estimated 1.5 million guns—with an unknown number subject to the new prohibition on semiautomatic firearms—in the country overall. […]

  55. […] We had a Dem presidential candidate designated gun control stalking horse, whose main campaign promise was to confiscate every semi-auto firearm in civiilan hands. To do that, the government needs to know who has what and where. If they didn’t know that before, they’ve surely learned from New Zealand’s embarrassing ban attempt. […]

  56. This creates a huge set of issues, such as public safety in the opposite spectrum.

    By these gun owners refusing to be afforded the means for self protection, these people must hide them, then they cannot learn how to use them safely.

    I live in a state where I’m allowed to own firearms. Just today I spent 4 hours teaching gun mechanics and troubleshooting while on the range to a teen that wants to learn gun safety before he enlists in the military.
    After my military service an armed home invader paid a visit, having the right to defend myself from violent lunatics paid off.
    Here’s the newspaper article,

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=k3syuu&s=9#.XSfkrvlKjPo

    I do keep less than lethals as my first option if possible.

    1. I had a 17 year old kid with 5 previous felonies come through my bedroom window one night. He woke me up breaking in, and I was standing with my 9 MM drawn. He started going behind his back when I shouted at him to show me his hands.

      Let’s just say Black Talons work, but even 2 fist sized holes in the abdomen are apparently sirvivable.

  57. Tragically, officer, I lost all my guns in a tragic boating accident. Nope, safe full of ammo went overboard, too.

    And would you tell my nosy neighbor’s kids to stop firing their machineguns st night? I don’t care if their thermal sights need co witnessing.

    Thanks for stopping by!

  58. […] “Police are anticipating a number of people with banned firearms in their possession won’t surrender them,” Stuffreported at the end of May, based on internal government documents. – Reason […]

  59. […] “Police are anticipating a number of people with banned firearms in their possession won’t surrender them,” Stuffreported at the end of May, based on internal government documents. – Reason […]

  60. […] “Police are anticipating a number of people with banned firearms in their possession won’t surrender them,” Stuffreported at the end of May, based on internal government documents. – Reason […]

  61. […] “Police are anticipating a number of people with banned firearms in their possession won’t surrender them,” Stuffreported at the end of May, based on internal government documents. – Reason […]

  62. […] "A polícia está antecipando um número de pessoas com armas de fogo proibidas em sua posse não vai rendê-los" Coisarelatado no final de maio, com base em documentos governamentais internos. – Razão […]

  63. […] “Police are anticipating a number of people with banned firearms in their possession won’t surrender them,” Stuffreported at the end of May, based on internal government documents. – Reason […]

  64. […] “Police are anticipating a number of people with banned firearms in their possession won’t surrender them,” Stuffreported at the end of May, based on internal government documents. – Reason […]

  65. […] Officials should have seen it coming. “Police are anticipating a number of people with banned firearms in their possession won’t surrender them,” Stuff reported at the end of May, based on internal government documents. – Reason […]

  66. […] “Police are anticipating a number of people with banned firearms in their possession won’t surrender them,” Stuffreported at the end of May, based on internal government documents. – Reason […]

  67. […] Irish democracy lives in New Zealand. Since the nation is pretty much an archipelago, I wonder how many “tragic boating accidents” gun owners have had down there. […]

  68. […] “Police are anticipating a number of people with banned firearms in their possession won’t surrender them,” Stuffreported at the end of May, based on internal government documents. – Reason […]

  69. […] “Police are anticipating a number of people with banned firearms in their possession won’t surrender them,” Stuff reported at the end of May, based on internal government documents. – Reason […]

  70. […] allows firearms to be turned in to law enforcement without fear of prosecution.  So far, only 700 have been turned in, a mere 0.05% of everything thought to be privately owned.  The problem NZ has is the same as […]

  71. […] the number of illegally retained arms in Australia at between two and five million.” (Read here) We can expect a similar result here in New […]

  72. […] I am thinking locally, this is what the average blogger in the states thinks of our government. Perhaps there are bigger bastards than banks. I should add that most people did not vote Labour: […]

Please to post comments