All government parties have agreed in principle to reform the country’s gun laws.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will detail what these reforms will look within the next week.
In the meantime, she’s encouraging gun owners to surrender their weapons to Police.
Speaking to media after meeting with Cabinet ministers, as well as representatives from the Green Party, on Monday afternoon, Ardern underlined how all three parties that form the coalition were in agreement on the matter: "We are of one mind. We are absolutely united.”
She said the terrorist attack killing 50 people in Christchurch on March 15 exposed a range of weaknesses in New Zealand’s gun laws.
“I know that this might for a short period create a small degree of uncertainty among some gun owners, including those who possess guns for legitimate reasons, and I particularly acknowledge those in our rural communities,” Ardern said.
“I want to assure you that the work that we are doing is not directed at you. In fact, I strongly believe that the vast majority of gun owners in New Zealand would agree with the sentiment that change needs to occur…
“In the meantime, I want to remind people, you can surrender your gun to the police at any time. In fact, I see reports that people are in fact already doing this. I applaud that effort.
“And if you’re thinking about surrendering your weapon, I would encourage you to do so.”
74 Comments
This will be an interesting debate. Even as an ex-hunter (rather poor one), i've always struggled with the some of the hardware available from the likes of Gun City. Nevertheless, there will be changes, and the flood of AR15's and their like will eventually hit the market, as the Catergory E class licence will be beyond the reach of most, as this is where these firearms will be re-classed as i'm guessing. I can't however get past the growing sentiment that the gun-owning community is being blamed for lack of action and leadership from the government over these issues, especially since the loopholes in the legislation have been known for almost 2 decades.
An interesting debate indeed. The best banning or reclassifying certain guns will achieve is less fatalities if the offender chooses to use guns. It won’t stop an attack as it isn’t the cause and I certainly hope it doesn’t push terrorists towards more leathal alternatives. Curious to see what’s put forward as the expected outcomes.
Anything that might assist in restricting access to arms that are neither necessary nor justified is welcome. Is this now too little too late? For instance, in the USA, the illegal trade, blackmarket if you like, for these items is vast, really vast. Always has been in fact. New legislation there will not change that. More likely will enhance it. Still, doing nothing at all makes little sense.
we used to have a register for guns until the 1980's but it was done away with because it was paper based unreliable and a lot of effort time and money for the police to administer.
surely in todays world of tech we should be able to go back to having a gun register with it online so you can check its a legal weapon, similar to registering a car, or buying and selling it, that way they could set the system to flag anomalies ie someone now owns more than three guns so time to pay a personal visit to check them out.
As a person who uses guns I can see no reason for anybody to use a semi automatic except perhaps very specialised and very rare uses such a helicopter pest control. So rare it should not be hard to completely control
Any device that could possibly converted to rapid fire should be crushed.
I think small calibre (.22) rim fire weapons like should remain semi-auto but maybe as a concession should have even smaller magazine size (i.e. 4-5 shots). I say this as shooting rabbits sometimes requires a few shots to ensure the kill or to take out a couple of them and I don't fancy using bolt action for this as they're too quick otherwise.
Lets not let emotion cloud things too much.
Am I right in my understanding that the present magazine size for the semi-automatic Cat A firearm is 7, but one can purchase the larger magazine sizes as they fit all semi-automatic guns? And of course, even if we ban those larger magazines, folks can order online from elsewhere. Whereas with a bolt action one can increase the magazine size but this is far more limited in number, and of course the gun is not and cannot be converted to rapid fire.
I get your point about rabbits but we have biological means to keep populations down that are much more effective anyway. There is also the option of re-introducing an agency such as the Rabbit Boards, where professionals specifically licensed for semi-automatic gun use are employed.
Sometimes we just have to say 'no compromises', we just don't need certain things in our civil society.
Kate, I respect your intelligence so am surprised you are buying into this.
New Zealand has a higher violent death rate than the USA in the 15-25 year old age range. Our tragedy is suicide. The number given is 11 per hundred thousand for all age groups, and 17.6 for this age group.
Christchurch thus represents 10% or so of the figure for all age groups, and probably 5% of the overall figure across all causes. In ten years it will be a margin of error.
While you are in legislative mode, how do you propose to legislate to reduce these statistics?
What do you mean "buying into"? The implication being that my opinion is ill-informed by some 'Other' (and in this case I assume that 'Other' to you is a government who wants to make our society safer)?
For you to attempt to divert attention from how this tragedy was carried out by implying another tragedy is somehow more tragic is a very poor (and immoral to my mind) tactic.
I'm for reducing all tragedy. Aren't you?
I am saying that proposing gun control is a copout by government as a solution. I am saying the shooting isn't the tragedy, it is how we got there that is. Availability of an instrument of destruction is right at the tail end of the chain of factors leading to this but is a politically expedient action.
Follow your own reasoning. If you believe it is governments place to make us safe, then by definition it is government that allowed it to become unsafe in the first place.
On a bit of a tangent you can draw a parallel perhaps with micro chipping dogs in that you only find out that they are biters after they have bitten, ie, after the damage has been done. Certain dog breeds have therefore been banned in quite a few countries. But on the issue here, am I correct that the weapons were purchased virtually by mail order? Obviously stating the obvious, the checks and balances that are meant to safeguard the use of fire arms have in this case been easily defeated. It grieves me to remark, as it is futile and of no comfort for victims, but if this ease of acquirement had not existed, would I ever had to write this.
But on the issue here, am I correct that the weapons were purchased virtually by mail order?
The Gun City owner sold the mass murderer 4 guns all via mail order. But the owner said the guns used that he had seen pictures of were not sold to the mass murderer by Gun City.
I'm not sure exactly what he meant by this - did he mean that the modifications made (i.e., the accessories used) to the guns he sold to the mass murderer were not sold by Gun City? Or did he mean that the guns sold to the mass murderer where not in any part made up of guns sold in those four mail order Gun City sales?
If the former, that would have been a bit disingenuous an explanation on his part.
The point is here is that the nutjob passed police checks and was given a licence. At this point the seller trusted the Govn organisation had done its job (and recently) and done it properly. This seems to have been hugely overlooked by the media and the public and instead the media seems to be racking up a feeding frenzie pointed at gun owners to get air time.
To be clear this is primarily a significant failure of the police and Govn system. This does not make gun owners squeeky clean, by any means. I myself have been going at them for some years to get simple and easy improvements done that would have made a tighter system with little impact on gun owners but that was vehemently opposed. So to a certain extend they/we only have ourselves to blame. On the other side of course is the wish for many in the Green party (as an example) to ban all and every gun from NZ and no ifs. nor buts.
Anyway, lets say we ban SLRs. If the vetting systems is not also fixed/improved the next nutjob will be using shotguns and/or lever actions (which are very quick to re-chamber, cheap and lethal).
“to be clear this is primarily a significant failure of the police and Govern system” I think Steven that is the point I was getting to and regret that you may have misinterpreted my comment. We are taught as children about things that present danger and good parents try as hard as they can to keep such things out of reach. The best way to remove temptation is to remove opportunity. To my mind, it was just too easy for this murderous individual to get hold of the tools of his trade.
The safeguard is that the Police who are meant to be competant vet and issue a licence. By your argument we shouldnt trust anyone with a car licence, pliots licence or medical degree. Further with these last 3 we see mistakes and failures do happen but we dont seem to sink into mass hysteria over it.
It was a pefectly reasonable observation as to what is motivating these people. If the motivation is not acknowledged or dealt with, how do you expect to tackle it?
The curent outcry by most of NZ is hypocrisy in the extreme. Just compare this outcry with the detailed investigation of Nick Hagar in his book Hit and Run which documented NZ soldiers massarre of innocent Muslim parents and children. Boy did I get rubbished on this siite when I sugested it a worth while read. We have been conditioned us to think it's all okay....so long as all the shooting is not in our our yard.
No David if you look at the first sentence I am saying that making this an issue of gun control is diverting attention away from real issues that are the cause of violent death (in general). I am saying that it is a tragedy we don't talk about these issues, but get all hot under the collar at a single event that is dwarfed by the suicide numbers each year. It is the sort of control of the narrative I believe the madman was, at least in part, protesting about.
If you search your comments archives you will see me here on record as predicting ethnic violence. Actually I am just predicting violence, eithic just because stupid people are easy to incite. I don't see any talk in any media that will lead me to change my prediction, we will face a gradual increase in violence. That in the face of recent downtrends on a per capita basis, probably for demographic reasons.
Yes the limit is 7 for a centre fire cartridge SLR. For any manual action however there is no limit to magazine size.
No, a bigger magazine wont fit any SLR, they are specific to the SLR type. So a 30 round magazine for one SLR wont fit a different type and some types cant be extended this way at all.
Your comments on a rabbit board show how clueless you are on that subject. Many farmers cull themselves or invite ppl around to help as it costs almost nothing compared to employing a professional.
The definition of a "civil society" varies with the individual. Here in NZ sports shooting and hunting is one of the oldest past times ppl enjoy.
I've often heard the AR-15 type rifle referred to as a 'Lego for Adults' in the US. You know what that means, I know what that means - and we both know anyone with a bit of mechanical nous and the will to do it, can alter these extremely commonly sold rifles to make them mass killing, rapid fire weapons.
If I am wrong, then I'm really interested to know that these rifles commonly sold in NZ are not able to be modified and that the accessories/ability to enable their illegal use are not able to be purchased locally either.
I am sorry but from these sentences you clearly do not understand. You seem to be taking on board what the media says as gospel and frankly they are clueless and are scaremongering.
No "lego" does not mean what you think it means.
"ability to enable their illegal use" huh? just about anything can be used to kill someone. Your bare hands, a hammer or even a pillow you dont need to modify them to achieve this but its still illegal.
"purchased locally" that isnt a simple topic.
You seem to be taking on board what the media says as gospel
Nope, most of my impressions/understandings come from relatives I know in the US who have these AR-15 type guns. One did five years in prison for having a lego configuration in an assembled state at his home. All the parts were purchased legally, and you could possess all those parts and have them stored in the same house (and that would be legal), but you just couldn't legally put them together.
Yes, ability to enable their illegal use - see my point above, that's the meaning. And when was the last time you read about a mass pillow murderer? Don't be facetious, it is insulting.
No purchased locally is not difficult in my understanding. Do tell, I'm interested in the complexity issue that you raise.
Kate what are the biological means for keeping rabbit populations down that are more effective? The ones used in Otago so far, have had only limited success. If there was a biological control that was successful why hasn't/isn't it being used?
Read this link for an understanding of rabbit history in NZ since the 1800's to modern day, controls, govt controls, biological controls used etc. https://teara.govt.nz/en/rabbits/page-1
Yes, that is my understanding and the particularly relevant aspects being that;
But after a series of dry seasons rabbit numbers began to grow, and, in the user-pays environment, farmers faced expensive poisoning programmes to try to reduce numbers.
and with biological control;
At first the disease was very effective in reducing rabbit numbers in most parts of the country. Vegetation recovered well, especially in the semi-arid areas of the Mackenzie basin and Central Otago. However, in 2007, rabbits were showing signs of becoming immune to RHD, and some farmers had to resort to poisoning. It is clear that in drier areas where rabbits thrive, the battle is far from over.
My point above was that further R&D is needed to work on new biological control methods. If we were spending the same amount of R&D money, time and effort on that as we are on trying to reduce methane emissions from cows, we might have solved our rabbit problem by now.
Ah Kate - you said but we have biological means to keep populations down that are much more effective anyway. We actually don't at present so it isn't an option currently. Biological controls also need to take in to consideration that domestic rabbits (pets) need to be kept from harm.
Methane emissions are a product on every farm and across all sectors. Rabbits on the other hand are a serious issue for only certain regions, with climatic changes affecting their numbers. Also as far as I'm aware we haven't signed up to an international agreement to reduce rabbits - now that would bring in the funding. ;-)
Sorry, it was the below post where I mentioned the need for greater R&D. And yes, I'd say rabbits are a bigger problem, in the sense that they are harder to deal with than methane emissions (i.e., we can easily choose to have fewer ruminants, but not fewer rabbits). And where rabbits are a serious problem I assume they compete with our livestock for nourishment, so wouldn't getting on top of the problem, reduce costs and improve output/productivity as well? And maybe then we wouldn't need such intensification to make a decent living?
Sometimes you have to sacrifice personal convenience for the greater good. If semi-automatic is needed for pest control on farms, I'd far rather we re-introduce government funded rabbit boards or the like, and employ professionals who are specifically licensed and armed with these weapons for that particular use. We also have the opportunity with greater R&D focus to make better use of biological pest control methods.
Rabbit boards? What?
Along with some horse farriers for the stagecoaches too?
Look I now spend my entire life doing ecological restoration which is: 1) Planting native plants, 2) Weeding around native plants and 3) Pest control.
And it's the latter which is the most important IMHO. As a small part of this I shoot hares and rabbits on my parents farm. And I can tell you a semi automatic is a necessity. Yes you can theoretically do it with a single shot bolt action or what have you but it would be far less effective and far more time consuming.
Alternatives to using semi-automatic weapons:
1) Baits and traps
2) Social event, get together with other locals and make a Friday evening regular event where every friday you turn up at one of the groups place with your bolt action rifles and you spend a few hours as a group clearing a field/area of Bugs Bunny and co, then go have a social BBQ.
We had a farm - we had rabbits - we had possums - we know what your problems are. My son worked professionally in possum monitoring/control - very dangerous work, but very well paid work - so what's wrong with professionals in rabbit control? It's a great profession for those who like hard work outdoors. That same son is now employed by a regional council in much the same work as you are doing, because that's what he likes doing - hard work in the outdoors. There should be far more paid opportunities for people who want to do this type of conservation-type work. That NZ has come to principally relying on volunteers is ridiculous.
My husband is an accomplished hunter/shot. He did our rabbit control on the farm more than 'theoretically' with an 11 shot pump action rifle. Yes, maybe it is more time consuming, but believe me, with practice, you will get better :-).
I do agree about there needing to be more paid work as you described. Yes it is all volunteers. Councils just don't have the money any more. Well, actually they do, but they spend it on crap, but that's another discussion.
Regarding the guns, I thought we were talking about limiting dangerous weapons?
Are you saying an 11 shot pump action shot gun is more safe than a 11 shot semi-automatic .22? You can't be serious.
No, it was a pump action .22 for starters that we used, but what I'm saying is the 11 shot pump action .22 can't be easily accessorised/modified to take a larger magazine - and certainly could not have done the type of rapid fire mass carnage these AR-15 type rifles have wrought;
AR-15s or similar rifles were the primary weapons used in around half of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern American history, including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting, the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.
Add to that Port Arthur and now Christchurch.
Or am I wrong?
Rabbit boards will never happen, the government doesn't have the money. Likewise with the last virus release that has been ineffective. The best solution has and always will be sustained control with firearms. If people haven't seen the amount of rabbits running around like we have down here then they never really appreciate the need for semi auto firearms. Same with trying to control wallibies, goats and geese.
This has been a terrible tragedy. From a personal point of view, it's hard but understandable seeing the reaction towards firearms. Especially hard as he was a foreigner that deliberately based his actions on the reaction here and in the US he'd hope to get regarding firearms. And he's getting it.
I'm also a member of the rifle range in Otago that has been brought up. I can see first hand the misconstrued perceptions that are out there. Again perceptions are everything so can understand the reaction but it's unfortunate to see all the same. I don't like admitting I'm a member there incase of any unwarranted stigmatism that will follow.
There are changes that will follow, that's undeniable. I just hope they put as much effort, if not more, into trying to address the core fundamental issues that have culminated in this awful day.
Rabbit boards will never happen, the government doesn't have the money.
It all comes down to taxation and priorities. In the greater scheme of government expenditure, the cost would be small and the benefits significant. Far easier than planting a billion trees. No reason really that both should not be done.
What's the problem folk here have with Rabbit boards. They were cheap and effective. Now instead we have Regional councils. So rabbit control is managed' by graduates with statements of intent, mission statements and all the modern plague of form over function. The Otago Regional Councils main focus is building itself an Ivory tower in central Dunedin. They say $ 30mil but it will be $60mil.
Local boards with a couple of employees would run rings around that lot, at a afraction of the cost.
Part history of rabbit boards The changes brought in by the 1947 Act, along with aerial poisoning and 1080 poison, were highly successful in controlling rabbits from the 1950s to the 1970s. But despite the drop in numbers, the cost of control remained high. In 1980 the government changed its funding from a dollar-for-dollar subsidy to a lump sum payment, to be reviewed annually. Then in 1984 a ‘user pays’ policy was adopted, and the government’s contribution was progressively withdrawn.
The administration of rabbit control was completely restructured in 1989. The newly formed regional councils took over the role of the Agricultural Pest Destruction Council (which had replaced the Rabbit Destruction Council in 1967) and rabbit boards were disbanded. Coincidentally, at the very time that funding for rabbit control declined and its administration changed, a long drought in Marlborough, Canterbury, and North and Central Otago led to an explosion in rabbit numbers. https://teara.govt.nz/en/rabbits/page-7
I saw this argument the other day elsewhere, and as phrased it sounded reasonable (.22LR not powerful enough to do real damage to a person etc.)
Then I did some research.. Wendy Campbell & Natanya Campbell would probably object. As would several of the Aramoana victims, who were shot and killed with .22 semi-autos.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11938457
We also need to increase the penalties for blatantly side-stepping the relevant regulations:
"Michael John Hayes has been sentenced to 12 months home detention after supplying guns to double murderer Quinn Patterson.
Hayes had pleaded guilty to three charges of unlawful possession of a military style semi-automatic, three charges of unlawfully supplying a military style semi-automatic to a person who does not hold a permit and three charges of supplying a firearm to an unlicensed person. "
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/07/michael-hayes-senten…
I have read extensively on the history of deer culling in New Zealand. It is said that the very best shots in the profession achieved a kill rate of 2 deer for every three rounds.
The most successful deer hunter I know, and an extraordinary shot given his years of possum hunting for skins as a teen, uses a semi auto as half of his deer come from the follow up shot.
Turning this tragedy into a discussion about gun control is just doubling down on the tragedy.
Thing is Scarfie, if half of his deer come from the second shot, what real loss is there that he missed the deer on the first one? Before semis were made legal in NZ, the hunter simply carried on tracking. My husband was a rep for a firearms wholesaler back in the 70s (when semi-automatics were illegal) and like your friend is an extremely good shot. As a hunter, he wouldn't consider carrying a semi automatic, as in his opinion, that type of hunting for sport/recreation is not fair game on the animal. But then as a fisher as well, he was never into setting nets either.
I don't know that semi autos were illegal at any time, just generally unavailable. Professional hunters switched to them as the became available as they were more effective. Davo36 provides a relevant answer to you also.
In one account by author Phillip Holden he outlines a circumstance when he was at the top of his game as a culler. He downed 12 or 13 deer with a bolt action, most of a small herd, on top of the Kaweka. A lot of those shots on running deer. All a semi auto does is enable a less competent madman, it won't stop carnage from someone motivated enough.
All a semi auto does is enable a less competent madman
Language is important, scarfie. One thing you got right is the use of the word "enable" because the semi-automatic weapon enables a higher rate of killing per second of madness. But, the use of the word "competent" is completely wrong (and to my mind offensive) in this context. No "madman" can be called "competent".
There are different capabilities amongst madmen. On one end is the shoe bomber. On another end is the unabomber. One was clearly incompetent. One was able to evade the police for an extremely long time despite the largest ever FBI effort to apprehend the suspect. For both, their end goal was execrable. I'd put forward that one of these individuals was incompetent. Both were well outside of accepted mores. Being a madman does not mean a lack of intelligence, just a lack of empathy, caring for humanity, etc. For a very few, the ends justify the means, regardless of whatever the means entails. This is how they obtain the "madman" designation. It doesn't mean that they are incapable of figuring out how to do something (usual meaning of incompetent).
I am 99.9% sure you are incorrect. ie SLRs were never illegal, got a URL on that please? Really during the 60s and 70s and even into the 80s in NZ there were so many very cheap Enfields still about shooting cheap ex-milsurp ammo that buying much else made no sense even if a SLR was available.
In terms of "fair game" that is totally wrong and frankly, mind boggling. The thing is when hunting is to get a quick and as pain free as possible kill. If for some reason you fail to do this on the first shot a SLR allows a very quick second follow up shot to finish the job.
The huge dis-advantage of the SLR for hunting is its very noisy to chamber thus the weapon has to be kept loaded which is considered less safe for trecking. The Arms code freely available from most police stations front desk lays this out and advises against it.
In terms of a "fish net" approach culling goats and rabbits is simply about quick and accurate as you only have a limited time to clear the field.
There is a bigger picture than just the gun laws here, which are symptomatic of a wider Governance issue.
This reactive rather than proactive leadership from Govt/s is what indirectly leads to this type of tragedy.
All non gun owners and most gun owners agree that there is no practical need for these military style weapons, and successive Govts have had ample opportunity to make change.
But according to them they can not act until a trigger point (pun intended) is reached, ie not until a certain number of people are killed. At least now we know what that number is. 50.
Every policy decision has its magic number. This same logic applies with dangerous stretches of road, and the underlying principal follows onto youth suicide (which apparently not enough have died yet for us to really do anything about) and so on in principal down the line to even our response to housing etc.
Since each area of concern with have its own number which will cause the Govt to make the correct response, the first question to ask the Politicians, is what is that number? How many youth have to commit suicide before we do something, how many people have to need emergency housing etc.
Once we know that number then the solution is either one of two. We either continue with the status quo until that number id reached, or we become proactive to make sure that number is never reached.
The sad thing is, that this mad man did know the number needed to galvanize action based on the present system.
Remembering the wrong action, can be just if not more harmful than the wrong inaction.
There is method in his madness, and from what I can see, many are responding to exactly has he has planned, and thus are just useful idiots to his cause. And I'm not meaning people that are ideologically the same as him.
If there is any good that is to come of this Tragedy, beyond the feelings (which as emotions do - change), then it has to go far beyond a change of gun laws.
This event imo has be a one off(hopefully)carried out by a nutter.
Yes their should be changes and i would have thought that an immediate ban on all sales of weapons until an inquiry was held may have been a good start,if that was possible.
Of more concern to me is these child assaults/deaths,friday and Saturdy night violence fuelled by booze,domestic violence every day of the week the list goes on.
NZ is a violent place.Things need to change.
Sad to say a 2 off since it was a copy of the Norwegian massacre. For every 100 million who are horrified by this act there may be one who will be inspired [I pray I am wrong].
When we do a bad deed (take the last biscuit instead of offering it to others we feel a tiny twinge of guilt). The tragedy is the individual who did this will have been thinking himself truly righteous even as he shot toddlers.
Aramoana murders (13 killed), was possibly the last time gun control was seriously discussed.The massacre sparked lengthy debate about gun control in New Zealand. The incident directly resulted in a 1992 amendment to New Zealand’s firearms regulations on military-style semi-automatic firearms. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/david-gray-kills-13-aramoana
The only time a semi auto was useful was on a couple of dogs tearing up my sheep. Can do it with a lever action or pump. Happy to get rid of the semi auto to make NZ a safer place, I feel guilty just owning one now. That just leaves the dangerous weapons in the hands of the nutters, gangs and police.
Weapons of mass human destruction ought to be only in the hands of those trained to protect us , the armed services , and the police ....
.... why on God's green earth did we not follow the Aussies in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre , and get semi-automatic guns out of the hands of the general public ....
A real hunter needs just one , at the most two , shots to kill an animal .... he doesn't spray it with 100 bullets ...
Here's some food for thought:
Australia's gun licencing system.
http://time.com/4172274/what-its-like-to-own-guns-in-a-country-with-str…
And for a humorous view (but logical) see youtube - Jim Jefferies - gun control (in Aussie)
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.