Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-06-2019, 10:23 AM
Mangosteen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Namche Bazaar
Posts: 2,542

What should New Zealand do about their non compliant gun owners?


So far less than 10% of the estimates 175,000 assault rifles have been turned in to authorizes.

Some people are complaining that only law abiding citizens have turned in their weapons and not one gang member, criminal or drug dealer has shown up at the buyback centers.

What should be done?

https://apnews.com/40ae0a9a0f0b4a7e8...6LOGbZSvoHHdEE
__________________
Its only funny until someone gets hurt, then its fuckin' hilarious!
  #2  
Old 09-06-2019, 10:35 AM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangosteen View Post
Some people are complaining that only law abiding citizens have turned in their weapons and not one gang member, criminal or drug dealer has shown up at the buyback centers.
Of course. Unavoidable bug, but also unsurprising, and a red herring as far as measuring the success/failure of a program like this.

IOW, the fact that drug dealers and gang members aren't turning in their guns is not a problem to be addressed directly by a program like this.
  #3  
Old 09-06-2019, 10:38 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangosteen View Post
not one gang member, criminal or drug dealer has shown up at the buyback centers.

What should be done?
Intensify enforcement of laws against gangs, crime, and drug dealing. The rest follows.
  #4  
Old 09-06-2019, 10:50 AM
Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,501
Not much. Fine and jail their owners when the guns inevitably turn up in someone's possession. Some will trickle in as their owners die and their heirs turn them in.

It is unsurprising that some people haven't turned their guns in. The question is whether the benefit of the ban in reducing gun violence outweighs its cost. Banning the guns could have lots of violence-reducing benefits even if the number of guns turned in is minuscule:
* You can readily identify the assault weapon owner as a criminal. You don't need to give him the benefit of the doubt anymore, so you can identify criminals more easily.
* The guns will circulate less, which means fewer of them will find themselves in the hands of people who intend to use them for illegal purposes.
* The supply of new assault weapons is extremely limited, so again, fewer will find themselves in the hands of criminals.
* When owners are so scared that they hide the guns away rather than keeping them accessible, owners may be less likely to misuse them.
  #5  
Old 09-06-2019, 10:56 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,935
How do the naysayers know that no gang members have turned in guns? Do they have to sign an affidavit swearing they are not gang members when they turn in a gun?
  #6  
Old 09-06-2019, 04:29 PM
MacTech is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 6,463
1; strike down the stupid and useless "assault weapon" ban, guns are inanimate objects, dangerous tools that must be used with respect, but the gun itself is not "bad", it's the person behind the trigger

2; STRICTLY enforce existing anti-crime laws, go after the *CRIMINAL* not the law abiding NZ'ers that just happen to own a politically unlikable bit of machinery

3; Return the federally stolen firearms to their existing owners, if that is not possible, due to the firearm being destroyed or otherwise "lost", reimburse the person who's property was STOLEN from them for at least 200% of the actual retail value, this will act as a financial penalty on the government to prevent them from trying it again

4; draft an equivalent of the American Second Amendment to be added to NZ's equivalent of the Constitution.

guns are not the problem, guns are inanimate objects, deter malicious behavior by the persons involved in firearm violence, and strictly prosecute criminals to the fullest extent of the law, committing a crime is a *Voluntary* act.
__________________
Freakazoid> dumb, Dumb, DUMB!, NEVER tell the villain how to trap you in a cage!
Gutierrez> You probably shouldn't have helped us build it either...
F!> I know, DUMB!
  #7  
Old 09-06-2019, 04:47 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTech View Post
1; strike down the stupid and useless "assault weapon" ban, guns are inanimate objects, dangerous tools that must be used with respect, but the gun itself is not "bad", it's the person behind the trigger
Tell you what, they can split the difference. From some people they'll take away and lock up the guns, and for the ones who don't want to go along with that they can lock up the people behind the triggers. By your own statements that's the only way to keep the danger under control.
  #8  
Old 09-06-2019, 07:19 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTech View Post
1; strike down the stupid and useless "assault weapon" ban, guns are inanimate objects, dangerous tools that must be used with respect, but the gun itself is not "bad", it's the person behind the trigger

2; STRICTLY enforce existing anti-crime laws, go after the *CRIMINAL* not the law abiding NZ'ers that just happen to own a politically unlikable bit of machinery

3; Return the federally stolen firearms to their existing owners, if that is not possible, due to the firearm being destroyed or otherwise "lost", reimburse the person who's property was STOLEN from them for at least 200% of the actual retail value, this will act as a financial penalty on the government to prevent them from trying it again

4; draft an equivalent of the American Second Amendment to be added to NZ's equivalent of the Constitution.

guns are not the problem, guns are inanimate objects, deter malicious behavior by the persons involved in firearm violence, and strictly prosecute criminals to the fullest extent of the law, committing a crime is a *Voluntary* act.
...let me add number 5 to this list:

5: None of the above.

The New Zealand equivalent to the Constitution is the Treaty of Waitangi. And the suggestion that we amend the Treaty by adding gun-laws is one of the most absurd, inane, colonialist ideas I think I've ever heard on these boards.

There are no cites in the AP article for the estimates of 10%. There is a lot of intentional disinformation out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangosteen View Post
Some people are complaining that only law abiding citizens have turned in their weapons and not one gang member, criminal or drug dealer has shown up at the buyback centers.
This assertion isn't backed up by your cite. And if you think about how could you possibly prove this? What does a drug-dealer look like, and how would you know if they did or they didn't show up at a buyback centre? Do you have to sign a form to indicate "I am a criminal?" Gang members don't look like just everyone else?

What should be done you ask? We should just keep on doing what we are doing.
  #9  
Old 09-06-2019, 10:27 PM
penultima thule is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...let me add number 5 to this list:
5: None of the above.
+1

Indeed add ...
6: Repeat clause #5
  #10  
Old 09-07-2019, 06:12 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTech View Post
guns are inanimate objects, dangerous tools that must be used with respect, .
Guns are toys for a lot of people. If you like to plink at targets and that's all, then guns are toys for you.
  #11  
Old 09-06-2019, 04:35 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,730
You mean the *CRIMINAL* like the one who's not following the law requiring them to turn in their guns?

And sure, reimburse people who had their property stolen from them. That's always a good idea. I'm not sure what it has to do with the current situation, though.
  #12  
Old 09-06-2019, 04:58 PM
MacTech is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 6,463
As I've stated upthread, it's not the inanimate object in question that's the problem, guns are simply tools that must be respected, just like any other dangerous tool.

it is the intent of the person behind the trigger that determines the end result of how that tool is used.

Gun owners statistically are *NOT* the problem, as most know and respect the responsibility that goes with gun ownership, the AW ban is bad law, it penalizes otherwise law abiding citizens simply because they happen to posses a piece of metal that the current political climate has decided is "bad"

before the AW ban, these firearms were legal, a simple stroke of a pen changed their status to "illegal" just because some ill informed political scumbags/idiots didn't like them.

I admit i'm biased, being an American who has spent his whole life around firearms, has lived in a rural environment where self-sufficiency is a given, and has had the importance of safety and responsibility as a responsible firearms owner ingrained into him ever since he could pick up a BB gun.

In fact, as i'm typing this, I happen to have two semiautomatic 9mm handguns right next to me, and an M4-pattern AR-15 with 30 round magazine and all the "evil features" (flash hider, bayonet mount, pistol grip, collapsible stock....."shoulder thing that goes up" ) leaning against the bed, and not a single *ONE* of them has jumped up on it's own and gone on a killing spree....

.according to the political slimebuckets, they all must clearly be defective....

the cultural divide (for me) between the anti-gun crowd and law abiding gun owners (no matter the country of origin) is basically insurmountable, neither side will ever understand the other, but law abiding citizens should not be penalized because of the behavior of criminals.
__________________
Freakazoid> dumb, Dumb, DUMB!, NEVER tell the villain how to trap you in a cage!
Gutierrez> You probably shouldn't have helped us build it either...
F!> I know, DUMB!
  #13  
Old 09-06-2019, 05:07 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTech View Post
In fact, as i'm typing this, I happen to have two semiautomatic 9mm handguns right next to me, and an M4-pattern AR-15 with 30 round magazine and all the "evil features" (flash hider, bayonet mount, pistol grip, collapsible stock....."shoulder thing that goes up" ) leaning against the bed, and not a single *ONE* of them has jumped up on it's own and gone on a killing spree....
I do hope you understand the situation better than this sentence would imply.
  #14  
Old 09-06-2019, 05:14 PM
MacTech is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 6,463
I hope you understand sarcasm...

the anti gun crowd seems fixated on the fact that it's the firearm itself that's "bad", not understanding that if firearms are banned, the criminals will move on to another weapon in it's place...

Knives? BAN KNIVES (looking at you, Great Britan!)
Blunt objects/striking tools? BAN THEM!
heavy pint glasses? BAN THEM! (again, GB was considering this for some illogical reason...)
Fresh Fruit!? RELEASE THE TIGER! (thanks Monty Python, now we have to ban Assault Tigers!)



Pointed Sticks!?!?!..... (Sounds of panic!)

banning the gun only affects the law abiding citizens that own them.
__________________
Freakazoid> dumb, Dumb, DUMB!, NEVER tell the villain how to trap you in a cage!
Gutierrez> You probably shouldn't have helped us build it either...
F!> I know, DUMB!
  #15  
Old 09-06-2019, 05:28 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTech View Post
I hope you understand sarcasm...

the anti gun crowd seems fixated on the fact that it's the firearm itself that's "bad", not understanding that if firearms are banned, the criminals will move on to another weapon in it's place...

Knives? BAN KNIVES (looking at you, Great Britan!)
Blunt objects/striking tools? BAN THEM!
heavy pint glasses? BAN THEM! (again, GB was considering this for some illogical reason...)
Fresh Fruit!? RELEASE THE TIGER! (thanks Monty Python, now we have to ban Assault Tigers!)



Pointed Sticks!?!?!..... (Sounds of panic!)

banning the gun only affects the law abiding citizens that own them.
You are confused about what the anti-firearm crowd is fixated on. In actual fact the anti-firearm crown is fixated on results.

The operating theory of the anti-firearm crowd is that a world where you're allowed to own all that garbage you mentioned is a worse world than one where you aren't. In more detail, they're weighing the perceived benefits of you, criminals, and mass shooters having guns against the perceived downsides of you, criminals, and mass shooters having guns, and they find the benefits wanting.

Seriously, it doesn't matter whether your guns are evil or not. All that matters is the widespread consequences of the rules that are allowing you to own them.
  #16  
Old 09-11-2019, 03:53 AM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 404
(Mac Tech)

NRA nutjob unleashing all the usual cliches.

I'm puzzled. There are only about 4 million Kiwis. Howcum there are 175,000 assault rifles out there?

Last edited by Brayne Ded; 09-11-2019 at 03:53 AM.
  #17  
Old 09-07-2019, 12:57 AM
PatrickLondon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTech View Post
it's not the inanimate object in question that's the problem, guns are simply tools that must be respected, just like any other dangerous tool.

it is the intent of the person behind the trigger that determines the end result of how that tool is used.
You miss the point that the inherent capabilities (the connection between ease of use and lethality) of guns mean that "respecting" them requires close regulation of their ownership and owners, no less than with cars and many types of heavy machinery (indeed more, since guns have no function other than to kill).

You also appear to be under the misapprehension that New Zealand has the same Constitution and sociopolitical priorities as the USA.
  #18  
Old 09-07-2019, 01:09 AM
galen ubal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
You miss the point that the inherent capabilities (the connection between ease of use and lethality) of guns mean that "respecting" them requires close regulation of their ownership and owners, no less than with cars and many types of heavy machinery (indeed more, since guns have no function other than to kill).

You also appear to be under the misapprehension that New Zealand has the same Constitution and sociopolitical priorities as the USA.
Bear in mind, MacTech and his fellow gun....enthusiasts are terrified by New Zealand's restrictions.
Not because they care who lives or dies in NZ, mind you. It's just that when it's shown, once again, that reducing the number of, and restricting the access to guns will reduce the rates of gun deaths, the various arguments against such measures as a method of reducing gun deaths will be shown to be hollow shams. Again.

Last edited by galen ubal; 09-07-2019 at 01:09 AM.
  #19  
Old 09-09-2019, 07:25 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTech View Post
law abiding citizens should not be penalized because of the behavior of criminals.
Agreed, I think my law abiding child should not be penalized by having his education paused to practice how to hide during a mass shooting.

Oh, are you under the impression that gun owners are the only law abiding people harmed by society's reaction to criminals with guns?

How adorable.
  #20  
Old 09-06-2019, 04:46 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,570
I think it gets rid of those guns who's owners really don't care to have (as they sold them). As such it keeps those guns off the market as easy sales.
  #21  
Old 09-06-2019, 04:54 PM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 5,528
News reports tell me that people have until December 20 to hand in their now-banned firearms. So, yeah, colour me surprised that the majority of owners haven't gotten around to it yet - there's a full three months till the deadline. I'd expect the same sort of pattern as with every situation where a deadline exists - lots of farting around at the start, then a sudden rush to comply in the last couple of weeks or so. How many people wait till the last week each year to do their taxes?

Wait till the buyback period actually closes - then we can start analysing if it's been a success or not
__________________
Science created the modern world. Politics is doing its best to destroy it.
  #22  
Old 09-06-2019, 05:47 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus is offline
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 51,515
Non-compliance is easy. Just slap a "Holy Shit!" penalty for possession after the cut-off date and enforce it ruthlessly. Anybody seen with a forbidden weapon is ipso facto a violent felon and is to be dealt with appropriately. That will drive any of the remaining weapons so far underground that their existence can be safely put on the back burner. Wait a generation and they are all gone.
  #23  
Old 09-06-2019, 06:28 PM
River Hippie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: N.E. Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,423
Don't ask for a cite but I read online somewhere that the NZ government was lowballing the amount per gun. This article says 95% of market value.
  #24  
Old 09-06-2019, 10:59 PM
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 15,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by River Hippie View Post
Don't ask for a cite but I read online somewhere that the NZ government was lowballing the amount per gun. This article says 95% of market value.
I believe ----------- from what I read basically 90%+ of full market retail for a used gun. And considering that on a resale you rarely get full retail I believe its pretty fair.

Also useless but that's another story.
  #25  
Old 09-07-2019, 07:10 AM
Crafter_Man's Avatar
Crafter_Man is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,380
Less than 10% have been turned in? I am genuinely proud of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
You mean the *CRIMINAL* like the one who's not following the law requiring them to turn in their guns?
Reminds me of (the criminal) Rosa Parks. How dare she not move to another seat. It's the law, dammit. Lock her up!

Quote:
Originally Posted by silenus View Post
Anybody seen with a forbidden weapon is ipso facto a violent felon and is to be dealt with appropriately.
Gun control enforced at gunpoint. Ah, the irony...

Last edited by Crafter_Man; 09-07-2019 at 07:11 AM.
  #26  
Old 09-07-2019, 07:47 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man View Post
Gun control enforced at gunpoint. Ah, the irony...
That's what gundamentalists fantasize about, but in reality it is more effective to coerce compliance with financial penalties. If you don't turn in your gun, you get fined. If you don't pay the fine, the government gets a judgement against your paycheck, your bank accounts and your house. No violence on the part of the government; comply, or go broke.
  #27  
Old 09-07-2019, 08:25 AM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man View Post
Gun control enforced at gunpoint. Ah, the irony...
You can imagine my shock when I discovered that the police enforce the peace... through acts/threats of violence!

It's a crazy, mixed-up world.

Last edited by orcenio; 09-07-2019 at 08:26 AM.
  #28  
Old 09-07-2019, 09:23 AM
PatrickLondon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man View Post
Gun control enforced at gunpoint. Ah, the irony...
Doesn't happen in UK. I can't speak for New Zealand, but the only times armed police are called out in the UK is when there's good evidence for believing weapons will actually be used.
  #29  
Old 09-07-2019, 10:38 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man View Post
Reminds me of (the criminal) Rosa Parks. How dare she not move to another seat. It's the law, dammit. Lock her up!
Well duh, challenging the unjust law (actually a city ordinance) by getting her locked up was the whole point of her act of protest:
Quote:
[Bus driver] Blake said, "Why don't you stand up?" Parks responded, "I don't think I should have to stand up." Blake called the police to arrest Parks. [...] Parks said, "When he saw me still sitting, he asked if I was going to stand up, and I said, 'No, I'm not.' And he said, 'Well, if you don't stand up, I'm going to have to call the police and have you arrested.' I said, 'You may do that.'"
If owners of guns that are now illegal to possess in NZ want to use similar civil-disobedience tactics to Rosa Parks and go to jail for not giving up their illegal guns, they're free to do that. And if they want to use their plight as a rallying point to try to mobilize popular opposition to the new ban, they're free to do that too.

And they will doubtless fall ludicrously flat on their kissers because most of the NZ population supports the ban.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man
Gun control enforced at gunpoint. Ah, the irony...
What's "ironic" about it? Nobody that I know of is suggesting that law enforcement officers dealing with armed criminals (such as people refusing to turn in illegal guns) shouldn't be armed themselves.
  #30  
Old 09-06-2019, 08:32 PM
Melbourne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,268
I'm seeing a suggestion that 'illegal' guns aren't eligible for buy-back. Just curious: not interested in the debate. Does anyone know if it is true? And if true, what it means? Does NZ have /any/ gun registration?

In vic.aus, registration was already in place. Buyback was accompanied by amnesty. I can't remember if you could get both amnesty and compensation.
  #31  
Old 09-07-2019, 09:25 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
I'm seeing a suggestion that 'illegal' guns aren't eligible for buy-back. Just curious: not interested in the debate. Does anyone know if it is true? And if true, what it means? Does NZ have /any/ gun registration?

In vic.aus, registration was already in place. Buyback was accompanied by amnesty. I can't remember if you could get both amnesty and compensation.
If true this is a terrible policy approach. The whole point of the buyback should be to get illegal guns. Those guns are likelier to be used for crimes than legal guns.
  #32  
Old 09-07-2019, 09:29 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If true this is a terrible policy approach. The whole point of the buyback should be to get illegal guns. Those guns are likelier to be used for crimes than legal guns.
...LOL.
  #33  
Old 09-11-2019, 04:00 AM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If true this is a terrible policy approach. The whole point of the buyback should be to get illegal guns. Those guns are likelier to be used for crimes than legal guns.
A point made elsewhere is that many of the guns used in crimes in the USA were stolen from legitimate owners. Firstly, restrict the type of guns that private citizens can keep at home. Assuming that you have a self-defense need, why do you need military weapons for that? Secondly, owners of military weapons must keep them either at a secure firing range or in some other secure facility, but not at home. Thirdly, require all firearms kept at home to be stored securely, with guns and ammunition separate. (This is a requirement in many countries. Is it so onerous?) Fourthly, require that all thefts of firearms are reported immediately.

None of this affects a basic right to own guns of any kind. Needless to add, have heavy penalties for the illegal possession or use of a gun. But, given the situation in the USA, it is pointless trying to impose any controls unless it is done nationwide. Libertarians can discuss that issue at their leisure.
  #34  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:01 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If true this is a terrible policy approach. The whole point of the buyback should be to get illegal guns. Those guns are likelier to be used for crimes than legal guns.
Would you expand that approach to other illegal substances, acquired by criminal means?

Can the local drug dealer walk into the cop shop with a pound of coke and ask to be paid 90% of market value?

Can the guy who stole someone's gun expect to be paid for it?

Can the guy who illegally brought prohibited full auto guns into the country get paid?

Te reason for the compensation is to acknowledge that the rules have changed and to compensate people whil legally acquired guns that they now cannot legally posses. It's a small scale expropriation of legal property and compensation is owed.

That doesn't apply to people who have illegally acquired guns.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #35  
Old 09-11-2019, 11:09 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTech View Post
Knives? BAN KNIVES (looking at you, Great Britan!)
Yes, let's look at Great Britan [sic] which has indeed implemented a ban on carrying most knives. And it was an effective one; not only is gun crime at a very low level (thanks to the gun ban, which affects both law-abiding and criminal individuals), knife crime was plummeting as well...until the Conservatives decided that they'd rather spend taxpayer money on tax cuts for rich people than police, and police officer numbers fell by 20,000. Funnily enough, crime figures across the board began to rise again, including knife crime.

If your argument is that banning lethal weapons significantly reduces homicides committed with those weapons, you're absolutely right - they work as long as you have reasonable resources to enforce them. However, if you are looking at the situation in the UK and assuming that this means there should be more guns, you really don't understand the situation in the UK at all.

BTW, the UK also now requires OTC medications including aspirin to be sold in small foil packs rather than large bottles. Why? Because people were trying to commit suicide on the spur of the moment by swallowing large quantities of pills. Often this resulted not in death but in liver failure, not only causing problems for the individual but putting a strain on the NHS and the transplant list. So now you can only buy packs of 16 pills, and the attempted-suicide-by-pill numbers fell drastically to the general benefit of society.

So it's interesting to note that what you posted in jest about restricting harms by restricting access to causes of harm is actually quite a sensible approach.
  #36  
Old 09-11-2019, 12:35 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,572
nm - double post
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 09-11-2019 at 12:36 PM.
  #37  
Old 09-07-2019, 11:19 PM
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 15,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
I'm seeing a suggestion that 'illegal' guns aren't eligible for buy-back. Just curious: not interested in the debate. Does anyone know if it is true? And if true, what it means? Does NZ have /any/ gun registration?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If true this is a terrible policy approach. The whole point of the buyback should be to get illegal guns. Those guns are likelier to be used for crimes than legal guns.

My read is ------- the illegal guns not eligible are those imported in violation of previous laws and I would assume those stolen from legal owners in the past. Its possible it also includes those not purchased by registered shooters/owners under the past laws. It may - and this is foggy from the details I read - include those inherited as part of estates where the person inheriting it did not do the formal paperwork of transfer. This one to me (I am not a New Zealander) is seriously gray.

It is basically a standard approach. The goal here is not to reduce the number of illegal firearms among the criminal element but to compensate those who legally owned firearms of this type before the law was put into place. In short its a offering to those who want to play by the rules even when those rules change. This isn't about fighting known crime; it is more about the chance that one of these types of firearms could be used in some future unknown crime in a manner of speaking.
  #38  
Old 09-07-2019, 01:25 AM
galen ubal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,663
Humph. Apologies for the hijack. I feel what I said is true, but it's not really germane to this thread, only to mactech's posts.
(I was about to edit to remove that bit, and then our internet crapped out, and I had to power cycle the modem.


Anyway, I'm reasonably certain laws have already been put into place to deal with the criminals who don't turn in their now-illegal weapons. Has anyone bothered to look them up?
  #39  
Old 09-07-2019, 07:50 PM
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 15,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post

Anyway, I'm reasonably certain laws have already been put into place to deal with the criminals who don't turn in their now-illegal weapons. Has anyone bothered to look them up?
https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/fi...bited-firearms

OK -- I get the tongue-in-cheek but I was curious.

With this all being a bit of a knee-jerk fast response a lot still needs sorted out but it looks like anything from a simple naughty-naughty to 10 years if you use such a firearm to resist arrest. I do like that at least from what the police have said there will be a recognized difference between gray-market firearms legally owned but never turned in and truly black market ones which have been imported or changed hands illegally.
  #40  
Old 09-09-2019, 02:18 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
Humph. Apologies for the hijack. I feel what I said is true, but it's not really germane to this thread, only to mactech's posts.
(I was about to edit to remove that bit, and then our internet crapped out, and I had to power cycle the modem.


Anyway, I'm reasonably certain laws have already been put into place to deal with the criminals who don't turn in their now-illegal weapons. Has anyone bothered to look them up?
For the most part, the change in the law is to ban semi-autos and military style weapons.

The Arms Act (as amended) http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol...t/aa198368.pdf

and the amending act http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol...paa2019496.pdf
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #41  
Old 09-07-2019, 06:40 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,730
Quote:
Quoth MacTech:

Gun owners statistically are *NOT* the problem,
What proportion of mass murders are committed by non-gun-owners? Heck, what proportion of homicides overall?

Also, you need to keep your messaging straight. Statements like
Quote:
1; strike down the stupid and useless "assault weapon" ban, guns are inanimate objects, dangerous tools that must be used with respect, but the gun itself is not "bad", it's the person behind the trigger
sure seem to imply that it's gun owners who are the problem.
  #42  
Old 09-07-2019, 07:16 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,730
Why do you assume that New Zealand's way to deal with violent felons is at gunpoint? In the civilized world, it doesn't work that way.
  #43  
Old 09-07-2019, 07:44 AM
Royal Nonesutch is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Why do you assume that New Zealand's way to deal with violent felons is at gunpoint? In the civilized world, it doesn't work that way.
???

Do the violent felons in "The Land of Cleves" typically meekly and unwaveringly comply with anyone gently exhorting them to "Put the gun down son, and come with me to the malt shoppe so we can talk about why you felt compelled to shoot up that bus full of Nuns, orphaned toddlers and puppies."?
  #44  
Old 09-07-2019, 11:50 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Nonesutch View Post
???

Do the violent felons in "The Land of Cleves" typically meekly and unwaveringly comply with anyone gently exhorting them to "Put the gun down son, and come with me to the malt shoppe so we can talk about why you felt compelled to shoot up that bus full of Nuns, orphaned toddlers and puppies."?
Actually, the US appears to be an outlier in the way their police protocols allow for the use of lethal force.

For example, a few years ago, there was an escapee from a New York prison whom a police officer encountered in a remote area. The police officer shot him as he was fleeing. I found that odd because (1) the officer had never seen the escapee in person but was just relying on a description; (2) there was no indication the individual had any weapon, so no grounds to believe imminent harm; (3) he was running away, so again, no imminent harm. Doper police officers responded to my inquiry that use of lethal force was nonetheless called for by their protocols, because of the escapee's record for violent offences. I simultaneously asked a friend of mine in Canadian law enforcement, and he agreed with me that under Canadian protocols, the use of lethal force would not be justified, particularly because of the lack of a weapon and the flight.

We also had an example a couple of summers ago where a mentally unstable guy was armed in a busy street in Toronto. The police officer who was first on the scene talked the guy down and got the gun away from him, even though in that circumstance he may have been justified in using lethal force to protect others. But instead he put his own life at risk, approaching the individual to talk and using de-escalation techniques. The officer was highly praised afterwards.

And finally, we have the example of a police officer in Toronto who was done for manslaughter after shooting a mentally unstable guy to death.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #45  
Old 09-07-2019, 12:10 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,709
I'm guessing it will be a kind of dont ask, dont tell type of thing.

Already in the US I know several people with large weapons caches with some legal and some illegal guns. These are well respected individuals that include police officers, active and retired military, respected business owners, lawyers, even college professors. To get those guns would involve lots of undercover work and getting family members and friends to turn informant.

Better to keep the current system in place so where a person with a guilty conscience can turn their guns but allow others to keep them, maintain them, practice with them, as long as they do so in a safe way.

Then actively target criminal use. For example here in the US where they tack something like 10 years in a federal prison for using a gun in committing a crime.
  #46  
Old 09-07-2019, 10:45 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Better to keep the current system in place so where a person with a guilty conscience can turn their guns but allow others to keep them, maintain them, practice with them, as long as they do so in a safe way.
Sounds like a fairly persuasive argument for broader gun bans, actually. People illegally owning guns but storing and using them prudently and safely, so they don't draw law enforcement's attention to their possession of them, won't be interfered with. People rashly waving guns around openly where they have a higher risk of doing damage will get the book thrown at them and the guns taken away. Result: gun ownership concentrated in the hands of safe and prudent people who have a strong incentive not to be careless with their weapons.
  #47  
Old 09-07-2019, 10:47 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,620
Once the deadline is passed:

Offer rewards for leads on those who are not turning in their guns, and aggressively run them to ground.

Make possession an absolute liability offence.

Make the penalty significant.




I suppose you can't just give the gun nutters a one way ticket to Fairfax, Virginia, or set up a citizenship exchange with the USA: one gun nutter for one normal person.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #48  
Old 09-11-2019, 02:59 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,620
I suppose you could donate them to charity (the illegal gun owners, that is), or simply restrict the cray-cray guns to secure ranges at which the owners can visit and use them on each other, or pet them or sniff them or whatever it is they do with them -- just keep practicing the fetish restricted to a safe supervised place.

It's funny how some people are with their beliefs -- religion, firearms, racism. Facts, logic, and non-fallacious analysis should do the trick, but it simply doesn't. More's the pity that innocent people die because of other people's beliefs.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017