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?
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.
Intensify enforcement of laws against gangs, crime, and drug dealing. The rest follows.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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… :smack:
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.
I do hope you understand the situation better than this sentence would imply.
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.
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.
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.
…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 disinformationout there.
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.
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.
+1
Indeed add …
6: Repeat clause #5
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.