Trying to understand National’s position on Gun reform is like trying to understand Trump’s position on nuking hurricanes

14
685

So Simon Bridges is saying National won’t support the second tranche of gun reform laws because they are soft on “crims, gangs and extremists”.

Really?

Here are the reforms…

  • Establishing a firearms register
  • Make owning a gun a “privilege” that comes with obligations
  • Tighten the rules to obtain and keep a gun licence
  • Tighten the rules for gun dealers to get and keep a licence
  • Require licences to be renewed every five years
  • Not allow visitors to purchase guns in New Zealand
  • Introduce a new warning system for police so they can intervene if they have concerns about a licence holder’s behaviour
  • Introduce a licencing system for shooting clubs and ranges
  • Set up an expert group to advise the police on firearms
  • Introduce new advertising standards around guns
  • Require licences to buy magazines, parts and ammunition
  • Increase penalties and introduce new offences

I’m not sure how any of that is soft on crims, gangs and extremists. As far as I can understand the argument, these regulations are all focused on ‘law abiding’ gun owners and because National believe ‘law abiding’ gun owners aren’t the problem there’s no reason to regulate guns.

Which seems terribly awkward, twisted and confused.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

On top of this Simon claims the buy backs have been a fiasco, which is contrary to what the Police Association is saying. 

Look, no one wants to punish ‘law abiding’ gun owners, but surely in the wake of the worst white supremacist terror attack on NZ soil using glam semi-automatics, banning those weapons and tightening the rules around gun ownership is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

National’s own suggestion to give Police more powers to search Gang Member cars and houses for guns seems bizarre seeing as the white supremacist terrorist who butchered and murdered 101 people wasn’t a member of Black Power or the Mongrel Mob.

Surely white supremacist terrorism is the problem here, not gang members.

National are also concerned that because Drs would need to alert Police if they suspect  a gun licensee holder has mental health issues, that might lead gun owners to not seek mental health services.

This is not a concern National have about medical practitioners contacting Oranga Tamariki if they suspect child abuse.

That ‘concern’ seems convenient and very flexible and as about as rational as Trump wanting to use nuclear weapons to defuse hurricanes.

Fears that the new regulations will place extra costs on gun clubs are equally meaningless.

Look, there might be a good reason why these new regulations are bad or a waste of time, but to date all National have shown is a pig headedness and the desire to say ‘Crims, Gangs and Extremists’ lots.

This sounds and feels more like a naked attempt to appeal to angry white gun owners, and seeing as that is where this all started, that seems terribly unwise.

14 COMMENTS

  1. Proposals were made in 1997 to make similar moves on guns as Australia did after the Port Arthur massacre. But Nation al caved in to the local gun lobby, and nothing came of it. It appears to be repeating once again. If so, then Simon’s legacy will be the party’s leader who pandered to the will of the Kiwi subsidiary of the NRA.

    • Which subsidiary if the NRA is that Bruce?
      You know we don’t have the NRA here don’t you?
      There is COLFO -volunteers who speak up for shooting sports, and Mike Loder the guy in the wheelchair that Judith Collins abused.
      David Tipple from gun city is businessman who gets interviewed.
      Where us this lobby?
      On the other hand we have gun control nz, a lobby group set up by unqualified people who hate guns , or Phillip Alpers with no formal training, a gift degree, who has been payed by the UN to push disarmament.
      The NRA “powerful gun lobby” line us just spin, a smear.

      • You say there is no gun lobby yet your comments have all ‘talking points’ of a gun lobby argument – maybe try harder next time.

        • Clearly it’s a conspiracy by “big firearms” eh Aaron.
          It couldn’t be that kiwi firearms owners are pointing out what’s wrong in laws being made by people that don’t know what they are doing.

          I note you couldn’t argue a single point.

  2. Bridges is feeling neglected and unloved ,so is having a two year old type “tanty”.
    Diddums.
    He is talking nonsense.

    Why is he defending semi automatic firearms? Especially when the Australians (if all people) got rid of theirs.
    Who is paying him?

  3. I wonder if the National parties donation coffers have been filled by some nice American gentlemen, rather than the usual Chinese gentlemen…

  4. There’s a lot to unpack there so I’ll do it in parts.
    Part 1

    This didn’t start with angry kiwi white gun owners.
    This started when NZ police licensed an Australian terrorist with a history in Australia and open online racist extremism, to own firearms.
    Instead of apologising, NZ police through their association have used the tragedy to push their policy of disarmament by, frankly, lying.
    Our gun homicide rate is the same or lower than Australia’s.
    Yes we had to change some things, making all centrefire semi autos E cat would have been simple, vastly cheaper and we would be safer.

    This buyback and laws go far beyond the handful of nasty looking black guns.
    The government has allowed police to write the laws they enforce. Think about where that street leads.
    Gun owners feel unfairly demonised- sympathise or not but here are some of the problems with tranche 1:
    1)Police Association shut the door on consulting with gun owners, why? What gives them the right?
    2) Rushed process, why 2 days to read 13000 submissions and make law?
    3) In case of government confiscation, compensation must be full agreed value, it is not. (Would you let them take your car without full payment)
    4) Despite constant claims of success, this buyback (confiscation) has swept a majority of small capacity sporting semi autos, .22s lever and pump actions and shotguns that hold a few too many rounds, not the MSSAs you are told are turning up in 1000s
    5)Turnout is terrible. Estimates vary between 175 000 and 350 000 guns that are now illegal ( mostly not MSSAs).
    What’s the current count of those handed in? Not even a tenth of the lowest estimate.
    6) Poor compliance means we are less safe because guns not handed in cannot be legally registered and so become grey or black market guns.

  5. 7) Henry VIII clauses allow law change at police whim without government oversight, at any time

  6. Part 2)
    What’s wrong with tranche 2

    Establishing a firearms register:
    has never prevented a single gun crime, does not make people safer, crims grind serial number off, costly, previous ditched in NZ at police request, recently ditched in Canada after wasting over a billion dollars, makes criminals out of law abiding citizens when they have to prove an incorrectly allocated gun isn’t theirs.(5years jail).

    Make owning a gun a “privilege” that comes with obligations:
    With no second amendment, gun ownership here has always been considered a privilege, this is anti gun rhetoric which makes gun owners feel like second class citizens. Possibly it’s trying to foil the common law argument for ownership rights?

    Tighten the rules to obtain and keep a gun licence:
    Actual vetting has been quite stringent, when it’s been done properly. The failure here wasn’t the law but the fact cost cutting was getting rid of arms officers, Jacinda Ardern herself had recently signed off on a weakening of in person checks in favour of online. Bad move.(excluded from the royal commission BTW). Police failed to vet properly.

    Tighten the rules for gun dealers to get and keep a licence:
    Again, no problems currently here, making it harder because they can.

    Require licences to be renewed every five years:
    No science to show this makes anyone safer. Imposes costs, makes it harder.(the intent)

    Not allow visitors to purchase guns in New Zealand:
    An example of those making the law not knowing anything about it.
    Tarrant was a resident here not a visitor. Wouldn’t have prevented the shooting.

    Introduce a new warning system for police so they can intervene if they have concerns about a licence holder’s behaviour:
    Doctors dobbing in patients to police. Unlikely to result in an increase in positive mental health outcomes.(deterrent to treatment)
    Police didn’t bother checking Tarrants mental health record in Australia,.

    Introduce a licencing system for shooting clubs and ranges:
    Not sure why? Adds compliance costs. If it’s about the Bruce rifle club, complaints were already made to police but not followed up. (Are we seeing a pattern here)

    Set up an expert group to advise the police on firearms:
    Let’s hope they are experts and not self appointed experts with no knowledge and big agendas like gun control nz, Hera Cook with her qualification in sexual history.

    Introduce new advertising standards around guns
    Why?

    Require licences to buy magazines, parts and ammunition:
    We already do need a license to buy ammunition, it appears these muppets didn’t know.

    Increase penalties and introduce new offences:
    So we get 5 years jail for non compliance or 10 x the old fine for lesser transgression ($20000).
    Hey remember that violent gang guy physically restrained in court the other day https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/115286285/armed-gang-member-whose-druginduced-paranoia-led-to-12hour-standoff-restrained-in-dock
    He had an armed standoff with cops, was a drug dealer non gun license holder with illegal gun. He got less than 2 1/2 years.
    This government punishes its gun license holders more than drug dealing violent gangs. Don’t see a problem there?

  7. Part 3)
    National and gun control

    Sooo if you are still awake, what is National doing?
    Well National MPs have been getting a lot of feedback from rural people and gun owners, on what people consider an opposition should contribute, and how parliamentary process is supposed to work in making good law.
    250 000 gun owners are mostly, extremely angry at what is being done to them.
    National is simply feeling the heat. If you see ACT moving up in polling it will be a sign of ongoing disquiet.
    But let’s not forget, gun control is not a binary choice, opposing one law doesn’t mean you want “guns unregulated” they always have been regulated, but with the current imposition we could have been much safer with different, less punitive laws that didn’t alienate the most law abiding sector of NZ.

  8. Thanks @keepcalmandcarryon. My sentiments too. But I have been labelled a gun nut on here because I live in a native forest and have shot possums when i can’t poison them ( gets wet in the winter) for
    over 40 years. The rural urban divide in NZ is a chasm several kilometers deep. The hysteria of hatred whipped up against gun owners in this ghastly little country is on a par with the madness surrounding the ’81 Rugby tour. No thanks to you either Bomber.

    • I’ve been labelled a gun nut here too despite not having a gun licence let alone a gun. But I will call out a government over reacting to an obviously very rare event and destroying freedoms previously enjoyed by the law-abiding when I see it. Any destruction of liberty should never be so readily celebrated as it has been here at TDB, just because it doesn’t personally affect them.

  9. You know he didn’t say that right? But then again, if you believe disarming your citizens will make you safer you’ll believe anything…

  10. national want the law abiding gun owners to vote for them they also want the quiet NZders quiet what quiet fucken stupid that is what they have to be to put that lot in again after our 9yrs of torture

Comments are closed.