how about working on attempting to enforce New Zealand laws, before trying to propose new laws for the USA?
I'm not proposing new laws for the US. I'm arguing about the effectiveness of certain types of gun control, and against stupid arguments against considering gun control.
First off, it's worth noting that this is not a New Zealand news source. It'll be important later.
oh looky here
"As of last week, only around 700 weapons had been turned over. There are an estimated 1.5 million guns—with an unknown number subject to the new prohibition on semiautomatic firearms—in the country overall.
Actually, the buy-back has seen more than 15,000 firearms returned, with more than 64,000 attachments being handed in. That's still shy of any estimates total affected firearms circulating around New Zealand. Still, the buy-back program has until December at this stage and New Zealand Government's are generally quite pragmatic; if it needs to be extended, then it will be.
Traditionally relaxed in its approach to firearms regulation, and enjoying a low crime rate, New Zealand has no firearms registration rule. That means authorities have no easy way of knowing what guns are in circulation or who owns them."
your own country has no registration rule, yet you come on this forum proposing all guns in the USA be registered???
--- how about selling your proposal to your own countrymen first, before trying to sell it to other countries???
--- A resounding success is defined as 700 out of 1.5 million guns turned in???
Again, false numbers but I'll come to that later. Also, they aren't expected 1.5m guns to be handed in. You're right; we don't truly know how many should be handed back because there isn't a registry of firearms. One estimate is that there could be 170,000 banned guns needing to be handed in.
The Prime Minister has not indicated that a gun registration might be on the agenda but, again, we're a pragmatic nation. If we studies and examples of a law working elsewhere, we'll consider it. Like these:
"These weapons are unlikely to be confiscated by police because they don't know of their existence," Philippa Yasbek of Gun Control NZ admitted. "These will become black-market weapons if their owners choose not to comply with the law and become criminals instead."
You might not want to hang your hat on Gun Control NZ; they're a pragmatic group that is supportive of gun control laws where they're proven to be scientifically effective in reducing gun harm, whilst advocating on behalf of legitimate gun owners' ability to own and use firearms responsibly.
They're not the NRA. In fact, the NRA probably wouldn't like them.
Yasbek's organization advocates registering all guns in private hands. But that won't help with gathering guns already in the possession of owners appalled by the government's attack on the rights of innocent people—government attacks, it's worth noting, that come in response to the crimes of one man who explicitly anticipated just such a response.
ummm... New Zealanders consider it a right and not a privilege... hmmm... I guess you still have lots of work to do in New Zealand before setting your sights on the USA. May I suggest a door to door campaign, to get signatures demonstrating the popularity of making gun rights a privilege among your own countrymen? It's easy to legislate from the comfort of city hall, it's much hard to gain compliance of hair-brained laws, designed to leave the average person defenseless.
Firstly, the claim that owners are "appalled by the government's attack on the rights of innocent people" isn't a quote attributed to Yasbeck. That's why it's not in quotation marks. It cleverly follows a sentence that includes Yasbeck's name, but the "right" to own a gun is the wording of the author.. who isn't a New Zealander.
In fact, Reason has been criticised in New Zealand media for misleading readers about the facts of New Zealand's changing gun laws and buy back facts:
---- From the article:
[Dr Catherine Strong, a senior journalism lecturer at Massey University] believed that was the goal of the articles - to portray New Zealand’s gun reform efforts as a fiasco. “They want it to look like it was a failure. This is going to really ramp up.”
She also thought gun lobby groups could well be behind the articles, saying they were known for spreading fake news.
According to Strong, political groups like the United States’ National Rifle Association use New Zealand “as a patsy".
"They can say a lot of things about New Zealand because there’s no way of really proving or disproving it."
Regardless of the very anti-gun control narrative Reason is pushing, New Zealand isn't the US. In fact, that last link is an article written by an expat American living in New Zealand when the Christchurch shootings took place. He's pretty much hit the nail on the head; we benefit from our size and isolation, we don't buy into that "personal protection" bullfluff that the gun lobby in the US spoon feeds people and, as a result, we don't suffer from a paralyzing fear of taking pragmatic action in our laws when someone decided to shoot 51 people.
In fact, read the comments of that article written by the ex-physician of McMinnville, OR. Look at all the same poor arguments brought up by those clearly offended by the author being impressed with New Zealand and its gun control laws. Britain knife fights, lefty/commie control, "But cars!", all those same soundbites. Are you all reading from the same playbook?
On a side note omg crime rates are way down in Australia!!!
"In Australia it is estimated that only about 20% of all banned self-loading rifles have been given up to the authorities," wrote Franz Csaszar, professor of criminology at the University of Vienna, after Australia's 1996 compensated confiscation of firearms following a mass murder in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Csaszar put the number of illegally retained arms in Australia at between two and five million.
"Many members of the community still possess grey-market firearms because they did not surrender these during the 1996–97 gun buyback," the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission conceded in a 2016 report. "The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission continues to conservatively estimate that there are more than 260,000 firearms in the illicit firearms market."
80% of the guns were never turned in... obviously with so many keeping their guns and simply not registering them or talking about them, the drop in gun related crime had zilch to do with the new gun laws.
What's interesting is that Franz Csaszar's quote was written in the year 2000, while the report itself was written in 2016 (misleading connections seems to be par for the course with Reason as a media outlet). Even with the estimate of 260,000 illegal firearms floating about in the illegal market, the Australian report also says that 640,000 firearms were handed back in during the 1996 buyback. The total number of recovered illegal firearms by 2016 was 1.16 million (some recovered where owners of both legal and illegal firearms reported only their legal firearms stolen, but the illegal ones were recovered by police at the same time). So even if Csaszar's claim of only 20% of firearms being recovered in the buy back in 1996 is true, Australia has recovered double that in 20 years - a period of time in which there were only two mass shootings that took place in the country.
And, as the cherry on top for the Australian report, it notes that many of the owners who received money from the buy back in 1996 used it to purchase new, legal firearms. So the Good Guys with guns weren't disarmed, they were simply driven to purchase different guns that complied with the laws of their country.
Definitely keeping studying Australia, however. You might learn something.
"And who can claim to be surprised? By refusing to comply with restrictions, New Zealand gun owners are just following in the footsteps of their counterparts in Australia, Europe, and the United States. In each of these places, and many more besides, gun owners ignored laws, kept their property out of sight, and frustrated efforts to disarm them.
If New Zealand's political class had looked to the history of gun control efforts they would have seen that they were walking a well-trodden path that leads to a dead end. But then again, if they had enough foresight to know that ill-considered restrictions on personal liberty are usually counterproductive and often breed rebellion, they probably wouldn't have gone into government."
just a little brutal truth, just like prohibition did not stop alcohol looks like the citizens are also defying gun control laws in Australia and New Zealand... /me wonders why...
New Zealand's parliament passed the legislation 199 votes to 1. That's democracy. Those are the peoples' representatives making a clear statement about the direction the country goes in in the wake of the Christchurch shooting. That's almost unanimous support for the ban across four of NZ's five political parties (the one dissenting vote is a single member of his party).
If you're choosing to break the law, you're choosing to do so in the face of democracy.