Next post
In the wake of the horrific massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand that left 49 people dead, some are offering aid and support to Muslims worldwide, and some are offering thoughts and prayers, giving AOC a squicky wedgie, which she subsequently walked back in the most embarrassing way possible – by deflecting attention to the NRA, which had nothing to do with the cowardly terrorist act. And yet others (yes, looking at you, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern), have decided that the answer to already stringent gun control measures in New Zealand is…
“There were five guns used by the primary perpetrator,” she said at a news conference in Wellington. “There were two semi-automatic weapons and two shotguns. The offender was in possession of a gun license. I’m advised this was acquired in November of 2017. A lever-action firearm was also found.”
[…]
“While work is being done as to the chain of events that lead to both the holding of this gun license and the possession of these weapons, I can tell you one thing right now. Our gun laws will change.” Ardern said.
The shooting highlighted a flaw in New Zealand’s already draconian gun control laws, according to CNN, and it’s apparently NOT the fact that criminals don’t care about the law. The prolapsed asshole terrorist (no, I’m not publishing his name here) got guns legally and proceeded to use them to murder innocent people. If only there was…
…REGISTRATION!
Gun owners do need a license but they aren’t required to register their guns — unlike in neighboring Australia.
That would have stopped the carnage!
How about a headline from today’s New Zealand Herald where Prime Minister Ardern is demonstrating an ignorance of basic laws of supply and demand and is about to make gun smugglers very rich.
It looks like New Zealand will be banning most firearms soon. Because more draconian gun control on top of already draconian gun control will surely stop a murderer intent on taking innocent lives!
No, what it will do is ensure that no other victim can return fire, leaving unarmed prey at the mercy of terrorist thugs.
New Zealanders already have to have permission from the government to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. According to BBC, anyone over the age of 16 (guns) and 18 (military style, semi-auto rifles) who is considered by police to be “fit and proper” can possess a firearm, and all gun owners have to be licensed.
While most guns don’t have to be registered, a special application does have to be made to police to own military-style semi-automatic weapons, pistols, or other restricted firearms.
In order to simply get a license to be able to purchase a firearm in New Zealand, you have to go through more shit than a pig farmer. New Zealand doesn’t recognize firearms ownership as a right. It’s a privilege you get to have at the discretion of the state. If you want to merely own a gun you have to:
1 – Attend a safety lecture given by a trainer from the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council or other approved training organization;
2 – Pass a written test based on stuff in a booklet compiled jointly by the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council and the Police – 28 pages of sheer joy you have to study before getting permission to make a purchase;
3 – Have secure storage for firearms in your home (a gun rack, safe, strongroom or “receptacle of stout construction” is required) – and yes, they will check – a police arms officer will inspect the security of your home, or other designated storage address;
4 – Provide two witnesses, one a relative and one not, to vouch for your good character;
5 – Supply 2 identical passport photos of yourself;
6 – Pay NZ$126.50 (~$87 USD)
7 – Undergo an interview with a police officer.
And what makes a person “fit and proper” to own a firearm?
– has never been the subject of a protection order;
– has regard for the Arms Act or Arms Regulations;
– has not been involved in substance abuse;
– has not committed any serious offense, or any crimes involving violence or drugs;
– has not committed a series of minor offenses (or a serious offense) against the Arms Act;
– has never been affiliated with a gang involved in violence;
– has not been involved in acts or threats of matrimonial violence;
– has not exhibited signs of mental ill health;
– has not attempted to commit suicide or engaged in other self injurious behavior
Ultimately, if the state finds you unfit to own a firearm for any reason, you will be not be allowed to exercise your right. And people are bitching that this is too lax?
The terrorist hemorrhoid in question did not have a criminal record. He was a gym trainer. He apparently worked with kids. There was no reason to suspect he would go on a shooting spree. Even his social media was relatively new.
There was no reason to deny him a firearms license. Everything he did was legal – right until he murdered 49 innocent people. He underwent all seven steps above to legally acquire a license to be allowed to purchase the firearms he used in this terrorist act. What, exactly, would registering his guns have accomplished?
One gets the feeling that there will be a lot of tragic boating accidents in New Zealand very soon.
GWB says: military-style semi-automatic weapons
Note that that phrase essentially means what Connecticut calls “assault weapons”. It’s the same stupid list of features that make a gun scary to US progs: folding stock, bayonet lugs, magazines holding more than 7 rounds, pistol grip, etc.
28 pages of sheer joy
Absolutely nothing wrong with that book. It’s about the same (other than the stupid laws it has to address) as the book I had in my NRA Hunter Safety Course as a kid. Which was the same course they taught at Boy Scout Summer Camp. It’s more comprehensive than the training I received in the military (which is scary).
Pay NZ$126.50 (~$87 USD)
That’s cheaper than obtaining a license in many US states. (Though some, like Virginia, require all the fees to add up to less than $50, excluding whatever you pay for a safety course.)
And what makes a person “fit and proper” to own a firearm?
That list is mostly exactly what I would want in keeping a person from exercising their right, with the caveat that any of those that are not current should be appealable.
There was no reason to suspect he would go on a shooting spree.
I would suspect we’ll find that someone, somewhere, knew this guy was a flaming a*hole. But the expectation that any Kiwi would do this is very low. (Of course, he was an Aussie, not a Kiwi.) It was entirely unexpected, regardless of any signals he might have given off.
There was no reason to deny him a firearms license.
Which is why they want to create more areas to deny a license or ownership.
This is the problem with the idea that you can solve crime/violence/death/maiming/whatnot – the only way to do it is to ultimately ban everything for everyone. You ban a few things and tighten up the rules… then, BANG! you have an incident. So, you tighten the rules a little more, ban a few more things… then BANG! another incident. Repeat until you’ve banned everything.
Or, until you’ve figured out that the only way to eliminate evil, sickness and death for us is to eliminate… us.
Thunderbottom says: When Great Britain enacted its stringent gun prohibition laws, gun crimes went up. Other violent crimes increased as well, knife assaults in particular. Home invasions (where the assailants break into homes to terrorize and rob the residents) have also increased. Gun prohibition laws didn’t prevent the terror attack at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, nor the recent vehicular and knife terror incidents in London.
Jim says: I understand that gun and knife crimes are still escalating in the bigger cities in the UK, yet gun owners are strictly governed and controlled. Criminal gangs selling drugs and engaging in turf-wars don’t care about laws or the rights of others to live safely and keep the possessions they have earned through their own industry. I believe the Mayor of London has apparently granted that Police need to stop and search more people on the streets as his [ethnically-driven] policy was not working.
GWB says: For those who think you can make gun laws without loopholes, I present the Remington Tac-13.
They basically produced what would be an illegally sawed-off shotgun by carefully crafting the grip to meet the regulations. They are now mass-producing what got David Koresh’s and Randy Weaver’s people killed. Because they figured out how to fit through the loophole.
Mind you, this isn’t just guns. Anything that people have to describe when they ban it is going to end up with loopholes. And, if you don’t have to describe it, I guarantee someone will come along who insists he has something that isn’t what’s named, and the authorities will then have to describe that thing as well, to handle those jerks.
Meanwhile, the county next to me passed a “Gun Sanctuary” law. https://tinyurl.com/yxu3le67
GWB says: Sounds like a short move might be in order, windbag. 🙂
First thing is to go over and register as a Democrat, so I can vote in their elections and keep those guys in office.
Scott says: “And, if you don’t have to describe it, I guarantee someone will come along who insists he has something that isn’t what’s named, and the authorities will then have to describe that thing as well, to handle those jerks.”
I would suggest that they are more appropriately referred to as “Freedom loving, enterprising individuals”… finding a way around unconstitutional restrictions on firearms ownership is something to be lauded, not condemned…
GWB says: Well, I wasn’t talking about guns when saying “jerks”. I mean the people who insist something that clearly is “A” – by all of the English language for recorded time – is *not* “A” because of some made up attribute that doesn’t define the class. Think the en vogue definition of “man” for a reverse example.
Scott says: Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was an odd stance, coming from you.
Drew458 says: I am 100% certain that Australia and New Zealand are separate countries. They may be best friends, with similar populations, but they are not the same place. So how is it that an Australian – a foreigner!!! – can acquire firearms in this country that already has such strict regulations? Because NZ allows them to get a 1 year or 10 year permit, after first showing that they already have a permit in their home country. That would be Australia in this case. And the gun laws in Australia are much tougher than in NZ. So this loser must have appeared to be as pure as the driven snow for a very long time, to have both country’s approval, AND to own an “MSSA” (AK47 or AR15) which demands even further vetting. And the cops come and search your house to make sure you have safe storage. Pretty sure they’d notice any Nazi flags, Mao posters, or even books by Robert Spencer there at that time.
Something flipped the KrayZee switch in his brain, and did so recently. I wonder what.
Jim says: NZ and Australia are close allies, but have different laws governing firearms with Australia [currently] being much tougher since the killings in 1996. A licence in Australia is generally good for 5 years and the Police do come and check storage and the firearms one owns against their record. I don’t know if this clown owned firearms in Australia in the state [New South Wales] where he grew up. I gather he had been travelling a lot around the world, even North Korea, over 5 years or more before landing in NZ so it’s possible he did not have a current Australian licence – of course that would not stop him getting illegal weapons. The NZ Prime Minister was pretty clear that the two semi-autos he had were not legal.
Scott says: And yet she still says they’re going to ban all semi-autos.. even though he already proved the laws do squat… typical leftist ideology…
GWB says: Pretty sure they’d notice any […] Mao posters
Well, that would be approved goodthink to a communist, so it would just fine to the current PM of NZ perhaps.
(Oh, and Mao would be wrongthink for a fascist, which this guy appeared to claim. The left is very confuising. It’s a good thing they wear team colors – black for communist, brown for fascist.)
Scott says: Yeah, his “manifesto” was a perfect example of “shitposting”.. threw out all kinds of red herrings to incite the left, and like a starving large mouth bass, they rose to the bait.. If you dig down, he’s worried about immigrant birth rates because of “climate change”, and describes himself as an eco-terrorist (LEFT WING), and say the country that he most aligns with politically is China (LEFT WING), somto claim this POS is a right winger / nazi / Trump supporter is BS that’s typical of the left..
15 Comments