Author Topic: New Zealand’s Catastrophic Gun Control Failure  (Read 241 times)

Offline iam4liberty

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 3185
  • Karma: 246
  • New TSP Forum member
New Zealand’s Catastrophic Gun Control Failure
« on: March 16, 2019, 04:11:00 PM »
We have just witnessed horrible terrorist attacks on multiple places of worship.  It took over a half-hour for them to be stopped.  One common question is how can a small group of radicals go unchallenged for so long?  A lot has to do with New Zealand’s gun policies.

New Zealand has among the strictest gun control laws in the world.  A summary from the Gun Policy Organization of the University of Sydney (www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/new-zealand) includes:

1. No guaranteed right to private gun ownership by law
2. Licensed firearm dealers are required to keep a record of each firearm or ammunition purchase, sale or transfer on behalf of a regulating authority
3. Civilians are not allowed to possess handguns, military-style semi-automatic weapons or fully automatic firearms without a permit to purchase and a relevant firearm license endorsement (extremely difficult to receive)
4. Each MSSA and handgun must be registered to its owner and securely stored
5. Only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
6. An applicant for a firearm license in New Zealand must pass a background check which considers criminal, mental health, medical, addiction and domestic violence records
7. Third party character references for each gun license applicant are required
8. Licensing authorities are required to conduct interviews with, or to advise an applicant's spouse, partner, or next of kin before issuing a gun license
9. Understanding of firearm safety and the law, tested in a theoretical and/or practical training course is required for a firearm license
10. Owning a firearm for self-defense is specifically excluded, and prohibited

This last point is key.  New Zealanders who follow the law are prohibited from owning a gun for self-defense. The only legally acceptable reasons are items such as pest-control and limited sporting purposes.  The net effect is that gun ownership has dropped to only about 5% of the population, the type of firearms owned are not of a style for self-defense purposes, and even these firearms are locked away from immediate use.

This has made the public extremely vulnerable to terrorist attacks like that which just occured; a fact not lost on New Zealand gun owners as demonstrated from a published newspaper opinion in 2017:

The recent shooting in America raises an interesting debate; the gunmen's murdering actions were stopped by a nearby citizen who owns his own firearm and was able to acquire it quickly and shoot and wound the gunmen.

Wounding the gunmen stopped his rampage and no doubt saved the lives of many more people. Does this suggest that New Zealand members of the public who are responsible firearm owners should be allowed to carry their gun and have it readily available should they be on the scene of an armed crime?

Hopefully we never come to that.
www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/opinion/98986694/why-our-gun-laws-are-working

In the recent New Zealand attack the terrorists were able to move from one place of worship to another without fear of resistance.  This was by plan.  In the primary terrorist’s manifesto, he stated that originally, they weren’t going to conduct a terror attack in New Zealand.  It was only after viewing how easy it would be to target them that they changed their plan.  And they were able to manipulate the legal bureaucracy to their advantage, with the primary attacker receiving a license despite being an immigrant with a record.  So, while honest citizens are disarmed, criminals like them are able to act with impunity.  If it wasn’t for one brave soul wrestling a rifle away and sending them to flight, many more lives would have been lost. 

Contrast that with the experience in the U.S. where armed civilians have stopped or limited numerous attacks.

www.foxnews.com/us/texas-church-shooting-not-the-first-time-a-good-guy-with-gun-takes-down-mass-shooter

Texas church shooting not the first time a good guy with gun takes down mass shooter

The armed civilian who used his assault rifle to stop Sunday’s mass murder of 26 Texas churchgoers has been hailed, rightly, as a hero, but Stephen Willeford is hardly unique. A number of armed American citizens have also used their firearms to stop or limit mass killings.
The former National Rifle Association instructor who lives next door to the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Spring, Texas, grabbed his AR-15-style rifle after hearing the gunfire and went over to investigate. Confronting the shooter, Devin Kelley, Willeford shot him in the leg and torso before Kelley dropped his weapon and fled the scene in his SUV.


This has been proven out statistically.  For example, while the U.S. represents over 4.5% of the world population, it only represents 1.2% of mass public shooters.  In fact, of the 97 countries where with identified mass public shootings, the U.S. ranks 64th per capita in its rate of attacks and 65th in fatalities.  And 98% of the mass shootings in the U.S. have occurred in places where citizens are banned from having guns. Simply put, terrorists target areas where civilians are precluded from using arms to defend themselves. 

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-mass-shooters-russia-public-shootings-thousand-oaks-mercy-hospital-chicago-1121-story.html

The net of this discussion is what we have seen in New Zealand is a catastrophic failure of gun control.   Disarming of the current 5% of gun owners will only exacerbate the problem.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 04:38:10 PM by iam4liberty »

Offline iam4liberty

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 3185
  • Karma: 246
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: New Zealand’s Catastrophic Gun Control Failure
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2019, 04:58:01 PM »
The government of New Zealand is still completely silent on where the shooter acquired his "Military Style Semi-Automatic" rifle (or perhaps fully automatic, they wont say).  It was illegal for him to own this rifle which was the primary weapon used.  Gun dealers who sold him the shotgun and lever action rifle did not sell him this rifle.

It is like the Las Vegas shooting.  The government refuses to provide any details despite pushing laws which would have had no impact on the event.