New Zealanders are refusing to turn over guns under new law

[smartcooky]

What are you talking about?

Ponderingturtle was simply making a crack about NZ's size and road quality. He didn't say anything about turning in weapons.

---

ETA: I'm also really disappointed by the way your post turned out. I got as far as

And why would you want to drive for from, say, Auckland to Christchurch, a 16H trip including a 3 hour, $250 (each way, so $500 total) trip on the inter-island ferry

And was all set to reply, "because road trips are awesome, and road trips with ferry rides doubly so!" But then your post went all shenanigans on me, and I feel cheated.

Clear swing and miss there - you need to re-read those few posts in order.

Nope:

Applecorped: 224? wow, that's probably all of them, right?

Atheist: You may need to consult an atlas to see how big NZ actually is - it's not a small island and takes a couple of days to get from one end to the other.
I think the government thought it would be unfair to expect every gun owner to travel to one event, so they're holding a couple*, and the 224 guns was just at the first one.

PonderingTurtle: Your roads are that bad?

(I read that as an inference the roads are so bad, that people cannot drive distance to hand in guns, and that's why only 224 were handed in)

This is not an unreasonable inference to draw, given these posters' body of work.

ETA: The forum provides, free of charge, a large range of smileys. If posters are kidding they should use them so that there is no misunderstanding, because plain text does not always convey intent of the poster. (NOTE: smiley omitted intentionally)

 

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
https://reason.com/2019/07/08/noncom...ontrol-scheme/

Noncompliance Kneecaps New Zealand's Gun Control SchemeAs of last week, only around 700 weapons had been turned over.

Once again, responding to a horrendous crime by inflicting knee-jerk, authoritarian restrictions on innocent people proves to be an ineffective means of convincing people to obey. Specifically, New Zealand's government—which also stepped up censorship and domestic surveillance after bloody attacks on two Christchurch mosques earlier this year—is running into stiff resistance to new gun rules from firearms owners who are slow to surrender now-prohibited weapons and will probably never turn them in.

A gross exaggeration of the facts.

Even if weapons are not handed in, the owners who retain them will find it very difficult to use them. They will never be able to turn up to a rifle range with them, because the range operators will report them. The vast majority of firearm licence holders are good, law-abiding people who will turn in those weapons if they have any. I am 100% in support of the removal of these weapons from private hands, so I will report to Police anyone I know who has one. Those who are refusing are few and far between.

Also, they are also going to find it difficult to buy ammunition for their illegal guns, as that ammo is now illegal for import and sale. With very few exceptions, ammunition designed for the larger calibre bolt action rifles such as .308 will not work very well in a semi-auto. Autoloaders are generally set up for a specific load or a range of standard loadings of the cartridges they use. The different loadings in bolt action ammunition will mean that the first shot will probably fire but to fail to work the autoloader properly, leading to frequent jamming.

Now you can try firing a commercial .308 cartridge in your 7.62mm semi-auto if you like, but I would not recommend it on safety grounds.

 

[Ranb]

Also, they are also going to find it difficult to buy ammunition for their illegal guns, as that ammo is now illegal for import and sale.

What ammo does the governor have his (her) eye on then? All I could find is this.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2019/0125/latest/whole.html#LMS181205

Meaning of prohibited ammunition
In this Act, prohibited ammunition means any ammunition declared by the Governor-Governor by Order in Council to be prohibited ammunition.

With very few exceptions, ammunition designed for the larger calibre bolt action rifles such as .308 will not work very well in a semi-auto.

What semi-autos are you referring to? I find that my AR-10 works very well with ammo loaded to .308Win and 7.62Nato specifications.

Autoloaders are generally set up for a specific load or a range of standard loadings of the cartridges they use.

In the USA, most commercially loaded ammo, for example, the .308 Win is loaded to a certain pressure that does not vary a lot even with different bullet weights and shapes. As far as I know all modern semi-auto rifles are built to operate normally with standard ammo that is loaded at or near the max pressure allowed by SAAMI.

The different loadings in bolt action ammunition will mean that the first shot will probably fire but to fail to work the autoloader properly, leading to frequent jamming.

Probably fire? If the ammo is not faulty, has the correct headspace and is the same head stamp as that of the chamber in the rifle, it will always fire. If the pressure is low (it will not be in the usual std load) then the action will operate normally and pick the next round up from the magazine. If it is too high then it may eventually over stress the action after several thousands of rounds.

Now you can try firing a commercial .308 cartridge in your 7.62mm semi-auto if you like, but I would not recommend it on safety grounds.

The max pressure for .308 is only 3% higher than that for the 7.62x51. Opinions online vary when it comes to shooting the .308 in the 7.62 chamber or the other way around. I've never heard of a problem associated with this in undamaged 30 caliber rifles.

As far as the 223/5.56, the issues are more pronounced and I never see anyone in the industry recommending that the 5.56 be fired in the 223 chamber, but once again, the only time I've heard of an AR-15 blowing up was with hand loaded ammo that used a case full of pistol powder instead of the proper rifle powder.

I noticed that the list of prohibited firearms is for the most part semi-auto rifles and pump action shotguns. No one in NZ is going to have a problem using ammo intended for a 5.56 or 7.62 military rifle in their bolt action .223 or .308 rifles. ETA; Unless it is banned.

Surely all .223 Remington and .308 Winchester will not be banned? Is there going to be restrictions on reloading equipment, ammo components and bullet molds?

 

[This is The End]

Seriously?

You claim to be knowledgable about America's history and yet you don't know about the French involvement in the Revolutionary War?

You don't know that the French secretly shipped supplies, materiel, arms and ammunition to the Continental Army?

You've never heard of the 1778 Treaty of Alliance?

The assistance of France is openly acknowledged by historians as a major, vital, and decisive contribution to the US victory against the British. Without the French, Howe, Gage, Cornwallis et al would very likely have handed your forebears their collective arses on a silver platter, and the 56 delegates to the Second Continental Congress (FYI, that the guys who signed your Declaration of Independence), they would in all likelihood have been executed for Treason!

What complete and utter bollocks. No sane history book in any country would say such nonsense. And if yours does I would seriously question anything else that is included in it.

That would be like saying the assistance of Mexico is openly acknowledged by historians as a major, vital, and decisive contribution to the Allies victory against the Axis in WW2.

In fact, Mexico likely contributed more men and supplies to the Allies in WW2 than the French did to the colonies in the RW.

Your supposed "knowledge" about American history is clearly built on jingoistic lies and jealousy.

 

[This is The End]

Funny the kind of things some wankers will glioat about.

And that was when the irony meter exploded.

 

[This is The End]

They will definitely have to go to war to get our guns in the U.S.

Utter rubbish. Try visiting the Real World sometime.

I live in the real world. How is the government going to get their guns when they don't give them up voluntarily? Say pretty please?

1. Revoke their firearms licences

Hey look, more proof that all of your information about the US is based on propaganda. Only two out of the 50 states in the US has "firearms licences". (Three if you count New York, but theirs is only for handguns.)

You literally used a completely baseless assumption as your Number One idea in response to BrooklynBaby's question on how exactly guns would be taken away from Americans. Spectacular.

 

[Giz]

What complete and utter bollocks. No sane history book in any country would say such nonsense. And if yours does I would seriously question anything else that is included in it.

That would be like saying the assistance of Mexico is openly acknowledged by historians as a major, vital, and decisive contribution to the Allies victory against the Axis in WW2.

In fact, Mexico likely contributed more men and supplies to the Allies in WW2 than the French did to the colonies in the RW.

Your supposed "knowledge" about American history is clearly built on jingoistic lies and jealousy.

I dunno about that, to quote:

"over a billion livres tournois were spent by the French government to support the war effort, raising its overall debt to about 3.315 billion. "

So France helped enough to increase its national debt by 50%! (Which then led to the economic turmoil and political unrest that caused the French revolution).

 

[This is The End]

"over a billion livres tournois were spent by the French government to support the war effort, raising its overall debt to about 3.315 billion. "

Yes and some 300,000 Mexican citizens went to the United States to work on farms and factories. And another 15,000 went to Europe to fight. Without that help, the Allies surely would have lost WW2!

Also, your figure includes money spent on goods purchased from the colonies.

 

[This is The End]

And why would you want to drive for from, say, Auckland to Christchurch, a 16H trip including a 3 hour, $250 (each way, so $500 total) trip on the inter-island ferry just to hand in a weapon, when there are some 50+ scheduled hand in events over the next 12 month in your area, some perhaps within walking distance?

Gotta love this post. Responding with completely irrelevant information to the discussion it quotes. It shows a very clear lack of reading comprehension.

 

[This is The End]

In my quite large circle of friends and acquaintances

That's a good place to get information!

 

[epeeist]

Offer them money. If that fails, there are a number of other ways

1. Revoke their firearms licences
2. Prosecute them for possession of illegal weapons
3. Have a judge issue a warrant for seizure.

I can understand why you, being American, simply cannot conceive of the idea of a country that has no legally enshrined gun rights, no gun rights lobbyists bribing politicians for favourable laws, no gun-totin' wannabes running around in the backwoods playing pretend soldiers, no whinging red-necks crying "bbbbut muh guns"

• Our Constitution contains nothing like your 2nd amendment.
• Our Bill of Rights does not include the right to own guns.
• Ownership of guns in this country is a privilege, one that can be revoked at any time
• The use of firearms for self-defence is expressly forbidden
• There is no such thing as a "carry permit" for regular citizens

In all three cases I have listed above, those illegally held weapons will be seized without a shot being fired. I seriously doubt anyone will get themselves into an armed stand-off with Police.

In this country, once the illegal guns are all seized, every New Zealander knows the sun will still come up in the morning, the sky will not fall, and that life will go on. The issue of gun ownership is not considered to be one worth dying for.

In order, offer them more money? Great! That's what has been argued, that, among other reasons for non-compliance, is that compensation is unfairly low. I mean, if one wants to argue that one should comply regardless of compensation, why bother offering any compensation at all?

#1/2/3, others in this thread have said that, except for certain E license holders, there's no way of knowing whether anyone owns firearms. So, unless as you noted people are turning informer, what to do, how would one find e.g. something buried in a yard - or, less culpably, forgotten in a basement?

To me, wanting gun control means also thinking about practical concerns, that is, how to be effective. New Zealand government, so far, seems to have failed to consider practicality and enforceability. And, re compensation, fairness.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What complete and utter bollocks. No sane history book in any country would say such nonsense. And if yours does I would seriously question anything else that is included in it.

That would be like saying the assistance of Mexico is openly acknowledged by historians as a major, vital, and decisive contribution to the Allies victory against the Axis in WW2.

In fact, Mexico likely contributed more men and supplies to the Allies in WW2 than the French did to the colonies in the RW.

Your supposed "knowledge" about American history is clearly built on jingoistic lies and jealousy.

American here. I was taught that "nonsense" in AP US History in 2005/2006.

 

[Joe Random]

American here. I was taught that "nonsense" in AP US History in 2005/2006.

Sadly, the first thing which sprang to my mind was



(see 1:55 in)

But yes, this Yank was taught that in school as well back in 19<mumble>.

 

[TJM]

I like this attitude. The American Gun Enthusiast like to paint a picture of NZ gun owners oiling their gardens, as if that is a loss for Big Gun Control.

Hell, I'd love it if American Gun Enthusiast had to keep their guns in such a safe storage situation.

Ask the average gun hoarder (any nationality) why they do that and the answer is usually to be prepared for some undetermined ****-hit-the-fan scenario.

Of course they don't realize that because they can't take proper target practice or tactical training because their weapons of choice are stuffed in a crawlspace , they're far more likely to be mowed down by LE or military professionals if they show up armed in any such scenario.

 

[Ranb]

Ask the average gun hoarder (any nationality) why they do that and the answer is usually to be prepared for some undetermined ****-hit-the-fan scenario.

How much does civil order need to collapse before the police are no longer able to intervene in certain situations? Take a look at Katrina and other disasters; the police were stretched rather thin. During the riots after the King verdict the same thing happened. Residents of Koreatown used guns to defend their community; for the most part they were not successful.

 

[Norman Alexander]

How much does civil order need to collapse before the police are no longer able to intervene in certain situations? Take a look at Katrina and other disasters; the police were stretched rather thin. During the riots after the King verdict the same thing happened. Residents of Koreatown used guns to defend their community; for the most part they were not successful.

Why is it in the USA that civil order collapses under such small strains so easily? Other countries have natural disasters, often much worse. And they don't suddenly arm themselves to cope. You can't eat guns or sleep under them out of the rain.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What complete and utter bollocks. No sane history book in any country would say such nonsense. And if yours does I would seriously question anything else that is included in it.

That would be like saying the assistance of Mexico is openly acknowledged by historians as a major, vital, and decisive contribution to the Allies victory against the Axis in WW2.

In fact, Mexico likely contributed more men and supplies to the Allies in WW2 than the French did to the colonies in the RW.

Your supposed "knowledge" about American history is clearly built on jingoistic lies and jealousy.

Hmmm....

De Grasse received these letters in July at roughly the same time Cornwallis was preparing to occupy Yorktown, Virginia. De Grasse concurred with Rochambeau and subsequently sent a dispatch indicating that he would reach the Chesapeake at the end of August but that agreements with the Spanish meant he could only stay until mid-October. The arrival of his dispatches prompted the Franco-American army to begin a march for Virginia. De Grasse reached the Chesapeake as planned and his troops were sent to assist Lafayette's army in the blockade of Cornwallis's army. A British fleet sent to confront de Grasse's control of the Chesapeake was defeated by the French on September 5 at the Battle of the Chesapeake and the Newport fleet delivered the French siege train to complete the allied military arrival. The Siege of Yorktown and following surrender by Cornwallis on October 19 were decisive in ending major hostilities in North America.

Highlighted bit from Henry Lumpkin (2000). From Savannah to Yorktown: The American Revolution in the South. iUniverse. p. 235.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Hey look, more proof that all of your information about the US is based on propaganda. Only two out of the 50 states in the US has "firearms licences". (Three if you count New York, but theirs is only for handguns.)

You literally used a completely baseless assumption as your Number One idea in response to BrooklynBaby's question on how exactly guns would be taken away from Americans. Spectacular.

You realise that it is very clear from the context of the entire post, that Smartcocky was talking about New Zealand Gunholders, not USA ones? Right? Cause I am sure you read the entire post, right?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Rubbish!

There are only about 1.5 million firearms TOTAL in NZ. 300,000 is one in five being illegal. In my quite large circle of friends and acquaintances, there are several who, like me, are firearms license holders,; some of us have more than one firearm (I have three). None of those people have firearms that meet the banned criteria. And I have asked them about it. Only one of them knows anyone who has, his brother-in-law has an ex NZ military FN-FAL 7.62mm, and he's already handed it in.

IMO, where the 300,000 figure is coming from is that the most common semi-automatic firearm in NZ is the Ruger 10/22; there are about 250,000 of those throughout the whole country used mostly by DOC staff and farmers for small pest control. They are what American's call "Varmint Rifles".

Initially, it was thought that these might be banned, but all that has happened is they will have restricted magazine capacities.

FYI: Here is a list of the firearms banned and being bought back

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f06llxb72xinwax/prohibited-firearms-and-parts-buy-back-price-list.pdf?dl=1

You will see that there are several Rugers on the list, all of them are Handguns or MSSA rifles....

Handguns
40S&W
44MAG

MSSA Rifles
PC 9mm
Mini - 14/ Stainless
AR556
SR556
SR762

...and none are the Ruger 10/22.

I'd be highly surprised if there were even 100,000 of the now banned weapons in the county to be honest, and if your figures are close, then it could easily be half that, at which point getting 224, or there about, at all 254 remaining hand ins would put us about 55,000, which is easily in the ball park of all of them.

 

[The Atheist]

I see that number's been upgraded to 543 over two days, so a pretty solid start.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/114333793/southern-district-ready-for-prohibited-gun-buyback