New Zealanders are refusing to turn over guns under new law

[PhantomWolf]

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

Which would put it on track towards 100,000 assuming the numbers continue, and as I noted, I would be incredibly surprised if there were over 100,000, or even near that, of these weapons in the entire country. I suspect that about 1/3 to 1/2 way through there will be a major drop in weapons being handed in just because there won't be that many left outstanding by then.

 

[The Atheist]

Which would put it on track towards 100,000 assuming the numbers continue, and as I noted, I would be incredibly surprised if there were over 100,000, or even near that, of these weapons in the entire country. I suspect that about 1/3 to 1/2 way through there will be a major drop in weapons being handed in just because there won't be that many left outstanding by then.

They also started in what I would expect to be the highest idiot gun/owner ratio in the country. Auckland will have nowhere near the ratio of guns as other places, but it looks like it's going to be pretty successful.

I know quite a few people who had a big cry about the law, but will hand their guns over. I gather the prices are fairly acceptable.

 

[smartcooky]

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?

Indeed I was, because BrooklynBaby specifically asked how the government would take banned guns from New Zealanders who would refuse to hand them in.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[smartcooky]

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..

Here, do yourself a favour and spend a bit of time learning about your own history, from your own leading authorities.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/how-france-helped-win-american-revolution

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/revolut/jb_revolut_francoam_1.html

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/french-alliance

You're going to have to work very hard to convince me that leading historians such as Bob Zeller, Daniel Boorstin, Robert R. Palmer and Bernard Bailyn as well as your own national historical archives are wrong about this.

 

[smartcooky]

Which would put it on track towards 100,000 assuming the numbers continue, and as I noted, I would be incredibly surprised if there were over 100,000, or even near that, of these weapons in the entire country. I suspect that about 1/3 to 1/2 way through there will be a major drop in weapons being handed in just because there won't be that many left outstanding by then.

As I explained, the original figure of 300,000 was being bandied about because many thought the Ruger 10/22 varmint rifle (being a semi-automatic) was going be included in the ban. There are about 250,000 of those in the country because it is the weapon of choice for farmers, local authorities and DOC to use for small pest control (rabbits, possums etc). its .22 cal so the ammunition is cheap. Its also reliable, lightweight (2.3kb - 5lb) and rugged.

Just for clarity, this is from the Police website
https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/f...ited-firearms/information-prohibited-firearms

Prohibited firearms are:

All semi-automatic firearms (including semi-automatic shotguns), but:

• excluding rimfire rifles .22 calibre or less as long as they have a magazine (whether detachable or not) that holds 10 rounds or less; and
• excluding semi-automatic shotguns that have a non-detachable, tubular magazine that holds 5 rounds or less.

The Ruger 10/22 is .22 cal and is chambered for Long Rifle rimfire cartridges, its not banned, so that knocks the 300,000 figure down to 50,000, but people are still Googling and coming up with the incorrect 300,000 figure.

 

[Information Analyst]

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.

No sane person who knows anything about history would compare France at the time of the American Colonial Insurrection to Mexico during the Second World War.

 

[Information Analyst]

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.

It's a vicious circle. The aftermath of disasters/civil unrest is worse in the US because lots of people have guns, therefore others need guns to defend themselves.

 

[Tolls]

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.

Because the French played no part in the final victory. Oh, no, hang on...they were pivotal in defeating the Royal navy at Chesapeake, landing the siege equipment (all French), thus allowing the American/French army to force Cornwallis to surrender.

Without the French navy and the siege train that would not have happened.

And that's just the events near the end of the war.

 

[PhantomWolf]

No sane person who knows anything about history would compare France at the time of the American Colonial Insurrection to Mexico during the Second World War.

Considering that France was one of the three dominant super powers at the time... I don't recall Mexico ever being a super power.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Considering that France was one of the three dominant super powers at the time... I don't recall Mexico ever being a super power.

But it throws off the myths they need to believe about the american revolution.

Of course if they really wanted an example of the kind of revolution they love to envision the choice would be Haiti.

 

[Ranb]

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.

So how do you think the residents of Koreatown should have coped during the riot when people were looting and shooting at them?

 

[Norman Alexander]

So how do you think the residents of Koreatown should have coped during the riot when people were looting and shooting at them?

return serve: Why on Earth were people shooting at them? What degenerated so far that there were shooting riots? Which brings me back to the same question: Why is it in the USA that civil order collapses under such small strains so easily? Why the reversion to guns as a solution?

 

[smartcooky]

return serve: Why on Earth were people shooting at them? What degenerated so far that there were shooting riots? Which brings me back to the same question: Why is it in the USA that civil order collapses under such small strains so easily? Why the reversion to guns as a solution?

Ever seen the animated cartoon "A Brief History of the United States of America" by Michael Moore (from his movie "Bowling for Columbine")

If you haven't, here's your chance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGYFRzf2Xww

OK its an exaggerated over-simplification, but essentially the point it makes is the correct one. A large part of the US population are driven by fear - fear of "The Other", fear of their own government, fear of things they don't understand (and don't want to understand). Its this fear that drives them to use guns as a solution to perceived threats.

 

[applecorped]

I wonder how they convinced all the criminals to hand in their guns also

 

[PhantomWolf]

I wonder how they convinced all the criminals to hand in their guns also

Considering that the most popular firearm for criminals are shotguns, which aren't going to be banned.

This is the thing that people seem to keep forgetting. The actual number of weapons being banned and that need handing in is extremely low. We're not banning all firearms.

 

[smartcooky]

Considering that the most popular firearm for criminals are shotguns, which aren't going to be banned.

This is the thing that people seem to keep forgetting. The actual number of weapons being banned and that need handing in is extremely low. We're not banning all firearms.

Yeah, but ya see, you've forgotten the two key rules of US gun debate..

1. The "Bbbbbut Muh Guns Rule." .. taking any gun away from anyone is indistinguishable from taking all guns away from everyone, and

2. The "All or Nothing Rule" - If any proposed solution to the gun issue is not a 100% solution, then do nothing.

 

[catsmate]

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.

You might want to study some actual history...
Who supplied the gunpowder used by the colonists? Who supplied money, troops, weapons, military leadership, and naval support that tipped the balance in favor of the United States?

 

[Dr. Keith]

You might want to study some actual history...
Who supplied the gunpowder used by the colonists? Who supplied money, troops, weapons, military leadership, and naval support that tipped the balance in favor of the United States?

Bootstraps, duh?

 

[theprestige]

2. The "All or Nothing Rule" - If any proposed solution to the gun issue is not a 100% solution, then do nothing.

The problem with most gun control proposals in the US is not that they are less than 100% solutions, but that they do not focus on the guns and gun owners that are responsible for the majority of gun-involved crimes and deaths.

I'm a big believer in the principle that the perfect is the enemy of the good. I wholeheartedly favor an 80% solution that's achievable, over a 100% solution that isn't. The problem in the US is 5% solutions that disproportionately affect law abiding citizens. This isn't starting small. This is looking for your keys under the streetlight, because that's where the light is.

 

[Information Analyst]

I wonder how they convinced all the criminals to hand in their guns also

These restrictions aren't intended to address criminal use of firearms in general, and don't pretend to. Use of firearms in crime is rare in New Zealand.