• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New Zealanders are refusing to turn over guns under new law

Laws are ineffective against criminals. That's why we don't have any in the US.

I would argue that the purpose of laws is not to stop criminal behavior, but rather:

- to describe what is criminal behavior; and
- to describe what sanctions the state may impose on criminal behavior

Laws codify what society will and will not tolerate, both in its citizens and in its government. They are not intended, in and of themselves, to prevent intolerable behavior.
 
When my kids start a question with that, I always counter with "What if an asteroid crashes into earth right now?"
The Thompson Center Encore and Contender are not some sort of rare or obscure firearms. Although I have no idea how popular they may or may not be in NZ, they are owned by a considerable number of people in the USA and elsewhere. Many people including myself own a single frame and several barrels of different calibers. It is an inexpensive way of shooting calibers that vary from 17 to 73 caliber. Why is this so difficult to understand?

My question was a serious one asking for info on how a person would be able to buy ammo for a caliber that is listed as "various" or "n/a" in the event that NZ restricts ammo to the guns that are registered to a person.

Perhaps you would like another try at answering my question?
Would the various barrels from .17 caliber to .73 caliber have to be registered as well?




Fewer gun deaths is my pick.
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Really? Do I have to spell everything out in all of my posts? The USA has so much cargo and commerce crossing the border that only a fraction is thoroughly inspected. I'm suggesting that contraband gun parts could have been shipped to NZ. I don't know how well everything that enters NZ is inspected.
 
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/07/25/695869/us-fake-news-hits-nz-gun-buyback-efforts#

US ‘fake news’ hits NZ gun buyback efforts

Misleading stories about New Zealand’s gun buyback have gone viral across gun lobby groups and conservative media in North America. Marc Daalder reports on the spread of what one expert has categorised as "fake news".

The story first started on Guns America Digest, the news arm of firearms auction site gunsamerica.com. Published on July 2, its headline proclaimed: “New Zealand Compliance Rate for Gun Buyback Program Stands at Less than 1 Percent.”

There was a good reason for the low rate of compliance: the buyback had yet to start.

The article cited reports from Stuff, Radio New Zealand, and the Washington Post that raised legitimate issues with the buyback process. The lack of a gun registry means police will have a tough time accurately assessing what percentage of now-illegal firearms have been turned in.

However, the conclusion the article drew – that there was a high rate of non-compliance - in the area of 99.3 to 99.7 percent - is equally unverifiable, particularly since the actual buyback didn’t begin until July 13, nearly a fortnight after it was first published.

Since then, more than 3200 now-banned firearms have been handed over to police, alongside an extra 7800 prohibited parts and accessories. The buyback has already dished out more than $6 million to the 2100 people that have taken part in police-managed collection events.

'Sophisticated' fake news effort

Of course, none of this context has been added to the Guns America piece, which went viral among right-wing Twitter and Facebook pages.

Dr Catherine Strong, a senior journalism lecturer at Massey University who studies social media and fake news, told Newsroom the stories appeared to her to be fake news and were particularly advanced.

“These ones on the gun control are quite insidious. They’re very sophisticated,” Strong said.

“They look like they’re a genuine news story and they even have links to a genuine source. But if you follow that link and read it, that’s not what that said at all.”

On July 8, American Military News ran a piece in its 'Controversy' section entitled “Less than 1 percent participate in New Zealand gun buyback”. The article used the same flawed logic as Guns America and was shared more than 7000 times, including by a major Canadian gun lobby group.

(After being notified by Newsroom about omissions in its article, American Military News significantly updated the piece. In an email, editor Laura Widener insisted: “It was not our intent, nor is it ever our intent to intentionally mislead people.”

To explain the error, Widener said, “New Zealand’s data on guns is obscure and even difficult for experts to estimate, as I assume you’ve also noticed in your research. We believe all estimates and solid data on the issue should be discussed in the effort of full disclosure.”)

The Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights shared the AMN article on both its Facebook and Twitter pages, leading to dozens of angry comments and more than 100 extra shares.

The greatest coup, however, came later on the same day when Reason, the US conservative magazine with a circulation of 50,000, ran an article stating: “Noncompliance Kneecaps New Zealand's Gun Control Scheme.” While Reason avoided citing the misleading 1 percent figure, it still failed to note that the buyback had yet to actually begin at the time of writing, which would contextualise any claim about non-compliance.

The Reason article went viral all over again, garnering hundreds of appreciative shares on Twitter and Facebook, including from high-profile US conservatives like Ryan Saavedra, a reporter at the right-wing Daily Wire who has more than half a million Twitter followers.

The entire saga has led to a complete misunderstanding of New Zealand’s gun culture and gun buyback among international firearm enthusiasts.
 
Really? Do I have to spell everything out in all of my posts? The USA has so much cargo and commerce crossing the border that only a fraction is thoroughly inspected. I'm suggesting that contraband gun parts could have been shipped to NZ. I don't know how well everything that enters NZ is inspected.
Everything going to NZ is either by air or by sea. And there is certainly nowhere near the volume that transits to/from the USA.

FYI, it is very common for small ocean-going boats to make landfall on NZ shores before clearing NZ Customs. There's plenty of opportunity there for smuggling all sorts of things. For example, the French Secret Service used that route to smuggle in explosives used against the Rainbow Warrior in 1985.
 
The Thompson Center Encore and Contender are not some sort of rare or obscure firearms. Although I have no idea how popular they may or may not be in NZ, they are owned by a considerable number of people in the USA and elsewhere. Many people including myself own a single frame and several barrels of different calibers. It is an inexpensive way of shooting calibers that vary from 17 to 73 caliber. Why is this so difficult to understand?

These appear to be available in NZ...

https://www.guncity.com/thompson-center-encore-pro-hunter-forend-243392

https://www.guncity.com/223-thompson-contender-g2-23-230623

...however, like you, I have no idea how popular they are here; I had never heard of them before, and I don't now anyone who owns one.

My question was a serious one asking for info on how a person would be able to buy ammo for a caliber that is listed as "various" or "n/a" in the event that NZ restricts ammo to the guns that are registered to a person.

Perhaps you would like another try at answering my question?

I already answered this.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12761808&postcount=215

I should make it clear that currently for a Class A licence, you only need to produce a firearms licence to purchase ammunition.... you do not have to produce the weapon or prove that you own the firearm that ammunition is for.

However, a firearms register, ammunition restrictions and tougher licencing requirements are in the next tranche of changes to the Firearms Laws.
 
Really? Do I have to spell everything out in all of my posts? The USA has so much cargo and commerce crossing the border that only a fraction is thoroughly inspected. I'm suggesting that contraband gun parts could have been shipped to NZ. I don't know how well everything that enters NZ is inspected.
You are going to have to connect the dots for me as the above still doesn't answer the "and?"
 
You are going to have to connect the dots for me as the above still doesn't answer the "and?"
A previous post said it was not known where the weapons used in the attack were obtained from. I suggested they may be contraband rifles from outside of NZ. That is it. I don't know of any other way to paint this picture for you.
 
Trolling noted. You know I was referring to new laws and restrictions.

So was I and I stick by it - fewer guns leads to fewer deaths. I even gave you examples.

What makes that trolling?

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

You don't like people who give straight answers?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:
So was I and I stick by it - fewer guns leads to fewer deaths. I even gave you examples.

What makes that trolling?
I asked a legitimate question about firearm tech and possible new regulations but you try to turn it into a juvenile query to mock me. I don't think you're that naive. You were trolling.

You don't like people who give straight answers?
So far you're resisting giving a straight answer to me that is actually on topic. Where did the asteroids come from?
 
The Thompson Center Encore and Contender are not some sort of rare or obscure firearms. Although I have no idea how popular they may or may not be in NZ, they are owned by a considerable number of people in the USA and elsewhere. Many people including myself own a single frame and several barrels of different calibers. It is an inexpensive way of shooting calibers that vary from 17 to 73 caliber. Why is this so difficult to understand?

My question was a serious one asking for info on how a person would be able to buy ammo for a caliber that is listed as "various" or "n/a" in the event that NZ restricts ammo to the guns that are registered to a person.

I'm not familiar with NZ law, but I wonder if this is even an issue there.

What is even consider the regulated part of a gun in NZ? The multi-cal problem would not exist if the barreled receiver is considered a regulated/serialized part. Isn't that the case in other countries, like the UK? If each TC contender barreled receiver was considered a separate, serialized firearm, then there is no issue as you describe.

The US only treats the lower receiver as a regulated part, so you can have the situation of multiple non-regulated uppers or barreled receivers fitting the same lower. I'm not sure if that is the case in former commonwealth nations.
 
I asked a legitimate question about firearm tech and possible new regulations but you try to turn it into a juvenile query to mock me. I don't think you're that naive. You were trolling.

I wasn't mocking you, believe it or not. As to the tech questions, I think they've been answered by others and I wouldn't try, because I don't give a toss one way or the other. They could ban guns entirely (even though I own some) and I couldn't care less.

I'm an archer.

I was just reiterating the obvious that any measure reducing guns in society is a good thing.
 

Back
Top Bottom