Look at New Zealand’s gun confiscation by a Canadian

| June 22, 2023

The Canadian government announced a ban/buyback on over 1,500 “assault-type weapons”.  This is modeled on New Zealand’s ban/buyback (okay, “confiscation” to be accurate.) Here’s a viewpoint from a Canadian writer of what’s up:

Like Canada, New Zealand has a substantial number of firearms and firearms owners: 26.3 firearms per 100 persons, compared to Canada’s 34.7. In 2019, in response to a tragic mass shooting in Christchurch, the government banned certain guns and implemented a buyback. Unlike Ottawa, however, which has focused its ban on specific “assault-style” firearms, New Zealand banned almost all semi-automatic firearms.

The buyback ran from June to December 2019 and involved confiscation of over 60,000 firearms, though New Zealand police have estimated the total number of prohibited firearms in the country might be as many as 240,000. The buyback wasn’t cheap. The government initially budgeted $16 million (in C$) for the administrative costs of the program. In the end, the country’s auditor general found, costs had almost doubled, to about $31 million. But that was just for administration. The cost of compensating gun owners was about $106 million, which works out to a per firearm price of about $1,800. Those numbers are for a country with a population of just over five million.

Note there are an estimated 300-400 million guns for our population of 330,000,000.

After the guns were bought and removed from the hands of New Zealanders, what happened to gun crime? Violent gun crime actually went up. During the decade before the buyback violent firearm offences averaged 932 a year. In 2019, the year of the buyback, there were 1,142 offences; in 2020, 1,156; in 2021, 1,338; and last year, 1,444. That’s up almost 55 per cent over the pre-ban decade.

Thought this was supposed to reduce gun crime, what? Still, Canada jumped in with both feet despite history:

The National Police Federation, the union that represents the RCMP, says Ottawa’s buyback is costly legislation that does not address current or urgent threats to public safety. “In fact,” the union says, “it diverts extremely important personnel, resources, and funding away from addressing the more immediate and growing threat of criminal use of illegal firearms.”

What’s the likely cost of Ottawa’s buyback? In 2019, the government said it would be $200 million. But history and independent estimates suggest a much higher bill than that. The last major gun control program in Canada was the long-gun registry. The government initially promised it would only cost $2 million. The final tab was over $2 billion.

Financial Post

So Canada urinated 1000 times as much away $2,000,000,00 on their long-gun registry which didn’t work, and now wants to bilk their citizens for billions more to implement a failed New Zealand policy which only addressed 25% of their illegal weapons at a cost multiple times what the guns were worth – and still didn’t address the criminals who by definition aren’t going to obey the law anyway.

Expect the same from US politicians as soon as they get a chance – safe bets include Biden, Harris, Schumer, Newsom, Kennedy and every RINO in office.


Category: Canada, Crime, Gun Grabbing Fascists, Guns, Politics

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

They want to take your guns because they plan to do things to you that would cause any good man, justifiably, to shoot back.


Yep. One more step in the process of turning We, The People into We, The Subjects.

The Founding Fathers had not just finished a hunting trip. They had just finished throwing off an oppressive despot.

comment image


Don’t look.


Bottle opener.

You can buy one that looks like a phaser-1


The Marvin Heemeyer fan club is ready.


Killdozer-the series


Crime went up? Duh…
It’s not about “protecting citizens” its about reducing their chances of resistance to authoritarian government. If only the Feds have guns, then the citizens must comply is the theory. 

“Its the hard heart that kills. A weapon is only a tool…” Gunny Hartman
Taking guns away from the criminally insane means they’ll use knives, hatchets, machetes, a Buick…whatever they can get their hands on but you are defenseless


It was pretty clear cut. They didn’t go after guns that were frequently used in crimes, they went after guns that were a threat to the government. Semi-auto centerfire rifles.


The NZ gunshop web pages are worth a look, silencers with no tax stamp $200 and some neat mil surplus.

Old tanker

From what I read in the gun publications here, in Europe and NZ gun mufflers are expected and considered a normal thing so you can shoot and not disturb the neighbors. They have no negative connotations and do not indicate criminal intent.


That is because the NFA is based upon gun crime in the 1930s. For example SBRs and SBSs were made “unobtainable” with the $200 tax stamp ($4500 in 2023) because many cities prohibited the possession of pistols. So one would cut down a rifle or shotgun to conceal it under their coat before robbing the local marijuana liquor dispensary. If the police caught you carrying it, you were within your rights.

Suppressors were more about poaching during the Great Depression than other crimes and most releated it to hunting regulations. One could buy one from the Sears catalog for $5. However; by 1934 many states had already banned their use, particularly during hunting but most often generally.

Other states, banned them after high profile crimes and a media uproar (sound familiar?) . New York for example had deranged escaped mental patient committed a night time mass shooting in 1916 (yes, we have always had mass shootings) with a suppressed 22.

For an excellent article on the history of regulation of suppressors in the US, I highly recommend:


Last edited 5 months ago by 5JC

Pistols were originally also on the NFA $200 tax stamp list. That bit was removed just before passage.


Then like now, in the overwhelming number of crimes committed with a gun, the offender used a pistol. The idea that they could legislate away crime was novel at the time.


I like how the so-called ‘National Firearms Act’ effectively prohibited a non-firearm and everyone shrugged their shoulders, accepted this as ok to do to supposedly free people.

From where I sit, suppressors/silencers are as to seat belts/air bags are to cars.

(iff’n thats to hyperbolic for anyone’s fragile ego, see the meme below and fuck off)

And boy to they get hot! I’m talking light saber-ish hhhhhot!


Post Bruen, the 1968 act is in real jeopardy, as it applies to many commonly used items. Bruen seems well written to nuke the 68 act, especially with regards to small handguns.

The 1934 act is politically more survivable. Due to the unconstitutional prohibition on full auto, they are thus uncommon. But since the Army now issues a 14 inch SBR that is fully automatic, the militia utility is clear. Fussing over braced pistols may wind up invalidating much of the 34 act.

Of course, when the donks decide to resume the practices of Andrew Jackson, SCOTUS is a dead letter.

Mike B

I had to re-read the article, because I became fixated on the gun toting brunette…..


David gets to pick what image he wants to use. One of the perks of the title of Editor. I think he deserves a raise, what say ye?

Mike B


Commissioner Wretched

As a newspaper editor myself, I must agree with the King … to paraphrase Mel Brooks, “It’s good to be the Editor.”


Get fvcked. I don’t have shit, I didn’t see shit, and I don’t KNOW shit.

Skivvy Stacker

I’ll vouch for that, because I wasn’t here to see you, or hear you, or know that you don’t know seeing or hearing or knowing shit….