Kiwi Gun Buyback/Ban

| December 21, 2019

Banned AR-15

New Zealand gun owners have handed in tens of thousands of firearms as part of an ambitious six-month weapons buy-back program following a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles.

On March 15, a lone gunman killed 51 people at two Christchurch mosques. Less than a month after the attack, the New Zealand government rushed through new laws banning military-style semi-automatic weapons in a move that was closely followed around the world.

As of midnight local time on Friday, 56,250 firearms and 194,245 parts had been handed in at more than 685 collection events held around the country, New Zealand Police Deputy Commissioner Mike Clement said.

Numbers by themselves, with no context are meaningless. How well is the gun ban really working?

After mosque shootings, New Zealand’s weapons buyback runs into an obstacle: gun owners

By Emanuel Stoakes
CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand — New Zealanders had until Friday to surrender banned firearms under a mandatory government buyback after the country’s deadliest terrorist attack. But not all gun owners have heeded the call, raising questions about its effectiveness and offering lessons for gun-control advocates in the United States.

The Pacific nation outlawed semiautomatics and most high-powered military-style firearms after a gunman killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch on March 15. The trial of Brenton Tarrant, the alleged shooter, is set to begin in June.

To get guns out of circulation, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern turned to a method Australia implemented in the 1990s — buying back existing firearms while giving owners a grace period before their weapons would become illegal. Ardern’s center-left government set aside about $110 million to compensate owners.

“We have moved to stop the sale, and now we’ve moved to stop the ongoing circulation of these weapons,” she said in introducing the legislation.

The approach won wide public support and near-unanimous bipartisan backing in New Zealand, as well as praise from some quarters in the United States. Prominent politicians such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a Democratic presidential candidate, and former congressman Beto O’Rourke (D-Tex.) have proposed similar measures.

About 47,000 firearms have been collected, and about 2,000 others have been modified to become lawful, New Zealand police figures show.

A government-commissioned assessment by the accounting firm KPMG estimated that the number of banned guns could be between 50,000 and 170,000. If the median of that range were correct, more than half of the prohibited firearms would be unaccounted for; the precise figure is unknown because New Zealand until this year lacked a registry for military-style semiautomatics.

With the amnesty expiring, the nation’s largest gun-rights group this week declared the buyback an “unmitigated failure,” citing the group’s research. Some two-thirds of weapons banned after the Christchurch massacre remain in the hands of New Zealanders, according to the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners, making those gun owners liable to five years’ imprisonment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“On the one hand, taking around 50,000 of these weapons out of the community is a clearly positive step,” she said. “On the other hand, we don’t know what proportion of all prohibited firearms this represents. If we use the lower-bound estimates, it’s a pretty good result; if we use the higher ones, it’s less so.”

For comparison, estimates of firearm owners compliance with the New York Safe Act is around 4%.

Refs: Washington Post, Hudson Valley One

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Second Amendment

Comments (37)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. SFC D says:

    From my cold dead fingers.

    • Comm Center Rat says:

      Indeed. Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

      • Huey Jock says:

        The Kiwis don’t have a second amendment.

        They didn’t have founding fathers that could perceive the necessity of one because they didn’t have to fight for freedom.

        They don’t remember who their perp who started this mess was fighting.

        Wake up America!!!

  2. 5th/77th FA says:

    I will paraphrase an old school Cheech and Chong saying; “Gunz with no money will get you thru bad times better than money with no gunz.”

    It’s coming here next. If you are not ready…then you best get ready.

    Again, this is not about gun control, this is all about control of the people.

    • 26Limabeans says:

      I was pretty sure I would see it here in my
      lifetime because of Obama but he turned out to
      be the greatest arms saleman evah!
      Then Trump happens.
      Oh it’s still gonna happen someday but I will
      be long gone. Kinda disappapointed in a sick
      sorta way but I don’t feel bad about it.
      Know what I mean?

    • Toxic Deplorable Racist SAH B Woodman says:

      I’ll take that expression farther back, to the mid-to-late 60s, the B&W comix, the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers. “Ass, gas, or grass. No one rides for free.”

  3. Ret_25X says:

    “military style weapons”…

    no military anywhere has ever issued or used AR 15 rifles.

    Asshats….

    • When the “Mattel” 15 first came out, I remember the Air Force buying them in only semi auto away back when and went to the selective fire version down the line.

      • David says:

        Nope, the ORIGINAL AR15 was select-fire. The Air Force bought 8500 of them early on, and then when the Army bought them the standardized selective fire rifle was designated the M16. The AR15 became the semi-auto civilian gun, the M16 (nee AR15) the select fire. So technically FOR ONE ORDER OF 8500 guns CALLED an AR15 was used by a military, but in reality these were M16s. As far as I can determine these were purchased for base security, presumably carried by AP/SP personnel and not used in any combat till the Army fielded M16s. Please correct me if I am mistaken?

        • Huey Jock says:

          And somewhere in my ancient memory there was a thing about the original AR-15 (maybe just the Air Commando version) that the rifleing turns was something like one-in-16 instead of the one-in-12{inches} in the barrel that gave it a lower spin rate causing the “explosive” impact that caused major trauma like removing limbs and heads. The round supposedly started tumbling on impact and acted as a super expanding projo.

          Again, correct me if this is inaccurate.

          • rgr769 says:

            All bs. Spin rate has nothing to do with the bullet tumbling. It has more to do with the bullet weight and velocity.

            • rgr769 says:

              Also the only thing that causes an M16 bullet to tumble is striking something such as vegetation or striking bone.

            • rgr769 says:

              I might add that I have personally seen M16 bullet wounds. FMJ 5.56 bullets don’t tear off limbs and heads.

              • Huey Jock says:

                Please recognize that I was referring to the ARMALITE AR-15 that the Air Commando’s deployed the SEA theatre, not the Colt manufacture M-16. This dates back to more than 50 years ago and was depicted in one of the magazines of that era. Wish I could remember which one.

                The slower spin DOES make the projo less stable and more susceptible to cartwheeling upon impact with even lighter masses than bone. Problems occurred from contact with foliage and in Arctic tests some high-density air could alter tragectories. It may have been a ruse to circumvent the Geneva convention against “expanding” projos. Yeah, I know we didn’t sign the Geneva Convention.

                The Air Force Armament Museum (Eglin AFB) had some of the pics of body damage but probably didn’t display them

  4. OWB says:

    So does this mean that they can only buy/confiscate/appropriate those weapons which they had previously owned? Simple understanding of the meaning of words indicates that one can only “buy back” that which one had bought originally.

    A small thing, perhaps, but indicative of the general desensitization of words and the concepts they represent. Is it planned or just coincidental that the left describes the separation of those with guns from their guns as a “buy back?” This implies some convoluted relationship between the confiscator and the gun that never existed – taking guns away is much more ominous than returning it to a previous owner. Sounds like just another lefty lie.

    If defenders of A2 would just quit agreeing to the mythical preexisting relationship between your privately owned guns and those who would confiscate them, perhaps it would be a little easier to make the argument that there is no right of those who would confiscate your weapons to do so. Just stop using the term “buy back” to describe any transaction other than a previous seller and buyer reversing a past purchase arrangement.

    • Poetrooper says:

      It’s purposefully designed to make it sound like a legal contractual agreement between the gun owners and the government, which it is not because one party to the agreement is not equal in bargaining power and is being coerced to perform.

      It’s a liberal sham.

    • Anonymous says:

      Todays’ ethic: you can do anything as long as you call it something acceptable.

  5. The Other Whitey says:

    Step 1: Civil disobedience, otherwise known as Irish Democracy. Refuse to comply with unconstitutional laws.

    If the powers-that-be respond with violence, then….

    Step 2: Replenish the Tree of Liberty with the blood of tyrants in copious amounts.

    • Roh-Dog says:

      I thought Irish Democracy was complaining about British rule, then getting an opportunity to form an Irish Government, and then went that breaks down, going back to British rule.

      • David says:

        Say that in some quarters and counting your teeth will become easy. Lot of Micks take that shit in a less than joking way.

        • Roh-Dog says:

          Don’t I know it. I belonged to an Irish club, I’m both Catholic and Protestant Irish so use to conflict at home…but anyway, as a running ‘joke’ I’d go and ask the very Irish bartender for an English beer; Fullers, Boddingtons, Bass, etc.
          He probably didn’t enjoy the shots cheer, “Long live the Republic, long may She stand!”
          Not amused was he.
          I can be an asshole when I drink but I tip well.

  6. Aysel says:

    a government buyback suggests that the government bought the weapon in the first place…

    also…

    Molon Labe MF’s

  7. AW1Ed says:

    ‘Scuze me lads, may I have your firearms?

    Ahhh, never mind. See you later…

  8. Roh-Dog says:

    Free Men don’t ask their government for permissions to exercise God-given rights.
    I think the kleptocracy best rethink redoubting in Zeelandia.
    Also to those that did turn ‘em in, maybe redress for wrongs, get that PoS PM to send them to the Kongers. They could use them and probably would, unlike you clowns.

  9. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    JUST LOOK AT how shitty the Government treats us these day while we’re armed and merely imagine how they’ll treat us if we were disarmed….

  10. Anonymous says:

    Gun control… because armed folk won’t get on trains to gulag for “social justice,” of course.

  11. GDContractor says:

    Governments prefer unarmed peasants.

  12. Cameron Kingsley says:

    You can’t buy back something that wasn’t yours in the first place. Though of course you can use “persuasion” to do it.