What It's Like To Own Guns...

[The Atheist]

Is there a large thread of extremist muslin weaving through the fabric of your society?

Nope. Very small in fact.

There are a few extremists of various types, from muslins to Maori, and others that begin with different letters.

So if a person is an extremist of any type, they can be blocked from purchasing a firearm?

Yes, all extremists of any type will be blocked. Any person of any type can be refused a firearms licence. As Cully notes, the onus is on the applicant to show they:

A are a fit and proper person to own a gun.
B are able to pass a test on firearm safety.
C have a valid reason for owning a firearm, of which "I'm a scaredy-cat who wants one for self-defence" is not one.

The approval is entirely at the discretion of the police, who need not give any reasons for declining an application.

How does a person get labeled as an extremist in NZ?

By acting in a manner that causes the police to think they're extremists.

Extremists are not the business of the police as much as the Security Intelligence Service, and if someone is on their radar, they won't be able to buy firearms legally.

Is it like being put on the no-fly list in the USA? Is there any due process involved?

No process - as I said, it's entirely at police discretion.

Despite my total aversion to pigs of any stripe, I have to state it's an area they do fairly well in; I don't know of any cases of people being declined without good cause and there are very few legal guns in the hands of people who would use them against fellow humans.

Anyway, the crooks would need a few St Valentine's Day Massacres to catch up to the number of people killed by hunters mis-identifying their targets, so people still die here from gunshot wounds pretty regularly.

 

[cullennz]

Nope. Very small in fact.

There are a few extremists of various types, from muslins to Maori, and others that begin with different letters.



Yes, all extremists of any type will be blocked. Any person of any type can be refused a firearms licence. As Cully notes, the onus is on the applicant to show they:

A are a fit and proper person to own a gun.
B are able to pass a test on firearm safety.
C have a valid reason for owning a firearm, of which "I'm a scaredy-cat who wants one for self-defence" is not one.

The approval is entirely at the discretion of the police, who need not give any reasons for declining an application.



By acting in a manner that causes the police to think they're extremists.

Extremists are not the business of the police as much as the Security Intelligence Service, and if someone is on their radar, they won't be able to buy firearms legally.



No process - as I said, it's entirely at police discretion.

Despite my total aversion to pigs of any stripe, I have to state it's an area they do fairly well in; I don't know of any cases of people being declined without good cause and there are very few legal guns in the hands of people who would use them against fellow humans.

Anyway, the crooks would need a few St Valentine's Day Massacres to catch up to the number of people killed by hunters mis-identifying their targets, so people still die here from gunshot wounds pretty regularly.

Mate.

Hunters are a good point

 

[arthwollipot]

Then it wouldn't be perfect at all would it?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. No solution that requires even one person to give up even one gun can possibly be in any way good, even if it is otherwise perfect.

If I could come up with a solution that would absolutely 100% guarantee that zero children would be killed or injured by a gunshot wound in the next 12 months, even that would be derided and dismissed if it meant that one person had to give up one gun.

Again, I think that is utterly insane.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Again, I think that is utterly insane.

Welcome to the United States of Gunfire.

 

[The Fool]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. No solution that requires even one person to give up even one gun can possibly be in any way good, even if it is otherwise perfect.

If I could come up with a solution that would absolutely 100% guarantee that zero children would be killed or injured by a gunshot wound in the next 12 months, even that would be derided and dismissed if it meant that one person had to give up one gun.

Again, I think that is utterly insane.

It's just an ambit position. If Trump doesn't,t win the elections then people here who oppose all change on principle will just have to adapt to change. Or do the last stand up in the hills thing. Talk is cheap so I don,t think a civil war will happen in response to gun reform. They will whine a bit but then comply.

If trump wins then gun reform will be the least of the USAs problems.

 

[Giz]

Nope. Very small in fact.

There are a few extremists of various types, from muslins to Maori, and others that begin with different letters.

I don't think you've cottoned on to the muslin thing.

 

[GlennB]

If I could come up with a solution that would absolutely 100% guarantee that zero children would be killed or injured by a gunshot wound in the next 12 months, even that would be derided and dismissed if it meant that one person had to give up one gun.

I proposed a system of 'smart gun' owner-recognition that would deal with that. I think it was WildCat who complained he'd have to take his gloves off to get recognised (do people use guns with their gloves on? I have no idea). There were other complaints too.

I think you're dead right - we're addressing a love of guns here combined with living in a fantasy world, and gun lovers' rationality goes out the window in the face of even the suggestion of any restriction.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I proposed a system of 'smart gun' owner-recognition that would deal with that. I think it was WildCat who complained he'd have to take his gloves off to get recognised (do people use guns with their gloves on? I have no idea). There were other complaints too.

Slippery slope hysteria running beneath all that.

I think you're dead right - we're addressing a love of guns here combined with living in a fantasy world, and gun lovers' rationality goes out the window in the face of even the suggestion of any restriction.

Hyperfocusing on one aspect of life hobbles the mind's ability to get the big picture, doesn't it.

 

[Information Analyst]

Really?

No criminals in Australia ever have access to firearms of any sort? Gangs never acquire or use firearms? Must be quite the utopia you have there, where only law-abiding citizens have access to firearms, and criminals just don't consider them worthwhile.

More a case of most law-abiding citizens not having guns, and only those with a good reason having them, same as in the UK. Less than 2% of the population had the handguns that were banned in 1997. And no, generally speaking British criminals do not see the need to use firearms, either.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

More a case of most law-abiding citizens not having guns, and only those with a good reason having them, same as in the UK. Less than 2% of the population had the handguns that were banned in 1997. And no, generally speaking British criminals do not see the need to use firearms, either.

Have they tried banning assault knives yet?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. No solution that requires even one person to give up even one gun can possibly be in any way good, even if it is otherwise perfect.

If I could come up with a solution that would absolutely 100% guarantee that zero children would be killed or injured by a gunshot wound in the next 12 months, even that would be derided and dismissed if it meant that one person had to give up one gun.

Again, I think that is utterly insane.

That does seem pretty insane. I mean your post that is. You have this giant "If" YOU could come up with a solution. First off, "if's" are speculation and fantasy, not real. Then you want a "100% guaranteed" prediction of the future. On a skeptic site? You believe in that kind of woo? Going for the 1 million dollar prize? Obviously more fantasyland. Then you play the "save the children" card because????? Who can say no to saving children? Even if it is pure speculation and fantasy, at least we can save children? Are these fantasy children too? Or real children?

And what are we to do to gain access to this fantasyland of yours, full of Panlike innocent children saved from speculated harm? Why step right up and give up your basic rights of self defense and hunting of food!

Well here in Oklahoma we have a completely different solution. It's based on reality, not fantasy. When a local sheriff sees a spike in violent crime in a county, he publically asks all citizens on the county to please go down and get a concealed carry permit, fingerprinting 1/2 price. Then publicizes guidelines for the law abiding citizens to follow before they shoot the criminals. The bad guys generally get the point and get the hell out of Dodge.

Saves a whole lot more lives than your fantasyland woo.

 

[3point14]

Well here in Oklahoma we have a completely different solution. It's based on reality, not fantasy. When a local sheriff sees a spike in violent crime in a county, he publically asks all citizens on the county to please go down and get a concealed carry permit, fingerprinting 1/2 price. Then publicizes guidelines for the law abiding citizens to follow before they shoot the criminals. The bad guys generally get the point and get the hell out of Dodge.

Saves a whole lot more lives than your fantasyland woo.

Do they all get badges? Is there theme music?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do they all get badges? Is there theme music?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Do they all get badges? Is there theme music?

badges? We don't need no stinking badges!

eta Sama beat me too it!

 

[Ranb]

I may be wrong but as far as I'm aware they can block people for a wide range of reasons.

I've no reason to believe you're right if you're claiming that being an extremist of any kind is grounds for a prohibition on gun ownership.

I was hoping The Atheist would back up his claim with links to the law that bars extremists from owning guns or at least define them. (ETA; partially addressed below)

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

A are a fit and proper person to own a gun.
B are able to pass a test on firearm safety.
C have a valid reason for owning a firearm, of which "I'm a scaredy-cat who wants one for self-defence" is not one.

I'd say that being an extremist of various kinds would not make a person unfit to own a gun.

The approval is entirely at the discretion of the police, who need not give any reasons for declining an application.

Doesn't seem fair does it? Do NZ residents ever complain about the police declining based on race, creed or other reasons there? Obama recently brought 41P (a change in regulations) into effect stopping our law enforcement from arbitrarily blocking the approval of a gun transfer.

By acting in a manner that causes the police to think they're extremists.

Are these people extremists? http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/281466/thousands-turn-out-to-protest-tpp What about members of Greenpeace or others who protest for other causes?

On this forum I've been labeled a nut and/or extremist simply for knowing about and having an opinion on guns that runs counter to the one others have.

Despite my total aversion to pigs of any stripe, I have to state it's an area they do fairly well in; I don't know of any cases of people being declined without good cause and there are very few legal guns in the hands of people who would use them against fellow humans.

The most frequent complaints I ever heard about this kind of gun control in the USA were the sheriffs who wanted a "donation" prior to approval on the registration form. That form of corruption is about to disappear thanks to Obama; or perhaps to those who lobbied against it for the past several decades.

Ranb

 

[BobTheCoward]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. No solution that requires even one person to give up even one gun can possibly be in any way good, even if it is otherwise perfect.

If I could come up with a solution that would absolutely 100% guarantee that zero children would be killed or injured by a gunshot wound in the next 12 months, even that would be derided and dismissed if it meant that one person had to give up one gun.

Again, I think that is utterly insane.

I accept your premise and reject the outcome as unacceptable. It would be unethical.

 

[Tero]

You can't even spell self-defense much less understand it. Every day proud Americans gun down attackers wielding knives, or non-attackers holding nothing at all. Have fun shooting paper targets.

Certainly a quick way to resolve conflicts. Who wants to do all that talking anyway? Let alone punching and kicking. Too much work.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Certainly a quick way to resolve conflicts. Who wants to do all that talking anyway? Let alone punching and kicking. Too much work.

That Wild West ethos is what makes Branson so exciting.

 

[Information Analyst]

Have they tried banning assault knives yet?

Knives per se have never been banned, but having certain types of knife in public without a "good reason" can be prosecuted. Some specific types have even greater restrictions (e.g. butterfly, gravity, and flick/switchblade).