New Zealand’s gun confiscation program just failed miserably

I have seen several articles placing the number of firearms turned in some where between 50,000 and 51,000 but this is the first article that has said there are 170,000 that were targeted to be turned in. So if there was gun registration there should be no problem going to the individuals who refused to obey their leaders command, no ?

If there was no gun registration then that might be a problem for those wanting to determine who has what ? Just something to consider as I am truly sorry for the 120,000 who are now criminals. I guess the old saying, " No one rules if no one obeys" still has some meat in it. I have no idea how this will finally shake out... On the one hand I hate to see people break the law and on the other hand I will always respect someone who takes their own right to protect themselves from anyone or thing that wants to do them harm. But I grew up in Texas on a farm where guns were just another tool for a job.

The deadline for the mandatory gun buyback program was Friday. The New Zealand program successfully led to the compensated confiscation of 51,000 of the targeted firearms. But as the left-leaning Guardian newspaper reports, this is out of an estimated 170,000 such guns currently in circulation. And there are still a minimum of 1.2 million legally owned firearms in New Zealand on top of that.

hotair.com...

a reply to: 727Sky

I would argue for goverment getting 1/3 of the projected numbers is pretty good, considering just how inept most governments are.

Oh and the criminal label only applies if caught.

Well this answered that !

The government set aside $110 million to compensate gun owners for their firearms. In total, the government collected 47,000 firearms. An accounting firm the government hired determined that the number of banned guns is estimated between 50,000 and 170,000. The exact number, however, is unknown because the country does not have a registry for what they call "military style assault rifles."

townhall.com...

Well, those 120,000 people have stuck up their middle finger to the Government.

Let us watch how they handle it.

It could quite easily turn into a powder keg.

The people that did turn them in did so for several reasons one of which would be that an authority figure knew they had such a weapon.

Others did so out of an adherence to the law.

Still others for the buy back money.

We wait the next move.

P

a reply to: 727Sky

"Sorry Democrats"? Do you think that this has any relevance with a US political party?

This article is also a bit pre-emptive of any actual figures, the amnesty concluding only six days ago, and no official figures in.

This is the epitome of opinion instead of actual news.

In New Zealand, we never had a anything that explicitly calls carrying a weapon, a human right. Which is because it is just stupid, that you have to have guns to defend against people who have guns, because they have to have guns to defend against people who have guns, because they have to have guns to defend...

And the idea that you could defend against a tyrannical government that is massively better armed, provisioned and trained than the general populace is similarly stupid. To do so is to die, quickly.

Not that the US 2nd amendment even actually specifically mentions guns! US citizens have the right to bear anti-personnel mines and US citizens have the right to bear bio-toxins and delivery systems. But that would be insane, right?

New Zealand will most likely have a reduction in gun crime, similar to what happened when bans went into place in Australia. The statistics, when they are in and published, will no doubt be argued against by the US gun lobby trying desperately to justify arming the insane by just as much as you arm everyone else. Just so they can make sales.

If there were 120,000 people who have retained guns that are now illegal, then they ARE criminals in law and in intent.

A police search of their property will get them jail time and a criminal record. Even if the gun is never used for criminal purposes. That is how a gun ban works.

a reply to: chr0naut

Good post, I just want to touch on this bit.

 The statistics, when they are in and published, will no doubt be argued against by the US gun lobby trying desperately to justify arming the insane by just as much as you arm everyone else. Just so they can make sales. 

Obviously we are all safer when the nutjobs are all armed because everyone has guns so we're all safer that way.

a reply to: 727Sky

That seriously doesn't meet the definition of "miserably failed" though, does it?

"Miserably failed" would be some crazy person getting there hands on a semi automatic rifle, despite the new laws, then using it to mow down a bunch of random people on the street.

As far as I know, that hasn't happened, so nothing in reality has actually "miserably failed".

a reply to: chr0naut

A police search of their property will get them jail time and a criminal record. Even if the gun is never used for criminal purposes.

Sounds kinda dictatorial to me.

Congratulations?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: chr0naut


A police search of their property will get them jail time and a criminal record. Even if the gun is never used for criminal purposes. That is how a gun ban works.

does that make you proud, or sick? Oh, and what is the definition of fascism?

The bad people kept theirs. Much more effective to stop mass shootings would be if MSM did not give them the 15 minutes they so desperately seek. MSM is the real problem here.

originally posted by: Arne786
The bad people kept theirs. Much more effective to stop mass shootings would be if MSM did not give them the 15 minutes they so desperately seek. MSM is the real problem here.

Ummm...well...that's one quarter the problem...

The other three parts are the MSM eaters...those that consume from that particular trough...and like it...

Additionally we have the Prog politicians...always willing to trample over the rights of the serfs...for their own good...natch...

Then we have that all too common distillation...that perfect storm of individual...who exemplifies a singular desire...to be kept...

Just ask the KIWI time traveler...I mean...IF...you can get him to release that lip lock from the teat of Mama.guv…











YouSir

a reply to: chr0naut
This is the modern era. I bet you would try to make the same argument about swords and daggers in the pre gunpowder age in lands where, criminals and bandits will still always carry them.

It is clear you believe that people have no right to defend their well being using ANY weapon. You should just roll over now and practice your fetal position for that inevitable day you are a victim of violent crime.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky
And the idea that you could defend against a tyrannical government that is massively better armed, provisioned and trained than the general populace is similarly stupid. To do so is to die, quickly.

This argument, while very superficially appearing to be logical, ignores the reality that many, in fact a large portion of that military will actually be on the side of those defending against such a tyrannical move by the government.

It would not be the cakewalk you seem to imagine, unless the government is successful in one of their plots, which is to get our own military otherwise occupied elsewhere (like, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, etc etc ad nauseum), while quietly bringing UN (foreign) troops in to the country, who would not have any such patriotic feelings/sympathies with the local populations.

a reply to: 727Sky

New Zealand has a population of less the 5 million people , 51,000 fewer illegal firearms seems like a good result to me.

Assault rifles are a weapon of war and have no legitimate place in a civilized society.

a reply to: 727Sky

The problem now becomes the fact that if you have to use that illegal gun to defend yourself, you will be in a world of hurt.
Rock and a hard place.

a reply to: gortex

Assault rifles are a weapon of war and have no legitimate place in a civilized society.

Still waiting for a definition of what exactly an "assault rifle" is...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: gortex

Assault rifles are a weapon of war and have no legitimate place in a civilized society.

Still waiting for a definition of what exactly an "assault rifle" is...

TheRedneck

Ummm…

B...B...B...Black...
and...S...S...S...Scary...

Disclaimer:
(There was no racism intent in my above definition)










YouSir

a reply to: TheRedneck

Here's one.

Assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.
www.britannica.com...

If someone needs an assault rifle for hunting then they're obviously not much of a hunter , or they think Predator was a documentary.

a reply to: gortex

Here's one.

Ah, OK. Thank you. Those are already illegal; have been for decades now.

Congratulations?

ETA: (We who know about guns call them "fully automatic weapons." Just FYI for the future.)

TheRedneck

I'm sure the people of New Zealand feel a lot safer knowing that the police and the military have turned in all of their assault rifles.

There is no need for those weapons of war in a civilized society.