Pro-gun lobbyists descend on Christchurch
Gun control isn’t generally a big issue in New Zealand - certainly not like it is in the United States -but that could all be about to change with the news that a Firearms Safety Seminar being held in Christchurch today is featuring five international pro-gun lobbyists as keynote speakers. This release of Keith’s has more details. One of the most concerning things about this conference, aside from the fact that it is billed as a “safety” seminar, is that it is being hosted by the New Zealand Police, and opened by Police Minister Annette King.
What’s so bad about these speakers? Well, check out some of their credentials:
- Mark Barnes, a registered Washington firearm industry lobbyist who declared having received US$360,000 from the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) in one year.
- John R. Lott, the world’s most controversial pro-gun researcher, who writes that the solution to school shootings is to arm the teachers, and whose recent book is titled More Guns, Less Crime.
- Rick Patterson, Managing Director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI), is an American gun industry lobbyist who spoke at the United Nations last month, arguing that US and other civilian gun owners should be exempt from international gun controls.
- Colin Greenwood, a former UK police officer whose conference abstract says he will argue that the British handgun ban is “pathetic irrelevance�.
· Gary A. Mauser, a hard-line opponent of Canada’s firearms registry.
I feel the most sorry for the people who go along to this seminar thinking it is genuinely about gun safety, and end up being bombarded by pro-gun propaganda. And why on earth are they speaking in New Zealand anyway?
February 21st, 2006 at 4:03 pm
We have to protect ourselves from the Aussies somehow…
February 21st, 2006 at 8:20 pm
A little Orwell springs to mind:
“The notion that you can somehow defeat violence by
submitting to it is simply a flight from fact. As I
have said, it is only possible to people who have
money and guns between themselves and reality.” - George Orwell, October 1941 - lifted from http://www.islandone.org/~amon/QuotesAndAphorisms.html
February 21st, 2006 at 9:59 pm
You have to understand - neoconservatism is an American-borne but global movement. It has taken power in the United States. But the movement seeks to expand, much like the colonial powers, much like the Axis, much like the Soviet Union - they all wanted to conquer, some with ideas, some with economics, some with coercion, some with guns, mostly with guns.
Neoconservatism is a cult - plain and simple - and the idea that the rest of the world doesn’t agree with them only implies, to them, that the rest of the world is wrong and needs to be changed.
We also see this power most blatently in the third world. The U.S. has been trying to affect policy in Venesuela for quite some time, and, of course, there’s Iraq.
But we also see it in other ways too - the relationship of the U.S. and Britain under Blair, for example. The treaty which gives the CIA to interrogate Irish citizens on Irish soil in total secrecy.
This is a movement that wants to take over the world.
Now, it’s hard to say “This is just like the Soviets wanting to bring communism to all parts of the globe using espionage” because it seems like this is all being done out in the open. Also, neoconservatism doesn’t -really- want to kill a whole bunch of people. They just -will- kill them if they’re in the way and ignore them if they need help.
You could also make the same argument for Wahhabism - that they also want to take over the world and constantly seek to expand.
Again - little to do with the gun show.
And this is going to blow your mind - I’ve said all that, and I’m against gun control in the United States.
No. Really.
Don’t get me wrong. I think gun control is a good idea. I also happen to believe that under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it is illegal. So we have this stupid, antequaited bit in there about how the government can’t confiscate guns no matter how good an idea it really is. We also know that if it came down to it, the NRA guys would probably support any movement that sought to bring totalitarian power to the United States. (They’re doing a heckuva job already.)
And I really can’t stand the NRA.
I also realise that there’s a lot of reasons why some would want to own a gun (there’s a group called the Pink Pistols here whose main credo is “Armed gays don’t get bashed [brutally assaulted]”
My view is this - No member of our government, including the President of the United States, is above the law. The law, as written, currently states that the right to bear arms should not be infringed.
You want gun control? Change the fucking law. Hell, I’ll go out and volunteer for you. Rewrite the damn thing. I think it’s high time.
But until that moment happens, I’m going to defend an American’s right to own a gun. Because I’ll also defend their right to a fair trial, due process, and freedom of speech — even though, it seems, none of the NRA guys are really all that interested in returning the favor.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:31 pm
you know they are quite right, we all need more guns!!! There’s nothing more manly than having your intestines blown away in a gun fight.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:09 am
Waymad - Why don’t you tell us all how wonderful it is to have 12 year old kids blowing away 14 year old kids? How absolutely fantastic it is to have children die, not from aimed fire but from random shooting into (and through) the walls of their houses? How convenient it is to be able to scare off some thug by showing them a gun… as if you’d actually get a chance to haul it out before they had their’s aimed at you. The world of illusion that gun advocates live in with respect to the effects of their obsession on society, and the sophistry of quoting Orwell in this context… they do tend to bring out the worst in me. ORWELL WAS TALKING ABOUT NATIONS AND WARS, and not one person here has suggested that we disarm the military, but the people who are being entertained here are advocates of EVERYONE having a gun… or haven’t you read their screeds thoroughly. They want to turn the world into something like Texas.. where shooting your best friend is a perfectly normal, everyday sort of accident.
It’s one of the reasons I came here. To keep my children AWAY from a place where a child is killed on their way to school pretty near every damned week… AWAY from a place where the random shots can be heard most of the summer, every weekend, while you sit on your back porch. You don’t sit on the FRONT porch, cause that’d make you a target.
Nope… that’s not a good model for a sane society. Works pretty well for the insane one that adopted it, but there’s a lot of collateral damage.
BJ
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:00 am
John Lott!!!!!! Arrrggghhhhh
Tim Lambert has spent years debunking this guy.
see here: http://timlambert.org/category/lott/
also look down the right hand side-bar under Lott: Lambert has over a hundred posts on the man’s duplicity
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:33 am
Of course the Police are sponsoring these rednecks to come here!
By the way, the NZ Police College encourages its staff to take up a sport as part of the fitness requirement of working for the police, in either sworn or civilian positions.
One of those sports is competitive shooting, a fact which sees my ex-husband spending more time on the shooting range in Trentham or Kaitoke (yes, Wellington, there are TWO in our region) than with his kids on any given weekend, and using his annual leave to compete in the National Rifle Competitions in January of this year, at Kaitoke, with the full encouragement and blessing of his employer, the NZ Police College.
They fully endorse the excessive use of force in every engagement, especially in the case of protestors who are making noises that the US Embassey doesn’t want to hear eg: anti-arms race demonstrations at Te Papa last October.
BJ, I fully respect your choice not to bring your children up in a place where kids take guns to school as a matter of course. By the way, Orwell was against both private and state violence, and facists of every sort…
My response to my ex-husband’s new hobby is not getting my own gun, it’s yoga, pacifism, and more peace protests!! And supporting my pacifist friends who have been arrested unjustly, assaulted by Police, and acquitted in Court of trumped up charges.
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:49 am
Yeah Katie!
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:50 am
Well I’m goint to get my firearms license when I get the chance, and I’m going to get a small collection of rifles, say 3-4. Having said that, I’m glad that the process to go through is pretty rigorous and time-consuming. While I believe in the right to have a gun, I don’t believe that just anyone can have one, of any type, in any quantity and stored in any old way. Guns should be controlled, the same way we control who can drive a motor vehicle, when they drive it and what sort they can drive.
The arguement that an ‘armed populace need never fear tyranny’ doesn’t apply to NZ, not at this time anyway. I believe our democracy is still strong and viable, and that there is no threat of oppression evident. Having said that, this is always a possibility, and there is always a chance this may occur, even in NZ. I hope the gun is never introduced into NZ politics, the thought of us becoming like Texas is not a good one. Given the turmoil that is approaching under Peak Oil though, one never knows. Maybe a rifle in the locked wardrobe might not be such a bad thing after all.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:53 am
One of the depressing things about gun control debates is there doesn’t seem to be much public comment from the ordinary Kiwi hunter or farmer who owns a rifle or a shotgun. Instead, we get imported NRA-style arguments about the need for concealed handguns from paranoid rednecks terrified of being mugged. Gun ownership is pretty high in New Zealand, for reasons that have little to do with people defending themselves from crime.
By the way, on Orwell, he went to Spain and joined a militia, with the proclaimed intention of “killing one fascist”. So I don’t think you can say he was against violence.
By the way, bjchip, I suggest we disarm the military. I don’t support gun control for ordinary citizens and unlimited access to arms for the state.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:58 am
I’m not convinced that peak oil will cause turmoil, but it does, your survival chances will be most improved by securely locking a copy of the Yates Garden Guide in your wardrobe.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:30 pm
I’ve no problem with a well regulated and trained militia, or army, or even the police armed-offenders squad. I’ve no problem with private ownership of long-guns and the uses they’re put to on the farm. No problem with hunters or target shooting or collecting - with suitable registration and checks on where the guns go, how their access is controlled and who is allowed to have them, where and when.
All of those things are just fine with me, though I stay well away from the bush during hunting season, as being mistaken for game is apparently real easy, even if you’re a millionair buddy of Dick Cheney’s. Tane doesn’t worry me. Folks who keep their prized firearms locked in secure cabinets in their homes and on their farms, don’t worry me. The “pistol under the pillow” folks, THEY worry me. Hunters worry me if I’m anywhere I might be mistaken for game… but they shoot each other often enough to worry each other too.
Those things I outlined above aren’t a real problem in the USA either. The problem in the USA is that the gun-culture did not evolve and adjust to the existence of big cities, anonymity and people living cheek-to-jowl. The gun-culture in the USA fully supports the idea that everyone should have a gun and if someone holds up a McDonalds with a gun the patrons should all whip their guns out and shoot him dead on the spot. It’s the Archie-Bunker answer to hijacking, issue guns to everyone who boards the plane.
But we don’t have a death penalty in NZ. The gun the guy in the McDonald’s would have here could easily be a toy, but the US gun-culture demands his death. Well, in the US it’s easier to get a real gun than a toy that looks like a real gun (THOSE are illegal, with good reason). It’s endemic. A whole culture is built on the easy taking of other people’s lives, in games, in government or on the street.
http://www.killology.com/
It isn’t accidental. The Army sponsored “shooter” isn’t an accident either. The problem is that everyone is at the mercy of the least qualified person who manages to qualify to and is carrying a gun around. In a crowded city with lax controls as in the USA, that person is likely to be on drugs, insane, incompetent or angry as hell. Here it’s likely to be a Policeman with the training and temperment to control his more aggressive urges.
That difference is hugely important.
respectfully
BJ
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:53 pm
katie,
The solution to your husband not spending as much time with the children is simple; if they’re old enough, get him to buy an air rifle or a .22LR rifle, & take them shooting with him. Get him to introduce them to firearm safety, responsible use of weapons, etc. from a young age.
BJ,
Interesting claims, but the stats don’t back you up. Self-defense is a human right, and armed self-defense saves lives. Check out the Gun Facts PDF if you don’t believe me:
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf
Care to refute any of the arguments or stats within?
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:57 pm
I agree with BJ’s points but I want to point out one thing.
The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows for the right to keep and bear arms.
It is an archaic law that did not see the rise of a standing army in the United States, did not see the movement from agrarian lifestyles to urban ones (indeed, I can’t help but think that perhaps America would be more like New Zealand if we listened more to Jefferson and less to Hamilton,) did not foresee the population boom, and did not envision weapons that were so expensive that only a state could own them. (It is a strange American private citizen who owns a tank in these days.)
And of course, there’s the development of aircraft, nuclear weapons, robot drones, satellite intelligence…
Gun control is an idea whose time has long, long, long since come.
It is also currently illegal according to the U.S. Constitution.
Here is the rundown: Right now, there is a President in America who is doing some pretty illegal acts. Illegal, unconstitutional… these go against First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights - probably a whole bunch of others…
And even though I know that the gun nuts will never return the favor, if I want to make an argument that the Constitution is an inviolate law which does not “bend” when it comes to matters of civil liberty, I have to then tell myself that I need to defend the Second Amendment just as vociferously as I defend the First.
I do not need to defend the -rationale-. Merely the fact that it -is current U.S. law.-
I think the law ought to be changed. I would support an organized movement to repeal or clarify the Second Amendment. Until then, I’ll fight for an American’s right to bear arms just as I would fight for his/her right to assemble in protest.
I just wish that the gun nuts would return the favor.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Brian,
Gun control is already a fact of life in the U.S.A., regardless of whether it is Constitutional or not. There are precious few places where any adult can walk into a store, buy a handgun, and carry it with him wherever he goes.
In fact, there are *no* such places, because carry is forbidden within certain Federal buildings (post offices & banks, IIRC).
Furthermore, you’re defaming gun nuts
Many are Libertarians, like Badnarik, who along with the leader of the US Greens (Cobb, IIRC) was arrested trying to serve papers in an attempt to end the two-party domination of the political system in the U.S.A.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Sam Buchanan: A great response !
As a mere South Islander with a lifetime’s interest in the high country and bush, I and most of the people I know were taught how to handle a rifle safely at some stage, but don’t own one and don’t use one.
Some of my generation previously went rabbit, deer (and feral pig) shooting to add to the larder and reduce the plauges of the first two. Most have no interest in guns and certainly strongly believe that they have no place in our homes, cities and towns.
I believe that the vast majority of Kiwis do not want to see any changes to these attitudes.
BJ and Brian Boko: Your very different origins are showing. Aotearoa, despite some superficial similarities has not been colonised yet !!
eredwen
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Duncan:
While, statistically, Katie’s kids have more of a chance drowning in a swimming pool than of being killed or killing someone accidentally on a shooting trip, I can’t say that, as far as after-school activities go, it would be high on the matriarchal agenda.
There’s also the idea that Katie knows her kids better than you do - maybe they’re klutzes or idiots who are at the age where they might have a little difficulty understanding gun safety.
Any kid who climbs, licks, or jumps on something after being told “Don’t do that!” isn’t going to understand the subtlties of “Assume every gun is loaded, keep it pointed downrange, use proper ear and eye protection, be sure to clean your gun, for god’s sake don’t look down the damn thing to see if it’s jammed…”
That said, I was taken out shooting to the range once or twice - literally only once or perhaps twice - by my Dad. I liked spending time with the guy but what I didn’t like was actual shooting, the guns themselves, etc. I’m just not a gun guy.
Dad doesn’t play playstation, I don’t shoot Chinese AK-47s.
If the kids don’t take a liking to gun shooting - what then. Chances are they won’t - kids don’t get to do the real fun stuff with guns until they turn to the local age of majority anyway.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Brian,
That’s why I said “old enough”. How old is “enough”? Only the parents know.
Mike Ventura (a prominent gunsmith) was bought his first rifle, by his parents, at the age of 11. (He then proceeded to learn gunsmithing, driven by a desire to improve the trigger of his rifle).
Whittington (Cheney’s hunting partner) was pushing 3/4 of a century when he stepped infront of the firing line while hunting, resulting in his hospitalisation and possible death.
And if the kids don’t enjoy it, that’s fine too. But it’s worth trying, as a way of encouraging quality time & bonding between father and children. At the very least they’ll learn enough about firearms to be safe around them, and to use one at a pinch.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Sam,
Orwell came back from that war with his blinkers removed, having seen first-hand the power-hungry nature of the Fascists *and* the Soviets. In fact, he was lucky to have lived through the Trotsky-Lenin split, having inadvertently joined the losing side.
Of course the truth of the matter is that violence is *amoral*, not immoral - like any other tool, it’s the purpose to which you turn it that defines the morality. See these articles for a more lucid explanation than I’m capable of mustering:
http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/47/47sechrest.php
http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/37/37sechrest.php
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Let’s not beat up Whittington any more than he’s already been shot in the face by Dick Cheney, the Vice President of the United States.
He’s the -victim- of an irresponsible gun-owner, and any responsible gun owner will tell you that it’s the shooter’s responsibility to check to see what’s behind his target, that he knew where Whittington was (and you do NOT even POINT your gun downrange when someone IS downrange!)
There’s a whole lot of confusion and contradiction about where Whittington was standing at the time. But all agree that he was standing at least 10 feet away from the gun.
10 feet.
You don’t suddenly “step out into the firing line” 10 feet out. Anyone standing 10 feet out is considered “downrange”
You do not even POINT your gun anywhere near the VICINITY of downrange when you know there’s someone downrange. And as the shooter, it is your responsibility to KNOW where everyone else in your hunting party is at all times.
Whether or not this is germaine to the point at hand, by any standard - even by the version of events that casts the Vice President in the best possible light, he was irresponsible with his firearm.
So you can make whatever points you want to, but for god’s sake stop trying to pin this one on the guy who GOT SHOT. It is a testament to how “soviet” America has gotten that Whittington proceeded to apologise to Cheney.
I can’t think of a more literal case of blaming the victim!
In Texas -which is where I currently reside- over the past year, there were 1.1 million hunting licences issued.
There were 30 hunting accidents.
There was one hunting accident that involved alcohol.
Guess which one.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:37 pm
I know about range safety. Yes, Cheney pulled the trigger … but Whittington walked infront of someone who was shooting. That is just plain STUPID in anyone’s book.
What I didn’t know was that the incident involved alcohol … not surprising given the way mainstream media have(n’t) been reporting the details. If Cheney had been drinking prior to that incident, he should be prosecuted, end of story.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Perhaps I should put this another way. In Auckland, it’s rare for motorists to stop at pedestrian crossings unless there’s actually someone in the middle.
So - while I’m within my rights to just step out onto one blindly - and it would be morally and legally negligent of a car driver to run me over - would it be STUPID for me to just march out into the middle of the road without checking the oncoming traffic?
Yes.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:45 pm
I’m sorry, 10 feet is not “walk out in front of someone.”
2 feet? 3 feet? Sure.
At 10 feet, however, the guy was either already downrange or took enough time that Cheney should have been aware of him moving and held his fire.
The official distance, by the way, was quoted not at 10 feet. 10 feet is the distance that people are saying it could be based on the medical records.
The distance was originally reported as a full 30 feet.
THIRTY FEET.
That’s 10 meters.
Quite frankly, the idea that Whittington “walked out in front of someone who was shooting” just doesn’t hold water.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:53 pm
The witness report I read didn’t even mention distance:
“The covey flushed and the vice president picked out a bird and was following it and shot. And by God, Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty good.”
But that’s peanuts compared to the alcohol thing. Apparently, Cheney admitted to drinking beforehand … which puts the delay in notification into sharp focus: it’s exactly what you’d expect from someone who didn’t want his blood-alcohol levels tested.
So, at best (for Cheney): he was negligent, and Whittington was stoopid. At worst: he was intoxicated, shot Whittington, then delayed reporting it so he could sober up. Interestingly, he also has two convictions for DUI …
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:55 pm
But at any rate … where were we on the original topic?
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Duncan,
Orwell made the comments about shooting a fascist in reference to his feelings on joining the militia, not after he fled Spain under threat of imrisonment for membership of an anti-Stalinist militia. His group was persecuted as a result of the Communist party’s crackdown on anarchists, rather than due to the internal Marxist squabbles.
By the way, the Trotsky-Lenin split happened atround 1903, perhaps you are thinking of the Trotsky-Stalin split.
I basically agree that violence in self-defence is moral. Gun control isn’t about trying to stop violence without regard to its intention, but trying to reduce the consequences of violence.
Somewhat simplistically, this is a choice between having a society that offers you effective self-defence (a gun), or one which in which the chances of needing it are extremely low. I’d rather be in NZ where I’m not allowed to carry a handgun than the US where the crims have them in spades.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Yes, that’s right - icepick, head, etc. But w.r.t. the factionalism:
“At the end of 1936 Orwell travelled to Spain to fight for the communist republicans in the civil war against the fascists. … By accident Orwell ending up joining one of the factions of the communist republicans seen to be sympathetic to Trotsky called POUM (The Marxist Workers’ Party). … Shortly after his release from the hospital, the communist-led Government in Spain under the influence of Moscow passed a law making POUM illegal and by implication all its members criminals. “These man-hunts in Spain [of those of dissenting opinions or affiliations] went on at the same time as the great purges in the USSR and were a sort of supplement to them.” He and his wife amazingly managed to avoid arrest and flee the country.”
Back to the topic at hand though: gun control. If self-defense is moral, how do you propose that people defend themselves? The fact is that guns are the most effective self-defense tool available. Again, see the Gun Facts PDF above, plus this gem:
“Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department’s annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).”
In short, by preventing people from using guns in self-defense, you’re robbing the most physically vulnerable people of what is by far and away their best means of defense.
Moreover, if I read you correctly, you’re saying that prohibtion of armed self-defense (i.e. open or concealed handgun carry) will lead to a society with a higher rate of violent crime? If that’s the case, you’re wrong - again, see Gun Facts. Consider that rates of violent crime are increasing in countries with handgun bans (esp. the UK and Australia) and decreasing in the U.S.A., even as more and more states allow people to carry:
http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/FAQs/VioCriFAQ.htm#What%20has%20been%20th e%20trend
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Sorry, for “will lead to a society with a higher rate of violent crime?” read “will lead to a society with a lower rate of violent crime?”.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Good gun people in Christchurch
Credit to the Greens’s FrogBlog for drawing attention to what looks to be an excellent platform of speakers on the subject of gun control. Both Gary Mauser and John Lott I know of — Lott’s book More Guns, Less Crime is a deserved classic, and Mauser…
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Sam,
You said “I’m not convinced that peak oil will cause turmoil, but it does, your survival chances will be most improved by securely locking a copy of the Yates Garden Guide in your wardrobe.”
I agree. I don’t see having a gun or two as being useful in fending off the starving hordes post-Peak. An individual has no chance; at best it would take an armed community to defend itself against a desperate mob. The best solution isn’t to kill our starving countrymen, it’s to make sure they’re not starving in the first place. The Yates Garden Guide will come in handy.
What I meant is that there may be those in NZ who might see some gain for themselves by introducing violence into our politics. I think a lot of other democracies around the globe will be severely tested during Peak Oil, to the point where many might become chaotic, violent and totalitarian. With such an example, and in a bid to retain their own lifestyle and sense of power, some here in NZ might feel that they can quite happily shoot those who disagree. I agree that this is far-fetched and remote, but it is not an impossibility.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Nope, what I was saying is that the impact of violent crime is reduced in societies where guns are rare (especially handguns), i.e. you might get punched rather than shot.
The Gun facts PDF mostly assumes there will be a large number of guns around and merely discusses whether its better to be legally allowed to carry them or not. There are a whole lot of factors involved in the rise or fall of violent crime, you can’t assume the different rates result solely from allowing people to carry guns. Otherwise how do you explain the much lower rates of homicide and rape in NZ compared with the US?
On Orwell - He didn’t go to Spain to fight, but as a journalist attached to the Independent Labour Party (after being told he wouldn’t get into the International Brigades as the Communist Party didn’t trust him), once there he decided to join the POUM militia, which had a loose affiliation to the ILP. At this point he was still sympathetic to the (Stalinist) communist party - the POUM was only ‘trotskyist’ in the loose sense of being anti-Stalin.
The crackdown on the POUM happened after the Communist Party’s attempts to seize power from the anarchists, particularly in Catalonia and Aragon, to whom the POUM were allied. Nothing to do with the purges in Russia, this was just a simple attempt by the Spanish Communist Party to seize sole power in ‘republican’ Spain.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Ah, I see. But that doesn’t stack up either - because criminals don’t obey gun laws, and because without guns, the physically weak cannot defend themselves or loved ones.
Consider the (very) recent case of a crippled man saving a Police officer in Baton Rouge, by shooting the man attacking the officer. Or the 78 year old woman who defended herself against a home invader with a pistol … these people *would not* be capable of defending themselves against attack. Gun control literally delivers this class of person into the hands of violent criminals.
I do agree that US society is more violent than NZ society. But NZ society is becoming more violent, and US society less so. Why? And what can be done? Those IMO are more important questions than the issue of gun control - for if attempts to reduce violent crime fail, then a gun is one’s best protection. The individual citizens defense against inept Government crime policy, you could say.
W.r.t. POUM, check out what Trotsky himself had to say on the issue:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938/1938-spain01.htm
“The Stalinists were thus in alliance with the extreme right, avowedly bourgeois wing of the Socialist Party. They directed their repressions against the left—the POUM, the Anarchists, the “leftâ€? Socialists—in other words, against the centrist groupings who reflected, even in a most remote degree, the pressure of the revolutionary masses,”
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Duncan, I knew you were going to pull that old horsesh*t out and I don’t mind refuting it, though I will have to finish some other stuff before I have time to spend shovelling out the stables of your ideological mindset. Let me point out two things. I spent a long time in LA, and the restrictions on guns in LA mean exactly nothing to the availability of firearms there. Like any other part of the USA, the greater LA region is awash in firearms, largely illegal.
This means that any attempt to restrict carry permits, licenses or gun use in ANY part of the USA is meaningless. Comparing that situation to one in a more civilized country which has meaningful restrictions and controls gives some indication of the real issues. Comparing between states which do not control their own borders or the traffic in guns between them, is meaningless. The situation in the USA is entirely OUT of control, which was my point.
It still is. I will go through it in detail and respond later, but understand this. I will resist ANY attempt to introduce the poison of a US style gun-culture to New Zealand. I will vote against it and I will work against it. I have SEEN the results, my own eyes. Which will I believe? Your spurious statistics or my own eyes?
BJ
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:40 pm
BJ,
I’m not surprised you have a bee in your bonnet about the US gun culture - considering you lived in LA. But perhaps, just perhaps - the problem isn’t with the millions upon millions of law-abiding gun-carrying American citizens.
Maybe it’s with the culture of nihilism, welfarism, and racism of LA, combined of course with a prohibition on non-criminal LA residents from being armed, and rounded off with the ridiculous War on Drugs that has created a whole new generation of bootlegging gangsters.
Given that there are comparable (or higher) rates of gun ownership in the least violent, safest parts of America … remind me again why you’re opposed to armed self defense?
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:42 pm
i hope someone plays with them at this conference..
the wingnuts/gun-nuts will be a bit twitchy/nervous…seeing as they won’t be able to be in their usual state of ‘armed-up’..
someone should sneak up behind them and go “bang!”..
and see if they ‘drop ‘n roll’..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:32 pm
BJ: I will accept your conciet that there are higher rates of gun ownership per capita in some pretty damn safe places. Those places are called -rural- for a reason, however.
But gun ownership as compared to population density tells quite a different story. You’re going to have low crime in rural areas simply because there’s fewer people in a larger area. You’re going to have high crime in densely populated areas whether or not guns are accessible to the population - but that high crime is much less likely to be deadly.
Compare, for example, the murder rates of Los Angeles and London. Or New York and Paris.
Even if you consider a European culture - what about Toronto and Vancouver?
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:49 pm
Amazing what a little Orwell can do, innit?
How ’bout some Kipling, then, especially for Sam B, who appears to be seriously arguing for taking all those nasty shooty things from the military (and, let’s be consistent, Sam) the police as well?
“Now this is the Law of the Jungle
as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper,
but the Wolf that shall break it must die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk
the Law runneth forward and back –
For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf,
and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.”
The question is quite simply this, dear innocents: which Wolf would you prefer?
The armed military and police, both organs of the State, both eventually even if somewhat elastically under citizen control?
Or, absent these, whichever Wolf has the most power and the most attitude?
Because there are always, always Wolves about.
Suggested reading: Simon Schama - Citizens - a chronicle of the French revolution.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:50 am
Duncan
As soon as you make guns EASY to get, as they are in the USA, the opportunity to reduce the violence is lost. You’ve already created the conditions for failure. If there were no guns on the streets of LA except some in the hands of the police, it would be a safer place for everyone.
That CANNOT happen because LA is part of the USA, and there’s no way to control access to guns in LA, or any other part of the USA.
As for blaming the culture in LA… that begs the question, why are the cities in the USA more dangerous than cities everywhere else in the civilized world? Cities are cities. They all have slums and poverty and drugs and bad spots. Why is the violence in the USA so pervasive, and why is it so minimal everywhere else?
When I become physically weak I will trust in the police and the law, not a gun… because THAT is how civilization works. You have, in your arguments, already abandoned civilized behaviour. As has the USA. Reminds me of a Ghandi quote, one of my favorites. A reporter asked him on his first visit to a major western city (I think London) “So, what do you think of Western Civilization?” and he replied “I think it would be a very good idea.” I have abandoned hope that the USA will become more civilized soon.
We do of course, agree about the ill conceived war on drugs… but even there, without the guns it would be far safer to live in that zone of endeavor.
Too late- must sleep.
Brian - did you get me confused with Duncan? Not sure what you are on about.
BJ
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:52 am
Comparatively minimal. It’s not small. — sorry zzzzzzzz
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:53 am
Duncan - your basic position on this and on other threads seems to be simple social Darwinism. Fair enough, it’s an internally-consistent position. But is it really the highest form of human evolution or interaction that you can conceive of or have personally experienced? My experience is that yes, some areas of the world operate in this way, but that large areas of NZ by-and-large operate on a more evolved (ie cooperative, inclusive, tolerant) basis. The problem with social Darwinism, (apart from the fact you can always find evidence for it by selectively noticing behaviour that fits) is that it is self-perpectuating. Behave like that and guess what.. people behave that way back at you. One reason why the paranoid amongst us find the world around them supporting their paranoia.
We happen to be in the invidious position of not having significant gun-crime, and the idea we should introduce more guns to protect ourselves against the possibility of it occurring is as insane as NZ setting up a nuclear weapons program to protect against the possibility that we find ourselves in a nuclear war.
Note this is not an argument for unilateral disarmament (though occassionally that may have it’s place).. it’s an argument against escalation, cause the spread of individual guns for self-protection just reinforces people’s sense that they’re in danger. Something like what Lange said in the Oxford debate - it’s the protection that only makes us feel more insecure.
Freakin’ gun-nuts preaching in Christchurch, where there is already a nasty undercurrent of violence.. that is heading in the wrong direction.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Actually, Duncan, NZ criminals usually do obey gun laws. Being a crim doesn’t necessarily mean you disobey every single law on principle.
Very few NZ crims use handguns as getting them is difficult (in NZ you can only get a handgun licence if you are an active member of a pistol shooting club - consequently there isn’t much demand for handguns and there are very few around). To make handguns an effective form of defence, you will have to make them easily accessible, and that means the crims will get them just like everyone else - a situation I’d rather avoid.
Use of guns in criminal situations is an extreme rarity in NZ. Sometimes you get lone males with psychiatric problems or in high stress situations picking up a gun and going postal, but these people aren’t usually involved in any other sort of crime. Even the criminals who have access to guns, usually gang members, tend to keep guns for engagements with other gangs.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Huskynut,
I’m not a social Darwinist - far from it. Please stop misrepresenting my argument so you can gloat over a burning straw man.
Sam,
What about other weapons? E.g. knives, batons, machetes, swords, etc.? Assaults with those are fairly common relative to gun crime in N.Z. (and all are on the rise, IIRC). How do you propose people defend themselves against those?
(Not that it’s *easy* to defend against a surprise attack with a knife when you’re armed with a gun - Google “tueller drill” & you’ll see what I mean. But it’s still easier than being unarmed).
FWIW, w.r.t. NZ crime levels and paranoia, have a read of this:
==========================
http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/60/FireExtinguishers.php
…
For example, the idea of having a gun nearby to protect yourself from the possibility of an attacker falls under the category of “paranoid” and “psycho,” but having a fire extinguisher nearby to protect yourself from the possibility of a fire does not. This is certainly revealing when you consider that from June 2000 to June 2001 there were only 3,570 house fires.5 That is approximately the same number of times a person is sexually assaulted, and 12 times smaller than the number of reported instances of violence. Surely if a person is “paranoid” when taking precautions against attack, he must be extremely paranoid when taking precautions against fire? Yet precautions against fire, such as smoke detectors and fire extinguishers, are not considered signs of a paranoid house owner. Why then are precautions against assault or rape considered the domain of psychos?
…
==========================
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:55 pm
You are not likely to confuse a loved one returning home late at night with a deadly fire.
Fire and people are too dissimilar.
Even under the circumstance that you do confuse your loved one and a deadly fire, you will accidentally spray a non-lethal dose of fire-retardant chemicals at them.
Perhaps some medical attention will be needed if the chemicals make contact with the eyes or exposed skin depending on what type of chemicals are used in the particular fire extinguisher. However, they will be otherwise unharmed. Seriously annoyed, but unharmed.
While a fire can produce panic, a fire can still be easily subdued with a fire extingusher, even if you happen to need to run to the fire extinguisher, even if your first shot misses the fire or merely wings it, even if you have to make do with a sopping wet towel instead of a fire extinguisher.
As a general rule, fires are too preoccupied with consuming flammable material to shoot back.
If you are faced with a fire, even one that has caught you by surprise, chances are that fire will be handled by a swift use of a fire extinguisher.
A fire extinguisher is not a prized item useful for committing crimes and is not likely to be the target of a burglar’s intrusion, unless, of course, that burglar has to deal with a fire. In most cases where that happens, however, even the most hardened criminals will usually yell “Fire” and ask nicely, if perhaps a bit glibly and hurriedly, for your fire extinguisher.
There are considerably fewer deaths caused by accidental discharge of a fire extinguisher than there are deaths caused by accidental discharge of a firearm.
There are overwhelmingly fewer deaths caused by purposeful discharge of a fire extinguisher than there are deaths cause by a purposeful discharge of a firearm.
For this reason, most military forces choose to equip soldiers with firearms, and not fire extinguishers.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Brian,
Your point being …. ? Firearms save more lives than they take by accident; check Gun Facts if you don’t believe me.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Oh, and for what it’s worth, foam-based fire extinguishers actually make excellent expedient weapons, especially against gang dogs, according to a former colleague of mine who frequently used them on raids while working for the Police.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:11 pm
I sincerely doubt the validity of Gun Facts but let’s stipulate to the point for now.
My point was that it’s a risk-benefit thing. You risk nothing by having a fire extinguisher in your house. Having a gun increases the risk of both burglary and gun accidents. That is why the “sleeping with gun under pillow” crowd delve into the realm of the paranoid.
Human beings are not particularly adept at assessing risk. Your child is more likely to die at a house with a pool than in a house with a gun - most gun owners are responsible, keep guns locked away out of the hands of children, etc.
But by the same token, having a gun does increase the amount of risk in a household, and I don’t think gun afficionados fully appreciate that.
Even if I concede the point that firearms save more lives than they take by accident, I’m certainly not going to concede the point that firearms save more lives than they take on purpose.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Having a gun in the house increases the risk of accidental injury by guns to people in the house - sure, that’s obvious. But having a gun in the house DECREASES the OVERALL risk to those in the house. Especially if you assume responsible owners who teach their children firearm safety - something which will stand them in good stead for the rest of their lives.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:23 pm
(Oh yeah - at the risk of going off-topic again, it transpires that Secret Service personnel described Cheney as ‘clearly inebriated’ when he shot Whittington’. Care to bet whether he’s prosecuted?)
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:53 pm
You still seem to be avoiding the point Duncan. Assaults with firearms are very low in NZ, at least partly because easy to carry firearms - handguns - are rare. Regardless of potential attacks by other weapons, I am very glad that I don’t have to seriously consider attacks by people with guns, which I would have to, if firearms become as available as you advocate.
Attacks usually happen when you least expect them and a gun is likely to be useless in tha case of most attacks anyway. A very good defence against attacks by knives etc. is to run like hell. I’ve used this successfully on the one occasion when someone attacked me with a knife (not in NZ). On the two other occasions I’ve been seriously assaulted (one in NZ) a gun would have been useless.
Most of the violent crimes cited in the meaningless argument about fire extinguishers are likely to be of a minor nature (’assault’ covers any unwanted physical contact - including shoving someone ), even if I had a gun, I wouldn’t want to use it just because some drunk took a badly aimed punch at me, which is the sort of scenario that is most likely.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Sam,
I’m not ignoring the issue - I’m saying that regardless of whether you prohibit firearm carry or not, gun crime will rise and continue to rise. There is growing evidence that the stronger the prohibitions, the faster it will rise - look at the U.K. and Australia e.g.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Duncan,
I’ve just read through your comments and taken a peek at your web site.
Sorry to break it to you man - you seriously need to get out and about a bit more. The world’s not as scary as you think it is.
Hey Sam, Brian, BJ: Ignore him, he’s trolling big time !
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:42 pm
fastbike,
If your handle references motorcycles … what do you ride? I currently ride an NSR150, which I’m having prepped next month to try my hand at StreetStock racing … which I’m financing having sold my GSXR600.
W.r.t. your other comments: sure, I’m trolling - if engaging in polite, reasoned debate, quoting sources, and changing my opinion where warranted (Cheney) is trolling.
To paraphrase Thomas Sowell: “a troll is a poster winning an argument with the original poster”
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:50 pm
The one time I was seriously assaulted in my life a gun would have been useless.
Unless of course, you’re proposing letting 12 year olds have guns, and the gun in question had enough ammunition to take down 16 thugs. Even in America, I believe you’re limited to 10 round clips.
Oddly enough, those 16 thugs - all teenaged - were frightened off by a good samaritan with nothing more than a collapsable baton and a pissed off attitude. Afterwards, he called the multi-racial gang that attacked me “niggers” and I wasn’t in much of a position or frame of mind to argue the point.
It was probably one of the events in my life that made me violently (neo)conservative from age 12 to age 21.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Duncan - I notice you reject the label without answering the argument. To spell it out, how exactly exactly does a position of “arm everyone to enable lethal violence” and “the state shouldn’t interfere in transactions between adults” not equate with social Darwinism?
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Duncan - HERE, you are a troll, I don’t hold it agin ya, but there isn’t a single person here EXCEPT you, who would rather have a gun than a civilization based on law and competent policing. Which is what we have here by and large, and what has disappeared from the USA, by and large. Guns will CAUSE problems in NZ, which has law and competent policing and strong controls over the weapons in the society. In the USA, the weapons are way out of control and social-darwinism is already in force. You have REPEATEDLY put it to us that we need guns to protect ourselves because (this being your implied subtext) the police and the law are insufficient to protect us. That may be the case in many parts of the USA, and in other places where the US has exported its violence (Iraq comes to mind immediately). It is not the case here.
We know the difference. We are quite happy with the difference and will not be persuaded to arm ourselves and increase OUR risks of accident and suicide to protect ourselves against a non-existent threat. The statistics of the USA do not apply anywhere else in the civilized world. Would that the guns of the USA were not applied anywhere else either.
When (if) you recognize that the base on which Ayn Rand writes her masterpieces is false, and the problem with violence is that it is seldom really finished short of genocide, you may recover from your current excess of youthful self-confidence.
BJ
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Gawd save us from american way of thinking please!!!!!!!Tis like watching the fall of the american empire….but unfortunately, they will take us with them…. God bless America? I don’t think so…
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:00 pm
VERY well said Gill !
February 24th, 2006 at 9:38 am
I don’t think Duncan’s trolling; he’s politely arguing his point, even if we don’t agree with it. Attack his arguements, don’t attack him.
Having said that, I think he’s wrong, for all the reasons cited above. I want to own some rifles one day, but not for anything like home defence. If someone breaks into my house, my defence will be a lump of wood and a call to the police. My rifles will stay locked up, because it’ll take precious minutes to get them, assemble them and load them. And the risk of killing an innocent is too high. And why would I want to kill a burglar anyway? Bruise and bloody him maybe (as a last resort), but not splatter his guts across the carpet.
Handguns are bad news, and should be even more strictly controlled than rifles (which they are). Pistols are useless for anything except killing people, and on civvy street they’re perfect for crims. A saying in the Army is “Pistols are only good for executing prisoners and shooting yourself in the foot” (btw, for the more sensitive souls out there, that’s a joke, we don’t execute people). No way should they be freely available here in NZ for ‘personal defence’.
Here in NZ we still have a decent standard of policing, despite media claims otherwise, and we still have unarmed crims. Why would we want to change the situation?
February 24th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Agreed, Tane. I’m also quite probably going to buy a rifle at some point - when I have the time to do some hunting, but I have no interest in guns for self defence. Speculation that our society is inevitably going to become more violent is just that, who knows what the future holds? Not me. It seems daft to relax gun controls in preparation for a future problem that may not happen, but will be made more probable by relaxing gun controls.
If a gun-studded future does eventuate, which it feels to me is something some males rather fantasize about (witness the popularity of science fiction set in violent, dog-eat-dog, post-something or other, civilisational collapse settings) (except that nobody in them actually eats dogs, which would be realistic, but much less glamorous), it’s something we can address at the time, rather than now.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Trolling - as I see it, is taking my atheistic views into an EB meeting and starting to argue with them. Whether it is well reasoned or not, there is no chance of any change in attitude for either party, the only result is the pleasure or pain of the argument. That’s what *I* mean by it, and so his presenting pro-gun arguments on a green blog fits my definition. He’s here to argue, and that’s OK, and he’s welcome to do so cause he’s been polite about it, but it is still trolling IMHO. Perhaps I am using the wrong definition, but I was thinking of fish, not of Shrek.
respectfully
BJ
February 24th, 2006 at 11:51 am
BJ,
Are you thinking of trawling or trolling………?
Maybe my definition is too narrow, or I’m mixing flaming and trolling as definitions. I don’t see anything wrong with taking diametrical views into another forum. It offers food for thought if nothing else, it might change some minds and it might change yours during the subsequent debate. I go over to Sir Humphrey’s and David Farrar every now and again to see if there’s anything worth getting involved in. Sometimes there is and the debate can be worthwhile.
February 24th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Tane (Tane Aperehama, who I haven’t seen in years perhaps - if so, hi!),
I agree - I see the comment section of Blogs as akin to debate after a public presentation. Those agreeing with the presenter can support his argument, & those disagreeing can put forwards their own.
Likewise, if participants become rude, abusive or disruptive, I think it’s reasonable for the Blog owners to kick them out. Or, in the case of some bloggers who’ve had some truly obscene or threatening posts - just plain disable comments, or moderate each and every comment.
Back onto the topic though …
I’m agreed with most posters that the level of danger in N.Z. society isn’t enough for me to want to carry a gun for self-defense, when there are other legal weapons available for the purpose, and I’m strong and fast enough to use them.
But I wouldn’t want to force that decision on others - especially the more vulnerable members of society. I shudder to think how my mother would fare against an assailant, for example - which is why I’ve already presented her with a kubotan baton and training material as a gift.
Next time I visit I’ll do a bit of training with her, going over simple striking techniques, vulnerable points etc., but I can’t help wishing she was allowed to carry something that didn’t depend so much upon her physical prowess to operate.
Out of curiosity, what do people think here of legalising pepper spray or tasers for personal use? They’re not as effective as handguns, but would be better than say open-hand or baton defense for a 60 year old.
February 24th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
BJ,
The purpose to making a counter-argument such as mine, in a public place, is to expose those watching the presentation & debate to alternative ideas.
I don’t care whether I change the opinion of the original poster; I *do* care that those watching realise that there is another side to the argument, and that they’re given an opportunity to learn about that argument for themselves. A secondary benefit is the possibility of learning from the debate myself.
An example: it’s the same reason as one might challenge a statement like “I hate foreigners” spoken at a dinner party; not primarily to change the mind of the speaker, but to convince others around you that the speaker is wrong.
February 24th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Right, but as much as you would like to correct someone saying “I hate foreigners” it’s not exactly smart to do it on, say, NZ First’s board.
That said, your main argument is “I believe that deregulation or reduced regulation of gun ownership would lead to less crime.”
Living in a country where less gun restriction has, if not led to more crime, at least exacerbated the problem - I have trouble finding your argument credible. Also knowing the great deal and great expense the gun lobby in America will take to further their goals, I have trouble believing material from a clearly partisan website. Gun control is a real and vibrant debate, but we have come to an impasse and the debate should be closed for two reasons.
First, we are operating from different sets of facts. You believe some “studies” which we don’t - conversely, we also have evidence you discount. Even if we shared the same logical process, we would still arrive at different answers.
The other problem is that we seem to be arguing from different logical points - that is, you honestly believe that increased gun ownership will lead to more lives saved than accidental deaths. We honestly believe that less lives will need saving with fewer guns overall, because many of the “lives saved” are nullified by the inquantifiable increase in lives threatened because of guns.
We’re not going to get much further on the issues than this and the arguments are going around in circles. Lately a pattern has emerged where you find some strange analogy or metaphor which really doesn’t apply - like a fire extinguisher, an “I hate foreigners” slight at a dinner party.
As for pepper spray, I don’t see a problem with it. It’s the lethality - and hence permanence - of guns that are the problem. If there was a weapon that was 100% non-fatal, non-permanent in every use, I would not see cause to ban it’s use for self-protection.
Tazers I am opposed to on the grounds that they may be lethal. Same thing with rubber bullets and beanbag rounds (as they can be fired at the head and made lethal)
February 24th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Brian,
I think you’re right - perhaps it is time to put this thread to rest. But I think you’ve missed the crux of my argument, which is: armed self defense is a right, and no Government may properly prohibit an adult from bearing arms. The crime stats that back me up are secondary
February 26th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Duncan - there isn’t anyone here who doesn’t know both sides of this debate. There are very few here who know both sides BETTER than the people who’ve bothered to answer your posts. You think “armed self-defense” is a right. I think that it is a right that is reserved to legitimate government, not individuals. You put your faith in the guns in the hands of ordinary people and we put our faith in the guns held by the police and the military.
Your way puts everyone’s life at the mercy of the least stable person who qualifies to possess or manages to steal a firearm, our way puts us at the mercy of the strongest guy on the block, but HE is constrained by the law and the police. Which way is the more civilized?
The only situation in which I might need a firearm HERE in the sense that you wish to have them available, would be if I were contemplating revolution against my government…if my government had turned ILLEGITIMATE.
There is little more terrifying to see, than a 6 year old showing “daddy’s gun” to his playmate, on the back porch of the house next door. That’s just ONE of the reasons that having strong controls as we do here, we are not likely to abandon them to embrace death.
You have “reasoned” with people. Apparently you have not however, considered the possibility of your own error.
I’ve finally had a chance to start on the PDF link that you posted here…
I also have troubled myself to read the relevant report from the police about the state of gun controls in NZ.
http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/1997/review-of-firearms-control/
pointedly-
“Registration of about 4 percent of guns — namely automatic weapons, military style semi-automatics (MSSAs) and handguns. No records are maintained of the remaining 96 percent of firearms. [Part 2.2] Essentially the system is a “Licensing/No registration” system. Although this system provides useful control of shooters, even at that level it has definite limitations:”
— the PDF —
Chapter 1 is about the Assault Weapons ban in the USA. It is irrelevant to New Zealand, as there is no “ban”. Full auto is unavailable in any civilized nation including the USA.
Chapter 2 is about concealed carry laws. ALL the statistics relate one state to another within the USA, which makes them entirely irrelevant to the situation in NZ. The reasons they are irrelevant show up in my comments on chapter 5. There is no THREAT to defend against.
Chapter 3 (yes, I will do them all) is about Ballistic Fingerprinting as a means of solving gun crimes. Aside from being irrelevant to the New Zealand situation I do accept the arguments presented, as there is little in either physics or computer science that is mysterious about them. Of course, nobody is calling for one of these systems here.
Chapter 4 - 50 calibre rifles - No need. As in item 1, there is no restriction. The owner is licensed here, not the gun.
Chapter 5 - More guns more crime (or less) - the arguments presented are again related to the USA which is arguably at saturation point already. Moreover, it does not differentiate concealed and concealable weapons from long guns. Lets look at something of interest to New Zealanders.
How many of us have guns?
http://www.research.ryerson.ca/SAFER-Net/regions/Oceania/Nzd_OR01.html
http://www.health.auckland.ac.nz/ipc/pdf/fs07.pdf
- a relatively large number of us actually. We are better armed than the Brits, and well up there in the total number of guns. Most of them however, are long-guns. Most of the guns used in crime are shortened .22 calibre… but most of the homicides and accidents happen with rifles.
So what about the homicide rate? 95% of the gun homicide is a shooting by someone known to the victim. It isn’t violence in the commission of a crime, it IS the crime. This is one of the confounding factors in most gun stats arguments. The danger is that someone we know will get angry with us and attack us. The use of a gun makes the attack fatal, the AVAILABILITY of a gun, makes the attack fatal. That’s 95% of fatal gun incidents.
75% of all fatal NZ shootings are suicides. Generally suicides rates are independent of the weapons. There might be an effect from the immediacy of the effect of the firearm giving no “reconsideration” time to take place, but overall the rate is unlikely to be reduced by removing guns from NZ hands. What however, does this mean for the overall statistics in NZ though. We have roughly 11 firearm homicides a year? I think that using stats on firearms related death to argue about gun control should be done with caution. The Stats on suicide confound the results, as having ready access to a firearm neither reduces nor increases the risk of ones committing suicide.
The use of guns in crime… about 12% of robberies no stats yet on other crime, but I doubt that it is the weapon of choice for the rapist.
The gun type we DON’T have, the one that is controlled most firmly, is the handgun. I think we do pretty well as a result.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap
US = 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
NZ = 0.00173482 per 1,000 people
-or-
A rate 16x higher in the USA than in NZ.
Note as well that the accidental death rate from firearms in NZ is about the same as the homicide rate, and NEITHER are comparable to the suicide rate. We are talking about SMALL numbers of people.
This is an editorial, so they are distilling their own version of stats, but they make the point as well.
http://www.vahv.org/NEJM-ed.html
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090433.html
So do more guns make for more crime? No, they make for more lethal crime. More suicides? No, more lethal suicides. More gun accidents? Yes. Moreover, the weapon most commonly used in the USA is not present in NZ. NZ does not have a problem with handguns. Every handgun is imported only after a police permit is obtained by the owner.
I am still short of time, so this is not as cohesive a post as I would like. I have to end here and continue later in fact. Two children = no time.
Your PDF remains, but I think that I have managed to refute its applicability to NZ as far as the first 5 chapters are concerned.
This is just the first installment. I promised I would answer your post and your PDF, and I will.
BJ
February 26th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Of the lengthy post above, this is, I think the sentence most telling: 95% of gun homicide is a shooting by someone known to the victim.
This is what I mean by risk management. A gun can turn assault into homicide, mere stupidity into negligent death.
If you want to talk about the “right” to own a handgun, here’s the way I see it: You have a right to imperil your own life to whatever degree. If you live out in East Buttf*ck, Texas, or Shepawhaka on the South Island, where your neighbor lives 5 miles away? Yeah - okay. Maybe we don’t need gun control for the really rural areas.
But your gun ownership in a more populated area - say an American suburb or a New Zealand city - imperils those who live near you.
And your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
It’s a little different in the U.S. because in the U.S., gun ownership is considered a right by law. I don’t particularly like this law but it keeps some really, really good company, so I respect it. But keep in mind - that was written when the U.S. was predominantly rural!
It comes down to this. You may feel safer with a gun. But poll your neighbors, and you’ll find that you’re the only one that feels safer when you have a gun.
————
Here’s another point, however. One place I do argue with BJ is that police, trained to carry and use guns appropriately, will be less likely to accidentally kill someone.
The problem is twofold: First, police do kill people by accident. “It’s a wallet, not a gun” is an oft heard cry every few years when some kid gets shot. (There was one point in the late 1990s [or was it early 2000s?] when black New Yorkers were trading in leather wallets for bright orange ones.)
But you’re right, a cop is not likely to leave the gun unattended, not likely to forget to unload the bullet in the chamber, etc…
The other thing is that there are dirty cops out there.
But this is the nature of the state - the entire point of a police force is that the state has a monopoly on coercion by force. It’s a basic, Poli-sci 101 type of thing, and if the state cannot maintain that monopoly on coercion by force, you have what is called “civil war” or “anarchy.”
Object Lesson: Iraq.
My point is this, however. During the first 70 or so years of America’s development, Americans didn’t have to really worry too much about a corrupt government because there was indeed, a balance of power between the state and the masses - armed rebellion was possible, and it kept the state “honest.”
Since then, however, there have been technological advancements that have pretty much been impossible for the “people” to procure - starting with the Gatling Gun, and but most pronounced with the advent of the World War I era tank and airplane bomber.
Since then, the American state has maintained and reasserted a non-balance of power, solidified with the invention of the Nuclear Weapon.
Those who believe that “guns keep America free” are deluding themselves — and haven’t been paying attention over the past 5 years when gun-owners ended up supporting the guys carving at the American Constitution with a chainsaw.
It can be very compelling to say that gun ownership prevents against a tyrannical government, and perhaps once, it did. But today, that argument is moot - the only defense against the onset of tyranny in a democratic state is vigilance. New Zealand has it. America does not.
It’s the most simple comparison in the world. New Zealand constantly comes in higher than the United States in the Reporters without Borders reports for “most free nations,” (Ireland actually comes in higher but I honestly think it was that whole “sedition” thing with the axe-throwing guy…)
New Zealand doesn’t have lots of guns, America does. Which country has Gitmo?
The only nation in the world that’s increasingly curtailing civil rights without a large handgun population that I can think of offhand is Great Britain, and Tony Moroni’s getting a whole bunch of static in the House of Lords because they’re not rolling over… again, vigilance.
And indeed, there’s little correlation between gun ownership and freedom. The most free places on the Earth have the fewest guns. (So do the least free - I’ll admit it.)
If you’re really scared that Big Brother is going to come - your best defense is not a gun. When Big Brother comes, he always has more guns than you do. That’s why he’s BIG.
Your best defense is to keep informed, stay alert, talk to your friends, fight voter apathy, and when the government crosses a line, throw the bums out and replace them with someone who won’t.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Brian - Did I mistype something? I am SURE I didn’t argue about the police. They don’t carry guns here in NZ, except for the specialist “armed offender” squads. I trust the police NOT to shoot me by accident. Did I say different?
respectfully
BJ
February 27th, 2006 at 6:14 am
I thought the most telling was the raw number for one of the stats sets that was provided, of roughly 100 fatalities and 11% of them being homicides. We’re into the statistics of really small numbers, which means, not really a place where statistics can be used meaningfully. That makes for 11 homicides with firearms, so even one incidence of a “stranger” criminal shooting and killing someone would affect the result immensely.
I’d accept the logic that concealed carry would, absent any other considerations, reduce assaults, robbery and rape. The increased availability of handguns which would be necessary to actually implement concealed carry, would appear to raise the danger level in all confrontations, requiring the Police to carry guns and ensuring that criminals will shoot as well.
Death is not preferable to being beaten and robbed.
respectfully
BJ
February 27th, 2006 at 9:18 am
This is a thread with what, 70 responses? It’s all beginning to blur quite terribly.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
ahh..!….the b’s (the yanks) are squabbling amongst themselves….(if we all just quietly move over here..we could just leave them to it..eh..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 27th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
still being censored eh..?
frogblog seems intent on doing what sir humphreys are doing….killing the goose (of open debate/piss-take/humour)..with degrees of censorship sensitivities..that are frankly..mindboggling…
could i ask wtf has happened to the ideas/ideals of free speech/dissension within the green party…?
this is not a frivilous question….?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:09 am
Will get around to a detailed post … but you might be interested to read the stats for Australia (much more similar to NZ than the USA) which show an increase in violent crime (esp. gun crime!) following more strict anti-gun laws:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
October 17th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
giday alot of you guys and girls are not going to like what i’m going to say here. i’m writing this as a teen aged gun user
here goes from what i’ve read here on this blog your all real quick to bag guns as the killers and the danger why don’t you bag cars in the same way they kill maim and injur far more people every day than what guns do.
as for kids going into schools and shooting others where the fuk were the parents and what were they doing to not know what the kid was up to.
i agree guns kill people but so do knifes you take away guns and the amount of stabbings and horrific injuries related to stabbings will increase. i no if i had a choice of dying from a stabbing car crash or shooting i’d choose shooting over all of the others. first off if the shots placed right you wont feel a thing same goes for hunting no hunter wants to see a wounded animal struggling around hurt. they all go for quick clean humane kills. if you want to ban hunting on grounds that its in humane you’d better no want any steak, chicken or pork for tea because what they do in the freesing works is much more in humane than what happens to animals that are shot by hunters.
as for what katie i think was saying bout her hubby being into competitve shooting i am also a competitive shooter and have represented nz the last to years running and did i get any credit from the non-gun users no they couldn’t give a flying fuk all they cared about was who won the rugby. or what the latest fasion to come down the cat walk was.
why do you all seam to hate guns so much?
DON’T HATE THE GUNS THAT KILL HATE THE MURDEROUS BASTARDS THAT KILL OTHER PEOPLE WITH THEM.
get over it people hunting used to be a big part of NZ’s history and guess what people they used guns
so please stop bagging guns as being bad and start bagging the criminals who use them for purposes unintended by the makers
if you don’t like what i have said you know what you can go and do to yourself
October 17th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
2rocky: You have some good points there!
To have represented NZ in competitive shooting for the last two years running shows that you are skilled and disciplined.
The problems come form guns in the hands of those who are NOT skilled and disciplined, and these problems can kill people.
Out TV programmes, full of guns being fired in all directions, don’t help much either.
How would you solve these problems, and stop the injuies and deaths from happening?
October 17th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
you’ll never be able to stop people using guns as a method of getting what they want. but you can educate non-users that guns are not as bad as they are making out. and also i think it would be good to see education about what they can do in our schools.
more positive veiws of guns are needed. we continuely see wars and death on tv perhaps its time we started to get tv coverage of people using these firearms in a recreational sense. ie have live tv coverage of island and national shooting events. showing the responsible use of guns and more advertising to get people into the sport and off the streets where they are likely to use them due to the fact that it is the only thing they know guns are used for.
i’ve ask a few people round the hall of residence in conversation what they think guns are used for and most said kill people!!!!!!!!! i then said that i used guns in a non violent way and told them about hunting and comps and now a few of them want to have a go at it ( comps/hunting)
we need education from primary school level right through to the general public who has left school. i’ve ask a couple of people who where completely against guns to come out to the range with me and have a go and now one of them is completely hooked on the sport.
so come on people we need to get firearm education into schools teach kids what guns do when used inapproprately and you’d find there would be less shootings in the long run.
we will never be completely rid of happenings like coloumbine because of unstable individuals but we can reduce the number of random shootings. many of these happen through lack of education and kids and in some cases adults not knowing the full power of what they hold in their hand.
October 17th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
i was taught at a very young age to respect the power that these weapons had by my father. i was younger than 5 when i was taught. my dad used to have a 30 06 he put a pumpkin on a fence post and shot it. i still can remember seeing all this stuff fly out of the back of it and then looking at the tiny hole in the front and the hole bigger than my hand in the back off it. it really sunk in when my dad told me thats what would happen to me if i got shot. i still remember it clearly and i’m now 19. just goes to show what the right education can do
October 18th, 2006 at 12:42 am
Zrocky:
I grew up in the 1950’s/early60’s when it was common for outdoors/mountain men to have a “22″ and/or a “303″ rifle (few women used them) to hunt rabbits (which were “noxious pests”) and deer (which were also “noxious pests”) for venison. (Those were pre rabbit-virus, pre poisoned bait and pre commercial deer farming times.) I spent most weekends in the Southern Alps and there was usually someone with a rifle.
Good and safe gun mangement was very much part of the package!
This was well taught and taken seriously because many fathers had been soldiers in WW2, (and grandfathers in WW1) and they knew from bitter experience what guns could do!
It was also pre-televsion times when handguns were in American cowboy and Cop movies only! I think our currrent exposure to American TV programmes has been part of the change in our previous attitudes of respect-for-to guns in the current generation.
You young well trained experts could have an important role to play in reversing that trend I think!
October 18th, 2006 at 1:02 am
Rock :
“you’ll never be able to stop people using guns as a method of getting what they want. ”
… That depends. There are several different categories of people we’re talking about.
* Professional crims, for whom a handgun is a tool of trade : you’re right in this case. They will always be able to get a gun. We need special cops well-trained to deal with this type.
* Little crims (drug dealers for example) : In the US, a huge proportion of gun deaths are related to the drug trade, because any little dealer can get one. In NZ, we need to keep hand gun availability low to keep them out of the hands of this category.
* Psychotic or nihilistic school kid (Columbine scenario). Again, gun availability is the key. It simply isn’t true that where guns aren’t available, kids go on killing sprees with knives. A gun is special, it gives you immense power.
So I have no problem with promoting shooting as a sport. But I would certainly not want this to be accompanied by wider general availability of guns : particularly hand guns.
October 18th, 2006 at 11:49 am
i never said anything about making guns more availible because they already are. personally i dont want handguns to become any more availible to nzer’s than they allready are. other countries should have followed nz’s hand gun laws. to get one you have to be a member of a club for so long and then once you do own 1 you have to give it to a club member to keep for so long i think thats how its done.
“eredwen wrote”
You young well trained experts could have an important role to play in reversing that trend I think!
i would very much like to do this but its hard to do so when all the news coverage is negative. over the years ive introduced many youngsters to the world of competitive shooting an also to hunting. and i’m always the first to get up them when they are doing something wrong.
to me the first step to educate people is we need to get more positive coverage of guns being used as a sport. sure leave the movies alone. as there is so many people out there who hate guns yet will sit there and watch a action movie with people dieing all over the place and not flinch a bit. but start talking actually shooting something like a deer and a rabbit they dont want anything to do with it.
ask your selves when was the last time that you saw guns being used in a positive way on tv? the last i can remember was when Graham Ede won the gold at the commonwealths. did we see many of his shots? no we only saw the one where he won. but what about the other sports like cycling did we only see the wining lap or the crossing of the line no we saw damn near the whole race.
how many of you knew that in recent years nz has brought home more medals in shooting than in any other sport? i’m guessing not many of you knew that. well i don’t blame you for not knowing because we’ve had no coverage of these positive actions. but if a hunter accidently shoots his mate through poor identification then thats all we hear about for weeks. most of te families that have lost loved ones this way just want to be left alone. one family didn’t want the man who accidentally shot their father/husband to go to jail. all they wanted was for him to admit that hed done it. they wanted this because they knew that he’d have to live with his actions for the rest of his life. but no the judge didn’t see it that way and put him away for life. the kid who threw a block on to a car in auckland only got 15years because he said that he was retartded and didn’t know what he was doing. bull shit he knew and he didn’t care and yet he gets less time than the guy who accidentally shot his mate and now has to live with it.
come on people instead of trying to ban guns try going out and getting better coverage of gun use as a sport.
get gun education into schools
many high schools have shooting teams…..
start telling people guns aren’t bad its the unstable people that sometimes use them that are.
remember we want guns for our recreation and sport we don’t want to see them band. because it will only be the law abiding licensed citizen who hands their guns in there will still be guns in the hands of those who don’t deserve them
October 19th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Interesting that this thread has sprung to life again after so long. Green Party members may be interested that the Party’s Policy Committee wants to do some work on developing policy in the area of gun control. Policy Committee is looking to appoint a Policy Issue Convenor to lead the policy discussion and Policy Issue Group members to work with the Issue Convenor in developing the policy.
Any Green Party members interested in either of these roles should contact Policy Co-convenor Nancy Higgins at policy@greens.org.nz
Ivan Sowry
Green Party Policy Co-convenor
October 19th, 2006 at 9:06 am
For me the main argument against guns is the same one used by the medieval knights when guns were first used in Europe. A gun is a coward’s weapon. If guns were less available, there would be less homicide, not because people would be any less vicious and homicidal but simply because it is harder to kill without a missile weapon. A gun (like a car or a computer) puts a barrier between the would be killer/flamer and their victim, so they are less likely to react to them as a human being.
It is hard to go up to someone and slit their throat with a knife. One would have to be extremely enraged to risk firstly getting the knife in your own gut (because the victim would fight back), and secondly overcoming your own revulsion at the blood shed, and your own empathy towards the victim.
It is much easier to point a gun at someone from a distance and pull the trigger. You do not need to interact with your victim at all, and may not even feel like you have killed someone.
Though having said that, I am aware that Switzerland has very lax gun laws, but hardly any homicide. So may be it depends on the underlying culture. Homicidal cultures certainly should not get more guns.
October 28th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
A comment for Rocky, I agree with almost all of your points, as a school-day rifle club member and an orchardist/possum hunter myself. I don’t see anywhere that anyone here is advocating banning guns though, which you are arguing against:
“come on people instead of trying to ban guns try going out and getting better coverage of gun use as a sport.”
though it is a long thread as someone mentioned, and I may have missed something.
As a teacher, Rocky, I hope you do a better job with spelling and grammar on your submitted work at tech. or uni. or wherever you are in your hall of residence. ; )
October 29th, 2006 at 12:26 am
sorry about me spelling redjam just typing quick i have troubles submited work always alot better. as for my quote about banning guns that was the general feeling i got from reading some of the threads. sorry if i miss-interperated them. i just cant see why the big deal about pro-gun lobbist coming here if there is no one on the site wanting guns banned/made harder to get thats all. our laws to me are fair just a couple of points about magazine sizes i don’t agree with (need more shots when goat hunting with a semi auto) 7 is just a pain in the arse size should be 10 at least. i hate to point it out to all the people that think larger capacity magazines will cause more deaths if a mentally unstable person gets hold of one they are wrong. an experienced user will make every shot count. and will more than likely have more than 4 “legal capacity magazines”. just putting it out there. and what happened to this thread being about firearms and pro-gun lobby stuff. it’s turned into a thread bagging policies or lack of
October 29th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
and I’m still soooo glad that we only have words to use here, not guns!
whew, that one sure picked up some speed over the interveining months!!
October 30th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Good on ya Rocky, it wans’t a serious criticism about your spelling, though the schopols don’t seem to be doing it anywhere near as well as when I was at them, (only 30 years since I started school). I’m a computer teacher so I take no blame. ; )
I think the problem people have with pro-guin lobbyists coming here is the agenda can only be to increase gun availability, you may see some of the American posters way back above (not BJ) keen for us all to be carrying handguns.
I agree with your comment on magazine sizes too.
James
October 31st, 2006 at 10:05 am
Some of you may have noticed that comments that were here previously have been deleted. This isn’t something I do often but the thread had degenerated into personal dispute for which this blog was not an appropriate forum at all. Apologies to anyone who had genuine comments deleted. If the protagonists wish to continue their discussion I suggest they do so via email.
I have not turned off the comments function on this thread as there is still scope for valuable discussion of the issue at hand - gun control - but I will do so if necessary.
Cheers,
frog
October 31st, 2006 at 10:53 am
gee..glad i got a snapshot of that….before you censored frog..
so..i guess i’m left with no choice but to publish that deleted material over at whoar…
with a backgrounder..explaining how it all came to this…
(that’ll be up later on today…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 31st, 2006 at 11:11 am
phil, I agreed with tochigi’s final comments yesterday.
Howev