Thread: we are up against stupidity

ohhh good lord read this and weep they are out there and we have to maintain a united front get those surveys done join COLFLO etc etc

By Alexander Gillespie* of
The Conversation

The Conversation
A Customs investigation has led to five arrests in Auckland and the seizure of over 1.36 million illicit cigarettes, two firearms, and a substantial amount of cash as part of Operation Montreal.File photo. Photo: Supplied / Customs
Analysis - Nearly 30 years before the Christchurch terror attacks of 15 March 2019, New Zealand had to grapple with the horrors of another mass shooting. The Aramoana massacre on 13 November 1990 left 13 people dead and a nation reeling.

However, the firearms law changes made in the aftermath were inadequate, and the failure to tighten regulations arguably left the door open for the Christchurch atrocity - committed by a licensed firearms owner.

By contrast, after the Port Arthur massacre that killed 35 people on 28 April 1996, Australia adopted fundamental changes to its firearms laws and banned semiautomatic rifles.

Later analysis suggests those reforms helped avoid a likely 16 mass shootings. New Zealand didn't match the Australian example, and it wasn't until the Christchurch attacks that vast improvements to firearms laws were enacted.

However, New Zealand still differs in significant ways from Australian federal and state models. With our Arms Act under review, and with a major rewrite due probably later this year, there are six key areas where we might learn from our nearest neighbour.

Aramoana Massacre MemorialThe memorial at Aramoana to the 13 people killed in the 1990 mass shooting. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
1. Genuine reasons to own a firearm
Australia and New Zealand both treat the possession of a firearm as a legal privilege, not a right as it is in the United States. But Australia differs in that a licence applicant must show a genuine reason to possess the firearms.

This is typically associated with other requirements, such as a gun club membership or proof of other reasons to own a firearm such as occupational or recreational needs.

Australia also has a 28-day "cooling off" period between an applicant being granted a licence and their ability to buy a firearm.

Licensed gun owners can only buy ammunition suited to the specifically licensed firearm. Australia, like Canada, also sets a maximum magazine capacity of ten cartridges for most handguns.

Currently, New Zealand gun laws do not carry any of these restrictions.

2. The right character referees
Like Australia, New Zealand requires firearms owners to be "fit and proper" people. But none of the eight Australian state or territorial jurisdictions accept self-nominated character referees.

Instead, they apply a more investigative approach, during which police may talk to a wider range of people to assess the suitability of applicants. Each step of the process is laid out in greater detail, such as when health risk assessments may be required.

3. A more robust firearms register
Australia has taken firearms registration - and the traceability of every gun - very seriously since the shooting of two police officers and a member of the public in an ambush attack in rural Queensland in 2022.

Queensland police say Constable Rachel McCrow, 29, and Constable Matthew Arnold, 26, were killed in a seige at a remote rural property.Queensland police say Constable Rachel McCrow, 29, and Constable Matthew Arnold, 26, were killed in a siege at a remote rural Queensland property in 2022. Photo: Supplied/ Queensland Police
A lack of real-time available information about the offenders was identified as a contributing factor in the tragedy.

A national firearms register, hosted by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, is under construction. This will provide front-line officers with information on owners, firearms and parts, linked to other relevant police and government data.

Unlike in New Zealand, Australian authorities do not accept sales or transfers between individual firearms owners. These must go through registered dealers, who act as brokers for the transfer, adding an extra layer of security.

But the key lesson from Australia is that to be effective, firearms registries should sit within the police, not civilian bureaucracies.

4. A gradual licence system for young people
In New Zealand, an applicant for a firearms licence must be at least 16 years old. But there is no minimum age requirement for handling a firearm, only the rule that a young person must be under the "immediate supervision" of someone with a firearms licence.

There have been suggestions of adapted firearms licence safety courses in schools, which would see year 11 to 13 pupils receive initial vetting and a certificate as a stepping stone towards a full licence.

It's a promising idea, but given the known risks of young people and violent extremism, and the international experience of school shootings, this would need to be managed carefully.

An alternative might be the Australian approach, where young people are more formally brought into the licensing system with a "minor's permit". These are similar to a learner driver's licence, with the aim of easing young people into responsible firearms ownership.

5. Limits on how many firearms can be owned
Large caches of fully operable firearms (unlike vintage collections, which are permanently inoperable) can attract criminal attention, for obvious reasons.

Western Australia is the first state to impose a limit on the number of firearms an individual can hold, modelled on a number of European systems. A licensed competition shooter can own ten, and a licensed hunter five.

New Zealand has no limits on how many firearms a licensed holder may possess.

6. Strong firearms prohibition orders
The New Zealand Government came late to firearms prohibition orders, only realising their benefit in 2022.

These legal orders seek to prevent high-risk people from using, accessing or being around firearms. Although they have recently been augmented with greater search powers, only about 120 orders have been issued.

By comparison, since its own law was created in 1996, New South Wales has issued thousands of orders. In other words, it requires decades of work to mitigate risks to public safety.

The much-needed rewrite of the Arms Act is a chance to learn from best practice around the world. Closest to home, Australia has laws, practices and proven results that should prompt us to ask, why not here?


- This article was originally published on The Conversation.


* Alexander Gillespie is a professor of law at the University of Waikato

And Australia clearly has lower gun crime rates than NZ showing thier system works....Oh wait ...its much worse thasn ours you say...well'll be buggered - Maybe the Aussie system doesn't work then.....

In truth if you look closely at What Aussie has done, you can see it is a clear example of how it does NOT work...Gun crime is higher, there are brazen assasinations of criminals , weapon crime is higher, and the ONLY people being punished for it are the law abiding licensed owners who lose more of their sport and passion every time a law change is made and nothing is done to combat the actual crime....If that twat thinks Aussies system is so good, he should move to the University of Perth and leave us the hell alone...

Originally Posted by timattalon

And Australia clearly has lower gun crime rates than NZ showing thier system works....Oh wait ...its much worse thasn ours you say...well'll be buggered - Maybe the Aussie system doesn't work then.....

In truth if you look closely at What Aussie has done, you can see it is a clear example of how it does NOT work...Gun crime is higher, there are brazen assasinations of criminals , weapon crime is higher, and the ONLY people being punished for it are the law abiding licensed owners who lose more of their sport and passion every time a law change is made and nothing is done to combat the actual crime....If that twat thinks Aussies system is so good, he should move to the University of Perth and leave us the hell alone...

And don't quote me, I have not fact checked this;

The Australian Govt changed the definition of Mass Killing, or whatever they call it, so as to make the statistics look better subsequent to 1996.

Originally Posted by timattalon

And Australia clearly has lower gun crime rates than NZ showing thier system works....Oh wait ...its much worse thasn ours you say...well'll be buggered - Maybe the Aussie system doesn't work then.....

In truth if you look closely at What Aussie has done, you can see it is a clear example of how it does NOT work...Gun crime is higher, there are brazen assasinations of criminals , weapon crime is higher, and the ONLY people being punished for it are the law abiding licensed owners who lose more of their sport and passion every time a law change is made and nothing is done to combat the actual crime....If that twat thinks Aussies system is so good, he should move to the University of Perth and leave us the hell alone...

I wonder what Australia's stats would be if they hadn't exported a heap of their criminals.

Originally Posted by timattalon

And Australia clearly has lower gun crime rates than NZ showing thier system works....Oh wait ...its much worse thasn ours you say...well'll be buggered - Maybe the Aussie system doesn't work then.....

In truth if you look closely at What Aussie has done, you can see it is a clear example of how it does NOT work...Gun crime is higher, there are brazen assasinations of criminals , weapon crime is higher, and the ONLY people being punished for it are the law abiding licensed owners who lose more of their sport and passion every time a law change is made and nothing is done to combat the actual crime....If that twat thinks Aussies system is so good, he should move to the University of Perth and leave us the hell alone...

according to UNODC data Australia v's NZ stacks up as follows

Location	Region	Subregion	Intentional homicide victims per 100,000 inhabitants	Estimate of civilian firearms per 100 persons	Total firearm-related death rate per 100,000 inhabitants

Australia *

Oceania

Australia, New Zealand

0.9

14.5

0.88

New Zealand *

Oceania

Australia, New Zealand

2.6

26.3

1.24

I'm not for one minute defending Gillespies BS article, just your comment got me curious, the above is from wiki so can't verify it's accuracy

Originally Posted by Zedrex

according to UNODC data Australia v's NZ stacks up as follows

Location	Region	Subregion	Intentional homicide victims per 100,000 inhabitants	Estimate of civilian firearms per 100 persons	Total firearm-related death rate per 100,000 inhabitants

Australia *

Oceania

Australia, New Zealand

0.9

14.5

0.88

New Zealand *

Oceania

Australia, New Zealand

2.6

26.3

1.24

I'm not for one minute defending Gillespies BS article, just your comment got me curious, the above is from wiki so can't verify it's accuracy

I'm not a big beliver in stats as they can be twisted by the questions and how they're asked.
But in saying that one thing I noticed was that the Australian stats show almost the same numbers for Firearm related deaths and Intentional homicide while NZ shows a much lower ratio of Firearm related deaths vs Intentional homicide.
guns or no guns people will always find a way to kill each other if that's what they want.

Originally Posted by No good names left

guns or no guns people will always find a way to kill each other if that's what they want.

Truth

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

Truth

as clearly evidenced by knife attack statistics in europe...

Originally Posted by Zedrex

according to UNODC data Australia v's NZ stacks up as follows

Location	Region	Subregion	Intentional homicide victims per 100,000 inhabitants	Estimate of civilian firearms per 100 persons	Total firearm-related death rate per 100,000 inhabitants

Australia *

Oceania

Australia, New Zealand

0.9

14.5

0.88

New Zealand *

Oceania

Australia, New Zealand

2.6

26.3

1.24

I'm not for one minute defending Gillespies BS article, just your comment got me curious, the above is from wiki so can't verify it's accuracy

Something does not make sense there...If you look at Aussie stats intentional deaths (0.9 per 100,000) and Firearms deaths (0.88 per 100,000) thatis 9 per million and 8.8 per million. So of the intentional deaths 2 per million do not involve firearms? Then look at NZ (2.6 versus 1.24 ) so less than half of our intentional deaths involve firearms. AND the ratio of firearms deaths to ownership is lower in NZ (Aussie is 1 in 16.47 and NZ is 1 in 21.24)

One big question though is does the total deaths by firearm include accidental deaths as it does not specify intentional in the title on that column. I think it would be misleading to add accidental ones in when attempting to compare firearms deaths in relation to murder. For example it could be said that NZ had 2.6 intentional deaths per 100,000 people of which none were committed with firearms and an accidental or self iflicted of 1.24 per 100,000 people which would clearly indicate that laws against crime were working rather than implying the opposite. This situation would tell us we have a problem with safety, education and mental health but would also show crime is being addressed effectively -( Clearly this is not the case but it is something that is possible with those stats..)

As mentioned stats can be twisted to show things that are not true especially if there is something to gain. And lets face it UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) clearly has its own poliical agenda to disarm the general population as a mandate so would never publish information showing it to be wrong...

As for my comparison with Australia, the main point is that with their draconian level anti firearm laws and it being near impossible to get a license there, then there should be almost no gun crime there at all if the laws worked....clearly that is not the case as their Police are armed at all times.....

If I have the right of it, mass killing by definition in aus is 4 killed or more and does not include Govt workers such as Police. That's by any method not just homicide by firearms. They skewed the accounting on it to improve the figures and to my mind it's quite blatant.

If you look back through the Aussie gangland related crime over there, it's heavily populated with targeted assassinations perpetrated with guns. But hey, much safer than NZ...

Originally Posted by No.3

If you look back through the Aussie gangland related crime over there, it's heavily populated with targeted assassinations perpetrated with guns. But hey, much safer than NZ...

There have been a couple in the last few months. Most if not all, Middle Eastern organised crime groups

Originally Posted by No.3

If I have the right of it, mass killing by definition in aus is 4 killed or more and does not include Govt workers such as Police. That's by any method not just homicide by firearms. They skewed the accounting on it to improve the figures and to my mind it's quite blatant.

If you look back through the Aussie gangland related crime over there, it's heavily populated with targeted assassinations perpetrated with guns. But hey, much safer than NZ...

A mass shooting in Aussie is 5 dead not including the shooter. Have a look here and see how many shootings they have had up to 2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

Originally Posted by Percy Jones

A mass shooting in Aussie is 5 dead not including the shooter. Have a look here and see how many shootings they have had up to 2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

Um, if you look at the numbers in the link you posted it shows the smallest number as 4 dead?

Unsure where the '5 dead' number you quote comes from as there isn't actually a defined number - it is generally considered that it is 'between 3 and 5 dead' and most tally civilians separately to Police, military and other Govt workers (war events like the 200-odd soldiers killed in WWII, and also Aboriginal incidents are not included - documentation reasons for the latter mostly).

What is interesting for the Aussie model is that the Port Arthur law changes are accepted as being the reason for a substantial reduction in the amount of firearms related homicide in Australia but also that the stats are only considered through to 2005 or so. Most studies predate this time period. After this time period it doesn't seem that there are studies? Also, it would seem to me that the stats show an uptick in firearms related multiple casualty events after this period - although without recent studies it is hard to interpret the lists of events...

Originally Posted by No.3

Um, if you look at the numbers in the link you posted it shows the smallest number as 4 dead?

Unsure where the '5 dead' number you quote comes from as there isn't actually a defined number - it is generally considered that it is 'between 3 and 5 dead' and most tally civilians separately to Police, military and other Govt workers (war events like the 200-odd soldiers killed in WWII, and also Aboriginal incidents are not included - documentation reasons for the latter mostly).

What is interesting for the Aussie model is that the Port Arthur law changes are accepted as being the reason for a substantial reduction in the amount of firearms related homicide in Australia but also that the stats are only considered through to 2005 or so. Most studies predate this time period. After this time period it doesn't seem that there are studies? Also, it would seem to me that the stats show an uptick in firearms related multiple casualty events after this period - although without recent studies it is hard to interpret the lists of events...

It is 4 casualties, excluding the shooter according to the articles criteria.

Originally Posted by No.3

Um, if you look at the numbers in the link you posted it shows the smallest number as 4 dead?

Unsure where the '5 dead' number you quote comes from as there isn't actually a defined number - it is generally considered that it is 'between 3 and 5 dead' and most tally civilians separately to Police, military and other Govt workers (war events like the 200-odd soldiers killed in WWII, and also Aboriginal incidents are not included - documentation reasons for the latter mostly).

What is interesting for the Aussie model is that the Port Arthur law changes are accepted as being the reason for a substantial reduction in the amount of firearms related homicide in Australia but also that the stats are only considered through to 2005 or so. Most studies predate this time period. After this time period it doesn't seem that there are studies? Also, it would seem to me that the stats show an uptick in firearms related multiple casualty events after this period - although without recent studies it is hard to interpret the lists of events...

Yes you are correct it is 4 people. I did find an online reference to 5 people but i cant find it now.