Parliament overwhelmingly votes for tougher new gun laws in wake of Christchurch terrorist attacks

From TVNZ

Parliament overwhelmingly votes for tougher new gun laws in wake of Christchurch terrorist attacks​

New Zealand’s gun law reform has passed its final hurdle in Parliament tonight.

The Third Reading of the Arms Amendment Act saw all MPs except ACT’s David Seymour vote in favour of the gun changes, less than a month after the Christchurch terrorist attack on March 15 where 50 people were killed.

The final vote came in at 119 for the amendment and one against.

The changes to New Zealand’s gun laws are set to include a ban on semi-automatic weapons and military style semi-automatics, a ban on parts, magazines and ammunition that could be used for modification into a semi-automatic and a ban on pump-action shotguns with more than a five shot capacity.

The amnesty period for unlawful weapons, magazines and ammunition to be handed in will be until September 30.

COMMENT:-

Would similar "logic" dictate that if a criminal (or terrorist) rented (bought or borrowed) a truck and used it to murder folks (by running them down) that trucks should be banned?

Liberal logic: If criminals are shooting people disarm people so they can't defend themselves.

ttwtt78640 said:

Would similar "logic" dictate that if a criminal (or terrorist) rented (bought or borrowed) a truck and used it to murder folks (by running them down) that trucks should be banned?

Click to expand...

As long as you don't live there, why would you care?

PS - The last time I looked "trucks" were not manufactured specifically so that they could be used to kill things as their primary purpose. Has that changed?

PPS - I DO NOT "agree with the law" but I DO "agree with the message that the law is intended to send". Do you disagree with the MESSAGE that the law is intended to send?

Or is it your belief that no one should intend to send a message that they REALLY do not approve of mass killings if sending that message just might possibly interfere with someone's (including the mass murderer's) right to have guns?

joko104 said:

Liberal logic: If criminals are shooting people disarm people so they can't defend themselves.

Click to expand...

"Conservative logic" - Let's all run around in a panic because some people in a different country don't react to a situation in exactly the same way that we think that they should react to it, and don't react the same way that we think that they should react to it because they live in a society with different values and ethics than we live in.

TU Curmudgeon said:

As long as you don't live there, why would you care?

PS - The last time I looked "trucks" were not manufactured specifically so that they could be used to kill things as their primary purpose. Has that changed?

PPS - I DO NOT "agree with the law" but I DO "agree with the message that the law is intended to send". Do you disagree with the MESSAGE that the law is intended to send?

Or is it your belief that no one should intend to send a message that they REALLY do not approve of mass killings if sending that message just might possibly interfere with someone's (including the mass murderer's) right to have guns?

Click to expand...

My belief is that criminal abuse of X should not be cause to ban X. That holds true for all X whether it be a gun, a recreational drug a motor vehicle or gasoline sold in "to go" containers.

ttwtt78640 said:

My belief is that criminal abuse of X should not be cause to ban X.

Click to expand...

And I agree with you.

What I prefer to see happen is for the "WHY" of something happening to be examined rather than simply the "HOW" of it happening.

In the US the "Gun Control Debate" is almost exclusively over the "HOW" aspect of the mass killings and very little attention is being paid to the "WHY" of the mass killings.

Face it, if absolutely ZERO percent of the people in a country ever thought that killing another person for any reason other than to defend their own lives (or the lives of others) then there would be ALMOST ZERO need for any "Gun Control Laws" at all. The long term solution is to reduce the NEED for "Gun Control Laws" as much as possible. The long-term solution is NOT to allow the NEED for "Gun Control Laws" to continue to grow AND to make guns even more widely available at the same time.

Unfortunately for a society to make any progress on reducing the NEED for "Gun Control Laws" the people of that country have to be prepared to take an honest (and likely painful) look at what their society is ACTUALLY like rather than to continue to act as if their society was what they would like it to be (despite any evidence to the contrary).