• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Zealand Gun Owners Forced to Hand In Firearms, Shortchanged by ‘Buyback’

Wayne Jr said:
New Zealand Gun Owners Forced to Hand In Firearms, Shortchanged by ‘Buyback’
BREITBART LONDON13 Jul 2019

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) – Dozens of Christchurch gun owners on Saturday handed over their weapons in exchange for money, in the first of more than 250 planned buyback events around New Zealand after the government outlawed many types of semi-automatics. Police said they paid more than 430,000 New Zealand dollars ($288,000) to 169 gun owners during the event. The money was paid directly into the bank accounts of gun owners.

New Zealand lawmakers in April rushed through new legislation to ban so-called military-style weapons after a lone gunman killed 51 people at two Christchurch mosques in March. The government has set aside more than NZ$200 million to buy back weapons such as AR-15 style rifles, although many gun owners remain unhappy with the compensation on offer. Under an amnesty, gun owners have until December to turn over their now-banned weapons. Police said at least 14,000 guns around the country are banned under the new legislation. There are an estimated 1 million to 1.5 million guns in New Zealand and 250,000 licensed gun owners.

Under the buyback scheme, gun owners are compensated between 25% and 95% of the pre-tax price of a new gun, depending on the condition of their weapon. People who own guns that are not banned under the new laws can also turn over their weapons during the amnesty, although they won’t get any compensation. Police said a half-dozen such weapons were turned in during the Christchurch event. Police are using hydraulic machines to crush the gun barrels and firing mechanisms of the weapons that are handed in, rendering them inoperable, before disposing of them. Mike Johnson, an acting district police commander, said the Christchurch buyback had been a success and the attitude of gun owners “outstanding.”

Police Minister Stuart Nash said the results from the first collection were very encouraging. ..."

This is how a ban would go down in the USA. Not door-to-door, just a legal ban with a "buy-back/amnesty" period, followed by charging anyone who even knows you have an illegal gun if they don't report you, and SWAT teams. Possibly more amnesty sessions after the heat are applied.

If you're sitting around waiting for them to come to you, then you've already lost.
Click to expand...

In the Twenties, we banned the sale and possession of alcohol. Consumers decided to become lawbreakers. A criminal industry grew to support alcohol consumption, and those criminal organizations exist today even though alcohol has since been legalized.

In the Sixties, we cracked down on the sale and possession of certain drugs. Consumers decided to become lawbreakers. A criminal industry grew to support illegal drug consumption, and those criminal organizations exist today, and will never die.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.
 
Luther said:
Well, we know that is how America came to being?

Unjust laws right?
Click to expand...

You'd NOT answer my question - instead you posed unanswerable question of your own.
 
haymarket said:
You'd NOT answer my question - instead you posed unanswerable question of your own.
Click to expand...

instead you posed unanswerable question of your own.
Click to expand...

If you're an American, they are very answerable


So if an unjust law like gun confiscation by vain politicians in America would take place?

What do ya think Patriot Americans would do?
 
I will never understand why anyone points to gun laws and bans in other countries and claim that they are appliable here in the USA, it is as if they do not understand the nature of Americans. The simple answer is that the vast majority of Americans would not comply, period.
Maybe instead of attempting to ban firearms we should simply enforce the laws we already have and then focus on criminals and the mental health issue instead.
 
nekrodev said:
Probably that it's dumb and the reason why we have more gun violence than any other developed nation. If you ever watch stuff about when they did this in Australia, people were pretty pissed at first, and then it was like - "Oh, I guess we really didn't need those, did we. Off to the pub!"
Click to expand...

Funny how Australia ended up with MORE guns after the ban then before.

More guns in Australia now than before the Port Arthur massacre: report

So did they really think that?

And let's not forget Canada failed gun registry, seem like the people just said nope.

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up
 
Kiwimac said:
1: No one has been forced yet to hand over semi-automatics. That may happen further down the line but not yet. No one here needs a semi-auto.
2: The second quoted article was parody. You do know that right?
3: Breitbart wouldn't know the news if it bit 'em.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of all modern handguns are semi-auto. Your statement is silly and saying that everyone should only have revolvers. Your opinion on what people need or don't need is noted.
 
Fishking said:
The vast majority of all modern handguns are semi-auto. Your statement is silly and saying that everyone should only have revolvers. Your opinion on what people need or don't need is noted.
Click to expand...
Remedial English might help. Most Kiwis hunt with either a shotgun or a. 22 /. 308.

There's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.
 
Kiwimac said:
No one here needs a semi-auto.
Click to expand...

What does "need" have to do with anything? Is that now the test for whether we should be allowed to have something or not?
 
Kiwimac said:
1: No one has been forced yet to hand over semi-automatics. That may happen further down the line but not yet. No one here needs a semi-auto.
2: The second quoted article was parody. You do know that right?
3: Breitbart wouldn't know the news if it bit 'em.
Click to expand...

So anything the state determines that you don't need can be confiscated and made illegal? Other than the Orwellian implication of big brother deciding what material goods or services every person can do without, doesn't that seem to be a rather lame rationale for forgoing a right to property?
 
Tlrmln said:
What does "need" have to do with anything? Is that now the test for whether we should be allowed to have something or not?
Click to expand...

The rational of "need" has always struck me as telling of the mindset of the left. The authoritarians of the left instinctively assume that the state is society and that all persons who under the jurisdiction of the state need to justify what they own, purchase, or do. In other words, the "you don't need it" rationale to ban ownership and conduct is the statist signaling is that individual freedom to decide for one's self what they want or need does not exist. It is the centralized state's collective right not the individual person's right to liberty that is a given.

I've also thought this to be illustrative of people's natural affection for making the state their god, and individuals as obedient to god's wishes. Is it any wonder that statist systems throughout history were so successful? The core human instinct is NOT to live and let live, but to dominate and have power over others.
 
Last edited:
maxparrish said:
The rational of "need" has always struck me as telling of the mindset of the left. The authoritarians of the left instinctively assume that the state is society and that all persons who under the jurisdiction of the state need to justify what they own, purchase, or do. In other words, the "you don't need it" rationale to ban ownership and conduct is the statist signaling is that individual freedom to decide for one's self what they want or need does not exist. It is the centralized state's collective right not the individual person's right to liberty that is a given.

I've also thought this to be illustrative of people's natural affection for making the state their god, and individuals as obedient to god's wishes. Is it any wonder that statist systems throughout history were so successful? The core human instinct is NOT to live and let live, but to dominate and have power over others.
Click to expand...

I was looking at it from the hypocrisy point of view. You don't see all these gun control zealots out there arguing that we need to outlaw other things we don't "need," even though those things undoubtedly cause more deaths than, for example, legal ownership of assault weapons. And the reason for that is obvious: They only really care about saving lives when it doesn't require them to make any sacrifices of their own.
 
Wayne Jr said:
New Zealand Gun Owners Forced to Hand In Firearms, Shortchanged by ‘Buyback’
BREITBART LONDON13 Jul 2019

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) – Dozens of Christchurch gun owners on Saturday handed over their weapons in exchange for money, in the first of more than 250 planned buyback events around New Zealand after the government outlawed many types of semi-automatics. Police said they paid more than 430,000 New Zealand dollars ($288,000) to 169 gun owners during the event. The money was paid directly into the bank accounts of gun owners.

New Zealand lawmakers in April rushed through new legislation to ban so-called military-style weapons after a lone gunman killed 51 people at two Christchurch mosques in March. The government has set aside more than NZ$200 million to buy back weapons such as AR-15 style rifles, although many gun owners remain unhappy with the compensation on offer. Under an amnesty, gun owners have until December to turn over their now-banned weapons. Police said at least 14,000 guns around the country are banned under the new legislation. There are an estimated 1 million to 1.5 million guns in New Zealand and 250,000 licensed gun owners.

Under the buyback scheme, gun owners are compensated between 25% and 95% of the pre-tax price of a new gun, depending on the condition of their weapon. People who own guns that are not banned under the new laws can also turn over their weapons during the amnesty, although they won’t get any compensation. Police said a half-dozen such weapons were turned in during the Christchurch event. Police are using hydraulic machines to crush the gun barrels and firing mechanisms of the weapons that are handed in, rendering them inoperable, before disposing of them. Mike Johnson, an acting district police commander, said the Christchurch buyback had been a success and the attitude of gun owners “outstanding.”

Police Minister Stuart Nash said the results from the first collection were very encouraging. ..."

This is how a ban would go down in the USA. Not door-to-door, just a legal ban with a "buy-back/amnesty" period, followed by charging anyone who even knows you have an illegal gun if they don't report you, and SWAT teams. Possibly more amnesty sessions after the heat are applied.

If you're sitting around waiting for them to come to you, then you've already lost.
Click to expand...

Albuquerque currently has a gun buy back program going--$75 for a hand gun or rifle or shotgun, $100 for a so-called 'assault weapon'.

I don't know where anybody buys any kind of handgun or even small caliber rifle for much under $300. And I can't imagine anybody but law abiding citizens who pose no threat to anybody with anything, let alone a firearm, turning in their guns even if the buy back was at fair market value. Oh maybe a few who really need the money, but those won't make the world one whit safer. And when they are unable to protect themselves, it might make the world a bit less safe?

Somehow I just can't see the gang members, thugs, thieves, robbers, and dangerously violent types willingly relinquishing their guns.
 
Luther said:
And if their Gov ever turned on their people?

Then what?(Rolling eyes)
Click to expand...

With what?

Unlike america our governing system is neither corrupt or in a position that they can ignore what the public wants.

Please, amuse me with your ignorance and explain just how the nz government could turn on the people.
 
Luther said:
Well, we know that is how America came to being?

Unjust laws right?
Click to expand...

And not being allowed to take land possessed by Native Americans.

And sorta kinda tolerating those awful Catholics in Quebec instead brutally oppressing them like a proper Protestant state should :roll:
 
Luther said:
Wrong

We can fight back

They cannot(wink)
Click to expand...

Ok, some statistics just to show how foolish your comments are.

Guns in New Zealand — Firearms, gun law and gun control
The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in New Zealand is 1,200,000 to 1,500,000

The defence forces of New Zealand are reported to have 38,280 firearms

Police in New Zealand are reported to have 13,000 firearms
Click to expand...

Really, do yourself a favour and stop trying to compare nz with america or pretending you even have a clue what can happen in nz.
 
Wayne Jr said:
No one actually cares about NZ. You are your own tiny little slice of the planet, do what you want, lie to yourselves as you like.
Click to expand...

Ironic coming from someone who posts lies and fake news to back himself and then tells more lies in a desperate attempt to pretend you did not link to fake news.
 
dogboy49 said:
In the Twenties, we banned the sale and possession of alcohol. Consumers decided to become lawbreakers. A criminal industry grew to support alcohol consumption, and those criminal organizations exist today even though alcohol has since been legalized.

In the Sixties, we cracked down on the sale and possession of certain drugs. Consumers decided to become lawbreakers. A criminal industry grew to support illegal drug consumption, and those criminal organizations exist today, and will never die.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.
Click to expand...

And those who rely on hyperbole tend to get ignored. No one is arguing for an outright ban on all guns . So your pointing out what happened with drugs and alcohol is merely hyperbole.
 
Tlrmln said:
I was looking at it from the hypocrisy point of view. You don't see all these gun control zealots out there arguing that we need to outlaw other things we don't "need," even though those things undoubtedly cause more deaths than, for example, legal ownership of assault weapons. And the reason for that is obvious: They only really care about saving lives when it doesn't require them to make any sacrifices of their own.
Click to expand...

Well, your point is also accurate. The "you don't need" argument is really an argument about power and "what I think you need is the only point". Obviously there are many or most people that don't "need" motorbikes, motorcycles, or bicycles. And they don't 'need' the serious injury laden rugby, either.

Yet when an object or conduct is declared profane, everyone in the state religion says no person "needs it" as if that is an argument.
 
Fishking said:
The vast majority of all modern handguns are semi-auto. Your statement is silly and saying that everyone should only have revolvers. Your opinion on what people need or don't need is noted.
Click to expand...

The difference here can be explained by the fact that america, unlike nz, has a second amendment and a completely different history. In america when discussing guns the emphasis, as has been shown by the many debates on this site, is on protecting oneself from criminals and stock pilling for the ever hoped for revolution.

While in nz the discussion of guns centres around hunting and sports. So unlike america in nz the majority of guns are not handguns or semi-auto.
 
maxparrish said:
So anything the state determines that you don't need can be confiscated and made illegal? Other than the Orwellian implication of big brother deciding what material goods or services every person can do without, doesn't that seem to be a rather lame rationale for forgoing a right to property?
Click to expand...

No what is a lame rational is your attempting to reflect the americans ridiculous attitude towards government is the same everywhere.

Had you bothered to do any research instead of just imagining that the rest of the worlds governments must be just as corrupt as your own you would of found that the nz government acted in accordance to wishes of the majority of the people in nz.

There was no orwellian implication .
 
Wayne Jr said:
You're saying there's a lot of child sex abuse in NZ. Interesting.
Click to expand...

Thank you Kellyanne Conway for that non-sequitur. Translation: "We like guns so let's pretend not to see the satire and try to change the subject instead".

See swap out 'guns' for something that most people would agree is dangerous to society and suddenly a buyback seems an overly mild solution. This is how 'Epsteynia' has chosen to stamp out kiddie porn; it's the way NZ has decided to remove certain weapons from the community.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom