Mudlerk wrote: We've just had a British couple, who had spent 30 of their ADULT years in South Africa, decide against buying our place, on the grounds that they felt it "too dangerous living this far out of town" [15 minutes from Palmerston North].
If we heard the expression "Christianic terrorists" on the news three times a day, we'd probably have people burning crosses!
The changes to the law that have just been rushed through (see below) don't appear to ban anything - all they do is reclassify a broad range of semi-automatic firearms as "Military Style Semi-Automatic":
sandgrubber wrote: I'm confused. The news I've read says "military style semi-automatic weapons" are to be banned, not all semi-automatics. Doesn't that mean that low caliber semi-automatics are to remain legal?
Thanks, Blueberry, for reinforcing my central point. I was trying to say that, for adults as well as children, what we read, see on tv and computer screens, etc. can override our ability think clearly in the present. In terms of theft, violence and other types of harm caused by our fellow humans, it is patently safer to live in rural than in urban New Zealand.
As for the kinds of persons who shoot unarmed people, there is one group I used to belong to: my military training said nothing about making sure the 'enemy' was armed before I fired.
I'm afraid we need some really basic attitude changes, much of it about stuff we presently see as proper behaviour.
All E-cats are registered so they have them in the fold
Making all A-cat AR15 style rifles into E-cats is a legal means to make them now untradeable and an effort to get a handle on where they all are - in hand with this they have stopped any movement of E-cats
the next step is to buy back all of the now E-cats
They have left out rimfires (Ruger 10/22s) and semi shotguns ( below a certain capacity) because the buyback would be too expensive - they learned this from the Australian experience
What they are after is the black scary guns with detachable magazines
If you think this sounds confusing then that is because it is
I honestly think that there is a part of our govt that is trying to "beat" Australia by banning semis faster than they did
Stentor there are always going to be those with opposing views - in all walks of life. I don't own a semi auto but I would have liked to. I know many people with semi autos that are worth a lot of money, they are responsible and those with E-Cats have good security. I also know a few pistol shooters. They won't be terribly happy losing their firearms I'm sure.
There is even talk of banning 'silencers' which is really silly. I have two suppressed rifles. The general public probably don't realise they aren't silencers. A suppressor simply takes the bite (and a bit of the bark) out of a rifle making it more pleasant to shoot and creates less alarm with the animals nearby - they don't know where the sound has come from. But that stuff is lost on non shooters. As for this being a democratic process, I don't recall having any input whatsoever.
The general public were granted just over 48 hours to research and write their submissions on the Bill.
smudge wrote: [SNIP] As for this being a democratic process, I don't recall having any input whatsoever.
When something awful happens there is normally an urge to DO SOMETHING. In politics, it often results in hastily written legislation that later needs to be amended. I'm not into guns, and can't say if this has happened here. If it has, I sure hope all parties can handle it in a civil way, work up amendments and get on with it, rather than getting all enraged hateful about it in the US fashion.
Would that be the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill 2018?
jeannielea wrote: My understanding is that the legislation now under consideration is almost the same as in the 2017 one which did not get a majority and so did not pass into law.