New Zealand gun buyback failure
(AP Photo/Nick Perry, File)

“I told you so” doesn’t quite cover this one. On Monday, Radio New Zealand reported that gun crimes (including violent gun crimes) haven’t dropped in New Zealand since they instituted an “assault weapon” ban. In fact, they’ve gone way up.

What we’re looking at is a piece of rushed legislation, or two pieces of rushed legislation, that went through so fast that the unintended consequences of doing that are starting to be realized, and of course the effects that we’re seeing are a less safer community.

So said Nicole McKee, a legislator in New Zealand’s ACT party, which stands for right-libertarian or classical liberal policies.

McKee went on to say that New Zealand’s gun owners were blamed for the Christchurch terror attack two years ago and made to feel like criminals. Meanwhile, the government took zero reponsibility.

The thing that troubles me most is that police didn’t have the integrity to say right from the outset, “we stuffed up, this guy should never have got a license.”

Sporting Shooters Association president Neville Dodd said.

As a result, 241,900 New Zealanders who’ve been carefully vetted, unlike Tarrant, alienated, no longer support the police and that to me is the biggest tragedy of all because we had a very good rapport with police, and that’s gone.

Supporters of New Zealand’s ban are doubling down. Some, like Hera Cook of Gun Control New Zealand and the country’s top police official, take the xenophobia route, and blame the rise in violent gun crimes on people who were deported from Australia in recent years. Others, like the prime minister, claim that the law just needs more time to work.

To The Truth About Guns readers, the law’s failure is no surprise. We know from the experience in the United States that “assault weapon” bans just don’t work.

Even the New York Times has admitted that there is no evidence that the ban from 1994-2004 had any effect on violent crime or mass shootings. But, like in New Zealand, the supporters of gun control will always find another way to twist facts or use “alternative facts” altogether to justify their position. And, like New Zealand, they aren’t afraid to use the racism and xenophobia they accuse Republicans of when it suits their position.

Even with these facts getting in the way, Democrats like Diane “I have no trigger discipline” Feinstein are still pushing for a law similar to New Zealand’s. According to Feinstein’s website, key provisions would include:

      • Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name. Owners may keep existing weapons.
      • Bans any assault weapon with the capacity to utilize a magazine that is not a fixed ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock. Owners may keep existing weapons.
      • Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines.
      • Requires a background check on any future sale, trade or gifting of an assault weapon covered by the bill.
      • Requires that grandfathered assault weapons are stored using a secure gun storage or safety device like a trigger lock.
      • Prohibits the transfer of high-capacity ammunition magazines.
      • Bans bump-fire stocks and other devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire at fully automatic rates.

Exemptions to bill:

      • The bill exempts by name more than 2,200 guns for hunting, household defense or recreational purposes.
      • The bill includes a grandfather clause that exempts all weapons lawfully possessed at the date of enactment.

Unlike the previous “Assault Weapon” ban, the bill likely doesn’t include a sunset provision like the last one. The idea last time was to be able to get rid of the law if it didn’t prove effective (and it definitely didn’t). Now, despite no proof that the law would make anyone safer (except, perhaps, the would-be tyrants), they want a permanent ban.

Sure, there are exceptions, and it doesn’t take all guns away, but we know from history that gun control supporters will never be happy. Gun owners have given them a lot of ground over the years, and they’re always back asking for more. If we’d only give just a little more, all of their pretend problems would be solved, they say. Even with the exceptions and grandfathering, our children and grandchildren wouldn’t be able to get their own modern sporting rifles.

Don’t be fooled. The goal of bills like Feinstein’s is to take a down payment on a total gun ban, or enough of a ban that guns would be useless for personal defense or defense against tyranny.

And really, enabling tyranny is what gun control is all about. They know that criminals won’t follow their laws, but they do want to disarm good people. I know that my indirect defense of LGBT people in a prior article wasn’t popular among TTAG readers, but as a person in a same sex marriage, I know all too well that government can easily take away our rights if we let it, and that’s not a position that any of us want to be in.

Well, none of us other than Feinstein and her ilk.


Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *