Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Following Christchurch Shootings, New Zealanders Have Voluntarily Surrendered a Total of 37 Guns Out of an Estimated 1.2 Million

Following Christchurch Shootings, New Zealanders Have Voluntarily Surrendered a Total of 37 Guns Out of an Estimated 1.2 Million

“I want to remind people, you can surrender your gun to the police at any time. In fact I have seen reports that people are in fact already doing this. I applaud that effort, and if you are thinking about surrendering your weapon, I would encourage you to do so.”

https://youtu.be/KJrA7wMXuuQ

After the mosque attacks in Christchurch where 50 people were murdered, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the government would move quickly to tighten existing gun laws.

Ahead of the new laws, Ardern urged gun owners to voluntarily surrender their firearms. As of March 20th, a whole 37 guns had been surrendered out of an estimated 1.2 million.

Buzzfeed reported:

A few New Zealand gun owners have begun voluntarily surrendering their firearms to local police in the wake of the Christchurch mosque shootings last week that left at least 50 people dead.

New Zealand police said that as of Tuesday night, 37 firearms had been surrendered to police nationwide. They did not provide a breakdown of how many people owned those guns, the types of firearms, or the districts where the guns were surrendered.

New Zealand has an estimated 1.2 million guns registered to civilians, according to the 2017 Small Arms Survey. That’s about 1 gun for every 4 people. In the US, it’s estimated there is more than one gun per person.

A day after the mass shooting at the two mosques in Christchurch, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced that her government intends to change gun laws in the country, including a potential ban on the type of military-style semiautomatic weapons that were allegedly used by the suspect in the shootings.

Ardern also encouraged New Zealand’s gun owners to surrender their weapons.

“To make our community safer, the time to act is now,” Ardern said on Monday. “I want to remind people, you can surrender your gun to the police at any time. In fact I have seen reports that people are in fact already doing this. I applaud that effort, and if you are thinking about surrendering your weapon, I would encourage you to do so.”

Ardern acknowledged that tightening gun laws in the country where gun ownership is common in the rural and farming communities would create “a small degree of uncertainty among some gun owners who possess guns for legitimate reasons.”

She assured gun owners that the forthcoming gun law changes were not directed at them.

37.

I love New Zealand.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | April 1, 2019 at 3:17 pm

MNZGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rights and responsibilities. Also, a resistance to diversity that normalizes color judgments and offers single-minded solutions.

Just to keep score, that’s a ban on possession/ ownership, not simply on sale. (That’s from an NPR report dated today.) After the amnesty period lasting until Sept. 30, owners of the banned firearms become vile criminals in the eyes of the Crown. A buyback scheme backed by $137 USD is planned.

    Gah. 137 million American dollars, I meant to say.

      alaskabob in reply to JBourque. | April 1, 2019 at 5:23 pm

      Subjugation purchased so cheaply. Since NZ law does not permit firearms for self defense, ownership is really just a hobby to the government… like Bill Clinton suggesting taking up bowling. At the start of WW1 and WW2 England was behind the 8 ball and needed ANY firearms they could get for defense. On the other hand Yamamoto reminded that invasion of US would find the Japanese facing a gun behind every blade of grass.

      Up until the 1900’s Britain had a robust “gun culture”. The names Wimbledon and Bisley were for shooting ranges. Spoiler… even some Bobbies carried. The Irish Problem and Bolshevism turned that around. Gun control is people control. If some in NZ wish to fully rely on a bureaucracy to protect them… all eggs in one basket… knock yourself out..which will happen.

        This number of 37 guns handed over does not seem to have changed from a little while ago. It seems to be the maximum amount of virtue signaling expected.

        Anyway, without also eliminating the need for a search warrant to engage in armed house to house searches, no gun ban has teeth. And if you’re going to do that, the Gestapo comparisons practically write themselves. I have no idea how this polls in NZ, the government just seems to have turned on a dime without asking what anyone thinks…

          tom_swift in reply to JBourque. | April 1, 2019 at 9:26 pm

          without also eliminating the need for a search warrant to engage in armed house to house searches, no gun ban has teeth.

          New Zealand has an estimated 1.2 million guns registered to civilians

          If they’re registered, in principle the govt knows who has what and can demand that it be surrendered, under threat of whatever penalties they can think up. They certainly won’t get them all that way, but they’ll get more than 37.

          alaskabob in reply to JBourque. | April 1, 2019 at 10:14 pm

          Since all legally owned firearms are registered it just depends how serious the NZ police are in removing. Also from what I understand, all handguns are at clubs and not in personal possession.

          Another point…. as with the Florida shooting (school and police errors), official policy has fingerprints all over this since to qualify for ownership requires a lengthy certification by the authorities. That infers a “failure’ of the system and that can not be allowed to tarnish image.

          NZ will also embrace dhimmitude to show sympathy. Be it a nuclear free stance during the Cold War or rendering the populace weaker and more helpless, optics are everything. On the positive side more Progs with the where with all will really want to move to NZ.

          heathroi in reply to JBourque. | April 2, 2019 at 4:28 pm

          actually no one really knows how many guns there are as while gun owners have to be licensed, there was no registry of the guns they owned except if you owned the scary category of weapons ie military looking weapons.
          the police have wanted a registry for years but never got it because of the expense and manpower taken up in keeping it up to date.

    jmccandles in reply to JBourque. | April 2, 2019 at 8:48 am

    Similar situation to how America came about,Shot Heard Round The World.

    The Crown decided to collect arms and powder at Concord and Lexington and we all should know how that turned out for king Georgie.

    Another Ed in reply to JBourque. | April 3, 2019 at 2:48 pm

    The buyback fund is $138 million U.S. dollars for 1.2 million registered firearms? That is $114 per registered firearm.

healthguyfsu | April 1, 2019 at 3:40 pm

Ardern acknowledged that tightening gun laws in the country where gun ownership is common in the rural and farming communities would create “a small degree of uncertainty among some gun owners who possess guns for legitimate reasons.”

Everyone can possess a gun for a legitimate reason, you totalitarian twit.

    Edward in reply to healthguyfsu. | April 2, 2019 at 6:32 pm

    Yes, but Ardern and friends decide what is “legitimate” and the definition depends on which way the PC wind is blowing on any given day.

Make the country safer: Disarm the good people. The criminals are all for that!

So, what is the real agenda? Every totalitarian ruler in history has known a fundamental rule for success.

Sounds like most people are saying, “You first.”

Awwww…. there go those Kiwis, stickin’ to their guns and bibles !!!

Probably because I didn’t commit the crime. How guilty am I supposed to feel?

I owned dozens of guns. Thousands of rounds. Not once did all that weaponry turn me into a killer.

    userpen in reply to Arminius. | April 1, 2019 at 4:37 pm

    That’s because Arminius has free will.

    Edward in reply to Arminius. | April 2, 2019 at 6:34 pm

    Good thing that is all in the past, so if the totalitarians gain control here they will know that you owned the guns and ammo. Shot up all the ammo and sold the guns, eh?

In other news, sales of swine, chickens, shovels and lime in NZ have all increased.

Turn mw into a murderer. That’s not the same thing.

Aww, h3ll.

You can’t have an aristocracy without a peasant class. Peasants cannot be armed. You take away their agency and their weapons to turn citizens into subjects… peasants.

Let’s see… you’ve got nut-jobs who ignore all sorts of laws running around killing people. And your solution to that problem is to have law-abiding citizens surrender their primary means of self-defense? How does “fuck you” grab ya?

If you want to publicize your love for your fellow New Zealanders, be proud and openly carry your firearm into the nearest police station and scream, “I’m going to give it to you now”.

Well, that’s 37 too many, but good show! Tell the PM to leave and don’t let the door knob hit you where the good Lord split you.

Disarming good people won’t make ANYONE more safe. What fools…

Everywhere these liberal gun-grabbing programs have popped up, the results are always the same, almost no one turns in usable firearms, voluntarily. People do not own firearms in order to go on murderous rampages. They do not own firearms simply to own them. With exception of a few collectors, they do not own firearms to sit a look at them or show them off to others while sipping cognac. They own them because they perceive a reasonable chance that they will need them for defense, either of themselves, their families or others or livestock and property.

Now, the people who own these firearms KNOW that they are not a threat to anyone. THEY are not plotting an attack on any person or group. So, their reasonable question is, why should they give up their firearms? Why should they be penalized when they have done nothing wrong? Why should they be asked, actually forced, to give up THEIR means of self protection, when the government has already proven that IT is incapable of protecting people? And, the government can not answer these questions, because the members of the government can’t not even understand the questions.

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/10/21/australia-admits-gun-buyback-failure-amnesty/

You can pass all the laws you want against owning guns.

Europe is awash in gun banning laws. It’s also awash in guns. Gun banning laws don’t make firearms disappear. The Bataclan terrorists didn’t walk into a Cabelas and buy some AR-15s. It amuses me, in a sad kind of way, that they didn’t use an “assault style” weapon. They got an actual MILSPEC rifle (which the AR-15 is not having never even been submitted for approval by the US military) from the Balkans.

It’s a death sentence to be discovered with a pistol in Hong Kong. Maybe it’s TMI to say this, but I know how to break that law. I never did, but it isn’t because I don’t know how.

You can hardly meet a Pinoy (I’m talking Philippines now) who doesn’t have an opinion on the virtues of the AK versus the AR. Let me cut to the chase. Hands down the AK. The Pinoys are nearly unanimous that while the Armalight, as they call it, is far more accurate, it is far more maintenance intensive. But the AK only needs a wipe down twice a year with used transmission fluid. If you’re buying maintenance fluids from an on line catalogue you might as well march down to the police station and turn yourself in.

Plausible deniability is the key. Yes, the rifle was within walking distance of your farm, just over there in the forest. Prove I own it.

Rust, really, is the only real danger to firearms.

Actually they have an opinion about the AK and the M-16. They’ve never seen an AR-15.

She assured gun owners that the forthcoming gun law changes were not directed at them.
——————————–
So make the law read only criminals and terrorists have to give up their guns.
Easy peasy and the gun owners would be fine with the law that way.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to 4fun. | April 1, 2019 at 10:09 pm

    Yeah, but if they did that, soon it would become disagreeing with those in power makes you a criminal and terrorist.

    Subotai Bahadur

      It isn’t already? Our Socialist-Democrats think that is true here. They just haven’t gotten around to passing the bills and having another His Imperial Executiveness (or Her) sign it into law and the US Code.

Subotai Bahadur | April 1, 2019 at 10:27 pm

Look, while technically a part of the ANZUS [Australia, New Zealand, United States] military defense treaty; to be honest New Zealand really cannot be depended upon for anything. They had to be suspended from the treaty from 1986-2007 because they barred US naval vessels from their waters. Their response was to back away from us after 9-11 while the Aussies themselves invoked the treaty and asked where they could help us. They are running down the road to dictatorship as fast as they can. I see no reason for us to be committed in any “special relationship” with them, be it military, commercial, or diplomatic.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you . . .”

Australians did turn a bunch of their guns in, and all it got them was higher crime. I suspect Kiwis remember that. If the NZ government does go whole hog on confiscation, I predict a large increase in knife crime from the usual protected demographic, as happened in the UK when they started banning the carry of anything that could even remotely be considered a weapon.

The incredible but sad story of how New Zealand gave itself over to rule by islamist fascists without a shot being fired will be told throughout future history.

How long until the prog/socilist/pinko/commie Prime Minister of NZ gets unelected????

37…36…35….

molonlabe28 | April 2, 2019 at 1:16 pm

Give us your guns and we will keep you safe.

Trust us.

“Anyway, without also eliminating the need for a search warrant to engage in armed house to house searches, no gun ban has teeth. ”

All I’m going to say about this one is, think again.

For example, in NY state, a group of Democrat auxiliaries (Antifa, BLM, La Raza, MS-13, Crips, Bloods, etc.) drop by your house at 3 am for a little sharing of the wealth. Better not use anything on the banned list, or you’ll be the one going to jail because you were already committing a felony when they showed up. No self-defense for you.

Same thing applies to practicing with them, getting repairs (why would your gunsmith need that part? No one should be bringing him one for repairs), etc.

Democrats are all about selective enforcement.

One question for your reactive Premier ( yes I know the official title is Prime Minister): Of the wespons turned in so far, how many were turned in by known felons? I hope you keeep a tally. Emotionalistic reactions without clear thought is chaos not government.

It’s nice to think the Kiwis will engage in passive resistance and refuse to turn in their firearms, but with some firearms registered and all owners supposed to be licensed, it won’t be hard to find them. Not like having to do house to house searches without knowing which abodes have weapons (except the criminals of course, they don’t fool with licenses and the like).

centswithsense | April 14, 2019 at 10:24 am

If we take the opposite approach in this type of situation, how many lives may have been saved if concealed carry was commonly practiced? If one person in that church had a gun, the perpetrator may have been stopped on the spot. This is a dangerous world we live in, keep your guard up friends.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend