There 240,000 or so licensed firearms owners in NZ, so there are a lot of different opinions amongst that population. And, contrary to how it often seems to be represented in media, we are not an organisation or lobby group. It's just simply a population of people who for one reason or another have a use for firearms in their work or sport.

It's really unfortunate that the American style association between shooting sports and right-wing "freedum" rednecks has been imported here - and I'm 100% certain that it has been deliberately exaggerated to make shooters easier to discredit. A lot of us have quite disparate political beliefs - shock horror, I know more than one person who hunts and also votes Green...

COLFO are doing their best to represent the concerns of licensed firearms owners, but as I say, we are a disparate group and not actually that easily represented. There are common themes, but it's not like we are some kind of organised lobby group. The themes I have seen are:

We don't like being scapegoated for the Christchurch tragedy. That wasn't us.
We don't appreciate our leisure/sports activities being taken away by people who don't understand them for political posturing.
We don't appreciate the massive increase in the cost and complexity of compliance that has been pushed on us, around things that were not causing any problems - particularly the increases in licensing costs, shooting range certification cost and complexity, and now the register (which is of course not free)
A lot of shooters don't really trust Police senior leadership. We don't trust them to manage our data properly, and we believe that they have shown through their past and present actions that they would prefer if civilian firearms ownership was completely banned.
We don't see the need for, or benefits of, a register of firearms. Yeah, I have seen the "It will keep the guns out of the hands of the gangs" arguments, but personally I don't believe much of it. I'm sure that some firearms have been transferred from licensed owners to gang members, but I don't believe that the bulk of their weapons are acquired that way. You're talking about people who smuggle meth into the country but you think they're not also bringing in guns? Like more interesting ones than the hunting rifles that you can buy at Hunting and Fishing?
We don't appreciate being represented in media as being unreasonable about all of these things by people who's total involvement in the issue is collecting soundbites. We don't appreciate COLFO and SSANZ being referred to as "The gun lobby" to make them seem like highly funded and media savvy PR experts - which they are not.

Licensed shooters are generally a responsible, law-abiding group - this much is guaranteed by the licensing process. We will probably just suck up this additional inconvenience and cost just like we have had to with all the other ones, because we have no choice and the public and media are not on our side.

But I think it's unreasonable for you to expect us to be happy about it.

[–] gibberish_driftwood 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We don’t see the need for, or benefits of, a register of firearms.

How do people in the various gun using communities see vehicle registration as a comparison, which is another situation where we both licence the operators and require registration of what they operate? Is it also useless for the same reasons, or is it different in some way?

[–] bloop 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As I said previously, I can't claim to speak for all licence holders. But it's an interesting comparison.

Consider what the purpose of vehicle registration is. Does vehicle registration stop vehicle theft? Or stop bad guys from driving around, even if they don't have a licence? Vehicle registration laws are doing really well against the dirt bike gangs at the moment aren't they?

So, as far as I can see, the main purposes of vehicle registration are taxation and monitoring. Taxation through the regular licensing fee, and monitoring through the registration number.

Ok, good. So the monitoring reduces vehicle crime right? Well, it gives the authorities a few things:

A method to determine who a vehicle belongs to, so when they see it breaking the law, they can use that number to issue a fine to the owner (e.g. speed cameras, red-light cameras).
Because registered ownership has to be transferred from one owner to the next, it reduces the market for stolen vehicles within the general public (i.e. people buying a second-hand vehicle that they didn't know was stolen).
They can also theoretically use those numbers to track down the rightful owner of a stolen vehicle if it is recovered.

All good so far.

But, firearms are not vehicles. They are used in quite a different context, and I don't think the comparison holds up well.

Firearms aren't typically used in a way that the firearm can be more easily identified than the user. The serial number on a rifle is usually about 2 - 3mm tall, stamped into the receiver. If you can read that, you can probably identify the person holding it by a more direct manner...
The transfer of registered ownership would reduce the market for firearms being sold by licensed owners to unlicensed people. If that were a major problem, but I just don't believe that it is. It does nothing for the market for stolen firearms, because they were always being sold to criminals anyway, and laws only affect people who obey laws in the first place.
The tracking down of the rightful owner of a stolen item would be great for that person. But considering the security requirements for the storage of firearms, I think most licensed owners are not that concerned about having their firearms stolen if they are stored legally.

So really, what we are left with is more process, more taxation to pay for a service we don't feel that we benefit from, and a register of information who's main purpose for existing appears to be enabling Police to audit licensed owners looking for reasons to punish us, or to ban and confiscate our sports equipment, some of which is highly treasured.

Imagine if vehicles weren't currently registered and the government passed a law to introduce vehicle registration. Imagine how the majority of drivers would feel about being made to pay for a system that offered them few benefits and many perceived downsides.

Now imagine that the excuse that was used to introduce that law was that someone had used a vehicle to cause a lot of harm, but that person had been given a licence without being properly qualified under the existing laws. And supporters of the change dismissed anyone who disagreed with them as a "car nut" and "American car culture".

If you magine how you, as a safe and legal driver would feel about that situation, you might feel a little empathy for the shooting sports community.

[–] gibberish_driftwood 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Thanks for the insight. Just on this:

It does nothing for the market for stolen firearms, because they were always being sold to criminals anyway, and laws only affect people who obey laws in the first place.

Where do illegally use firearms come from presently, though? My impression was that it's already really hard to smuggle them through customs. Although they can be stolen it's a hell of a lot easier to get them legally, and for a licensed owner simply to sell them (and no clear way to trace out back to that person) without caring who gets them or how they're used. Black market trading would continue for as long as there are still lots of illegal guns out there, but that won't continue forever if there aren't sufficient sources for new stock. Also once someone's found to have illegally sold weapons registered to them, it's unlikely they'd keep their licence for future legal purchases.

Are legal owners specifically worried that increased scarcity of guns in criminal groups, once they can't get them through more legit sources like a dodgy licensed owner, means there will be orders of magnitude stronger incentives for gun-wanting criminals to track down and steal their guns?

[–] bloop 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Where do illegally use firearms come from presently, though? My impression was that it's already really hard to smuggle them through customs.

I don't claim to know the answer to that for sure, given that I don't deal in illegal firearms:) But I have my suspicions.

I'm sure that some have come from licensed people doing deals with criminals for whatever reason. In 240,000 licensed people I'm sure there are a few dodgy ones, it would be naive to pretend otherwise. But organised crime in NZ mostly means gangs. We're talking about people who seem to be able to import and distribute vast quantities of meth; last time I checked, Customs weren't very fond of that either but they seem to get it through. We're a small country with a large coastline, and there are a lot of boats coming and going.

It seems to me that the firearms that are commonly available in NZ are both expensive, and not really what your average gangster is probably looking for, especially now that semi-automatic actions are illegal. I would imagine that if you're already in the underground importing business, getting a few handguns or military-pattern rifles tucked in with a shipment probably isn't too hard.

Are legal owners specifically worried that increased scarcity of guns in criminal groups, once they can't get them through more legit sources like a dodgy licensed owner, means there will be orders of magnitude stronger incentives for gun-wanting criminals to track down and steal their guns?

No, I don't think so. I mean, I'm sure some people think that, and there is some concern about poor data security leading to the whole database ending up in the wrong hands and becoming a "shopping list" for criminal gangs. But I don't think that's the majority of the reason for most people.

(Edit: formatting)

[–] gibberish_driftwood 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

if you’re already in the underground importing business, getting a few handguns or military-pattern rifles tucked in with a shipment probably isn’t too hard.

Maybe but that's something I think I'd be keen to seek more info on.

My impression is that drug imports are cost effective because you can typically sell a tiny volume for a vast amount of money, making up for the risks. The equivalent volume in guns would perhaps be possible to smuggle in, but also make them extremely expensive compared with alternative non-smuggling options. Especially if you risk Police confiscating all guns found in or around your possession as soon as you're caught using one of them, and you can't just get your mate with the licence to go out and buy you replacements. If that were the case, at least, there would be very few internationally smuggled guns circulating.

(Edit: typo)

[–] RaoulDuke 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I get where you're coming from. I live rurally, and while I don't have a gun myself, every one of my neighbours do. They're good people, and I'm not interested in waging a war on guns or anything. They're a necessary tool out here, for a bunch of reasons.

And I don't expect you guys will be happy about it. It sounds like a pain in the arse.

But I'll go back to the example of cars that the spokesman brought up. I'm not happy that I have to register my car. It's expensive and a pain in the arse. The vast majority of us registered drivers are good people, who don't at all represent the minority that endanger or hurt others. Besides, an awful lot of the worst behaviour is by people who've stolen the car or don't have a licence or registration.

But my car is something that can easily hurt or kill someone if I'm even slightly careless with it. I know I won't be, but I know others will be. And there will be many drivers, licensed or not, who deliberately commit crimes with cars. So we need some way to have accountability where we can, and the licence and registration system greatly improves that. The stolen cars, etc. make it an imperfect system that often fails to catch criminals, but it's a lot better than nothing. So it's a price I'm willing to pay to operate a lethal machine.

If you change cars to guns, it has the exact same logic. But guns are far more commonly used to commit very serious crimes than cars, despite being far less prevalent. So the incentive to have a system to track ownership is far greater.

If there weren't monsters like the mosque shooter - who was a registered gun owner - or criminals, we wouldn't need shit like this. But there are, so we do. There are so many rules in society that only exist because a small minority of people are arseholes. Car registration and gun registration are just those kinds of things. Especially because they can kill very easily. That's why I support the registration of both.

Edit to everyone else reading this thread: I'd love it if people didn't downvote comments just because you disagree with them. @bloop@lemmy.nz's comment, for example, is a reasonable and thoughful response. I think it's good to hear the other side and we should support them sharing their views here.

[–] bloop 2 points 1 year ago

I think I've responded to a lot of your points in the reply I posted to the other commenter, and I don't want to just spam the thread with my opinion over and over... But I did want to say thanks for creythe thread in the first place, and thanks for being chill about the topic. It's pretty hard to have a reasonable discussion about this kind of thing in a lot of places without lots of unnecessary name calling, so I appreciate your approach here :)