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)