
New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles - nikhizzle
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-shootout-ardern-guncontrol-idUSKCN1R205Z
======
OscarTheGrinch
(New Zealander here) I was surprised that these weren't already banned. How
many bullets do you really need to hunt? Some clarification on NZ's new gun
laws: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/explainer-
how-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/explainer-how-are-new-
zealands-gun-laws-changing)

The rest of the world sees that the US constantly ties itself in knots over
the gun issue, and the horrific loss of lives. Hopefully NZ's swift response
shows that things CAN change.

~~~
cabaalis
> How many bullets do you really need to hunt?

In the US, this is the question used to neuter the second amendment. It isn't
there to protect us from deer. The 2nd is meant to be used against people. The
right that exists is the ability to protect your rights, life, and property,
through force if necessary.

~~~
blahblahthrow
Look at it this way: if you're going to lead an illegal insurrection to
overthrow what you think is a tyranical government, why do you care what the
gun laws are?

~~~
nicolashahn
A necessary precondition for a tyrannical government is a power imbalance
between the people and the government. Allowing citizens to own arms that are
in the same league as what the government uses prevents this.

~~~
pariahHN
So, civilians owning tanks? Predator drones? Attack helicopters? Cruise
missiles? Fighter jets? Biological or chemical weapons?

We don't live in a world where the people and the government can reasonably
expect to have symmetrical physical warfare capabilities. This argument is
irrelevant today.

The only area where the exists any form of symmetry would be cyber weapons,
not physical.

Defending against other _individuals_ is still a viable argument, and is the
only reason I think we need to be careful about how far we go with regards to
gun control, but that has some tight limits and I think we can find more
effective solutions than guns if we put some effort into it and take it
seriously.

~~~
nicolashahn
> So, civilians owning tanks? Predator drones? Attack helicopters? Cruise
> missiles? Fighter jets? Biological or chemical weapons?

We don't need any of that stuff to keep the balance. Iraq, Afganistan, and
Vietnam are proof of this. Insurgencies are extremely effective against our
military. The only real requirement for them to exist is a sufficient quantity
of small arms, and maybe some improvised explosives. The argument is still
very much relevant. What's happening in Venezuela right now would not be
possible without having first disarmed the populace.

------
Isamu
I believe that writing legislation for assault rifles is trickier than for
semi-autos, because the latter is a more properly defined type.

That is, we talk about assault rifles as if they were easily defined but they
can be functionally the same as sport rifles but with different grips, and the
larger default magazines.

~~~
jki275
Assault rifle is a defined term, it comes from the German Sturmgewehr, and it
has been used since WWII to mean a select fire military issue weapon.

As a side note, they’ve been heavily restricted in the US for civilian
ownership since 1986, and manufacture for civilian ownership has been banned
since 1986. As a result, the supply is very limited and the cost for a
civilian legal M16, for instance, hovers around 20 thousand dollars. I believe
one has been used in the commission of a crime in that time period since 1986,
and the transfer and sale and even movement of them is also heavily restricted
and subject to a BATF background check and a local sheriff approval.

Of course you’re misusing the word to mean anything that looks scary or looks
like it might be a civilian legal non select fire rifle, but we’re scientists,
we ought to do better. The 1994 “assault weapon ban” didn’t ban any assault
weapons. It also catapulted the Republicans to power and destroyed the
Democrat party for nearly 20 years as this is America and we don’t like people
pretending parts of our Constitution don’t exist.

~~~
Isamu
>Assault rifle is a defined term

It is not precise enough, that is my point. You can take an assault rifle and
manufacture a sport version that removes military convenience features but is
still as deadly. Not so with the auto or semi-auto designation.

They are right to focus on magazine size in legislation. Also ammo type.

~~~
kgunnar
"Assault rifle" is a rather precise term that means it is capable of firing
more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, has detachable
magazines, and is chambered for an intermediate cartridge. If anything, it is
more precise than "full auto" which encompasses other types of firearms as
well.

The ambiguity comes in from the more recently coined term "assault weapon"
that is rather similar to "assault rifle" but means something different. Some
would say this similarity was intended to confuse the matter and provide the
connotation of military "machine guns" when using the term to the general
populace. And to further cloud the issue, there is no universal definition for
"assault weapon" when used to refer to certain firearms. Generally it is used
to define cosmetic features rather than any real functional differences.

~~~
Isamu
I know the US Army has a precise definition for an assault rifle, but I'm not
so sure there is a good legal definition, and that's what I'm talking about.
This holds true for New Zealand. If anything the US Army definition is
probably too precise and would cast a net probably not broad enough.

Also the "selective fire" of assault rifles means you can select either semi-
auto or full auto, which I think should be preferred terms in legislation.
That is, you ban weapons that are automatic or semi-automatic (or both.) And
again, the particulars of the magazine.

~~~
jki275
Automatic weapons (and select fire weapons) have been heavily restricted in
the US since 1986. It's not a US Army definition, it's been an internationally
defined term whose use in this way dates to WWII. It's not a new thing.

Banning magazines is ridiculous. Banning cosmetic features as the "AWB" in
1994 did is even more ridiculous -- it's intellectually dishonest.

------
Simulacra
I guess I can see both sides of the argument. I own multiple semi automatic
rifles and enjoy them very much. At the same time no one "needs" to own one of
these. I think anyone attempting to buy any type of firearm should have to: 1)
Attend a safety training course; 2) Present some type of proof that they have
met with a trained counselor, psychologist, whatever, that says they are not a
danger to themselves or society (tricky! I know, very, very tricky); 3)
Limited to how many they can purchase in a given time frame; 4) Waiting period
of 2 weeks or some definitive cooling off period.

That's all going to be very, very controversial. Personally, I don't want it,
any of it, but as a responsible owner of high capacity, semi automatic rifles,
I'm willing to at least meet the other side halfway. I love going out to the
range and blasting away at old cars and crap, but I don't think an outright
ban is the answer. We have to find a middle ground.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
These are controversial because firearms are deeply ingrained in American
culture, and it is easy to see how such reasonable-seeming measures could be
abused or counterproductive. For instance, if I'm suffering from mental health
issues I might decide not to see anyone about it for fear they'd take my guns
away. Anything that could be used to allow the government to keep track of who
owns what can be --and has been-- abused to harass people or preemptively
confiscate weapons.

These don't seem like problems to people who don't have firearms as part of
their culture, but they're important to those who do. I honestly don't know
what a good solution would look like. I believe in the purpose of the second
amendment, and I like knowing that I have the right and ability to defend
myself, but it has become clear that society is not fit enough to handle the
current state of things. I don't really know what a good solution looks like.

~~~
Simulacra
You have a point there, firearms and the idea of "you can take my gun when you
pry it from my cold dead hands" is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. I
also think about those instances where we've had frightening scenarios of
confiscation, such as Katrina. There's also the distrust of citizens in the
government to both protect them, and protect their civil liberties, and
freedom.

Recently I heard a quote that might add some to this discussion: The police
are there to protect the government and society, not you. So if we put that
together and apply it to this issue, without a gun of your own, you're left
dependent upon the police who may not protect you, per se, but they will
protect civil order and the government. Who decides what that civil order is?

I don't know the answer either but I accept the responsibility as a gun owner
to come to the table, and find a solution.

~~~
krapp
Let's not pretend all Americans, much less all American gun owners, subscribe
to the "cold dead hands" mentality, are arming themselves against the
government, or even oppose gun control. Despite what many people would say, it
is even possible for Democrats, liberals and "leftists" to own guns for their
own self-defense and to believe in the 2nd Amendment.

Yes, that ideology describes a lot of (if not the majority) of outspoken gun
owners, but "outspoken gun owner" tends to be a self-selected filter for pro-
NRA identity politics.

------
dsfyu404ed
Isn't that exactly what the shooter wanted?

They're playing right into his hands. They skipped the step where you
negotiate with the terrorists and went straight to accepting his demands. I
guess that doesn't matter when you need to be seen doing something.

Edit: I mean that the shooter wanted NZ gun control as a means to the end he
seeks. Not that it is the end he seeks.

~~~
janpot
you think the shooter's intentions were to advocate for stricter gun laws?

~~~
modest_sarcasm
1\. Outlaw guns in New Zealand

2\. Outlaw guns in the US

3\. Race War 2020

4\. ????

5\. Profit

Pretty much the TLDR of this guy's manifesto.

------
mrmondo
Also posted earlier today: ‘New Zealand PM announces ban on all assault rifles
after Christchurch massacre’
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19449256](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19449256)

~~~
Simulacra
That post is dead and was flagged apparently.

~~~
mrmondo
Oh, strange - I wonder why? (mods feel free to message me so I can improve
future posts if required), I don’t generally have a bad rep on HN and it was
an uneditoritialised title etc... anyway - what matters is that people are
aware of the news, not who posts a link to it.

—

Context as to why I posted earlier today: I was born, grew up and lived in
Christchurch until 2012 when I moved to Melbourne.

I was there and working in the main hospitals (sysadmin / ops engineer running
the primary patient management and some lab systems) and in that role during
both of the two major earthquakes that levelled the city.

The emotional, mental and social stress of those two major ‘natural’ disasters
were so incredibly deviststing and this this shooting has surely got to pile
on for people still living there.

~~~
samfriedman
FYI a lot of HN users flag non-tech/politics submissions wholesale. Either
because they don't feel they fit the HN topic, or because these topics often
devolve to flamewars.

~~~
mrmondo
Yeah fair enough too - it isn’t tech related, while political I feel it’s more
social but certainly not technical.

------
modest_sarcasm
I already feel safer, knowing that gun-law-abiding terrorists will now have to
reload after a mere seven shots. Furthermore, I am confident that the lack of
"military style" will actively hurt both their already fragile egos _and_
their aiming skills.

------
wallace_f
China has how many Muslim Uighurs interned? Millions?

Do you support the right to arms for Uighurs?

'At first I did not speak out because I did not believe they were coming for
me.'

~~~
krapp
When you mention Neimoller's poem, 1984 or Brave New World in an internet
comment not related to literary criticism, you automatically lose.

~~~
jki275
Who made up that silly rule?

~~~
krapp
Analogies to the Nazis (which Neimoller's poem is, implying a slippery slope
to mass graves or something equally terrible) and dystopian fiction have
become so tedious and banal at this point that I group them together with
Godwin's Law as examples of arguments with negative intellectual value.

If a commenter is resorting to these, it's evidence they have little of value
to add to the conversation beyond concern trolling.

> Who made up that silly rule?

I guess I did. But I can't be the only one sick of seeing these low effort
memes pop up around here.

~~~
jki275
Godwin's law doesn't say what you think it does.

It's not a "low effort meme", it's appropriate sometimes.

------
rayiner
Thank God for the Second Amendment.

~~~
ykevinator
Its only modern purpose is to enable mass shootings and support gun owners
pride.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
It isn't about pride, it's about self-determination, a concept deeply rooted
in American culture. Part of being responsible for one's self is being
responsible for one's own defense. Lord knows the police are not fast enough,
or brave enough for that matter, to protect us anyway. Americans look at the
kind of thing that happened in France, where people waited to be executed in a
theater, and they say to themselves "I'll go down fighting, thanks". Whether
that's a realistic thing to prepare for or not, that is the mindset. We have a
significant aversion to being helpless and relying on the state.

~~~
madeofpalk
Citizens of other countries, who don't have such a weird constitutional
attachment to gun ownership, don't have the concept of self-determination?

~~~
LyndsySimon
I would argue that this is exactly the case. The governments of other
countries are generally based on the concept that they decide what their
citizens may do. The US federal government is based on the concept that they
decide what citizens may _not_ do, and the Bill of Rights is designed to set
limits on even that "negative" power.

The Second Amendment does not apply to citizens. None of the BoR do; they are
restrictions on governmental power.

