Freedoms in the firing line
Freedom and fairness. New Zealand must ready itself for a tough and possibly confronting challenge of both over the next days, weeks, months and years.
They are virtues we purport to hold dear, ideals promoted time and again in the wake of the calculated madness of one man and a twisted ideology. This is not us, we have all said. But after what has happened, what is to become of us?
As America and the rest of the world recoiled from the tragedies of 9/11 and mass shootings, freedoms were defended and then systematically downgraded, ostensibly to hunt down the wicked and protect the weak. This is our 9/11, and already there is a strong sense we will never be the same again, that freedom of speech and debate, freedom of worship and travel will in some way be undermined, either by state law or social reconstruction.
Nowhere will that tightening be more felt than in our perceived freedom to own and use firearms, and that is likely to become a litmus test for how far we will go, or even be allowed to go, in restricting the choices and freedoms of some in order to protect the many.
We say allowed to go, because New Zealand does not have a National Rifle Association resisting change at every turn, but it does have groups that lobby on behalf of firearms owners and users.
They too have resisted changes in the past that would have extended the licensing of owners to their weapons, under the premise that they are, by and large, a responsible group of people and that the firearms they use, including semi-automatics, are for legitimate reasons such as sport and recreation, and even work.
Most of us would struggle to understand the need for anyone to own a semi-automatic or military-style firearm, especially given the evidence of devastation in Christchurch.
But Council of Licensed Firearm Owners secretary Nicole McKee doesn’t believe they should be banned. She appears to think the current vetting process for firearm licences is stringent enough.
Some of the people she represents have been busy buying firearms and ammunition in anticipation of law changes.
We acknowledge the great majority of firearms users are responsible people, and that we need to guard against obliterating freedoms because of the actions of one man. But there are changes that can and must be made. Police, academics and others have long sought to implement a meaningful firearms register that would give us a better picture of the real number and type of the weapons in this country. We know we have about quarter of a million firearms users; we have no idea of the weapons they own or even the numbers. That would be a reasonable first step.
A moratorium on the sale and importation of semi-automatics would also make sense. That would give us the opportunity to then have a wider discussion involving police, lawmakers and firearms owners on what steps can be taken towards removing semi-automatics and military weapons from the hands of people who don’t need them or simply shouldn’t have them.
It will not be an easy conversation. The last thing we want is to ostracise these people, to push them to the extremes, to create another Brenton Harrison Tarrant.
Our perceived freedom to own and use firearms is likely to become a litmus test for how far we will go, or even be allowed to go, in restricting the choices and freedoms of some to protect the many.