Four views on gun law reform

In the wake of the Christchurch shootings, we asked a variety of commentators how our gun laws need to change, and whether legislation is capable of preventing a repeat of the tragedy.

Council of Licensed Firearm Owners

It is premature to look at what has gone wrong here; we are waiting for the outcome of a thorough investigation before we comment. Once we know what has gone wrong, we can look for solutions to prevent this from ever happening again.

There are always aspects of legislation that need monitoring and modernising. The Council of Licensed Firearm Owners has engaged with police, for a number of years, through the Firearms Community Advisory Committee, to regularly review and modernise our legislation.

The law is effective at setting guidance and penalties for those who wish to be compliant. It is not effective for those who react to a situation without thinking or make a conscious decision to ignore the law. Laws have a greater chance of being effective when their writers have a complete understanding of what behaviour they are trying to prevent or encourage, defining some actions as illegal.

There are numerous examples of unintended consequences from hastily drafted law, including the following:

■ During the Australian buyback programme that followed the 1992 Port Arthur massacre, there was an increase in burglary and theft of firearms. Later it was learnt that organised crime groups were targeting firearms, handing them into authorities and using the money to buy better ones on the black market.

■ Also during the Australian buyback, after the fact, it was found individuals had legally imported firearm components as scrap metal in shipping containers. These components were then handed in to the authorities. Their intent was not criminal, but to profit from the technicalities of the law.

■ In Canada, the registration of all firearms was scrapped after a decade and a cost of C$2 billion. It never solved a crime or achieved the level of accuracy promised.

■ In New Zealand, legislation has been passed previously that has resulted in half the estimated number of firearms targeted not being registered.

■ Hasty implementation could result in isolating a segment of the community. People are angry that this has happened in our country. We are seeing intolerance of firearms owners being expressed. In frustration, the blame for the actions of one person is being focused on firearm owners.

■ Ann Widdecombe (a former British MP) lamented years later that the changes hastily made after the 1996 Dunblane massacre did not produce the desired results. The most notable effect she could see was that the UK could no longer compete in sports competitions.

Public health researchers at the University of Otago in Wellington.

Since the 1990s, New Zealand’s firearms policy has been dominated by a gun lobby of licensed firearms owners. They worked to ensure that the opinions of non-gun owners and users – about 90 per cent of all New Zealanders – were treated as irrelevant when it came to gun policy.

Many gun users, probably most, are sensible people with a legitimate use for their firearms, but when we interviewed leaders among the firearms community in 2017-18, they told us that our gun laws were very good; some even said New Zealand had ‘‘the best firearms laws in the world’’. This is simply not correct.

We began our research two years before the Christchurch murders because we were concerned about the very high number of guns and continuing deaths and injuries from firearms. Yes, it’s true that firearm fatalities have declined steadily over recent decades, thanks to dedicated work by the firearms and hunting communities around safety, and to regulations enforcing better storage. Despite this, the gun lobby has insisted repeatedly that any additional regulation, especially a firearms register, would place an unreasonable burden upon them.

Until last week, when discussing firearms, both the gun lobby and police focused almost exclusively on criminals getting hold of guns, and on gun crime. It is important to protect the police and the population from gun crime, but the best protection will be created by exercising stronger control over fewer guns in our country.

A computerised firearms register would initially be incomplete. It is unlikely to include all the ‘‘grey’’ guns – those belonging to unlicensed people, or guns belonging to criminals. But, like the Australian state gun registers, it would improve. We are better to start now with a register that is not perfect than go on as we have since 1997, when the Thorp report recommended a register and the gun lobby ensured none eventuated.

Most firearms deaths here now are not from crime or hunting accidents but from suicides – about 50 a year, the same number as were killed last week at the Christchurch mosques. When someone attempts suicide with a gun, they usually die; there is no opportunity for second thoughts.

The same kind of effort that went into reducing hunting deaths is needed for firearms suicide prevention, and focusing on gun crime will not help solve this problem. We need a firearms policy that focuses on preventing the lethal outcomes when guns are used wrongly, and only secondarily on looking after the interests of current firearms users.

Firearms Safety Council chairman, and former police national arms control officer

Hastily implemented changes to legislation have the potential to work against the safe use and control of firearms. In New Zealand we have an excellent previous example that is very relevant to Friday’s tragic events.

After the Aramoana shootings in 1992, the government acted quickly to address the issue of semiautomatic firearms. Among much political rhetoric, the features that were thought to constitute a military-style firearm entered into law as what we now know as a military-style semi-automatic, known commonly as an MSSA.

Ever since, this legal construct has provided difficulties for both law enforcement and users.

While those wishing to use MSSAs have to apply for an endorsement on their firearms licence, undergo a higher level of police vetting and have in place a higher level of security, few controls – other than those regarding importation – were placed on the constituent parts that make a semi-automatic firearm an MSSA.

Judge Thorp, in his 1997 Review of Firearms Control in New Zealand, considered that this created a ‘‘potential for evasion of the law’’. An opportunity that Friday’s offender took advantage of – he fitted large-capacity magazines to his sporting firearms, placing himself outside the law.

Little attention has been paid to the ability to obtain largecapacity magazines without having to demonstrate that one could lawfully possess a MSSA.

Former chief justice Dame Sian Elias said ‘‘legislation should be based on solid facts, not pious hopes’’. This sounds a warning to legislators. New Zealand already has an enviable record in terms of numbers of deaths in which firearms were the cause.

The possession of firearms in this country is controlled by a licensing regime that has possibly the world’s most intrusive vetting. The firearms community would be concerned at any move to change this process.

Legislators would do well to begin with a close review of the firearms licensing process as it was applied to Friday’s offender. It is, after all, the mechanism by which he gained lawful access to firearms.

Finally, close consultation with firearms users will be essential if we are not to repeat the difficulties of the hastily made changes to the Arms Act in 1992. It is within this community that the expertise resides. They, too, are reeling from Friday’s events and looking for answers.

Retired barrister, and active hunter for more than 50 years

Within hours of the Christchurch horror unfolding, our prime minister was promising to tighten our gun laws. The immediate question appears to be whether semiautomatic weapons ought to be subject to a full or at least a partial ban.

A semi-automatic firearm reloads itself without the shooter needing to work a bolt, lever or pump. In a nutshell, the advantage is that it puts lead in the air more quickly, and is more efficient at hitting moving targets.

At present, those holding an A-category firearms licence – the basic firearms licence – are allowed to own semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, so long as they don’t have a military configuration and have a magazine that holds no more than seven bullets. Few hunters use semi-automatic rifles for hunting larger animals – in New Zealand most semi-automatic rifles are .22 calibre and are used for small game such as rabbits and possums. I suspect more duck hunters use semiautomatic shotguns than the traditional doublebarrelled shotgun.

There is one important exception that would need to be made if any ban proceeds: professional hunters. Farmers and landowners, including the Department of Conservation, often employ professional

hunters to control pests on their land. The most efficient way to kill the highest number of animals in the shortest time is from a helicopter. Wallabies, tahr, deer, goats, wild pigs, rabbits and hares may be present in such numbers that helicopter or ground-based operations using semi-automatic weapons (mostly shotguns, but sometimes rifles with magazines holding up to 30 rounds) are not simply desirable but essential.

For me the essence of hunting is in the stalk – pitting my wits against a deer or wild pig with the aim of painlessly dispatching it with a single shot. I do not need a semi-automatic rifle for this purpose, and I personally wouldn’t object to restricting semi-automatic rifles to professional hunters and cullers.

With the sort of buyback of weapons that the Australians employed after the Port Arthur shooting, that would reduce the number of semi-automatic rifles in New Zealand to a small number, and reduce the chance of a homicide on this scale ever occurring again.

All the hunters I know are – without exception – great people. They love stretching their legs in the great outdoors, often with children or grandchildren in tow. They love keeping the deep freezers of their family and friends full of venison and wild pork. I cannot speak for all hunters, but I and the good mates I hunt with would consider the loss of our semiautomatic weapons a price well worth paying if it makes this country a safer place.