The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

The Royal Commission report on the Christchurch mosque shooting is out and it validates what we shooters had said all along. The existing licencing system was fit for purpose. Had Police actually done their jobs, the existing licencing system would have prevented Tarrant from obtaining a licence. It was working.

The police failure was of epic proportions:
• He had only been in the country for two months and was not even eligible to apply.
• He did not belong to any shooting club or organisation.
• They did not check his background – he was known to the Australian authorities for white-supremacist blogs and membership in white power groups, and for very alarming overseas travel patterns.
• Then they failed to check his referees. Referees are supposed to consist of two people who have known you at least two years (remember I said he had only been here two months?) and one should ideally be a family member Not only had they not known him for the required two years, Tarrant’s referees were a guy he met on-line gaming and the gamer’s father, neither of whom had actually met Tarrant. So the police obviously did not vet him according to law.
• Using a loophole in the law, (which we shooters had pointed out to police several years earlier and which they did nothing whatever to close) he then bought high-capacity magazines and other accessories to turn his sporting AR15 into a Military-Style Semi-Automatic (MSSA) for which you need a special endorsement on your licence to own (an endorsement Tarrant did not have).

So when all this happened and ‘something’ needed to be done, the government went to their so-called experts on firearms – the Police. In fact what police know about firearms can be written on the inside of a matchbook in crayon. The number of times I hard the phrase ‘assault rifle’ bandied about by the Commissioner was astounding. In fact the only actual ‘assault rifles’ in New Zealand are in the Defence Force armouries.

The Police, partly to cover their own egregious failures, and partly because it suited their agenda, trotted out a bunch of complete falsehoods about licencing and firearms; which the government bought, hook line and sinker. As a result Police finally got at least part of what they had been trying for years to achieve - Draconian new firearms laws including universal registration.

NZ Police have been trying to paint New Zealand as a country awash in firearms, where police officers are in danger from armed offenders 24/7. Not only were they always looking for excuses to tighten up rules around firearms ownership, but the Police Association is pushing to have officers armed at all times (unlike the Australians, NZ Police operate on the British system – police are not routinely armed, but may draw firearms from locked storage in the car when deemed appropriate). So being able to blame lax rules around firearms ownership for the mosque attack, played right into their narrative on both counts.

It now remains to be seen what will happen. It is far too much to hope that the unnecessary new laws will be rolled-back, and I suspect it is too much to hope that Police will face the consequences of their failures and their slimy opportunism – they are something of a sacred cow in this country. At the least we can hope that the government goes ahead with what they promised in the last set of legislation, that licensing will be taken off Police and given to a separate organisation.

I did see the headline this morning, that the shooting could only have been stopped by chance clearly indicating nothing wrong with the gun laws.

It is a terrible situation, people lost loved ones, gun owners were forced to hand property over.

The National Party are telling everybody that they tried to implement tougher laws but were stymied by the gun lobby. Apparently the story they are telling is that nobody could have predicted this guy's behaviour and that 'nobody is to blame'.

So what's going to come out of this is a lot more money for surveillance and intelligence and more curtailment of free speech, all sorts of new organisations and new funding for 'cum-by-ya' stuff about diversity and inclusiveness, and apparently better training for Police in the administration of the licensing regime. Nobody's head is going to roll, and all the unnecessary new gun laws will, as predicted, stay on the books.

The UK has had its fair share of that.

Diversity and inclusiveness does not work...this world is more at war than ever before.

And likewise, had the then Central Scotland Police conducted themselves in accordance with the law at the time, then it is highly unlikely that Thomas Hamilton would have been able to acquire the firearms he did, prior to committing the killings at Dunblane.

At some point someone very rich or very famous needs to be a pro-shooter and bring an unbearable spotlight on these sorts of incidents.

Still waiting on the lottery win....

Blackstuff wrote:At some point someone very rich or very famous needs to be a pro-shooter and bring an unbearable spotlight on these sorts of incidents.

Still waiting on the lottery win....

Plenty of rich and famous people shoot at a high level. They just don't advertise it for fear of alienating their fans/financial interests.

I know its an unpopular opinion, but incidents like this make me thankful for our strict gun laws. I don't agree with all of it of course. But the strict background checks, medical check (the old style not the new one....) etc. If nothing else it takes some ammunition away from the anti-guns.

Pippin89 wrote:
I know its an unpopular opinion, but incidents like this make me thankful for our strict gun laws. I don't agree with all of it of course. But the strict background checks, medical check (the old style not the new one....) etc. If nothing else it takes some ammunition away from the anti-guns.

But you’ve illustrated perfectly why regulation will always begat regulation. You say the “old style not the new”. Once restriction bites, it’s easy for governments to tighten it. That’s why the American NRA will resist anything. It may seem unreasonable for them to do so, but they understand how it develops.

It took only 44 years to utterly destroy gun ownership in the U.K. New Zealand was regarded as close to a Utopia for “moderate law” gun ownership. License the individual, not the item, within reason. One incident, by a foreigner, with extremist views, not legally entitled to the firearms, kills 51 and changes a country.

And in NZ, like the UK, if only the laws at the time were actually enforced, those mass shootings may never have occurred. That is also actually true of the US in certain cases. Sometimes bad people do bad things and there’s nothing can be done about it. But when the system fails, blaming the lack of restriction in that system just gives an illusion of improvement rather than any real benefit.

Sim G wrote:

Pippin89 wrote:
I know its an unpopular opinion, but incidents like this make me thankful for our strict gun laws. I don't agree with all of it of course. But the strict background checks, medical check (the old style not the new one....) etc. If nothing else it takes some ammunition away from the anti-guns.

But you’ve illustrated perfectly why regulation will always begat regulation. You say the “old style not the new”. Once restriction bites, it’s easy for governments to tighten it. That’s why the American NRA will resist anything. It may seem unreasonable for them to do so, but they understand how it develops.

It took only 44 years to utterly destroy gun ownership in the U.K. New Zealand was regarded as close to a Utopia for “moderate law” gun ownership. License the individual, not the item, within reason. One incident, by a foreigner, with extremist views, not legally entitled to the firearms, kills 51 and changes a country.

And in NZ, like the UK, if only the laws at the time were actually enforced, those mass shootings may never have occurred. That is also actually true of the US in certain cases. Sometimes bad people do bad things and there’s nothing can be done about it. But when the system fails, blaming the lack of restriction in that system just gives an illusion of improvement rather than any real benefit.

I don't blame the lack of restriction in NZ, but the lack of enforcement of those restrictions. Hence why I agree with the strict way in which our laws are enforced. You have to say, the chances of a similar incident happening here are pretty slim! I understand why the US don't want a system like ours and what works for us might not work for them. But in terms of keeping guns away from the wrong people (at least legal ones) our system does work. Like I said I don't agree with all of it. Especially with what can and can't be owned and the "licence every gun thats owned" bit but for the checks that happen before a gun can be purchased in the UK, I agree with what we have to go through.
The fact that the current system (or before the recent changes) works is exactly why I disagree with the change to medical assessment. It did work the way it was so why change it?

It was changed as the result of a risk assessment. A theoretical exercise, if you will. Exactly the same as the ban on “self ejecting”, nothing tangible, the result of a theory and the decision not to carry that perceived risk.