You have to say that Deputy Police Commissioner Mike Clements’ comments haven't aged all that well, have they?
Back in 2019, just four years ago, he said during the first weekend of the gun buyback scheme, if we take tens of thousands of firearms off the streets during the next six months, then absolutely New Zealand has to be a safer place.
Jump forward four years; the stats don't really say that, do they?
The Deputy Police commissioner was wrong and those who said gun buybacks wouldn't have any real impact on public health and safety are right.
ACT leader David Seymour was one of them at the time. He said it wasn't going to make a blind bit of difference. Researchers from Australia, where there had been a similar gun buyback scheme, said much the same. And the stats have proved it.
When the Government clamped down on firearms and seized high-powered semi-automatic weapons, they wanted to see a reduction in violent gun crime. They wanted to make New Zealand a safer place. I have absolutely no doubt about that.
But facts are facts, and there has been no impact on the rise in gun crime and violence in New Zealand as a result of the gun buyback.
Jacinda Ardern and her party believed absolutely in the rightness of the gun buyback.
They truly believed they would be making New Zealand a safer place, and I'm sure many other New Zealanders believed it too. Is New Zealand a safer place? It's not.
It's worse than it's ever been for many, many reasons.
I do believe that kindness and goodness can work but only when those who exploit that, only when people who deliberately choose to stick two fingers to society, to the community, continue to put others at risk, only when they understand that exploiting goodness will have consequences.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB where this article was sourced
ACT leader David Seymour was one of them at the time. He said it wasn't going to make a blind bit of difference. Researchers from Australia, where there had been a similar gun buyback scheme, said much the same. And the stats have proved it.
When the Government clamped down on firearms and seized high-powered semi-automatic weapons, they wanted to see a reduction in violent gun crime. They wanted to make New Zealand a safer place. I have absolutely no doubt about that.
But facts are facts, and there has been no impact on the rise in gun crime and violence in New Zealand as a result of the gun buyback.
Jacinda Ardern and her party believed absolutely in the rightness of the gun buyback.
They truly believed they would be making New Zealand a safer place, and I'm sure many other New Zealanders believed it too. Is New Zealand a safer place? It's not.
It's worse than it's ever been for many, many reasons.
I do believe that kindness and goodness can work but only when those who exploit that, only when people who deliberately choose to stick two fingers to society, to the community, continue to put others at risk, only when they understand that exploiting goodness will have consequences.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB where this article was sourced
1 comment:
Kerre Woodham -
What is interesting about your article, in that "the gun buy back has not achieved anything"?? - I would agree, and the issues that seemed to be overlooked are -
- prior to the Mosque Shootings, we have had firearms incidents in NZ, one being Aramoana/Dunedin & National Park,
- as a result of the above, were the NZ owner of a firearm was "punished" as a result of those 2 incidents ?;
- yes there have been "minor individual incidents" but in those cases the perpetrator(s) lost their Legal right to procure any gun going forward,
- in relation the above statement, how many "high powered, multi round, semi automatic weapons were used in those instances - I would think Zero, more likely a shotgun, or rifle - certainly not a hand gun;
- that in NZ "the criteria one must pursue" in gaining permission to obtain a gun, use of, safe storage has been more than strict, thus when some enters a Gun Shop, with all the required papers the Vendor would have to have 'dubious concerns' to defer and/or not sell the firearms being sought;
It is interesting that our "Lone Terrorist" had the Legal paperwork for the guns that he owned at time of shooting!
The current Police attempts to "revolutionize procedures relating to buying & owning a firearm are farcical - the question is - what will it achieve"?
- the final factor, is how well did the Police know, that there were/ are unlicensed firearms, held by "people whose approach to 'Matters Legal', in relation to purchasing, safe storage, and safe application of same?
I find it interesting that with recent "events where the use of a firearm" resulted in either death and/or injury - was it a [a] - multi round semi automatic or [2] - a handgun > if this was the weapons used - where did the perpetrator obtain it from - certainly not a Sports Store - so again how much do the Police actually know, but are reluctant to tell the NZ Public?
In the meantime the NZ Legally Licensed Gun owner will again be made to to suffer, from the actions of "another".
ANON, of New Zealand
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.