The first month of the NZ MSSA Amnesty is past, and the results are in.
“Buyback” Events: 90
Firearms turned in: 10,242
Average firearms/event: 113
This isn’t looking good for the government. As previously noted, there are a rough-guesstimated 158,730 affected guns.
Overall running compliance rate: 6.45%
On average, with 250 scheduled “buybacks,” they need to collect 635 guns per event. They’re getting less than one-fifth of that: 17.8% of what they need.
ETA: It’s also worth noting that every time I get new numbers on buyback events, the average number of firearms turned in drops. Compliance is getting worse as the deadline approaches.
They’re on track to approximately match Australia’s 20% compliance rate.
Bear in mind that rate of compliance is based on my own calculations (based on actual payouts and the government’s estimate of how much it will cost) of 158,730 affected firearms. Other people are still tossing around estimates of 1.2-1.5 MILLION. If it is 1.5 million, the compliance rate is a hilarious 0.68% so far.
Some folks don’t like that I’ve been basing my New Zealand confiscation compliance estimates on NZ media reports.
Granted, “my” (not really mine, but as I said from NZ reports; have to go by something) estimates are kind of laughable, since no one knows how many newly banned guns are in the wild down there. But why are those guesstimates any less valid than my critics’ wild ass guesses?
Sunday morning, I ran across a real WTF opinion column from University of Wisconsin student newspaper. I don’t expect much quality from student newspapers, but this call for “red flag” laws was…
Read it for yourself.
The red herring in the red flag debate: Conservative opposition to common sense gun control misses the point
A red flag law, proposed by Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, aims to address these flags. It would allow family members and law enforcement to petition a judge, temporarily removing firearms from an individual who is a possible threat. Despite intense disagreement about the limits of the second amendment, red flag laws and universal background checks, among other proposed restrictions, are supported by a significant majority of Americans.
Here’s a little test. Without resorting to a search engine, can you tell who said:
- “We believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America’s schools, period … with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.”
- “You can’t talk about, much less take, bombs and guns onto airplanes.Such behavior in our schools should be prosecuted just as certainly as such behavior in our airports is prosecuted.”
- “believes in no unsupervised youth access to guns, period.”
- “every firearm should have a guardian who knows where it is and keeps it safely stored.”
- “we support mandatory penalties for juvenile criminals caught carrying guns.”
- “if violent juvenile felons get a second chance at going straight, they should never get a second chance at owning a gun.”
- “We support restoring full and perpetual funding for the National Instant Check System, which was the product of [our] determined effort.”
- “we advocate that records of court-declared mental incompetents be unsealed and made available to the instant check system.”
- “We will consider instant checks at gun show”
Were you right?
I’ve been going through presidential delusionist Eric “Duke Nukem” Swalwell’s A National Framework to End Gun Violence. This is the plan he presented yesterday to his almost-dozens of confused supporters.
It’s a rambling mess, intermixing gun control with various sorts of social engineering. I’m focusing on the anti-2A stuff here; the social engineering may call for another column, but only after a good, stiff drink.
The gun control take-away is:
Feel free to stop reading now. But if you are interested in Dukie’s brilliant plan, here goes.
Harold Hutchison has long been a shill for the Vichy NRA, but he’s reaching new lows. If Ammoland continues to publish his columns they should tag them “Know Your Enemy;” it’s good to know what the rights violators are planning.
Setting the Right Priorities to Defend the Second Amendment
When it comes to defending our Second Amendment rights, there are a lot of potential fights. We are seeing attacks on multiple fronts, along with efforts to move forward on some other issues. But what should be the biggest priority? Do we fight bump stock and suppressor bans? Do we focus on getting judges who will enforce our Second Amendment rights? What about the many fights at the state and local levels of government?
The problem is: I don’t see anything in there about… you know, actually defending the Second Amendment.
The next victim-disarming idiot who uses a smart phone connected to a computer network operating over fiber optic lines to tell me the framers of the Constitution and the Second Amendment never envisioned modern firearms, and that the Second Amendment only protects muskets is getting bitch-slapped.
James Madison, known for his role in drafting the Bill of Rights (including that pesky 2A) lived through the rise of repeating firearms, breechloaders, paper cartridges, percussion caps, metallic cartridges, pinfire cartridges, centerfire cartridges, revolvers, and mass production of firearms.
Heck, an early machinegun was pitched to the US War Office in 1812, and patented in 1813 — during Madison’s presidency (and was a refinement of a 16th century machinegun).
Yet never once did Madison stop and say, “Whoa, guys! We didn’t have any of this new shit in mind. the Second Amendment is just for muskets.”