An opinion by Paul Revere
On March 15, 2019 (Julius Caesar’s “Ides of March”) innocent and defenceless people were slaughtered at a Christchurch mosque.
The mass murderer, Brenton Tarrant, was not a New Zealand citizen.
Incompetent police, granting him a firearms licence, failed to comply with the proper process.
Tarrant applied in Hamilton when resident in Dunedin.
He had no proper referees, only a couple of on-line contacts.
He was under surveillance by Australian authorities.
Were the police aware of his background?
Did they even care?
The tragedy was exploited by politicians and the anti-gun faction to further their prejudiced agendas.
The reaction by the government was rushed, ill considered and unwarranted.
Less than a month after the mosque shootings, New Zealand’s parliament voted by 119 to 1 on the “reforms”. Semi-automatic sporting rifles and parts were prohibited and confiscated in what was fraudulently called a “buy-back”.
Only ACT’s sole MP, party leader David Seymour voted against the absurdly rushed law.
There was virtually no public input or debate.
The select committee process was rushed and a farce.
The rushed law had hit the wrong and innocent target – the law abiding firearm ownership public.
The Minister of Police lied when he said this confiscation of legally owned property from responsible citizens made us all safer.
There have been greatly increased shootings in the greater Auckland urban area by unlicensed firearms users such as gang members and criminals.
We are not safer. Living in New Zealand is now more dangerous than ever before.
This naive and foolish ambition to prevent responsible citizens from owning and using guns reminds me of the horror that the victims must have experienced.
My heart aches for these poor people.
Imagine being attacked and killed so coldly and cruelly with no ability to escape, fight back or defend one’s self.
No-one should ever have to experience such terror.
People must be allowed and enabled to defend themselves and their lives!
Violent, evil people whose twisted minds motivate them to commit such horrible crimes have and will always exist.
Any individual or group of individuals could become their intended victims.
A future “Tarrant ” might target my or your church, synagogue children’s school or other venue instead of a mosque and what could you or I do about it?
The politically influential anti-gun busybodies would prefer that we try to hide, run or cower in fear as we are stalked and cruelly slaughtered instead of having any means of resisting or defending our own lives.
Prohibiting guns is as foolish as prohibiting liquor, recreational drugs or anything else because only the peaceful and obedient “good people” comply.
The reality is what is being prohibited still exists.
Criminals do not comply and often find ways to benefit from not doing so.
Decent and law abiding people who consider the prohibition unfair do not comply and become criminalised.
The anti-gun busybodies might mean well but they are naive and unrealistic in assuming that guns will “disappear” and never again be misused by anyone.
They are in a sense “nutty.”
Sensible and realistic people understand that guns and other weapons will always be available for use by criminals who wish to use them to rob or harm the rest of us.
Especially those who have been rendered more vulnerable, defensive and helpless to resist or defend themselves.
The good intentions of the naive “nutty” anti-gun busybodies to prohibit responsible citizens from having the means to defend our property, families, friends and lives in times of crisis are paving the road to the hell that those poor victims of the mosgue tragedy endured.
We must not allow the right to defend ourselves, our property and our lives to be taken from us!
Footnote: Paul Revere is a life long law-abiding firearm owner
Father showing daughter firearm safety and firearms are to be respected.
The aim of anti-firearm laws , although ill-conceived, is to combat firearm violence, but breach a law abiding individual’s freedom. There is no rational connection between firearm ownership and the criminal use of firearms because invariably firearms used in crimes are not registered and the criminal has no firearm licence.
Any anti-firearm law affects those who are will never use firearms in a criminal way.
More so it can lead to criminals adding to their armoury, as the rushed undemocratically processed law following March 15, 2019, took firearms from law abiding citizens ands on ‘under the table deals’ ended up in gangs’ hands.
It was naive ( or dumb) by police and both Labour and National to rush the ill-conceived law through.
Thank you Paul Revere for straight shooting comments. I hope MPs get to read your views.
You raise a very good question as to why and how Brenton Tarrant was granted a firearms licence. He was not a NZ citizen and was being watched by ustralian surveillance.
This outstanding article reminded me of the L. Niel Smith quote in which he described Gun Control as “the theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.”
I think there must be a Tui advert in here somewhere:
The confiscation of lawfully owned guns from licenced “fit and proper ” people made New Zealand much safer. Yeah, right.
Hey Stalinda, Give us back our semi auto sporting rifles, you stole them under false pretences.
Where has a gun law reduced crime?
Well, to be exact. We are living in a dictatorship of a scaremongering mad woman.Like all dictators in history the final item on the agenda is to disarm the private citizen, step by step it will proceed until the populous is weakened to control any govmnt,& complete capture & rule is achieved.
More crimes committed with guns than ever since confiscations.
Democracy is a relatively recent innovation.
It did not exist for most of human history.
In the Age of Enlightenment, wise people like John Locke disputed the notion that Kings, Queens, Emperors and other TYRANTS were entitled to rule the rest of the people.
Natural laws and natural RIGHTS (life, liberty and property) were considered to be God given and INALIENABLE.
People in governments ought not to pass any legislation that infringes or violates our natural rights, including sovereignty over ourselves and our own bodies.
Natural law is above civil law and requires that everyone is entitled to defend their natural rights from criminals and other predators who wish to violate them.
By enacting legislation that prohibits us from access to the means by which we can protect and defend our lives, liberty and property, politicians and bureaucrats violate natural law and our inalienable rights.
They have been and continue to ignore and violate the fundamental principles of Democracy to further their own ambitions for more authority and power over the rest of us and this must be opposed to save Democracy.
No-one is guilty of any crime justifying the loss of their lives, freedom or property unless it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt that they physically harmed another person or their personal property.
None of us can guarantee that we might not become a victim or violent crime at any time.
The police are armed so that they can defend themselves but will not be available to defend us when our luck runs out.
Prime Ministers, MP’s and other elites have body guards to defend their natural rights but do not allow us to defend ours.
How many lives might have been saved is the victims of the mosque tragedy had been able to effectively resist Tarrant and defend themselves?
That question should have been asked but was not allowed by the Omnipotent Moral Busybodies in our political system who think they are entitled to rule the rest of us.
How is disabling and prohibiting people from being able to defend themselves, their families, their friends, their lives and their property making us safer when the predators among us will still have weapons to use against us and we have none?
These political elites tell us that the restrictions of our natural rights are “for our own good”.
When did we give them permission to decide what is or is not good for us?
We did not elect the people in government to be our rulers or parents.
We employed and pay them to be our employees and public servants.
They are not serving us very well.
I do not approve of violence and do not advocate shooting anyone for any reason.
If a criminal entered my house intending to rob or harm me, I would probably lock the bedroom door, call the police and hope the criminal does not break down the door and kill me.
Thanks to those superior beings in our government, having an effective means of defending my own life would be a crime.
Thanks so very much for caring (NOT).