> Semi-automatic .22 calibre rimfire firearms with a magazine which holds no more than 10 rounds

Oh, so the same weapon used in Virginia Tech, one of the worst school shootings in US history.

I believe NZ (as some US states do) regulates pistols differently than rifles/shotguns. The VT shooter also had at least some fifteen round magazines.

Ultimately, the policy goal is gonna be damage reduction. NZ likely understands that perfect protection isn't possible.

If there's damage reduction, how can French terrorists outfit themselves like Soviet soldiers circa 1982? It's getting easier to manufacture high quality firearms on your own, not harder.

If NZ shared a continent with Eastern Europe, they'd probably have more trouble. I suspect it's substantially harder to bring guns into a country surrounded by ocean (especially one with just a handful of air/sea ports) than it is to just walk them across minimal land borders.

People still manage to murder, but that doesn't mean we make it legal.

The only parts that are difficult to make are the pressure bearing parts, and those can be ordered and shipped into the country via a freight forwarding service. Changes in the law only stop the dysfunctional, mentally ill but not terrorists.

I can literally bake a lower receiver out of plastic in my oven or make one on my 3D printer. For something a bit nicer I can buy, and setup a CNC machine which only cost a few thousand dollars.

Sure. Just like you could strangle someone to death, but doing so is still illegal.

Yes, you can probably build or smuggle a gun if you're determined enough. I'm OK with stopping "the dysfunctional, mentally ill" you mention, and having them be outright illegal increases the chances of someone seeing them and tipping off the cops, being dunned in by an informant, or them being intercepted at customs, a traffic stop, etc.

You correctly highlight that this sort of thing is difficult, and won't ever be a 100% solution. Your apparent conclusion - that we shouldn't ever do anything - doesn't logically follow.

> increases the chances of someone seeing them and tipping off the cops

Based on my experience (in the US), almost no one outside of "firearms enthusiasts" is capable of distinguishing between legal and illegal configurations. In many cases, even those who do know the specific differences aren't in consensus on what is legal and what isn't.

Sure, because in the US an extremely wide variety of firearms are entirely legal. NZ is about to get quite limited in their permitted weapons.

This is not my understanding, based on Kiwis I've been speaking to online.

An AR-15 is a Class E firearm - unless it has a thumbhole stock, no "bad" features, and 7-round magazines. In that case it's a Class A firearm.

It's easy for someone who is somewhat mechanically inclined to manufacture a firearm, these law changes will not stop the next terrorist attack in New Zealand.

All this does is further disarm the populace and makes it even easier to carry out an attack. Australia or New Zealand could have an attack like this happen tomorrow, it's not like they are able to keep handguns and drugs away from your normal criminal gang member there, let alone a determined terrorist.

"All this does is further disarm the populace and makes it even easier to carry out an attack."

If the majority of school shootings etc in the States we're stopped by the populace with guns then yeah I'd agree with you.

Of course not. That's a tautology.

It may reduce the frequency and effectiveness of such attacks, as Australia's tightening of gun laws did for shootings. I'll take it.

> People still manage to murder, but that doesn't mean we make it legal.

No, because murder is harmful in itself. Guns are not. Knives are not. Ropes are not. Trucks are not.

There's strong evidence that it wasn't even the types of guns that made a difference in Australia.

http://theconversation.com/regulating-people-not-just-guns-m...