Monday 26 July 2010

Judith Collins. Making New Zealand less safe. [Update 2]

Why has the licensing of air gun owners suddenly been announced by this government?  Because of three shootings involving air guns.  Judith Collins reckons after these three shootings that we’ll all be safer if she passes a new law requiring all owners of air guns to get a license.

But will we really?

The man the police gunned down for defending his family’s West Auckland home against intruders—the armed police having failed to identify themselves before breaking in to question him--was holding a stolen air rifle.

The man who shot and killed Police Sergeant Don Wilkinson outside his Hain Ave, Mangere East, house with an air rifle--—the police having failed to identify themselves before going on his property as part of a drugs operation—was using a stolen air rifle.

Things might have been different in both these incidents if police hadn’t gone about their work by acting so like criminals themselves that they were easily confused for being intruders. But since both these incidents involved stolen guns and people quite happy to break other laws, it’s unlikely that either would have been any different because of Ms Collins’s knee-jerk law change. Criminals are unlikely to be slowed down because they haven’t got the right paperwork with them.

That’s also the case with the other tragic shooting in recent weeks involving an airgun.  Keith Kahi was shot and killed in a Botany Downs driveway. Shot by a man holding a high-powered airgun over what’s suggested involves drugs. But while being “pleased” the government is doing something, Keith’s older brother Derek still wonders if this law change is the “something” that should be done. “Since most criminals did not have firearms licences, he questioned what impact it would really have.”

_QuoteIt's the old saying: `Guns don't kill people, people kill people.'
    "The legislation might stop your average Joe Bloggs from going along and buying a lethal weapon. That's a good thing, but it's not going to stop the criminals out there, they'll find other ways."

Yes. They will.

Frankly, there’s nothing at all in Ms Collins’s proposed law change to suggest that either Don Wilkinson or Keith Kahi would still be alive if she’d been any quicker off the mark in jerking her knees. It’s simply foolish to pretend that criminals are going to start doing their paperwork simply because Judith Collins says they must. (And if she’s successful in licensing airgun owners, then what’s next: boys who own shanghais?) What her law might do, however, is to encourage owners of airguns who do become licensed owners to then head out and buy a real gun—or even several real guns, putting even more guns into circulation, in the hands of people who may not yet be ready to use them-- which is not exactly what she’s after, I’m sure.  A view confirmed by Petone gun shop owner John Howat, who says,

_QuoteIf you require someone to have a gun licence they will just go for that and never buy an air-gun, they'll go straight into real guns. It cuts out those learning steps out, which is the last thing you want to do."

If Ms Collins really wants to make New Zealand safer, she might contemplate the other link in the two fatal shootings that have encouraged her to spring into action. She should take the advice of Dr Richard McGrath after the recent shooting of two Christchurch policemen who (like Sergeant Don Wilkinson) were shot by occupants while invading their property as part of a drugs operation.

_Quote The elephant in the room is this: The escalation of violence occurred because the two officers involved had decided to investigate a house that smelled of cannabis. And handling cannabis is currently illegal. If the house smelt of incense or fried chicken, there would have been no reason for the policemen to try and execute a search of the house, and no reason for the occupants to fear visitors. It was the smell of an illegal substance that set the whole sorry train of events in motion.
    “The libertarian solution to what is essentially a non-problem (a house smelling of cannabis) is to legalise all acts of non-aggression—which includes adults making, selling and smoking dope. That is not to endorse the cannabis industry, but to remove it from the sphere of crime, where it simply does not belong. If cannabis handling was legal, talkback callers would not now be wringing their hands over bringing back the death penalty and allowing police officers to carry side-arms.”

Prohibition escalates violence in New Zealand just as much as it did in 1920s Chicago, and in Underbelly-era Australia. If she’s really serious about making New Zealand safer for everyone, including policemen, she’d be giving those facts some serious thought.

That’s if she is serious about safety, instead of just a populist headline.

UPDATE 1: The anatomy of a kneejerk:

knee_jerk1 [Pic taken from NZ Conservative]

 

UPDATE 2:  Keith Locke goes populist—calling for not just gun-owners to be licensed, but for every single firearm in the country to be registered—something that cost Canada $2 billion and still failed to achieve anything.  “Bad timing Mr Locke, on gun registration” says Stephen Franks.

_QuoteKeith Locke's call for gun registration maintains the Greens' usual faith in government  It follows last week's Sunday Star Times 'expose' of how many firearms are circulating. But both come at a curious time.
    “Because New Zealand's law has just been praised  by the authors of an international survey of firearms law, and firearms murder rates. The Herald's story on that study knocks the stuffing out of the efforts of Mr Locke and the SST.
    “Sadly for  Taupo's Jeremy Graves a willingness to look at the law and the evidence together is still too much for the Police to handle…”

Read on here.



16 comments:

Cassanova said...

There seems to be feminazis' everywhere dominating the world political scenes of today. Any, yes, they're pushing their feminazi views into the society via legislation and that's dangerous. I thought that when the last Labour government with its dominant feminazi MPs were voted out in the last election, signalled the decline of feminazi-based agendas in local politics but I am wrong. National has got them too, such as this feminazi Honourable Judith Collins.

Ms Collins needs to relax and not pander to extremists/socialists. I recommend that she may need to get a bonk or get laid, perhaps that's what's she missing, therefore her frustration of not getting one regularly, is clearly shown by her knee-jerk law change.

Dean said...

If the policemen had noticed stolen goods, decided to search the place and got shot, would you advocate decriminalising theft as it resulted in the shooting?

Peter Cresswell said...

@Dean: The policemen were not there to search for stolen goods, because they don't bother searching for such things--they're too busy failing at the War on Drugs instead. (Take policemen off the War on Drugs, however, and they might have more time to chase down real crimes like theft.)

But stolen goods? People acting as fences for stolen goods generally don't bother with shooting people, because the small amount of money involved means the "business" doesn't attract the real villains, and just doesn't make it worth anyone's risk in trying to take over their "business" by violence. compared to what drug dealers can make just don't make it worth the risk.

Not so with the War on Drugs, which has escalated the violence. Making drugs illegal has made the money for dealing drugs so high that it makes all the violence and the turf wars worth the risk. It's a corollary of Milton Friedman's Iron Law of Prohibition -- and the main reason you don't see shoot-ups between armed gangs of crooked second-hand dealers.

rsw37 said...

@Dean
Also there is a real victim when goods are stolen, unlike when cannibis is handled by adults. The benefit of fewer police shootings if theft were legal is monstrously outweighed by the cost to everyone in a huge number of ways if theft were made legal, not so with cannibis. The only ones who benefit from drug prohibition are the police, drug dealers, and politicians and all of the benefit is from weilding undeserved power.

Greg said...

The benefit of fewer police shootings if theft were legal is monstrously outweighed by the cost to everyone in a huge number of ways if theft were made legal, not so with cannibis.

If theft were "legal", but if the state also got out of the way of private defence (i.e., the publicly-funded police won't prevent theft, but you can hire your own private police -- or, more likely, your insurance company can), what would be the effect?

Peter Cresswell said...

@Greg: The effect would be a competition in force.

Not an outcome anyone but an anarchist would advocate.

Greg said...

If you mean competition between the criminals and the private police, how is that any different from what you have with public police? The difference is, the private police would be more effective (because they're not off chasing drug dealers, etc.) and legitimate (because they wouldn't be forcing themselves on innocent people, etc.)

If you mean competition between private police and other private police: yes, that is something you should want, for the same reason you want competition between different food suppliers, etc.: better quality and lower cost.

Peter Cresswell said...

@Greg: The police are only in "competition" with criminals in either a staist hell-hole, or your anarchist utopia. Ironic, no.

But you knew precisely what I meant. In your anarchist utopia, alowing competing so-called private "police" forces without any overarching principles by which they may be measured (which your good anarchist must forswear) means a competition in force--which is as illogical as it is undesirable.

Anarchy is among the least desirable of evils: an unstable system on the way to something worse.

Dean said...

Stolen goods don't have to be cheap. In general they may be but not always.

Police go into loads of homes where there are drugs and don't get shot.

Decriminalising drugs will get rid of some problems, but create more problems like we have with alcohol.

Drugs do have victims, same as alcohol which is perfectly legal.

Peter Cresswell said...

@Dean: "Police go into loads of homes where there are drugs and don't get shot."

Indeed. I believe that was among Richard's main points.

"Decriminalising drugs will get rid of some problems, but create more problems like we have with alcohol."

Yes, I've noticed lot of bootleggers shooting cops these days.

Well, I guess they did back in a time and place when alcohol was prohibited.

No wonder Lucky Luciano and Al Capone were cheering for the 18th Amendment, eh. ;^)

Peter Cresswell said...

Oops,let me try that one again.

@Dean: "Police go into loads of homes where there are drugs and don't get shot."

Indeed. I believe that among Richard's main points is that they go into oads of houses where there aren't drug dealers and don't get shot.

Greg said...

private "police" forces without any overarching principles by which they may be measured (which your good anarchist must forswear)
Ah. This is the root of your misunderstanding, PC.

Greg said...

There are two possible positions you can hold: either (a) the rules people should live by are completely arbitrary, or (b) they're objectively discoverable. I know you call yourself an Objectivist, so assume you're in the (b) camp. But if there are objectively discoverable rules, you don't need a government to tell you what they are -- in fact, if the government only enforces objectively just rules, it's no government at all. Therefore if you're a non-anarchist, you're in camp (a), whatever your claims to the contrary.

Trevor said...

in fact, if the government only enforces objectively just rules, it's no government at all.

could you explain this please ?

Greg said...

Trevor: a government is, by definition, a territorial monopoly on the use of force. Is it objectively just to attempt to establish such a monopoly?

If your answer is no, then any "government" that only applies only objectively just rules cannot apply this one (that enables them to be a territorial monopoly on the use of force), and therefore isn't a government at all (it's just one among potentially many private defence providers: it may even be the only one, but it can't prevent competitors).

But if, on the other hand, your answer is yes, then it must apply equally to everyone, in which case the establishment of such a monopoly by one contender abrogates the rights of everyone else -- i.e., this position is self-contradictory and therefore wrong.

Greg said...

A challenge to all non-anarchists: take this course: http://academy.mises.org/courses/the-economics-of-private-legal-and-defense-services/ :)