Thread: Act submission points

I am interested in this point:

In your view, is the focus on regulating firearms (and associated products) based on the risk profile of each product an appropriate approach to the maintenance of public safety?

Yes. The risk from different types of firearms being mis-used is clearly different. A licensing system that allows people access to different types of firearm with more vetting makes sense. Stratify by function not appearance

-------------

There as been a fair bit of discussion on this in the past - the most people suffering injuries in NZ have been from rimfire and shotgun firearms, and a lot of people put forward in the past that the actual type/caliber of firearm is less important that the situation and background of the person using a firearm unlawfully. Noting with the CHCH atrocity, the terrorist there had lever action, semi and shotgun firearms types as an example. We have a category of airgun "especially dangerous" as another...

Question I have on it is how do you define the "risk profile" of a firearm in such a way that the law cannot be used as we have seen overseas to justify further confiscation (we have seen it done on the basis that anything over a certain muzzle energy is unnecessary for hunting but can be used to defeat body armour - when it reality just about any centerfire caliber can do this under the right circumstances). My concern with it is that it is potentially a pathway towards much harsher limits on private ownership.

Is the licensing of the owner and user not a better focus, combined with the scaled "endorsement" system and not focusing on the "risk profile" as this is a way for people to make the system more convoluted which seems to suit certain agendas?

The reason for this question isn't to create an argument, I'm actually seeing both sides of it and am struggling to decide on how to frame an answer to this question...