GUN BUY-BACK
New Zealand’s Arms Act Reform: The Buy-Back is not an end in itself Dr John Battersby of Massey University’s Centre for Defence and Security Studies makes a sober assessment of the efficacy of the gun buy-back scheme, arguing that a starting point should have included identifying gun owners posing a risk to society. Just before Christmas New Zealand’s gun buy-back and amnesty period formally ended with considerable media coverage. Assessing the success or failure of it amid the media scrum, appeared to be a matter of perspective. The government claimed it had achieved its goal, critics alleged otherwise – both have vested interests and a more detached view is required. Dr John Battersby is the New Zealand Police National Intelligence Centre Teaching Fellow at the Centre for Defence and Security Studies, Massey University. He previously served in the NZ Police Wellington and Central Districts and at the School of Leadership, Management and Command at the Royal New Zealand Police College.
16
The ultimate question is - has the gun buy-back made New Zealand safer than it was before, and has it mitigated the risks that were starkly revealed in New Zealand on 15 March 2019? Has the buyback solved problems, or has it generated more? The government drove the changes to the Arms Act and has claimed success. It it has after all, only spent $100 million dollars compensating firearms owners and removed over 56,000 firearms in six months. The buy-
back has received considerable publicity – Deputy Commissioner Mike Clement hit the nail on the head when he said if gun owners did not know what was expected of them “they would have had to have been living under a rock.” Some of those giving up their weapons were unhappy, resigned to a course of action they didn’t choose, but some seemed relieved and all who attended the collection points cooperated. The law is clear, the communications have been clear and the warnings have been clear. If anyone wasn’t sure if their firearm was legal or not, they had only to take them to a collection point and ask. Waiting times varied, but giving up a few hours – to ensure compliance over a six month period – seems both reasonable and achievable. There have been calls for the amnesty to be extended. But why? What is another six months going to achieve that the previous six months hasn’t, other than more cost, more demands on police resources, and signal perhaps that the government isn’t that serious?
February / March 2020
