A lesson in New Zealand’s new gun ban

After the Christchurch massacre, both left and right listened to each other’s fears about guns and gun control to quickly achieve a compromise.

Reuters
Firearms and accessories on display at Gun City gunshop in Christchurch, New Zealand.

Just six days after a gun massacre killed 50 people, New Zealand’s government leaders, both left and right, have decided to ban military-style semi-automatic weapons such as those used in the shootings. The speed of the consensus is certainly noteworthy. Australia took 12 days after a 1996 mass killing to pass similar laws. Many in America are still waiting for such a ban. But what is important to note is how the Kiwis did it.

The compromise announced March 21 was made possible because top political leaders on either side of the gun debate finally listened to each other’s fears with a certain civic compassion. The national trauma of last Friday’s killings at two mosques certainly made sure of that.

As in the United States, emotions over guns run deep in New Zealand, with a gun lobby on one side and gun-control advocates on the other. Even though the country has no equivalent of a Second Amendment and enjoys far fewer gun murders per capita than in the U.S., many previous efforts at tightening gun restrictions have failed. This time, there was a mutual acknowledgment of each other’s concerns.

Under the agreement, hunters and farmers will be able to keep guns with little rapid firepower. Owners of military-style semi-automatics and high-capacity ammunition magazines will need to surrender their weapons and then be compensated. In other words, guns with the highest fear factor – and designed for maximum slaughter – must be forsaken.

As one New Zealand hunter put it, “Most of us aren’t keen on seeing idiots in the bush with [AK-15 assault rifles].” Another owner said the convenience of owning an AK-15 rifle “doesn’t outweigh the risk of misuse.”

This is a lesson for the U.S., where opposing camps remain stuck in their respective narratives of fear. The different emotions – fear of crime, fear of government, fear of suicide, etc. – must first be addressed before facts and reason can prevail. In fact, in its decisions recognizing a fundamental gun right, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that gun rights are not unlimited, especially for the kind of weapons commonly used to instill fear.

Justice Antonin Scalia, the conservative who wrote the key decision, cited laws written in 18th-century America that ban “dangerous and unusual” weapons used to “affright” people. “It’s clear that certain restrictions on the bearing of arms are traditional and can be enforced,” the late justice told a journalist.

Those countries with too many guns designed for mass killing must find their own path toward political unity on gun restrictions. New Zealand just set one example by showing how civic respect and listening can replace many fears about guns and gun control.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.