There's always a catch, which I wish these articles specified.
Like that story about buying an entire town in a radio-silent zone somewhere in the USA. The land was cheap, but the catch was that maintaining it cost north of a million dollars or so.
Do you have to work agri culture? I live in a remote-ish place in the mountains where agri culture is the primary business and houses and land can be had for far less than 165k. However I make software from there. Could not be happier. Could someone do that there or is that somehow not allowed? Meaning if there are really no strings I can see me live there easily.
I don't think there are any restrictions since as far as I know, the town's website just links to local realtors, anyone that is qualified to buy property there can buy property, no need to sign up for a job in the town. It looks fairly easy to get a NZ work visa if you're in a high-demand occupation, but I don't know what the Visa requirements are for a remote worker, so you'd need to investigate that.
But there are thousands of small towns just like it across the world, so it's not clear why you'd pick this particular one based only on this plea from the town for more local workers.
If cost of living is important to you and you're ok in a country where English is not the native language, you can certainly find areas with much lower cost of living (while still having good internet access)
I think the reason this story became so popular is because it was initially wrongly reported that the town was giving away these $165K land+home packages for anyone that is willing to move there. But in reality, they aren't offering anything for free, they were trying to reach out to NZ citizens that wanted to escape the high cost of living in cities.
There are lots of places in rural (and not so rural) America where you can get a house+land for $165K.
Here's an article that mentions the earlier misleading headlines:
"There is currently a story that has been published by overseas media that we are paying people $160,000 to move to Kaitangata and people should ring the Mayor about it. This is NOT TRUE," a statement on the town's website read.
Well, this place has only a pretty select range of jobs by the looks of it, local industry is quite limited. By the same token you can be a logger in large parts of Canada.
I think the best way to interpret the article is to realize that there are many places where people no longer wish to live after several generations and the cities lure with their - presumably - higher incomes and easier access to 'life'. So you get this kind of cycle, where people move out of some rural spot and then need to be replaced by others that have grown tired of life in the fast lane.
I've made this switch myself several times and it is always interesting to see which parts you miss the most of what you left behind.
They did. Until the oil patch imploded, you could easily get a job with an annual salary that paid more than the average cost of a house. $70k salary, $60k house, for example in rural Saskatchewan.
I spent 6 months in NZ back in 2000 and the thought of moving there has always been present in my mind.
Now that the UK has voted to leave the EU, that pretty much makes my mind up for me - I'll be leaving the UK, and NZ is a serious option.
Are there any kiwis in here who can offer some advice for devs considering moving there? Locations to consider? What to expect in terms of wages, cost of living? What is the dev labour market like (e.g. full time gigs or contracts)?
In my case, I'm a web dev with Advertising/Marketing, Fashion and financial services experience - I've been developing web apps recently in React. I also dabble in Swift for fun.
If you want full time web dev work, Auckland and Wellington are really your main options. Cost of living in NZ is high (relative to salaries), but for most people the pace and quality of life make up for it.
Given that NZ timezone is only 3-5 hrs difference from the west coast of the US, I personally would look for remote work for a US company while living in NZ (salaries and the exchange rate would be strongly in your favor). However, if you need a visa sponsorship this wouldn't be feasible.
Sorry, I meant (Old) Zealand. Not really. I'm genuinely concerned about the rise of the right in Europe as a whole and I see the UK referendum result as a great big red flag.
Kiwi by one of three citizenships here (+AU/DE). AFAIK NZ has the worst rating on the housing affordability index in the western world. We went over and had a look at real estate a couple of years back, but were happy to stay here in China. I would personally consider it only if you want to work remotely, own your own business already, are looking for a good educational environment for children, or love weird great-in-Kiwiland stuff like wild pig shooting, buried BBQs, boats, gardening, learning to fly or building houses in remote, windswept natural locations or something.
That is a huge generalisation, and in fact this article is about affordable housing which therefore contradicts your point.
Auckland is not affordable, but Wellington has higher wages and relatively affordable housing. It's still probably high by international standards (but not by the companies that we get directly compared to, namely Australia, Canada, and the UK).
> love weird great-in-Kiwiland stuff like wild pig shooting, buried BBQs, boats, gardening, learning to fly or building houses in remote, windswept natural locations or something.
Your idea of "popular" Kiwi past-times is kind of hilarious.
I'd say a significant portion of the population has never been any kind of hunting or had a hangi in the past decade.
I'd say we're very similar to Vancouver. Nature, sports, bars, mainstream media.
There's certainly work in NZ, but you'll have to live in Auckland, Wellington, Christhurch or Dunedin. Auckland is too expensive to really be worth it, even on high dev salaries.
Wellington is very windy and thus cold, but it has nice bar culture, is small and very lovely overall.
Auckland is much larger and warmer. Number of beaches around so the culture is more around surfing. Also quite a few nice hiking areas ~1hr drive away. I only been in Melbourne and SF for a few days, but Auckland definitely beats them in quality of life.
Xero is always seem to be hiring something. There is also a strong albeit small group of functional programmers (find via meetup.com).
Wellington isn't as windy as our reputation states. There is generally a breeze and one or two big wind events every year. But like much of North America and Europe getting snow, and much of Asia getting the monsoon, Wellington is built to handle it. Buildings are designed to provide wind breaks and even get tested in wind tunnels to make sure that they don't act as a funnel. Generally the weather is pleasant, in Summer it doesn't get above 25 too often, and in winter it's seldom below 10 in the days and 6 at night. We get a frost only a couple of times a year.
Wellington has a large inner city mountain bike park, one of the largest inland ecological islands within the city boundaries, and a much more convenient access to nature and the outdoors than probably any other city in the world.
2000 was 16 years ago, so it's important to understand that NZ is no longer the same country that you knew. I left in 2005 for the UK and can't imagine returning to NZ to live (last time I visited was 2010). Here's just a few reasons:
* I've been spoiled by UK broadband speeds and NZ just doesn't compare.
* Food is more expensive, and not of the quality that I'm now used to (fresh seafood would be the exception).
* Higher tax relative to what I pay in the UK as a contractor.
* Real estate prices are now worse than in the UK
* It's an isolated country, you can't just hop on a cheap plane and find yourself in a completely different country & culture an hour or two later.
* Purchasing power is greatly limited. In the UK I can buy virtually any obscure item that I want online and get a good price, including P+P. Not so in NZ.
* There's very little variety in the job market for software developers, few 'cool' or cutting edge companies and no startup scene worth speaking of.
* Finally, cultural experiences are extremely limited. I know I'd miss all the museums, art exhibitions, theatre, concerts, comedians, ballet, opera and so forth. One of the biggest reasons that I left was because of boredom and the UK/EU certainly alleviated that.
You realise that the government has been laying fibre to the door for 90% of the population. Or to put off another way 90% of the population will have direct fibre connection by 2018, and most in cities have it already.
And while it can't compare to Europe access to countries like Australia, the Pacific islands, and south Asia is quick and convenient.
The startup scene in Wellington has exploded, the government funds incubators and lots of companies are fueling each other. Check out the likes of atomic or 8i
They've changed contractor tax in the UK, this year you'll be paying 10% more than you were (less £500, you're only allowed £5k dividend tax free now).
House prices in NZ are insane compared with salaries. but if you have your own home in UK, you will get a better property over here for the same money.
I would recommend Wellington:
* most importantly far easier to find friends (whether you have a family, or don't).
* plenty of jobs (startup jobs or government jobs or corporate jobs)
Wellington has a good dev and startup culture (that is, for New Zealand). Housing prices are a lot lower too, expect a massive wage cut though unless you're doing remote work for SF-type companies.
Wellington has a good dev and startup culture (that is, for New Zealand). Housing prices are a lot lower too, expect a massive wage cut though unless you're doing remote work for SF-type companies.
I wish there were places like New Zealand and Australia with less restrictive laws. It's practically the most ideal place for a person like me to live except the local laws are alien and restrictive to me.
I wish I knew of a place with few people, few laws, and cheap land.
Ummm... you aren't allowed to have a nuclear powerplant or nuclear anything in the entire country. That's the only law peculiar to NZ that is at the top of my mind.
Gun laws? They some how manage to be more restrictive then where I currently live (New Jersey). You can read up about the nonsensical requirements and categories that all, essentially mechanically similar, firearms fit into.
Why is that a problem instead of a perk? Honest question; I am from the EU and I only read the news which shows more restrictive is better. And you seem to imply you could not live there because of this; curious why?
> Why is that a problem instead of a perk [you] imply you could not live there because of this
Well, it's because I like guns. Firearms are an amazing hobby. It teaches responsibility, maintenance of a fragile and precision machine, puts you in control of your personal safety, and can put dinner on your plate if you're ever up for a bit of hunting. I subscribe to a very Locke-esq philosophy of life. Where some group begins by regulating one freedom I enjoy, they will not simply stop. All governments will slowly etch away at freedoms that people have in the aim of securing more control over it's citizens (furthering the divide between the peasants and the ruling class). Firearms rights are a very good litmus test for my case since it quickly points to, in my opinion, if the population has given up their own rights to protect themselves and is ready to pack up their freedoms and hand them over to their ruling class.
In my personal opinion, an unarmed populous is a completely ruled populous since the people have given up all hope of being in control of their own safety and government's actions. They do this not even for safety but for the illusion of such.
I'd like to reverse the question to you. Rather then as "Why is that a problem instead of a perk" in relation to owning firearms, let me ask this about banning fire arms.
The facts simply don't align with the assessment that banning fire arms will positively effect anyone. Firearms ownership simply does not correlate to crime.
I'll agree that it does correlate with firearm related deaths since that is plainly evident in the data but those deaths are replaced with other means when firearms are taken out of the equation.
There are very few recent studies about this on a federal level. This is largely due to the CDC being prohibited from researching firearms related topics.
The 'best' source I have found was a source from '07. [0]
An "ok" secondary "check" for this, that is by all accounts not a very good measure, is by looking at some charts wikipedia has made [1] [2]. If you go to those two pages you will see that the places with the most fire arms are seldom the most dangerous places. Now, if you change your comparison from Guns vs Intentional Homicide to % People Living Below Poverty Line vs Intentional Homicides you will see something interesting [3]. Once you have >10-20% of the people living below poverty there is a huge increase in homicides. I think if this is studied further that you will find that firearms are a single means to some crimes, not the only mean and that crime correlates to poverty, not firearms ownership.
Personally, I don't want my rights to be taken away "just because;" I want a reason for rights being revoked. The plain fact of the matter is that there does not seem to be any reason to revoke the right of firearms ownership.
As a New Zealander, please stay where you are. New Zealanders use guns as tools but we don't need the kind of obsessive insistence on widespread gun ownership that people in the US are so maniacal about spreading.
I like hunting but the almost religious passion for guns that some Americans have, I find very disturbing.
I am not sure if you have read my initial comment so I will write it again here: "I wish there were places like New Zealand and Australia with less restrictive laws. It's practically the most ideal place for a person like me to live except the local laws are alien and restrictive to me."
> please stay where you are.
I intent to do so. I never intended to move to NZ due to restrictions on things I like.
> maniacal about spreading
I never asked to spread my opinions to other countries. I have only attempted to give a fair depiction of how ineffective the restrictions on firearms ownership are.
> kind of obsessive insistence on widespread gun ownership [...] that some Americans have, I find very disturbing.
(Nice you nicked the bit about it being religion before I had a go at it ;))
No I don't think I am being obsessive. I think if you read my original post you will understand better. I am saying "I don't want to go here because X".
This boils down to: I have N places to choose to live in for retirement. In choice A I am allowed to do everything I want, in choice B I am not. Why move to choice B?
That makes no sense to me. I also don't think that is an obsessive attitude.
Edit: (I clicked reply a little too soon)
I'm sorry to say, but New Zealand and Australia aren't the only safe and friendly countries in the world. I can move to many places other then there and get the same protection and standard of living (often for a cheaper price point) then in New Zealand.
>I'll agree that it does correlate with firearm related deaths since that is plainly evident in the data but those deaths are replaced with other means when firearms are taken out of the equation.
I guess that last part needs citation as I do not really buy that. Other weapons are far harder to use: knifes etc need you to come up close which means a far greater step. And also collateral damage from bad aim and bullets bouncing around make guns messy in crime. Orlando shooter with a knife would not have been news at all and all that.
And by restrictions I would not necessarely mean your rights taken away to own them but requiring you to have proper training (the heavier the arm the more years of mandatory training) and yearly psych evals. People who won't pass or refuse to take those two are the people I would not want to see with guns in the first place.
Not sure what the correlation is but here you need to pass tests like that to own a gun yearly and there is no gun crime to speak off. Replacement is hard to test; one would need to either do the reverse in the US or here to test it. Research will not give much insigh imho due to the different dynamic of the weaponry.
> I guess that last part needs citation as I do not really buy that
Did you finish reading the entire post, because I do provide sources for that? One in a academic journal and one a basic sanity check using open data from Wikipedia.
> Other weapons are far harder to use: knifes etc need you to come up close which means a far greater step
Not really as many other weapons would have given a hire kill count and damage to the surrounding to the Orlando case.
Get some drain cleaner and some other miscellaneous items and you can kill far more people then with a gun.
Again, if you remove one method for an attack, people will just shift to another.
Even in gang conflicts there are acceptable replacements: machetes and molotov cocktails.
> And by restrictions I would not necessarely mean your rights taken away to own them but requiring you to have proper training (the heavier the arm the more years of mandatory training) and yearly psych evals
How many years is necessary? Please define a number as I have not ever heard one.
In short, it makes no sense to mandate a multi-year training period because the requirements for safe operation are extremely simple.
> Not sure what the correlation is but here you need to pass tests like that to own a gun yearly and there is no gun crime to speak off
Well actually if you are in New Zealand, yes there are firearms deaths. [0]
No, just because you remove firearms from law abiding citizens, they do not go away.
> People who won't pass or refuse to take those two are the people I would not want to see with guns in the first place.
So people who think a law is stupid is someone who should not own a gun? Honestly, all of these 'training course' are asinine. Please, go to youtube and find a video of these courses (some of them have been recorded. I'm not sure if NZ is one of these videos). They teach you nothing.
The main reason I see for the courses is to charge people money and make an extra "step" to getting a firearm (or spooky scary baby killer as many people from the far-left call it).
> Research will not give much insigh imho due to the different dynamic of the weaponry.
What different dynamic of the weaponry? All of the weaponry I any many other would like to own operate on one of 3 types of actions: gas-piston, direct impingement, or blow-back.
These are the "different dynamics", outside of this you are banning looks. In my opinion that makes no sense and I break it down in this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028162
It is worth a read if you would like to see my opinion of these laws that are enacted in your country.
>It teaches responsibility, maintenance of a fragile and precision machine, puts you in control of your personal safety, and can put dinner on your plate if you're ever up for a bit of hunting.
That all goes for having a domestic dog as well and that is a lot less harmful (probably will actually help) if you ever have a psychotic episode.
So how about yesterday? That never happened if there were no guns. How can you justify that? It would not be 'replaced by other weapons' as you cannot get that close in.
> They some how manage to be more restrictive then where I currently live (New Jersey).
Considering NJ is a part of USA, that sounds a bit like saying that New Zealand manages to have higher mountains than Limburg, Netherlands (which is apparently the highest part of Netherlands with a whopping 322.7 m hill).
BTW, your link literally starts with: "About 230,000 licensed firearms owners own and use New Zealand's estimated 1.1 million firearms." That's supposed to be "nonsensical"?
> Considering NJ is a part of USA, that sounds a bit like saying that New Zealand manages to have higher mountains than Limburg, Netherlands (which is apparently the highest part of Netherlands with a whopping 322.7 m hill).
That makes no sense. I don't understand this comparison.
I'm saying this because if I am going to move some place there needs to be a beneficial trade in outside factors that will make my life better. Moving to some place that will restrict me more will make my life worse. Therefor I will not move to such a place.
Even given this, I can still acknowledge things I would like to have in my living situation (cheap homes and land).
I don't see what you object to here.
> BTW, your link literally starts with: "About 230,000 licensed firearms owners own and use New Zealand's estimated 1.1 million firearms." That's supposed to be "nonsensical"?
It's not the amount of firearms that are important to me, it's the type.
Quantity != quality.
If there was a place with no firearms regulations and 0 firearms owned by the public, I'd not mind moving there! I'd buy the guns I want since there are no regulations.
The volume of guns owned isn't important at all. It's important instead to have freedom to buy guns I want to own with features that please me.
"The volume of guns owned isn't important at all. It's important instead to have freedom to buy guns I want to own with features that please me."
See, you want to have the freedom to buy whichever guns you want. I want the freedom to not have to live with people like you. "Features that please you" is a matter of novelty. Not being surrounded by nutters with guns is a matter of personal safety. I find the latter more important. Stay in NJ.
I don't understand what it is you like about Australia and NZ if it's not the high standard of living and society created by laws. These would not be comfortable places to live without them. If it's scenery or beaches you want maybe head to Vanuatu or something? You're just not really making sense. What is it about Australia you like over the US if not the society?
> I don't understand what it is you like about Australia and NZ if it's not the high standard of living and society created by laws.
Well these are the things I like about your country and your neighboring country.
- In NZ and Australia you get on average more sun coverage per year. This is good for energy costs as I like to use solar.
- The people there speak English, so it is an easy place to move.
- Land is cheap in NZ
- The currency conversion is in my favor
- Not many people live outside of Auckland (in Australia) and NZ has only a few densely populated areas. I'd not live there so people won't have easy access to bother me.
Those are my reasons for considering to move there. I don't see how they "don't make sense".
The laws are the only thing from stopping me from moving there.
> What is it about Australia you like over the US if not the society?
To answer that specifically, it's the ability to easily live outside of your or any society while not living in a place that is completely "lawless"
> Not many people live outside of Auckland (in Australia) and NZ has only a few densely populated areas.
Auckland is in New Zealand.
> The land is cheap
Sure, in the wops. Anywhere near a city is very expensive. I'd say on average land and housing (building materials especially) is far cheaper in the US.
Fair enough. But if you want sun, America has plenty of it; there's tropical Florida, mediterranean California, desert Arizona and cold yet sunny Colorado. If you buy a ranch somewhere in Montana or a piece of land in Appalachia, you can pretty much disappear from the radar and won't be bothered much by the government.
You mention Florida, California, Arizona, and Colorado.
The only two acceptable places from that list (that don't have absolutely loony laws in my opinion) are Florida and Arizona.
California is one of the worst places in the world for firearms ownership. Colorado has those silly magazine capacity bans.
For anything remote with a decent amount of land (~5 acre) you'll easily pay >50k in Arizona. You won't find of anything like that in Florida.
So that leaves Arizona and unfortunately I'd rather not cook while sitting on a tar road. It's just crazy hot.
I'd much rather look into a place like Alaska (which is currently the most obvious place for me to look into moving). That's my current "plan" for when I'm finally going to retire.....
First things first, I'm going to try and get through college!
But in general, yes I already know of a great in United States place to go: Alaska. That being said all of my life training up from now has told me something about planning. Being in an "engineering" field I live by "one is none, two is one" and not having a backup plan for if something goes wrong with (all of) Alaska... it just seems wrong to me.
That's why I wish that there were more places like that. I feel really sick to the core without a fallback.
The thing is there's no real need for self defence to that degree in New Zealand. You can carry pepper spray and you'll be more armed than anyone trying to attack you.
I understand people from the US feel they have the right for protection/whatever, but if you're unwilling to trade that "freedom" for everything else the country has to offer.. I think you need to review your priorities.
If you're a hobbyist you can join a club and apply for permits for various forms of firearm. We do obviously restrict some forms from civilians as they're deemed to dangerous for those who don't use them in their line of work (ie military, NZ's version of "SWAT") - just as you'd limit people from performing surgery or practicing law without a license.
> The thing is there's no real need for self defence to that degree in New Zealand
So you would say that if someone is in your house and taking your things when you come home, you'd not try and stop them? You'd call and wait for police to arrive rather then going in at that instant and stop them?
That makes no sense to me.
> if you're unwilling to trade that "freedom" for everything else the country has to offer
Every country is essentially the same. Sure there is different food, different people, and different views there are essentially a few basic things that exist in any country I'd consider living in: Some sort of currency, some sort of government, and some sort of community formation (shops, bars, people).
I can get that from almost any major country whether it be New Zealand or the United States. Why would I go to New Zealand if I loose some privileges that already have here?
Is part of your priority to restrict your own freedom for no tangible gain? If so, I think you need to evaluate your priorities once more.
Really, what does NZ do that is horribly different from the US (beside telecom monopolies being worse and everything being far more expensive over in the land down under ;))?
Both countries have their problems and their benefits and their detraction from my quality of life, but I loose something that provides myself with action-ability on my own safety.
> If you're a hobbyist you can join a club and apply for permits for various forms of firearm
Ah yes! The "not currently used by military" rule as well as quite a few other restrictions.
These restrictions on ownership make no sense. I can fully understand not wanting automatic firearms within a country. I get it, I'd be fine with that. But please, point out the difference to me between banned and unbanned guns in NZ?
This is what qualifies a gun to be classified as being a "military style firearm"
- A folding or telescopic butt
- A bayonet lug
- A military pattern free-standing pistol grip
- A flash suppressor
- A magazine that holds more than 7 rounds (magazines holding a maximum of 10 rounds may be modified internally to hold only 7 as per legislation) excepting rimfire, where the limit is 15 rounds per magazine.
- A detachable magazine that appears to hold more than 10 rounds (excepting rimfire; 15 rounds).
So let me boil down my complains with these into their own sections.
- A folding or telescopic butt
With this you are only banning comfort and ease of storage. I cannot fathom how in the world this helps anyone.
- A bayonet lug
So this bans archaic technology? You are banning attaching a knife to a very long stick? How in the hell does this make a gun a "military style rifle"? Are we back in the middle age where militarizes fight with joust? If so, where do I enlist, that sounds cool!?
This basically bans one of my more favorite rifles, the SKS [0]...... a 71 year old rifle.... that has become classified as a "military firearm".
- A military pattern free-standing pistol grip
You are again banning comfort. There is no benefit to peoples safety from this. Here is an example of how people get around a similar regulation in New York. [1]
The top constitutes a spooky and evil rifle who's only purpose is to kill while the other one is fine! That makes no sense! They are the exact same gun, except one has a protruding pistol grip and the other doesn't.
- A flash suppressor
This is a "flash suppressor" [2]. It is used to make it easier for the operator of a firearm to see after shooting. It is very useful in rifles who's cartridge is backed by a lot powder (.223, 5.56, etc). This is because there is a large flash at the muzzle. This is mitigated by this. It does not remove the report of the flash, just makes it less annoying.
> So you would say that if someone is in your house and taking your things when you come home, you'd not try and stop them? You'd call and wait for police to arrive rather then going in at that instant and stop them?
> That makes no sense to me.
I think this is the crux of the issue. If they attack me, I agree physically defending myself is obviously an option.
But why instigate violence against someone who isn't assaulting, or attempting to assault you?
Why not call and wait for the police, or follow them as they escape whilst on the phone to police, rather than physically putting your life and safety at risk? For what? Objects and possessions of economic value?
> Really, what does NZ do that is horribly different from the US (beside telecom monopolies being worse and everything being far more expensive over in the land down under ;))?
We had telco monopolies.. In the 90's. The government broke them up. We have fibre in 30% of our main city centres and we're aiming for 80% of NZ households by 2022.
Mobile data, calling and SMS is very cheap in comparison to the US. We aren't locked into contracts like you are. In fact, all major telcos offer far cheaper prepaid plans in comparison plans to any US carrier I've seen.
Our internet is on average better than the US except in parts of Silicon Valley, where Google fibre rollouts are already in place and some major city centres. However that's changing very rapidly with fibre rollouts and 4G mobile data plans lowering each quarter.
Then I could go on about our excellent healthcare, welfare and social systems, the fact this is the easiest country in the world to start a business and support yourself/family due to small-business friendly laws and economic concessions..
Maybe I've been drinking too much of the American left-wing kool-aid, but in a country where children die because parents don't have health insurance, mass-shootings happen several times a year, and homelessness is a massive problem.. I just don't believe your people are more "free".
> That is a horrible analogy. Owning a firearm is nothing like brain surgery and you can 'practice' law without having a law degree (I am using practice loosely here).
> You don't really need years of training to handle a firearm, you just need a little bit of practice and some good supervision. Nothing special. It's what you'd find any any decent firearms range.
.. It might just be me, but I think operating a weapon or machine that has the ability to maim, kill and disable other people should require a significant amount of time invested and reviewed before they're able to do so on their own.
Licensing makes sense. It does for cars, it does for trucks, it does for heavy machinery. All of these things have one thing in common. You could potentially hurt other people very easily, if you're not trained. However I don't see us coming to any sort of agreement on this given the length, detail and tone of your response.
We're not taking away, we're simply saying prove that you're not going to be an idiot.
Also I think you're confusing New Zealand with Australia for all of your points. Their internet sucks, their political climate is far more right.
You're right about things being expensive here, but maybe it's something to do with the things that matter being free (housing, healthcare) that makes New Zealand one of the happiest places to live in the world? And probably the happiest place to live that doesn't have oil money.
> I think this is the crux of the issue. If they attack me, I agree physically defending myself is obviously an option.
That's again the problem. Intent to self defend isn't protected in New Zealand or Australia. You could in fact go to jail if the court can prove you intended to do this.
That is unacceptable to me.
> We had telco monopolies [...] Also I think you're confusing New Zealand with Australia for all of your points. Their internet sucks, their political climate is far more right.
This was more of a small joke, not the content of my argument.
> It might just be me, but I think operating a weapon or machine that has the ability to maim, kill and disable other people should require a significant amount of time invested and reviewed before they're able to do so on their own.
You mean cars? Cars here only require ~6hr of practice to obtain. More people are killed by cars then guns in the US and I'm assuming in Aus and NZ.
Is 6hr needed to obtain a gun? How many hours? What kind of training? I am a very responsible gun owner. I do comply with all municipal, state, and federal regulations. I can easily say that I can get any person to my position in under 1hr.
Define a time, otherwise your point is very much invalid as it is open to shifting of your goal post.
It is not very difficult:
- Don't point it at anything you don't want to destroy.
- Don't leave your finger on the trigger.
- Don't load your firearm until you are in a position to fire.
You also need to prove that there is a decrease in crime or accidents for this law to be necessary otherwise I would not support this.
> We're not taking away, we're simply saying prove that you're not going to be an idiot
I don't think that there has been a single place where that has held true for very long. Even recently in CA, they recently passed a confiscation bill for previously grandfathered & registered magazines.
Confiscation is, in the mind of all the gun owners, the next step after any form of registration.
> Licensing makes sense.
I personally have absolutely no problem with this. It's the specific laws, not the idea of some form of licensing. I'll definitely be able to pass any licensing requirements.
I'm mentally healthy, I'm only interested in sport and self defense, and I have absolutly no background of criminal activity.
> but maybe it's something to do with the things that matter being free (housing, healthcare) that makes New Zealand one of the happiest places to live in the world? And probably the happiest place to live that doesn't have oil money.
I thoroughly hope that I will not need to rely on these systems for retirement. I want to be self sufficient. I think that's a good goal in life. So no, health care and subsidized housing won't make me personally happy so it is in fact irrelevant to me.
I don't really care that your country has socialized a large portion of public needs because I will likely still rather rely in privatized means of maintaining my heath and home.
Also, "other people are happy with this" isn't a really good argument. I'm not going to move to some place to make other people happy, I'm going to move to a place that will make me happy. The fact of the matter is that not having guns will make me very unhappy.
My issue is with banning the look and feel of rifles instead actually banning things that matter. I also dislike the assumption that these frivolousness bans actually help anything.
I'd like to counter your "side"'s statement that "gun laws make us safer because they protect us from firearms crimes" with saying the Patriot Act in America "makes us safer because it protects us from terrorist crimes".
I'd say that both are antithetical to the freedoms I desire and that these laws don't really do anything other then make us feel good.
> You could in fact go to jail if the court can prove you intended to do this.
> That is unacceptable to me.
Sure, the last time that happened a guy stabbed a 14 year old to death for spray painting his wall. The guy was sent to prison. Our laws and justice system is very lenient for mistakes, but if you panic and kill someone because you're scared - the situation has to be VERY bad for you to get off lightly. "Life" is 10-15 years (unless you're deemed unfit to go back into society).
> I don't really care that your country has socialized a large portion of public needs because I will likely still rather rely in privatized means of maintaining my heath and home.
I think you're looking for the word "nationalize", rather than "socialize".
This is a good example of explaining the differences[0]:
> A nationalized hospital, for example, will set its budget, its policies, and the way that it operates according to a plan set nationally, usually by a congress of representatives from many different regions. A socialized hospital, however, will organize itself according to the ideas and principles decided upon by those who work there. In one case, it is the nation that obtains the industry, controlled by governors, and in the other case, it is the people that obtain the industry, controlled by the workers.
Good, that's the idea. They're fall-back options which the majority of the country use. Cut your arm open doing some DIY at home? Save yourself a $2000 excess and goto the ER.
> Also, "other people are happy with this" isn't a really good argument.
That's not the argument. The argument that people on average are very happy here.
> I'd like to counter your "side"'s statement that "gun laws make us safer because they protect us from firearms crimes" with saying the Patriot Act in America "makes us safer because it protects us from terrorist crimes".
I'm a fan of guns myself. I regularly hunt, hold a license with P endorsements (pistols, though you don't hunt with them hopefully), however an E is available to use MSSA's and shotguns. But not being able to fire RPG's and AK47's isn't the end of the world to me, and I find it very strange that that is a make-or-break decision for you.
> the situation has to be VERY bad for you to get off lightly.
The problem is that self-defense is not explicitly protected. Feasably if someone pulls a knife on me in my home, I manage to get a gun and shoot them (assuming I've managed to tackle the 500 locks the NZ Police mandate you have on them), and shoot back I feasibly be sent to jail. I personally don't like that.
> I think you're looking for the word "nationalize", rather than "socialize".
I think the root of the problem is the different connotations of the words from your country to mine. When medicine is "socialized" to me it means that it is funded by public funds.
> Save yourself a $2000 excess and goto the ER.
What if instead of a nasty gash I need a surgery that is not covered by your health care? I still need to pay the hefty fee. I'd rather just go with a private insurance company like I always have here in the States.
I've always gotten great care from my parents plans and from plans I've gotten through the college I'm attending.
> The argument that people on average are very happy here.
Well I can say that about almost anything. The problem is that you have not proven direct correlation between these two statistics.
I could also say that Switzerland has high gun ownership and people there are happy! But I would be being disingenuous about this. It is not because of the gun ownership, it is a combination of many factors. All of which I cannot specifically exclude or attribute this characteristic to.
RPGs and AKs are very different. A semi automatic AK is almost completely identical in mechanical operation to a M1 Garand (or better yet the M1A1 carbine). The only reason why I'd assume you are ok with one and not ok with the other is the look of the rifle. Functionally they are the same.
It is stupid to ban something's looks. Ban, or make it extremely difficult to obtain, functionality that makes sense to regulate such as full auto.
For example: ban the use of nitrus tanks in cars, don't ban hotwheel flame stickers. One makes something very fast and the other just makes something look like it moves fast.
It is smart to regulate one, and it stupid to regulate the other.
> tackle the 500 locks the NZ Police mandate you have on them
... Really? It's one lock and they make you bolt it to the floor so people can't just pick up the safe and go. You can get them for <$200.
> and shoot back I feasibly be sent to jail. I personally don't like that.
.. But you wouldn't. Because he was brandishing a knife.
> What if instead of a nasty gash I need a surgery that is not covered by your health care
It covers anything that hinders your livelihood. We fly people to other countries for experimental cancer treatments and to Australia that we don't have an available specialist to perform.
Our tax, if you're earning 100K is almost the same as yours. 33%. And we include all the healthcare and social assistance programs that comes with it. You pay what, 28% on federal income and 6-7% on state (for New Jersey)? In fact for 100K ours is less, and if you're earning a lot more - 33% is our TOP tax bracket.
In regards to your other post which I read:
> an unarmed populous is a completely ruled populous since the people have given up all hope of being in control of their own safety and government's actions.
Or the populace feels they have evolved past the point where physical violence is required for their own safety and government control. We don't believe we'll need to physically harm or protect ourselves from the government.
New Zealand is a very small country.
You know the saying that the world is 6 degrees separation from each other, ie you know someone who knows someone.. .. who knows someone who knows Obama. In New Zealand it's 2 degrees. For example; I know someone, who knows my prime minister. I actually know a few people who know him. Because of this I think, a lot of the population here feel a lot of politicians and people in power - no matter how out of touch with reality at times we believe they are, are somewhat still down to earth and will look after our self interests. And if we stop believing that, we vote them out of office (a bit like Australia does every so often).
I agree with you on banning based on the "looks" of a firearm. And I agree that there are a lot of people who could responsibly own any gun. There's also a lot of people who could responsibly own nuclear materials, butterfly knives and high powered lasers. And you can own those things.. With proper reason and licensing and registration to do so.
But you're focusing on such a small part of life. You're deciding a country isn't suitable for you because a certain firearm is prohibited in that country.
To me, that's nuts. And I can't even begin to see from your point of view. Even if it's about "the principle".
I'd love to chat with you over a beer. We've got such opposing views and I don't think either of us can see why the other thinks the way we do.
> ... Really? It's one lock and they make you bolt it to the floor so people can't just pick up the safe and go. You can get them for <$200.
It was more of a joke. I personally keep more locks on my firearms then would be mandated by the NZ Police. (One in the action, on on my ammo container, and one on the room storing them)
> .. But you wouldn't. Because he was brandishing a knife.
> It covers anything that hinders your livelihood. We fly people to other countries for experimental cancer treatments and to Australia that we don't have an available specialist to perform.
I have to say, you do have me on those two accounts.
> Or the populace feels they have evolved past the point where physical violence is required for their own safety and government control. We don't believe we'll need to physically harm or protect ourselves from the government.
I don't feel that firearms being regulated is evolution in the right direction. What I feel is evolution in the right direction is evidently your social programs. That represents one of the things I'd call "the right evolution". I feel that you could create a country just as safe, if not safer, if you had all of the social programs of your country with most of the firearms laws remove.
> I agree with you on banning based on the "looks" of a firearm. And I agree that there are a lot of people who could responsibly own any gun. There's also a lot of people who could responsibly own nuclear materials, butterfly knives and high powered lasers. And you can own those things.. With proper reason and licensing and registration to do so.
From what I understand is that you are focusing on the licensing side of things. Again, I can pass any licensing criteria needed (no criminal history, no mental health background, I am interested in this as a profession and as a hobby). I also have absolutely no problem with licensing on ownership and background checks. What I do have a problem with is their implementation.
My idea scenario:
- Join a club and go through their mandatory safety course (every range has one of these in the States) (Usually free)
- Log 1hr with rifles and 1hr with pistols at a range while being supervised by the RSO (must have a sign off by the RSO). (~160 USD)
- Get printed by the police and have them run a background check (~100 USD)
- Wait for check to clear (current system takes anywhere from 1 minute to 1 week from personal experience)
- If you come up clean, get a modified drivers license that says "certified for firearms purchasing and ownership" (5 USD for DMV to print a new ID)
As long as you have that card, you should be able to engage in the purchasing of firearms in my opinion. But, here in lies the problem. In almost every state in the US this is not possible! You cannot go to a range and shoot their rifles without first having a firearms purchaser ID.
In my mind, why would I go to the range for training with their guns when I can just buy my own! And bam! Now I'm not a safe firearms owner and instead I am a statistic for Aggregate Negligent Discharges.
I am fine, 100% with needing licensing and printing, and proper safes for firearms ownership. I will never make an argument against that because (and this is the crux of the issue) that makes complete sense! I agree with those practices as those save lives! So yes I am fine with gun laws as long as I can own rifles that look "scary" yet function identically to any other firearm that you are allowed to own.
> But you're focusing on such a small part of life. You're deciding a country isn't suitable for you because a certain firearm is prohibited in that country.
It is very small. A very very small point in life. But it is relaxing, enjoyable, and one of my many many hobbies I hold close to myself. (Along side software engineering, alcohol brewing, hiking, gaming, debate, and soon electrical engineering and design).
Yes, that is basically the only place I have been considering. I do like the cold, the people seem nice, and it has a small population.
Very easy and simple legal code from what I've been reading on line.
This even extends to the (usually atrocious) zoning laws. Most zoning practices were established during the westward expansionist period and were very restrictive when put in place. From what I've been reading it was intended to "organize" the development of towns but it seems to have just mucked up everything.
Try the Sahara desert. Inhospitable places all across the world meet your criteria. Oh wait, you want a place that's nice to live and has civilization nearby so you can buy food but yet somehow people haven't discovered it yet. Sorry to tell you but we've mapped the entire planet. All the good spots are known. If there are any places that meet your criteria you can be sure that they are staying that way because people know not to ruin a good thing.
I don't understand the hostility of your post but I do feel like there are some places where I can have the best of both worlds.
The Ukraine (after this war dies down) or the Czech Republic will loosely fit the bill and they both come with the bonus of having similar food that I grew up with due to my Russian background.
Places like Alaska fit better on a legal level and are still in the country I grew up in: the USA.
92 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 60.0 ms ] threadLike that story about buying an entire town in a radio-silent zone somewhere in the USA. The land was cheap, but the catch was that maintaining it cost north of a million dollars or so.
There sure are a lot of sandflies with little red eyes that bite during the day.
I know that sounds like a mega moan, just something to beware of.
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/sandflies-and-mosquitoes/page-1
Also I have never seen a sand fly with red eyes...
But you don't need to immigrate to New Zealand for this - you can find the same deal in the USA.
But there are thousands of small towns just like it across the world, so it's not clear why you'd pick this particular one based only on this plea from the town for more local workers.
If cost of living is important to you and you're ok in a country where English is not the native language, you can certainly find areas with much lower cost of living (while still having good internet access)
There are lots of places in rural (and not so rural) America where you can get a house+land for $165K.
Here's an article that mentions the earlier misleading headlines:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/02/new-zealand-town-we-have-lots...
"There is currently a story that has been published by overseas media that we are paying people $160,000 to move to Kaitangata and people should ring the Mayor about it. This is NOT TRUE," a statement on the town's website read.
I think the best way to interpret the article is to realize that there are many places where people no longer wish to live after several generations and the cities lure with their - presumably - higher incomes and easier access to 'life'. So you get this kind of cycle, where people move out of some rural spot and then need to be replaced by others that have grown tired of life in the fast lane.
I've made this switch myself several times and it is always interesting to see which parts you miss the most of what you left behind.
Official statement linked in the cnbc article.
Now that the UK has voted to leave the EU, that pretty much makes my mind up for me - I'll be leaving the UK, and NZ is a serious option.
Are there any kiwis in here who can offer some advice for devs considering moving there? Locations to consider? What to expect in terms of wages, cost of living? What is the dev labour market like (e.g. full time gigs or contracts)?
In my case, I'm a web dev with Advertising/Marketing, Fashion and financial services experience - I've been developing web apps recently in React. I also dabble in Swift for fun.
Given that NZ timezone is only 3-5 hrs difference from the west coast of the US, I personally would look for remote work for a US company while living in NZ (salaries and the exchange rate would be strongly in your favor). However, if you need a visa sponsorship this wouldn't be feasible.
If you work NZ's Mon-Fri, that'll be Sun-Thu in the US. If you work the US's Mon-Fri, that'll be Tue-Sat in NZ.
Auckland is not affordable, but Wellington has higher wages and relatively affordable housing. It's still probably high by international standards (but not by the companies that we get directly compared to, namely Australia, Canada, and the UK).
Your idea of "popular" Kiwi past-times is kind of hilarious.
I'd say a significant portion of the population has never been any kind of hunting or had a hangi in the past decade.
I'd say we're very similar to Vancouver. Nature, sports, bars, mainstream media.
Auckland is much larger and warmer. Number of beaches around so the culture is more around surfing. Also quite a few nice hiking areas ~1hr drive away. I only been in Melbourne and SF for a few days, but Auckland definitely beats them in quality of life.
Xero is always seem to be hiring something. There is also a strong albeit small group of functional programmers (find via meetup.com).
Wellington isn't as windy as our reputation states. There is generally a breeze and one or two big wind events every year. But like much of North America and Europe getting snow, and much of Asia getting the monsoon, Wellington is built to handle it. Buildings are designed to provide wind breaks and even get tested in wind tunnels to make sure that they don't act as a funnel. Generally the weather is pleasant, in Summer it doesn't get above 25 too often, and in winter it's seldom below 10 in the days and 6 at night. We get a frost only a couple of times a year.
Wellington has a large inner city mountain bike park, one of the largest inland ecological islands within the city boundaries, and a much more convenient access to nature and the outdoors than probably any other city in the world.
* I've been spoiled by UK broadband speeds and NZ just doesn't compare.
* Food is more expensive, and not of the quality that I'm now used to (fresh seafood would be the exception).
* Higher tax relative to what I pay in the UK as a contractor.
* Real estate prices are now worse than in the UK
* It's an isolated country, you can't just hop on a cheap plane and find yourself in a completely different country & culture an hour or two later.
* Purchasing power is greatly limited. In the UK I can buy virtually any obscure item that I want online and get a good price, including P+P. Not so in NZ.
* There's very little variety in the job market for software developers, few 'cool' or cutting edge companies and no startup scene worth speaking of.
* Finally, cultural experiences are extremely limited. I know I'd miss all the museums, art exhibitions, theatre, concerts, comedians, ballet, opera and so forth. One of the biggest reasons that I left was because of boredom and the UK/EU certainly alleviated that.
Source: 27 years of living in NZ.
And while it can't compare to Europe access to countries like Australia, the Pacific islands, and south Asia is quick and convenient.
The startup scene in Wellington has exploded, the government funds incubators and lots of companies are fueling each other. Check out the likes of atomic or 8i
I would recommend Wellington:
* most importantly far easier to find friends (whether you have a family, or don't).
* plenty of jobs (startup jobs or government jobs or corporate jobs)
* great culture
* far less commuting (Auckland stinks)
The Catlins Coast has population 1200 with very low density. Google search returns only seasonal agricultural jobs.
I wish I knew of a place with few people, few laws, and cheap land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand
Well, it's because I like guns. Firearms are an amazing hobby. It teaches responsibility, maintenance of a fragile and precision machine, puts you in control of your personal safety, and can put dinner on your plate if you're ever up for a bit of hunting. I subscribe to a very Locke-esq philosophy of life. Where some group begins by regulating one freedom I enjoy, they will not simply stop. All governments will slowly etch away at freedoms that people have in the aim of securing more control over it's citizens (furthering the divide between the peasants and the ruling class). Firearms rights are a very good litmus test for my case since it quickly points to, in my opinion, if the population has given up their own rights to protect themselves and is ready to pack up their freedoms and hand them over to their ruling class.
In my personal opinion, an unarmed populous is a completely ruled populous since the people have given up all hope of being in control of their own safety and government's actions. They do this not even for safety but for the illusion of such.
I'd like to reverse the question to you. Rather then as "Why is that a problem instead of a perk" in relation to owning firearms, let me ask this about banning fire arms.
The facts simply don't align with the assessment that banning fire arms will positively effect anyone. Firearms ownership simply does not correlate to crime.
I'll agree that it does correlate with firearm related deaths since that is plainly evident in the data but those deaths are replaced with other means when firearms are taken out of the equation.
There are very few recent studies about this on a federal level. This is largely due to the CDC being prohibited from researching firearms related topics.
The 'best' source I have found was a source from '07. [0]
An "ok" secondary "check" for this, that is by all accounts not a very good measure, is by looking at some charts wikipedia has made [1] [2]. If you go to those two pages you will see that the places with the most fire arms are seldom the most dangerous places. Now, if you change your comparison from Guns vs Intentional Homicide to % People Living Below Poverty Line vs Intentional Homicides you will see something interesting [3]. Once you have >10-20% of the people living below poverty there is a huge increase in homicides. I think if this is studied further that you will find that firearms are a single means to some crimes, not the only mean and that crime correlates to poverty, not firearms ownership.
Personally, I don't want my rights to be taken away "just because;" I want a reason for rights being revoked. The plain fact of the matter is that there does not seem to be any reason to revoke the right of firearms ownership.
[0] - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235214... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentag...
I like hunting but the almost religious passion for guns that some Americans have, I find very disturbing.
I would remove the word almost: a whole beliefsystem, usually peppered with paranoia about the state-machine oppressor is built around the them.
> please stay where you are.
I intent to do so. I never intended to move to NZ due to restrictions on things I like.
> maniacal about spreading
I never asked to spread my opinions to other countries. I have only attempted to give a fair depiction of how ineffective the restrictions on firearms ownership are.
Please read this for my exact concerns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028162
> kind of obsessive insistence on widespread gun ownership [...] that some Americans have, I find very disturbing.
(Nice you nicked the bit about it being religion before I had a go at it ;))
No I don't think I am being obsessive. I think if you read my original post you will understand better. I am saying "I don't want to go here because X".
This boils down to: I have N places to choose to live in for retirement. In choice A I am allowed to do everything I want, in choice B I am not. Why move to choice B?
That makes no sense to me. I also don't think that is an obsessive attitude.
Edit: (I clicked reply a little too soon)
I'm sorry to say, but New Zealand and Australia aren't the only safe and friendly countries in the world. I can move to many places other then there and get the same protection and standard of living (often for a cheaper price point) then in New Zealand.
I guess that last part needs citation as I do not really buy that. Other weapons are far harder to use: knifes etc need you to come up close which means a far greater step. And also collateral damage from bad aim and bullets bouncing around make guns messy in crime. Orlando shooter with a knife would not have been news at all and all that.
And by restrictions I would not necessarely mean your rights taken away to own them but requiring you to have proper training (the heavier the arm the more years of mandatory training) and yearly psych evals. People who won't pass or refuse to take those two are the people I would not want to see with guns in the first place.
Not sure what the correlation is but here you need to pass tests like that to own a gun yearly and there is no gun crime to speak off. Replacement is hard to test; one would need to either do the reverse in the US or here to test it. Research will not give much insigh imho due to the different dynamic of the weaponry.
Did you finish reading the entire post, because I do provide sources for that? One in a academic journal and one a basic sanity check using open data from Wikipedia.
> Other weapons are far harder to use: knifes etc need you to come up close which means a far greater step
Not really as many other weapons would have given a hire kill count and damage to the surrounding to the Orlando case.
Get some drain cleaner and some other miscellaneous items and you can kill far more people then with a gun.
Again, if you remove one method for an attack, people will just shift to another.
Even in gang conflicts there are acceptable replacements: machetes and molotov cocktails.
> And by restrictions I would not necessarely mean your rights taken away to own them but requiring you to have proper training (the heavier the arm the more years of mandatory training) and yearly psych evals
How many years is necessary? Please define a number as I have not ever heard one.
Please read this for a rebuttal to this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028400
In short, it makes no sense to mandate a multi-year training period because the requirements for safe operation are extremely simple.
> Not sure what the correlation is but here you need to pass tests like that to own a gun yearly and there is no gun crime to speak off
Well actually if you are in New Zealand, yes there are firearms deaths. [0]
No, just because you remove firearms from law abiding citizens, they do not go away.
> People who won't pass or refuse to take those two are the people I would not want to see with guns in the first place.
So people who think a law is stupid is someone who should not own a gun? Honestly, all of these 'training course' are asinine. Please, go to youtube and find a video of these courses (some of them have been recorded. I'm not sure if NZ is one of these videos). They teach you nothing.
The main reason I see for the courses is to charge people money and make an extra "step" to getting a firearm (or spooky scary baby killer as many people from the far-left call it).
> Research will not give much insigh imho due to the different dynamic of the weaponry.
What different dynamic of the weaponry? All of the weaponry I any many other would like to own operate on one of 3 types of actions: gas-piston, direct impingement, or blow-back.
These are the "different dynamics", outside of this you are banning looks. In my opinion that makes no sense and I break it down in this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028162
It is worth a read if you would like to see my opinion of these laws that are enacted in your country.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
That all goes for having a domestic dog as well and that is a lot less harmful (probably will actually help) if you ever have a psychotic episode.
Considering NJ is a part of USA, that sounds a bit like saying that New Zealand manages to have higher mountains than Limburg, Netherlands (which is apparently the highest part of Netherlands with a whopping 322.7 m hill).
BTW, your link literally starts with: "About 230,000 licensed firearms owners own and use New Zealand's estimated 1.1 million firearms." That's supposed to be "nonsensical"?
That makes no sense. I don't understand this comparison.
I'm saying this because if I am going to move some place there needs to be a beneficial trade in outside factors that will make my life better. Moving to some place that will restrict me more will make my life worse. Therefor I will not move to such a place.
Even given this, I can still acknowledge things I would like to have in my living situation (cheap homes and land).
I don't see what you object to here.
> BTW, your link literally starts with: "About 230,000 licensed firearms owners own and use New Zealand's estimated 1.1 million firearms." That's supposed to be "nonsensical"?
It's not the amount of firearms that are important to me, it's the type.
Quantity != quality.
If there was a place with no firearms regulations and 0 firearms owned by the public, I'd not mind moving there! I'd buy the guns I want since there are no regulations.
The volume of guns owned isn't important at all. It's important instead to have freedom to buy guns I want to own with features that please me.
See, you want to have the freedom to buy whichever guns you want. I want the freedom to not have to live with people like you. "Features that please you" is a matter of novelty. Not being surrounded by nutters with guns is a matter of personal safety. I find the latter more important. Stay in NJ.
Please read this to understand my objections: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028162
Nonsensical roughly means "having no meaning; making no sense." (from google's `define nonsensical` query)
The laws fit those criteria for me. They have no meaning in a safety context and they don't really make sense.
I would love to hear your opinions on my other post (linked in the comment you replied to).
This is my major concern. There are a lot of restrictions on self defense and fire arms that I'm just not used to from the United States.
Well these are the things I like about your country and your neighboring country.
Those are my reasons for considering to move there. I don't see how they "don't make sense".The laws are the only thing from stopping me from moving there.
> What is it about Australia you like over the US if not the society?
To answer that specifically, it's the ability to easily live outside of your or any society while not living in a place that is completely "lawless"
Auckland is in New Zealand.
> The land is cheap
Sure, in the wops. Anywhere near a city is very expensive. I'd say on average land and housing (building materials especially) is far cheaper in the US.
Well I guess it's good I'll be staying America. Gives me the right to being ignorant about geography!
> Sure, in the wops. Anywhere near a city is very expensive.
Great! I don't want to be next to a major city. Maybe a 2hr drive to a small town with a post office and a store or two.
> I'd say on average land and housing (building materials especially) is far cheaper in the US.
In some places yes, like in Alaska which is one of the main places I'm looking into moving to.
The only two acceptable places from that list (that don't have absolutely loony laws in my opinion) are Florida and Arizona.
California is one of the worst places in the world for firearms ownership. Colorado has those silly magazine capacity bans.
For anything remote with a decent amount of land (~5 acre) you'll easily pay >50k in Arizona. You won't find of anything like that in Florida.
So that leaves Arizona and unfortunately I'd rather not cook while sitting on a tar road. It's just crazy hot.
I'd much rather look into a place like Alaska (which is currently the most obvious place for me to look into moving). That's my current "plan" for when I'm finally going to retire.....
First things first, I'm going to try and get through college!
But in general, yes I already know of a great in United States place to go: Alaska. That being said all of my life training up from now has told me something about planning. Being in an "engineering" field I live by "one is none, two is one" and not having a backup plan for if something goes wrong with (all of) Alaska... it just seems wrong to me.
That's why I wish that there were more places like that. I feel really sick to the core without a fallback.
I understand people from the US feel they have the right for protection/whatever, but if you're unwilling to trade that "freedom" for everything else the country has to offer.. I think you need to review your priorities.
If you're a hobbyist you can join a club and apply for permits for various forms of firearm. We do obviously restrict some forms from civilians as they're deemed to dangerous for those who don't use them in their line of work (ie military, NZ's version of "SWAT") - just as you'd limit people from performing surgery or practicing law without a license.
So you would say that if someone is in your house and taking your things when you come home, you'd not try and stop them? You'd call and wait for police to arrive rather then going in at that instant and stop them?
That makes no sense to me.
> if you're unwilling to trade that "freedom" for everything else the country has to offer
Every country is essentially the same. Sure there is different food, different people, and different views there are essentially a few basic things that exist in any country I'd consider living in: Some sort of currency, some sort of government, and some sort of community formation (shops, bars, people).
I can get that from almost any major country whether it be New Zealand or the United States. Why would I go to New Zealand if I loose some privileges that already have here?
Is part of your priority to restrict your own freedom for no tangible gain? If so, I think you need to evaluate your priorities once more.
Really, what does NZ do that is horribly different from the US (beside telecom monopolies being worse and everything being far more expensive over in the land down under ;))?
Both countries have their problems and their benefits and their detraction from my quality of life, but I loose something that provides myself with action-ability on my own safety.
> If you're a hobbyist you can join a club and apply for permits for various forms of firearm
Ah yes! The "not currently used by military" rule as well as quite a few other restrictions.
These restrictions on ownership make no sense. I can fully understand not wanting automatic firearms within a country. I get it, I'd be fine with that. But please, point out the difference to me between banned and unbanned guns in NZ?
This is what qualifies a gun to be classified as being a "military style firearm"
So let me boil down my complains with these into their own sections. With this you are only banning comfort and ease of storage. I cannot fathom how in the world this helps anyone. So this bans archaic technology? You are banning attaching a knife to a very long stick? How in the hell does this make a gun a "military style rifle"? Are we back in the middle age where militarizes fight with joust? If so, where do I enlist, that sounds cool!?This basically bans one of my more favorite rifles, the SKS [0]...... a 71 year old rifle.... that has become classified as a "military firearm".
You are again banning comfort. There is no benefit to peoples safety from this. Here is an example of how people get around a similar regulation in New York. [1]The top constitutes a spooky and evil rifle who's only purpose is to kill while the other one is fine! That makes no sense! They are the exact same gun, except one has a protruding pistol grip and the other doesn't.
This is a "flash suppressor" [2]. It is used to make it easier for the operator of a firearm to see after shooting. It is very useful in rifles who's cartridge is backed by a lot powder (.223, 5.56, etc). This is because there is a large flash at the muzzle. This is mitigated by this. It does not remove the report of the flash, just makes it less annoying.> That makes no sense to me.
I think this is the crux of the issue. If they attack me, I agree physically defending myself is obviously an option.
But why instigate violence against someone who isn't assaulting, or attempting to assault you?
Why not call and wait for the police, or follow them as they escape whilst on the phone to police, rather than physically putting your life and safety at risk? For what? Objects and possessions of economic value?
> Really, what does NZ do that is horribly different from the US (beside telecom monopolies being worse and everything being far more expensive over in the land down under ;))?
We had telco monopolies.. In the 90's. The government broke them up. We have fibre in 30% of our main city centres and we're aiming for 80% of NZ households by 2022.
Mobile data, calling and SMS is very cheap in comparison to the US. We aren't locked into contracts like you are. In fact, all major telcos offer far cheaper prepaid plans in comparison plans to any US carrier I've seen.
Our internet is on average better than the US except in parts of Silicon Valley, where Google fibre rollouts are already in place and some major city centres. However that's changing very rapidly with fibre rollouts and 4G mobile data plans lowering each quarter.
Then I could go on about our excellent healthcare, welfare and social systems, the fact this is the easiest country in the world to start a business and support yourself/family due to small-business friendly laws and economic concessions..
Maybe I've been drinking too much of the American left-wing kool-aid, but in a country where children die because parents don't have health insurance, mass-shootings happen several times a year, and homelessness is a massive problem.. I just don't believe your people are more "free".
> That is a horrible analogy. Owning a firearm is nothing like brain surgery and you can 'practice' law without having a law degree (I am using practice loosely here).
> You don't really need years of training to handle a firearm, you just need a little bit of practice and some good supervision. Nothing special. It's what you'd find any any decent firearms range.
.. It might just be me, but I think operating a weapon or machine that has the ability to maim, kill and disable other people should require a significant amount of time invested and reviewed before they're able to do so on their own.
Licensing makes sense. It does for cars, it does for trucks, it does for heavy machinery. All of these things have one thing in common. You could potentially hurt other people very easily, if you're not trained. However I don't see us coming to any sort of agreement on this given the length, detail and tone of your response.
We're not taking away, we're simply saying prove that you're not going to be an idiot.
Also I think you're confusing New Zealand with Australia for all of your points. Their internet sucks, their political climate is far more right.
You're right about things being expensive here, but maybe it's something to do with the things that matter being free (housing, healthcare) that makes New Zealand one of the happiest places to live in the world? And probably the happiest place to live that doesn't have oil money.
That's again the problem. Intent to self defend isn't protected in New Zealand or Australia. You could in fact go to jail if the court can prove you intended to do this.
That is unacceptable to me.
> We had telco monopolies [...] Also I think you're confusing New Zealand with Australia for all of your points. Their internet sucks, their political climate is far more right.
This was more of a small joke, not the content of my argument.
> It might just be me, but I think operating a weapon or machine that has the ability to maim, kill and disable other people should require a significant amount of time invested and reviewed before they're able to do so on their own.
You mean cars? Cars here only require ~6hr of practice to obtain. More people are killed by cars then guns in the US and I'm assuming in Aus and NZ.
Is 6hr needed to obtain a gun? How many hours? What kind of training? I am a very responsible gun owner. I do comply with all municipal, state, and federal regulations. I can easily say that I can get any person to my position in under 1hr.
Define a time, otherwise your point is very much invalid as it is open to shifting of your goal post.
It is not very difficult:
You also need to prove that there is a decrease in crime or accidents for this law to be necessary otherwise I would not support this.> We're not taking away, we're simply saying prove that you're not going to be an idiot
I don't think that there has been a single place where that has held true for very long. Even recently in CA, they recently passed a confiscation bill for previously grandfathered & registered magazines.
Confiscation is, in the mind of all the gun owners, the next step after any form of registration.
> Licensing makes sense.
I personally have absolutely no problem with this. It's the specific laws, not the idea of some form of licensing. I'll definitely be able to pass any licensing requirements.
I'm mentally healthy, I'm only interested in sport and self defense, and I have absolutly no background of criminal activity.
> but maybe it's something to do with the things that matter being free (housing, healthcare) that makes New Zealand one of the happiest places to live in the world? And probably the happiest place to live that doesn't have oil money.
I thoroughly hope that I will not need to rely on these systems for retirement. I want to be self sufficient. I think that's a good goal in life. So no, health care and subsidized housing won't make me personally happy so it is in fact irrelevant to me.
I don't really care that your country has socialized a large portion of public needs because I will likely still rather rely in privatized means of maintaining my heath and home.
Also, "other people are happy with this" isn't a really good argument. I'm not going to move to some place to make other people happy, I'm going to move to a place that will make me happy. The fact of the matter is that not having guns will make me very unhappy.
My issue is with banning the look and feel of rifles instead actually banning things that matter. I also dislike the assumption that these frivolousness bans actually help anything.
I'd like to counter your "side"'s statement that "gun laws make us safer because they protect us from firearms crimes" with saying the Patriot Act in America "makes us safer because it protects us from terrorist crimes".
I'd say that both are antithetical to the freedoms I desire and that these laws don't really do anything other then make us feel good.
> That is unacceptable to me.
Sure, the last time that happened a guy stabbed a 14 year old to death for spray painting his wall. The guy was sent to prison. Our laws and justice system is very lenient for mistakes, but if you panic and kill someone because you're scared - the situation has to be VERY bad for you to get off lightly. "Life" is 10-15 years (unless you're deemed unfit to go back into society).
> I don't really care that your country has socialized a large portion of public needs because I will likely still rather rely in privatized means of maintaining my heath and home.
I think you're looking for the word "nationalize", rather than "socialize".
This is a good example of explaining the differences[0]:
> A nationalized hospital, for example, will set its budget, its policies, and the way that it operates according to a plan set nationally, usually by a congress of representatives from many different regions. A socialized hospital, however, will organize itself according to the ideas and principles decided upon by those who work there. In one case, it is the nation that obtains the industry, controlled by governors, and in the other case, it is the people that obtain the industry, controlled by the workers.
Good, that's the idea. They're fall-back options which the majority of the country use. Cut your arm open doing some DIY at home? Save yourself a $2000 excess and goto the ER.
> Also, "other people are happy with this" isn't a really good argument.
That's not the argument. The argument that people on average are very happy here.
> I'd like to counter your "side"'s statement that "gun laws make us safer because they protect us from firearms crimes" with saying the Patriot Act in America "makes us safer because it protects us from terrorist crimes".
I'd like to point you to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
I'm a fan of guns myself. I regularly hunt, hold a license with P endorsements (pistols, though you don't hunt with them hopefully), however an E is available to use MSSA's and shotguns. But not being able to fire RPG's and AK47's isn't the end of the world to me, and I find it very strange that that is a make-or-break decision for you.
[0]: http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/nationalize_the_economy_o...
The problem is that self-defense is not explicitly protected. Feasably if someone pulls a knife on me in my home, I manage to get a gun and shoot them (assuming I've managed to tackle the 500 locks the NZ Police mandate you have on them), and shoot back I feasibly be sent to jail. I personally don't like that.
> I think you're looking for the word "nationalize", rather than "socialize".
I think the root of the problem is the different connotations of the words from your country to mine. When medicine is "socialized" to me it means that it is funded by public funds.
> Save yourself a $2000 excess and goto the ER.
What if instead of a nasty gash I need a surgery that is not covered by your health care? I still need to pay the hefty fee. I'd rather just go with a private insurance company like I always have here in the States.
I've always gotten great care from my parents plans and from plans I've gotten through the college I'm attending.
> The argument that people on average are very happy here.
Well I can say that about almost anything. The problem is that you have not proven direct correlation between these two statistics.
I could also say that Switzerland has high gun ownership and people there are happy! But I would be being disingenuous about this. It is not because of the gun ownership, it is a combination of many factors. All of which I cannot specifically exclude or attribute this characteristic to.
> I'd like to point you to:
I would very much like it if you could read through my post here so we can discuss this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028025
> But not being able to fire RPG's and AK47's
RPGs and AKs are very different. A semi automatic AK is almost completely identical in mechanical operation to a M1 Garand (or better yet the M1A1 carbine). The only reason why I'd assume you are ok with one and not ok with the other is the look of the rifle. Functionally they are the same.
It is stupid to ban something's looks. Ban, or make it extremely difficult to obtain, functionality that makes sense to regulate such as full auto.
For example: ban the use of nitrus tanks in cars, don't ban hotwheel flame stickers. One makes something very fast and the other just makes something look like it moves fast.
It is smart to regulate one, and it stupid to regulate the other.
... Really? It's one lock and they make you bolt it to the floor so people can't just pick up the safe and go. You can get them for <$200.
> and shoot back I feasibly be sent to jail. I personally don't like that.
.. But you wouldn't. Because he was brandishing a knife.
> What if instead of a nasty gash I need a surgery that is not covered by your health care
It covers anything that hinders your livelihood. We fly people to other countries for experimental cancer treatments and to Australia that we don't have an available specialist to perform.
Our tax, if you're earning 100K is almost the same as yours. 33%. And we include all the healthcare and social assistance programs that comes with it. You pay what, 28% on federal income and 6-7% on state (for New Jersey)? In fact for 100K ours is less, and if you're earning a lot more - 33% is our TOP tax bracket.
In regards to your other post which I read:
> an unarmed populous is a completely ruled populous since the people have given up all hope of being in control of their own safety and government's actions.
Or the populace feels they have evolved past the point where physical violence is required for their own safety and government control. We don't believe we'll need to physically harm or protect ourselves from the government.
New Zealand is a very small country.
You know the saying that the world is 6 degrees separation from each other, ie you know someone who knows someone.. .. who knows someone who knows Obama. In New Zealand it's 2 degrees. For example; I know someone, who knows my prime minister. I actually know a few people who know him. Because of this I think, a lot of the population here feel a lot of politicians and people in power - no matter how out of touch with reality at times we believe they are, are somewhat still down to earth and will look after our self interests. And if we stop believing that, we vote them out of office (a bit like Australia does every so often).
I agree with you on banning based on the "looks" of a firearm. And I agree that there are a lot of people who could responsibly own any gun. There's also a lot of people who could responsibly own nuclear materials, butterfly knives and high powered lasers. And you can own those things.. With proper reason and licensing and registration to do so.
But you're focusing on such a small part of life. You're deciding a country isn't suitable for you because a certain firearm is prohibited in that country.
To me, that's nuts. And I can't even begin to see from your point of view. Even if it's about "the principle".
I'd love to chat with you over a beer. We've got such opposing views and I don't think either of us can see why the other thinks the way we do.
It was more of a joke. I personally keep more locks on my firearms then would be mandated by the NZ Police. (One in the action, on on my ammo container, and one on the room storing them)
> .. But you wouldn't. Because he was brandishing a knife.
> It covers anything that hinders your livelihood. We fly people to other countries for experimental cancer treatments and to Australia that we don't have an available specialist to perform.
I have to say, you do have me on those two accounts.
> Or the populace feels they have evolved past the point where physical violence is required for their own safety and government control. We don't believe we'll need to physically harm or protect ourselves from the government.
I don't feel that firearms being regulated is evolution in the right direction. What I feel is evolution in the right direction is evidently your social programs. That represents one of the things I'd call "the right evolution". I feel that you could create a country just as safe, if not safer, if you had all of the social programs of your country with most of the firearms laws remove.
> I agree with you on banning based on the "looks" of a firearm. And I agree that there are a lot of people who could responsibly own any gun. There's also a lot of people who could responsibly own nuclear materials, butterfly knives and high powered lasers. And you can own those things.. With proper reason and licensing and registration to do so.
From what I understand is that you are focusing on the licensing side of things. Again, I can pass any licensing criteria needed (no criminal history, no mental health background, I am interested in this as a profession and as a hobby). I also have absolutely no problem with licensing on ownership and background checks. What I do have a problem with is their implementation.
My idea scenario:
As long as you have that card, you should be able to engage in the purchasing of firearms in my opinion. But, here in lies the problem. In almost every state in the US this is not possible! You cannot go to a range and shoot their rifles without first having a firearms purchaser ID.In my mind, why would I go to the range for training with their guns when I can just buy my own! And bam! Now I'm not a safe firearms owner and instead I am a statistic for Aggregate Negligent Discharges.
I am fine, 100% with needing licensing and printing, and proper safes for firearms ownership. I will never make an argument against that because (and this is the crux of the issue) that makes complete sense! I agree with those practices as those save lives! So yes I am fine with gun laws as long as I can own rifles that look "scary" yet function identically to any other firearm that you are allowed to own.
> But you're focusing on such a small part of life. You're deciding a country isn't suitable for you because a certain firearm is prohibited in that country.
It is very small. A very very small point in life. But it is relaxing, enjoyable, and one of my many many hobbies I hold close to myself. (Along side software engineering, alcohol brewing, hiking, gaming, debate, and soon electrical engineering and design).
If any o...
Very easy and simple legal code from what I've been reading on line.
This even extends to the (usually atrocious) zoning laws. Most zoning practices were established during the westward expansionist period and were very restrictive when put in place. From what I've been reading it was intended to "organize" the development of towns but it seems to have just mucked up everything.
The Ukraine (after this war dies down) or the Czech Republic will loosely fit the bill and they both come with the bonus of having similar food that I grew up with due to my Russian background.
Places like Alaska fit better on a legal level and are still in the country I grew up in: the USA.