> 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.

  - 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).

While some say this protects people, I'd say that is not the case. I can reload fairly quickly (we aren't using revolves any more Toto). There is also no proof that magazine bans lower crimes in any way. Again, this is just annoying and there is absolutely no evidence that this helps anything.

There is also a side effect of these laws that is just the icing on the cake for me. If you live in a place that enforces mag-cap laws, you need to buy capped magazines. This might not sound like a big problem but this can in many cases double the cost of magazines! All at no real benefit to society.

> just as you'd limit people from performing surgery or practicing law without a license

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.

In short, if you want to take things away from civilians, at least have a good reason to.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS [1] - http://i.imgur.com/2fyop0q.jpg [2] - http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/343...