4 ms·

Post some! NZ laws are some of the least restrictive in the world, especially when it comes to business.

gravypod 10y ago
Check out my reply to `olympus`. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12027361 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12027361 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.
- cylinder 10y ago
  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?
  - gravypod 10y ago
    > 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"
    - Mandatum 10y ago
      > 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.
      - gravypod 10y ago
        > Auckland is in New Zealand 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.
    - cylinder 10y ago
      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.
      - gravypod 10y ago
        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.
- Mandatum 10y ago
  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.
  - gravypod 10y ago
    > 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS [1] - http://i.imgur.com/2fyop0q.jpg http://i.imgur.com/2fyop0q.jpg [2] - http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/343/343064.jpg http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/343...

Check out my reply to `olympus`. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12027361 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12027361 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.

cylinder 10y ago
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?
- gravypod 10y ago
  > 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"
  - Mandatum 10y ago
    > 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.
    - gravypod 10y ago
      > Auckland is in New Zealand 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.
  - cylinder 10y ago
    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.
    - gravypod 10y ago
      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.
Mandatum 10y ago
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.
- gravypod 10y ago
  > 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS [1] - http://i.imgur.com/2fyop0q.jpg http://i.imgur.com/2fyop0q.jpg [2] - http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/343/343064.jpg http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/343...