Before the Christchurch shooting, New Zealand didn’t have the most awful gun control laws in the world. They weren’t great by our standards, but they were better than a lot of other places.

Then the massacre happened and the country went berserk trying to restrict guns.

It’s an unfortunate fact that some people will try to capitalize on any tragedy to get the stuff they wanted all along, and the aftermath of Christchurch was no different.

So imagine my surprise when I came across a piece arguing that New Zealand could learn a great deal about gun control from the United States. My first thought was that “repeal almost everything” would be a solid take, but none of us are that lucky.

Instead, we got something different.

Of course, there are fundamental differences between the US and New Zealand when it comes to the regulation of firearms. For Americans, the possession of guns is a right. For New Zealanders, it is a privilege. This has resulted in very different approaches to regulation, with the US undoubtedly more liberal – for which it pays a heavy price.

But it would also be wrong to assume New Zealand has nothing to learn from the US. Paradoxically, a more liberal approach to firearms ownership can produce tighter specific laws and regulations as a result.

There are four areas where New Zealand might learn from this as the government seeks to rewrite the Arms Act.

Some crimes should not be forgotten

The Americans take the position that anyone convicted of a crime punishable for a prison term exceeding one year (a “felony”) forfeits their right to possess a firearm.

Unless that right is restored, typically by petition or pardon (agreeing the person is no longer a risk), there is a strong presumption this is a permanent ban. Supplementary state prohibitions ensure this law is generally enforced properly, keeping convicted criminals away from firearms.

(Even Donald Trump fell foul of this law because of his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records during the 2016 presidential election.)

In New Zealand, the list of legal and other reasons to deny a firearms licence is growing. But such disqualifications typically only extend back ten years from the application date, and are not indefinite.

Yeah, that’s hardly a heartwarming start. I happen to think New Zealand has a better approach. If someone has kept their nose clean that long, why not have a default restoration of gun rights?

Other areas the author thinks New Zealand could learn from us are in taking straw buys seriously–New Zealand only has a max sentence of three years as opposed to US sentencing guidelines that are five times longer–minimum metal requirements in homemade firearms, and mandatory reporting of gunshot injuries.

Of course, the minimum metal requirement won’t actually stop a criminal from making a gun with no metal if the materials they used were strong enough to not require it. That’s a stupid law on every level.

The takeaway here is that no matter what gun control laws are on the books, there will always be an effort to pass more, especially when those previous ones don’t work.

Honestly, New Zealand could learn a lot of lessons from the United States on guns.

None of what she listed here are among them, though.