Gunning for McKee

What's really behind the incessant Nicole McKee hatred?

Political scientist Bryce Edwards is someone I respect for his level-headedness but his recent article on Nicole McKee needs to be fact-checked, and fact-checked hard. If you haven’t seen it here it is: https://substack.com/@democracyproject/p-149335230

I mean, I get if you’ve only got access to journalism that is overwhelming negative - and clearly that’s the case here when you read who his key sources are - then this is the result. But it’s lazy. And far too trusting.

The headline alone tells you exactly what angle Edwards is coming from, and it gets steadily worse from there. He starts precisely where the NZ Police Association and other combatants all have. That is, McKee is an ex-gun lobbyist and they say that’s a clear conflict of interest.

Frankly, on the issues facing legal firearm owners, I’m perplexed by this shallow line of attack. I want a politician, and they’re exceedingly rare, who thoroughly and unapologetically understands both firearms and the people who lawfully use them in a New Zealand, and often rural, context.

And said context matters and is entirely different historically and culturally from America and the rest of the world.

Never before has the disconnect between provincial and urban New Zealand been so stark than when discussing firearms. Jack Tame anybody?

Tame’s lack of knowledge around anything firearms-related while interviewing McKee on Q&A was downright embarrassing. He didn’t even know the difference between a magazine and a stock.

Edwards continues in this vein by using the lines of other commentators he clearly agrees with and hammering on about the relationship between McKee and gun lobby groups as something deeply insidious. To describe the NZ Deer Association (NZDA) simply as a “gun group” is downright dirty and shows zero understanding of why the organisation actually exists.

And sure, McKee used to be the Council of Licensed Firearm Owners (COLFO) spokesperson. So what?

He goes on to assert that “in her role as an advisor on gun control to the last National Government, she was infamously influential on Police Minister Paula Bennett, who decided not to close the loophole that the terrorist Brenton Tarrant then exploited to get access to military-style semi-automatic firearms (MSSAs) that the used to kill on 15 March 2019”.

Where’s the proof of this statement? And is this really what the contempt shown towards McKee is all about?

Even the unconcealed malice towards her from Chris Cahill, head of the NZ Police Association, has been eye-opening. He’s been extremely vocal about what he sees as being “sidelined” over consultation on pistol club regulations for example– what that has to do with his members I do not know – and is scathing of virtually everything McKee’s trying to achieve.

McKee shot back. “Mr Cahill's claims that we have been undertaking 'restricted consultation' and the Police Association has been 'deliberately excluded' demonstrate a paranoia ill-befitting of the organisation he represents.”

I couldn’t agree more.

One has to wonder about Cahill’s motivation here. Could it have something to do with the fact that the NZ Police totally and utterly failed regarding Brenton Tarrant’s ability to legally obtain the firearms used to kill in Christchurch?

Is keeping control of the narrative - and of all the guns in this country - more important than exercising anything resembling fairness towards McKee’s motives? These questions are continually unasked and therefore remain unanswered.

Edwards then goes on to use examples of communications between McKee’s office – none of which appeared remotely shocking to my eye – and firearms stakeholders. What is shocking though is the endless assertions from anti-gun lobbyists and other assorted interests that she is somehow unable to fulfil her role with anything approaching integrity.

For effect he even speculates about whether McKee will re-introduce military-style semi-automatic firearms (MSSAs) saying, “these were the lethal guns that were banned after the Christchurch mosque shootings”.

Later on he rather dramatically calls them “killing machines”. All guns are capable of that, and when having to dispatch a suffering animal on the farm, they’re heaven sent.

I’d personally rather not see MSSAs make a comeback but I won’t jump the gun. There’s a process to go through and speculation at this point is totally meaningless. Unless it’s a form of lobbying, of course.

Edwards also muses on the possibility of the firearms register going south. Every legal gun owner has real and valid concerns about the NZ Police keeping our information safe. We’re yet to be convinced that a register is any sort of meaningful answer to the illegal firearms question.

I could go on but suffice it say, the entire piece by Edwards – and every mainstream commentator so far - is basically devoted to the notion that all guns are evil, no matter the context in which they are used or the system set up to oversee both them and the users. Oh, and the NZ Police are the ONLY ones who should have access to them.

In other words, they want firearms out of the public’s hands. It doesn’t really matter whether it’s the effective and knowledgeable Nicole McKee currently running the show – although she is scarily good – or some other know-nothing schmuck. When you break it down, it’s a fight for the retention of power and control and they are trying to get ahead of it.

As a licensed firearm owner in a rural context, I know I speak for farmers and hunters when I say we feel understood and heard with McKee in charge. She is accessible, and this a good thing. We’ve sat back and watched with horror some of the moves made by the previous government – many made with no consultation (where were all the journos then?) – and wonder what the current uproar is really all about.

It is a simple case of politics. And there are two-sides to this story that unfortunately is not getting told. Why? Because like most everything these days, our illustrious media has one approved narrative and being anti-guns is currently de rigueur.

For Bryce Edwards to simply regurgitate the media’s stance on the issue of gun control was disappointing. But it’s understandable given there’s no other narrative easily accessible, and he admits he knows little about guns.

And that is no doubt true of the general urban public too. Which makes them ripe for the picking.

The push appears to be that legal, licensed firearms holders are the problem, when they’re not. Not by a long shot.