You're conflating/confusing issues. It'd be your duty to relinquish a class of vehicle responsible for mass deaths and designated a danger to the public. Not your licence.
The point wasn't what's to relinquish, the point was if there's a duty to relinquish something. Since the analogy did catch your eye, you're obviously resorting to a straw man argument here.
Indulge me while I pursue this tangent a little longer than I meant to.
Up here, environmentalists have long since been ranting against SUVs. As their arguments fell on deaf ears, a traffic accident that killed a number of pedestrians recently prompted them to add appeals to road safety to the mix. Their very motivation should suffice to cast doubts on that argument, but it's factually wrong anyway. The statistic confirms that a Smart car is just as likely to kill pedestrians as a fat-ass Land Rover.
Likewise, a bolt-action rifle isn't any less dangerous compared to a semi – particularly not in the hands of someone who bothered
training. People are always like: Why does the military not use bolt-action rifles then? Yet still the Axis concquered a quarter of the planet employing bolt-action rifles. The degree to which the handling of a semi-automatic rifle is less complicated is obviously not that relevant in practice.
Well, there's no absolute safety, since not a law in the world is going to stop a criminal from acquiring a gun nor some old geezer from driving when he shoudn't. But the comparison illustrates the next-best thing to absolute safety may only be acquired through outright banning it all.
Which leads me back to my original question: You spoke of a duty. Where is it derived from? It can't have materialized out of thin air. Why do I, a law-abiding citizen, have to suffer a disadvantage that purportedly aims to keep trespassers from trespassing? And what other duties might I owe to society on grounds of the inability or refusal of others than myself? Can you honestly not see how steep and slippery a slope that is?
Is it my duty to society to, say, accept the shutting-down of the internet because it's abused to so despicable a thing as the propagation of child pornography?
Is it my duty to stop using a hammer if society deems the healthcare-related costs of people pounding on their own thumbs too great?
There's going to be another mass killing involving firearms in New Zealand. And should all firearms be banned in its wake, there's going to be yet another one regardless. Maybe someone will steal a truck and mow down scores of innocents (Nice, 86 deaths) or maybe someone will simply set fire to people (Kyoto, 33 deaths). Murderous intentions always find a way.
New Zealand's new gun laws are but a political ploy; most bids for more gun control are. At the same time, the actual problem remains uncombated.
