Posts by A S
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The most surprising thing about this, is that Tuhoe aren't the only Maori to have been royally shafted by the state, and arguably they've had a pretty good go at getting state funding, yet they seem to have some sort of belief that they've been harder done by than anyone else.
I can think of quite a number of hapu and iwi that would gladly have received the support that the state has continued to put into that particular area.
Must be something about all that mist, it helps with delusional thinking....
-
Shep, fair enough, I said excluding suicides because to my mind they didn't really count as violence against others, which was how I had interpreted gun related fatalities. I'm reasonably sure that even including them, the rate is still extremely low.
I'm not sure, but I had thought that the AOS, STG etc. were all serving police, who carried out normal duties as well as the occasional specialised call out. I may be completely wrong, but to my mind that kind of equated to a two for one deal. I had also thought that the SAS weren't specifically counter-terror, but trained for urban activities amongst other things, which I'd also thought equated to a two for one type of deal too. I can't claim to be any expert on this though.
-
Shep, you are correct, the licenses don't teach people how to shoot. That is something that people do need to learn, but there are a large number of clubs and experienced people that do give a great deal of their time to teach people who are new to shooting.
Don't forget, the number of gun related fatalities (excluding suicide) and injuries is very, very low.
The Australian laws don't seem to have done a great deal to reduce the incidence of guns in criminal activity though, and that is my point. Those who obey the laws suffer, while those who continue to ignore the law aren't really affected.
The mass demolitions you speak of were the guns of those who obeyed the law, and it was them that were punished by a knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy. Such rules only affect the law abiding. It is unlikely to change the behaviour of those who don't. I can't see how punishing those who obey the law, in order to look like we're cracking down on those who don't will actually change anything for the better.
I would term 150 firearms to be a fairly substantial collection, I don't think I would want the responsibility that came with such a collection myself (i.e. constantly worrying if anyone knows you own firearms, is your family a target for a home invasion to try to extort those firearms etc.), but I wouldn't say it isn't acceptable. The owner was obeying the law and I would have thought that each purchase would have been approved by the police, and unless the owner was selling them to criminals, he wasn't the one breaking the law when they were stolen.
Again, my point is we should be condemning criminal behaviour, not attempting to criminalise legal behaviour.
in terms of the license for police and NZDF, I think you answered yourself earlier. It largely is the quality of the training, and the ability to safely use firearms which should be more of a focus for our armed services (and I'm pretty sure the police counts as an armed service).On the SAS point, I've noticed this in a number of comments, and I keep wondering why we would propose not to use the police, who despite all the criticism are trained to arrest people, or whether we would prefer to send the SAS in, who as far as I can tell tend to excel in taking out insurgents by a variety of means.
I think that personally, I would much rather be arrested than dead....
-
That is interesting. Can you find the reference?
I can't remember where I saw it, i remember that it was a NZ publication. It was one of those figures that sticks in your mind.
-
A S
Semi-autos & bolt/pump action alike have the same class of licence. (I'm pretty sure - but I don't have one).
We have far too loose laws in regard to firearms.
150 firearms were stolen from a Christchurch address, including many pistols. Only 50 have been recovered so far.
There seems to me to be a pretty easy answer to having 100 illeagal firearms on the Streets of Christchurch. Have a max. number in a personal armoury.Johnno or A S - Can you tell me if the "police" who conducted the raids were licenced to use their firearms?
Actually that is incorrect. Pump and bolt action sporting rifles use the same category (commonly called A cat), semi-automatic rifles that have limited magazine capacity (less than 7 rounds), no pistol grip, no ability to fix a bayonet and no flash suppressor can also be classified as A cat.
Any semi-automatic that has any of the forbidden attachments is classified as Military Style Semi Automatic. There are significant restrictions on who can own an MSSA, and the details of each of these weapons is held on record by the police, along with the details of the owner.
On your point about loose laws, I call bullshit.
We do not have too loose a firearms laws, every licence holder must be vetted by the police, who interview spouses, next of kin and other referees to ensure people are fit and proper to hold a licence, criminal records are checked, and the applicant is interviewed to ascertain whether or not they are fit to own/use firearms. In addition you must sit and pass a test, and before you can get a licence you must also have secure storage for firearms, which has to be approved by the police, regardless of whether or not you actually own firearms. These requirements are the absolute minimum for A cat firearms.
For other endorsements (pistols, collectors etc.), applicants have to be members of recognised clubs, be vouched for by other members of clubs (whose own endorsements will thereafter be contingent on the applicant never doing anything stupid), go through a much more intrusive vetting process, and have secure facilities for storage which often cost thousands of dollars (safes that are a minimum of 6mm steel, and often running to something like a bank vault). The number and type of weapons is strictly controlled, with the police having to issue a permit for every firearm purchased, and the details of each being recorded in police records.
By contrast, almost any moron can front up to apply for a drivers license and then go on to happily maim and kill people, without anywhere near the same checks and balances, or assessments as to whether they are fit to be let loose on the roads. I guess this is reflected in the road toll annually.
I think a report several years ago estimated that there were something in the region of 20 to 30 thousand illegal firearms in circulation. The fifty you are talking about aren't even a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things.
Further, I completely fail to see the logic in blaming those who obey the law to suggest further restricting their lawful activities, to somehow make up for the actions of those who really couldn't give a rats, such as those currently on firearms charges. If it wasn't for people like them, or the rest of the criminal fraternity, do you think there would be such a demand for illegal firearms?
Finally, the police don't need licenses to own or use firearms. The police act allows them to. This is the same as for the army, navy and airforce. None of them require firearms licenses to possess or use firearms or other weapons.
-
Hmmmm
The image you're linking to appears to be a launcher attached to a gun; the launcher on its own would look much less ominous.
Yes, but in fact possession of a grenade launcher is a much more serious crime. A grenade launcher of any description is a restricted weapon, and anyone who illegally possesses something like this, should in my view be spending a long spell in prison.
There is a reason that we have such tight controls on semi-automatic weapons (let alone automatic weapons and things like grenade launchers) and that is to prevent people getting hurt or killed (anyone remember Aramoana?). A very, very small number of people are legally permitted to own things like this (generally collectors, museums, movie props people etc.), but with the very important proviso that no-one knows they have them, they are kept in extremely secure conditions and that on top of all of that they must make them inoperable, so that they cannot be used.
-
Beaten to the point. D'oh!
-
Faceless men with machineguns raiding NZers houses at dawn: we HAVE stepped ove some sort of line, surely?
Has anyone ever asked why the AOS etc wear the balaclava? Will we all be feeling a little bit silly if we leap up and down frequently, about faceless ninjas only to find out that just like the black fire-proof overalls they wear, the balaclava is simply a mandatory piece of kit for OSH reasons? Will we then leap up and demand that Health and Safety Legislation is scrapped?
I don't know this for sure, but I suspect that the other logical alternative to the fireproof balaclava is the gas-mask (and just imagine the darth vader imagery we'd all be heartily sick seeing everywhere of if they were worn at the time).
Also, lets not forget that Peter Williams has been retained by those complaining the loudest. His motivation is certainly not to get to find out the truth of the matter, but to present the "truth" that best suits his clients. The truth will after much wailing, pontificating and many, many bills from lawyers, be found to lie somewhere in the middle.
The police probably did do a number of things wrong in hindsight, for which they will be roundly criticised, BUT I also suspect that quite a number of those accused will also be seen in a very different light after the legal process has run its course.
As Russell stated, many posting should stop ignoring the elephant in room. From my perspective (neither for nor against either the police or the accused), some rather dodgy goings on have taken place, which we shouldn't be too hasty to gloss over in our rush to condemn the police.
-
well we're bound to disagree on his one but I think the PM has it right. The terrorism laws are inappropriate for what Iti was up to but the laws which should be used have a number of failings. There's no good reason why intercepts shouldn't be able to be used with fire arm charges, if they can be used for drugs then why not for guns.
I guess the important distinction to bear in mind when making statements like this is that drugs are largely illegal, whereas firearms, while heavily controlled, aren't illegal as long as the appropriate licenses are held (regardless of the general hysteria about firearms from many). Another issue is one of scale. Drug offences are so common as to not rate much of a mention, while any firearms related offences are generally rare enough in this country to provoke the usual hysteria and hyperbole from all sides. Should we detract from the limited resources available on the real issues (drugs, murder, sexual assaults etc), to focus more heavily on the inconsequential, and rarely occuring?
On the subject of firearms and the "Urewera 17", I am extremely surprised that no mainstream commentator (that I can find mention of) has condemned them for being "allegedly" involved in activities around the illegal use of firearms.
Surely the idea that activists of any stripe are involved in breaches of firearms laws should be causing some consternation amongst the wider population, not least among the accused's respective supporters?
I fully support the right to peaceful protest, but I am concerned that no-one, especially those sectors of the community with the most to lose from this (i.e. the various organisations/causes that are seen in the media as being the supporters of the 17), have indicated any alarm about how this involvement in activities with the potential for violence might undermine all of their respective causes, and on the way in which protest is perceived from this point on.
If I was a member of those organisations or groups, I would be roundly condemning any involvement with illegal firearms, and my support for any of the accused would very much be conditional on them being proved innocent on all charges.