Posts by A S
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Lets recap here. Our laws are workable, because the Police did nothing when Jans lifetime firearms & collectors licenses lapsed under a new system, ultimately resulting in multipul shootings & death.
Let's just conveniently ignore the blindingly obvious fact that what Molenaar did was illegal then, and remains illegal now.
Let's also just ignore that we don't actually know where his guns came from, and assume that somehow he managed to hide a fairly substantial number for more than a decade without anyone knowing, or knowing but not reporting this to anyone.
Gun Collectors like this guy Hot Water Beach gun collector John Mabey, 43 have put many lethal weapons into our community and it simply must stop.
For which he will probably end up spending quite a bit of time in prison, and you can bet he will never legally handle another firearm.
On the sheer stupidity of emulating the demonstrated failure of other nations that is a register of firearms, In addition to the comments of others, I'll just point out one last time that. They. Don't. Work.
Personally, I'd rather the police budget got spent on actual policing, not on politically inspired wank that is ultimately futile. Guess I'm a bit weird like that.
-
A S - military style semi-automatics (MSSAs) and handguns
http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/1997/review-of-firearms-control/And yes I'm talking a total ban in private hands.
The Thorpe report represented best thinking in 1997. The steps it recommended have not worked elsewhere.
The Canadian registry has been abandoned as unworkable after wasting a $billion or so on it.
The Aussie ban, has by many estimates driven between 400,000 and 600,000 semi-auto rifles underground, and not into the crusher as the aussies had intended.
If we have similar levels of ownership to these two countries, do we want to waste that much money on something that doesn't work, or drive that many rifles into the hands of those who don't bother with legal niceties?
I just don't see any point in wasting huge amounts of money and effort on grandstanding, when they could be put to much better use elsewhere (mental health services, more community policing, better rehab services, better support for men with anger issues etc.)
I just want to point out, again, that our current laws in this area are by world standards outstanding, depsite anything Mr Alpers says to the contrary.
Nothing he suggests will do anything that impacts on the actions of those who are determined to break the law regardless.
Also worth noting, the stats he cites in Aussie should be considered in their wider context, the rates had been trending down over time before the ban anyway, making his assertions a little harder to swallow in terms of the direct causation he implies.
-
I'm starting to think allowing anyone to own pistols & military style weapons is an assult on my freedom.
Just a minor definitional gripe, 'military style weapons'? Do you mean Islander's WWI .303? Do you mean my single shot Martini-Enfield from 1896? Both were military rifles. Do you mean every bolt action rifle in private hands in NZ, as the generally used design is based on a military rifle design?
If you're referring to the equally misunderstood 'assault weapon', do you mean a rifle firing an intermediate calibre round, with select fire capability, or do you mean a rifle that doesn't have a select fire ability but just looks scary? There are almost no 'assault weapons' in NZ, outside of an army barracks. The police have scary looking non-assault weapons, as do a tiny proportion of the NZ public.
The general media incompetence in understanding small but important distinctions also applies to firearms, perhaps more so due to the sensational nature of events involving them, but using their incorrect definitions doesn't help much in a rational discussion.
-
Oh, yes. Their days grow ever shorter, clearly.
-
Shooting possums is not a very effective means of pest control, and ditto for stoats, rats and ginger.
Ginger? I know redheads can be a bit short tempered sometimes, but I didn't know they'd been classified as pests!!
-
Islander, I'm a bit concerned about how an arsenal would be defined too. I already feel like a leper when anyone finds out I have a firearms license, even though most of my rifles are antiques, and I'd hate to be seen as some sort of crazy hoarder just to round it all out.
That will teach me for moving to the city... :-D
-
If we can pick up the phone and dob in a tinnie house surely we can have individuals in the know alert the law of arsenal buliding. Someone sells them.
So, what would constitute an arsenal? 2 guns, 4 guns, 50 guns? Should people only be allowed one firearm? What about people who hunt different game and need different firearms to do it effectively and humanely? What about competitive shooters, should they be restricted to a single class of competition?
What about people who collect antique firearms, should we tell them they can't do that anymore if they have more than the required number?
How does it impact on shops that cater to the hunting community? Do they keep arsenals too?
What types of firearms count towards an arsenal? Is it just scary looking black ones, or does granddad's old shotgun that can't be fired anymore count towards it?
I'm not being facetious, these are the types of problems that you'd immediately run into going down such a track. It really isn't as simple as people make out.
-
I've watched the discussion today with a lot of interest, and I'd just like to chip in to support what Matthew has said today about the unsuccessful (and expensive) nature of registers.
The police already have a register of restricted weapons, and have had for at least 17 years, which did nothing to prevent recent events. At least two of the rifles used in Napier were illegal MSSA rifles, which are required to be listed on the police register. That, to me at least, is a fairly comprehensive demonstration that registers don't work as everyone appears to expect them to.
The points Matthew makes about the difficulty of getting the special permission to own MSSA rifles, or other restricted weapons is very well made.
The process of vetting associated with getting such an endorsement is exhaustive (including interviews with close family members, independent referees from shooting organisations etc. checks for any history of mental illness, criminal background checks etc) not to mention the extra $1000 or so the applicant will have to shell out to purchase a Police approved safe to store their rifles in.
As I said in another thread, the laws we already have are excellent. Sadly, no law in the world can stop someone who is determined to break it, which was tragically proved in Napier.
-
I think more likely, if the criminal element knows the cops carry pistols on routine patrol, the crims will pack SMG's in response.
I suspect you'll find that a lot of criminally inclined individuals, particularly those involved in drugs, tend to be fairly heavily armed already anyway. Although, mostly they seem to arm themselves to deal with their compatriots, rather than for use against police. I don't know that arming the police will make much difference when such a large proportion are armed already.
My reservation about routinely arming the police is that they should have sufficient training before they are let loose on the streets with firearms on a daily basis. Their current training is pitiful, and the last thing I'd want to see is a police officer doing something stupid (or god forbid, fatal) in a stressful situation due to insufficient training.
On another thing, from memory, the most likely weapon to be found by police in the hands of criminals is a sawn off shot gun, or a sporting rifle cut down to pistol size. SMG's don't pop up very often, and they tend to be harder to find in NZ.
And if the horse has indeed bolted, as implied in the article, maybe an arms amnesty could do the trick, as long as Bill English & Treasury think it won't cost too much.
I suspect any reluctance to go down that route would mostly boil down to the generally ineffectual nature of amnesties and buy-backs. Generally, people with illegal firearms don't tend to act like good citizens and hand them in, amnesty or not. Although, if the price is right, a lot of legal gun owners would probably hand in worn out rifles, and use the money to buy new ones. Possibly not what was originally intended though.
I think it is important to point out here that the gun laws we have here are actually amongst the best in the world, with a very good balance struck between privileges enjoyed and obligations incumbent on licensed owners. This tends to be reflected in the fact that the current rules are supported by the vast majority of those that hold a firearms license (with limited grumbling in minor areas).
-
the question for me is, what is legitimate "self defence"?
If you genuinely want to know, I suggest you read the relevant sections of the Crimes Act for a starter. There is also a whole raft of court decisions over the years that builds into a fairly comprehensive explanation of exactly what legitimate "self defence" looks like.