Hard News: When that awful thing happens
425 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 17 Newer→ Last
-
and one can never, ever, underestimate the power of prohibition, least of all taboo, on the ongoing formation of a human psyche, now can one?
You know, the prohibition on taking human life is really starting to get to me. If they don't change the law soon, I might snap and kill a couple of morons. I blame the faulty law that doesn't let me do what I want.
-
Rich of Oservationz - having skillfully avoided any comment on my comment - let me ask you a question: have you any idea at all how many guns came into ANZ after the 2 major wars our service-people were involved in? Or the 3 (minor - only to those not involved) ones? You will note I own 2 heirloom guns: there are literally 1000s & 1000s of these weapons/tools out there - most held benignly. There is *no* way your greatuncle is going to say, "O look, I've got a Luger in the roof. Bit of ammo too" and go through the legal hoops.It falls upon the families to do something about this sort of stuff after greatuncle has died.
Registration of individual firearms does NOT work.
And kindly dont tell registered gun-licenced owners how the system works. We do actually know, and rather despise your kind of comments. -
If you get your guns pinched, you're obliged to immediately report that and the cops will be round. If it turns out you actually sold them then (like people who pretend their partner was driving teh car to get off speeding tickets) you'll be in jail.
You mean like, oh, now? Sure, it's not a legal obligation to report your firearms stolen, but if you want to claim them on insurance you'll certainly do it. Similarly you'll probably want to report it in case they turn up in a crime and the cops do a trace on the serial number to establish when and where it was sold. They'll follow the trail and probably find the purchaser before long. Gun shops are obliged to sight the firearms licence of any purchaser, and they usually keep records so that they can cover their backsides if something untoward happens.
And what's to stop you lying? Fake a burglary, including the forced entry and various other things, and then report it. Suddenly you're off the hook for anything that happens with your erstwhile firearms, and they're in criminal hands. The crims ain't going to be registering them, and probably don't have licences either. So, again, the law-breakers will, shockingly enough, break the law. They won't register the firearms, as required by law, and they'll be in possession of them without a licence, also in contravention of the law.
Whenever someone says that a registry will fix the problem, I think of it as someone saying that there should be laws about illegally interfering with someone's right to life, as well as laws about illegally taking someone's life. It's such a stupid idea, and won't actually do much of anything, but it looks good and sounds good until anyone with an ounce of sense picks the holes.
Laws exist so that people know the boundaries. Once they overstep them, they're breaking the law. Giving them more laws to break won't make them obey the ones they're already breaking. The people who obey the existing laws will, quite probably, obey the new ones too. The ones who don't care will continue to not care.
-
This is begining to sound like the copywrong thread.
-
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.
umm, yeah. Coz his collection was registered, as required by law. Getting a category 'C' endorsement is pretty tough. Yet again, we have a situation where the existing laws cover the situation, and they didn't work. New laws will fix that? If you truly believe that, I've got a new section of motorway through Waterview to sell you.
Oh, and my mistake, Rich, it actually is a legal requirement to notify the police if a firearm is lost, stolen, or destroyed.
-
Steve Parks - I really thought the use of a Registry would be self evident as the comparison to cars was priviously stated by Alpers and so left it out to avoid repition.
I consider my evidence based arguement more persuasive than an opinion based one, but over to you.
Gun in fatal shooting linked to illegally sold firearms
"We've been able to confirm this weapon is one of a large number of restricted firearms previously reported as having been stolen in a bogus burglary by a Hahei gun collector John Mabey."
http://www.police.govt.nz/district/waikato/release/4501.htmlLets remeber Mabey was vetted as suitable to be a collector & the Waikato Police have confirmed one of his pistols have been used to kill.
A S - pretty sure the Police have confirmed that these weapons were held by him legally, but hey those silly laws.
-
I consider my evidence based arguement more persuasive than an opinion based one, but over to you.
What evidence? Please, show me evidence that firearms registries aren't a colossal waste of time and money. You've got Canada and Australia to use as examples, so go and find me the proof.
My "opinion based" argument isn't just grounded in my opinion, but in hard facts. Criminals break the law. Create a new law that's tangentially meant to catch them, and they'll break that one too. Require car registration, and they'll steal cars so that they're not using their own cars to rob banks. Same story with firearms.
-
A S,
I really thought the use of a Registry would be self evident as the comparison to cars was priviously stated by Alpers and so left it out to avoid repition.
Hmmm. Car registry exists to allow govt to collect registration fee for building new roads etc. Firearms cause little wear and tear on road so I'd suggest a gun registry not required in that particular analogy.
A S - pretty sure the Police have confirmed that these weapons were held by him legally, but hey those silly laws
Well if that is the case, I completed missed that media statement by the Police.
It would kind of clash with the other headlines about how his guns were illegally stolen from army and how police and army were investigating that. Bit hard to legally hold a stolen restricted weapon I'd have thought.
It is possible that one of them may have been stolen from the army as it was an army issue rifle, but the facts still remain to be seen.
-
A S - pretty sure the Police have confirmed that these weapons were held by him legally, but hey those silly laws.
I'm totally mystified by this comment, by the way. A legal collector breaks the law, and you want more laws? Why would he suddenly not break those laws too? He passed on restricted firearms to unlicensed persons, and that's a maximum of four years in jail. But he did it anyway. A registry would fix that? Oh, wait, he already had to register the restricted weapons in his collection. So there's already a registry, and his firearms were on it, and he still disposed of them illegally? Wow, really? Well, fuck me, a criminal who broke the law. Whatever will they do next?
-
Oh, right, I get it. You're back to talking about Molenaar. That would be were held by him legally. Past tense. His firearms licence expired in 2002, 10 years after the change to the licensing regime. So, no, they weren't legally owned by Molenaar at all. He owned restricted weapons, so not just run-of-the-mill rifles and shotguns, but other weapons that would require extra vetting and security. Shockingly enough, he didn't hold a firearms licence and he didn't register them. Again, there was a registration requirement and it wasn't met. The registry was there, and the firearms weren't on it. A registry for all firearms will change what, exactly?
-
It's beginning to sound like the copywrong thread, Sacha, because some are willfully conflating the cannabis issue with the more serious crime. They're actually, more interested in the cannabis issue, just as O'Connor is more interested in trying to claim that tasers are essential, than they are in the serious crime.
Then there's a hare-brained few that have knee-jerked into thinking a registry will solve things. As Matthew and others have pointed out (Nice post, BTW, A S), they bring no evidence but believe it must be true because of something like "common sense".
With both parties, facts and citations mean nothing, because they have already determined what the "truth" is, so if you don't agree then really you can't have thought it through, can you?
The only option is to walk away, and concentrate efforts where they will actually have an impact - with MPs and the media, who are also knee-jerking on this.
-
Mark Harris: so "the only option is to walk away
and concentrate efforts" etc.?
So, WTF are you commenting?
-
Are you becoming my personal stalker, Islander?
-
Islander ................... jan moeller WAS sick.
Cannabis prohibition allowed the physicall manifestation of that sickness to reach an explosive ending.
Prohibition distorted and shaped his sickness into a fortified stronghold.
To absolve prohibiton from the progress and direction of Jans sickness is kinda sick itself ...........................
-
nz native, were you his shrink? So WTF are you taking about?
It could equally be argued that excessive drug use "distorted and shaped his sickness into a fortified stronghold". But I won't make that argument, because I just don't know.
People commit violent crimes for a whole range of reasons. Drug prohibition might be your pet topic, but there's no evidence it had anything to do with this event. So please find another drum to beat.
-
scottY............. you sound like a squeely little middle class white boy who has NO idea how some people live in the drug/prohibition scene.
You seem to have NO comprehension of how common violent home invasions are amongst the drug fraternity.
Are you such a fuckwit that you think dealers and others playing in the prohibition playground do not sometimes tool up to repel the gang prospects or who ever who may come calling to do them harm.
Are you such a moron that you do not believe that prohibition raises levels of violence AND paranoia.
Are You ?
-
Gun registries won't work immediately. Over the years though, most guns will fall into the hands of people that don't want to go to jail for the sake of a bit of paperwork.
The cost of setting up and maintaining a registry was mentioned upthread. It was quite a lot of money. You haven't challenged the amount so let's assume for the sake of argument it's more or less correct.
Firstly, do you think the fairly marginal trickle-through effect of a registry, spread out over (probably) decades, justifies the cost and paperwork?
Personally, I don't.
Secondly, let's throw up a not unlikely hypothetical situation, which in my opinion is far more relevant and far more likely than any 'man goes crazy with gun he normally uses for possum shooting' example.
Let's say I'm a big ol' greasy biker and all-round generally unpleasent piece of work. I'm a member in good standing of a motorcycle 'club', such as, for example, the Hells Angels. I have several not-so-minor convictions against my name - let's say GBH, aggravated assault, possibly a couple of minor dealing charges.
Things are pretty sweet at the moment - I have my fingers in more than a few unsavoury illegal pies which are bringing in a good income. There's my various standover operations, a stolen parts operation out of my 'legal' car/bike repair business (useful for laundering money, too, that), and last but definitely not least, there's the grow operation in one of my girlfriends garages.
One of my 'brothers' in the 'club' took me aside a few days ago, and has offered me partnership in a P-manufacturing operation. I'm thinking on it.
However, what with one thing and another, things are potentially a bit hairy. There's a lot of cash and drugs floating around, and I'm getting a bit worried about getting held up by some rivals. So I want to get tooled up. Y'know, for 'protection'.
My options are:
1) apply for a firearms licence. Once it arrives (and I'm sure those convictions against my name won't be a problem. I also love having my name on formal paperwork) I'll buy all the guns I want legally!
Or
2) put the word around my buddies and street contacts that I'm after some 'protection', know what I mean?
I reckon it shouldn't be too hard. Fat Jock down at the 'club' has a contact with these triad guys who have been known to import the odd assault rifle in the shipping containers they use as part of thier cover business. He can sort me out.
So which do you think is more likely? Option 1) or option 2)?
-
Prohibition distorted and shaped his sickness into a fortified stronghold.
Molenaar had an arsenal, macho delusions of grandeur - as evidenced by said arsenal - and a short temper.
The cannabis search warrant was just the trigger. If it hadn't been that, it might have been getting pulled over with an expired WOF, or getting his phone disconnected. Or maybe he would have gone troppo because his neighbour's tree was dropping feijoas on his lawn.
Who knows, but even if cannabis was legal, something would have set him off eventually. You don't own that many guns of that nature unless you're hoping to use them one day. You can argue against cannabis prohibition on many different grounds. This ain't one of them.most people would register their guns. Particularly if you faced a five year sentence, as in the UK.
And yet even in the UK, criminals don't.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/aug/12/youthjustice.gunviolence -
Are you becoming my personal stalker, Islander?
What are you, twelve?
-
Are You ?
nz native, I don't have the energy to respond in detail to your infantile insults. You know nothing about me, my background, or my life experiences.
You lost all credibility as soon as you started to throw insults. So please go away.
-
Also, from what I remember of the "drug fraternity"? Not very fraternal. Just sayin'.
-
And yet even in the UK, criminals don't.
That article is scary. With a population that's about 60% of NZ's, and under some of the most draconian firearms laws in the world, Manchester had over 3,000 incidents of firearms crime in 15 months and gunshots in an urban area were common.
NZ's laws are nowhere near as strict, we have no registration requirement (though given that pistols are gangs' weapons of choice that's not accurate either), and we have no real problem with firearms. Clearly registration isn't helping in the UK, and neither are harsh penalties for non-compliance. -
The UK is a slightly different situation from NZ basically because of the porous border with mainland Europe.
It is relatively easy to buy and then smuggle ex-military weapons from Eastern Europe into the UK.
In this case, NZ's geographical isolation works in it's favour. However, I do not think it would be particularly difficult to smuggle weapons from, say, SE Asia into the country.
-
we have no real problem with firearms
I think that's the point. For a country that is armed to the teeth, we still prefer to bludgeon, beat or stab our fellow citizens to death. We have a lot of guns, but we don't have a gun culture.
Sadly, boneheads like this Molenaar are going to crop up from time to time and cause havoc, but for the most part gun owners in this country are responsible and law abiding. I don't have any philosophical problems with requiring gun registration as well as owner licensing, but taking resources from other aspects of policing to police that would be counterproductive. -
Smuggling weapons into NZ is a piece of cake. We have one of the largest EEZs on the planet, and thousands of kilometres of remote coastline. Customs has said many times that there's no way they can patrol the whole border and keep things from coming through.
Given that there's cocaine being smuggled in on Russian freighters, through NZ ports, firearms coming the same way are a given. It's just a matter of demand. The criminal element have no difficulty getting hold of firearms by stealing them, or buying them from people who have previously stolen them, so importation isn't a big need. Plus, of course, until a firearm gets seized by the police and they try and track its genesis, who's to know if it was imported legally or otherwise?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.