Posts by A S
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's done that a few times, dropping out for a few minutes, then coming back on the next refresh. That seems to hint that the data is being delayed somehow, but that the guages are still recording.
Quite probably, but it is still just a wee bit disconcerting when your early warning gauges appear to stop reporting data for around half of the time it would take for any damaging waves to arrive on your doorstep :D
-
Slightly disconcerting bit...
The Tsunami gauges on Raoul Island don't seem to be providing updated info. Fingers crossed it is only a technical hitch with the geonet site...
-
WTF? - "This has happened before. This isn't an isolated incident. In February there were a couple of shots in the night and police were at his house the next morning."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2547859/Paraplegic-gunman-known-to-police
The solution ain't hard. User pays, psyc test, firearms competency test & registar of firearms.
Aside from the likelihood that this could well be a tragic case of suicide by policeman, this could quite simply have been avoided if the police had done something a bit earlier.
A normal question during license vetting is about head injuries, reports are that the guy shot had head injuries. That should have been a bit of a red flag right there.
Combined with a history of shooting up the neighbourhood (i.e. already breaking the law), I'm quite frankly amazed his license wasn't revoked and his firearms removed several months earlier.
Chalk it up to either police error, or a tragic, unforeseeable combination of events if you don't think it was a police error.
Your solution wouldn't have achieved anything because if you knew anything about what is involved in getting a license:
1. there is already a defacto psych test when you apply, along with interviews of your nearest and dearest and an independent referee to determine your fitness to possess a license;
2. a firearms competence test will do absolutely nothing to prevent anyone who decides to do something stupid from doing so;
3. a firearms register would do absolutely nothing, except to cross check the serial number of the gun held by the dead guy against it.Sadly in my view, this looks largely like an administrative error by the police in not revoking his license much earlier, when the warning signs first appeared.
-
A S did you have a malt sandwitch for lunch?
No. Should we ask the same question of you?
-
Molenaar was a legal firearms 'collector' and all that entails at the same time as being a drug dealer.
"Molenaar had been growing and dealing cannabis for more than 10 years, Mr Drew said."
2002 was the year old firearms licences lapsed with the new system coming into being.
Was there a point in there somewhere?
Molenaar possessed a lifetime license with a 'collector' endorsement prior to 2002, so what? Presumably at the point at which his license was issued, he wasn't dealing drugs.
The fact that he didn't renew his license in 2002 points to the fact that the new laws would have prevented him from getting a license. That appears to suggest that the new laws were indeed robust enough to stop criminals from legally owning firearms.
If your point was it didn't stop him having firearms, I'd simply point out to you that criminals illegally owning firearms has always been a problem. No law, anywhere in the world, has ever solved that problem, apparently because criminals don't mind breaking the law. Who ever would have thought it?!
-
Yes. Both here and in Foreign Affairs there's the sense of advice and professional expertise within the public service being ignored or disregarded in favour of what seem like blatantly political appointees. Which is not good in a supposedly independent public service.
We do all realise here that this was a political appointment, don't we? The decision to appoint would have been made by a Cabinet committee, and confirmed by Cabinet. The input from public servants would have been minimal and restricted largely to getting cv details together of all the various contenders for the role (who are generally put up by various ministers and/or their office staff.
I sometimes get the sense that some on the Right simply don't 'get' the concept of a neutral, professionalized bureaucracy. It's almost like they're living in a pre-modern world, where these kinds of offices are merely 'places' and sinecures to be filled with friends, family, and political allies.
I would suggest that this isn't a failing only on the right. It wouldn't be too hard to turn up any number of turkeys put in place as political appointments over the last decade or so in a range of areas.
The desire to appoint your buddies applies to politicians of every stripe, as is sadly proven time after time.
-
Matthew, from your link, it was interesting to see John Howat described as an expert.
Well, John Howat would certainly be more of an expert than Alpers. Howat at least seems to know which end of a firearm is which.
OMG - " And, lastly, firearms crime is not a huge problem here."
Matthew is right. Firearms crime is not a huge issue here, I don't quite see what value "OMG" adds to it.
-
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.
-
You beat me to it, Rich. Well said.
-
If the registry showed you had nine guns, the cops could drop by to verify they were in the locked cabinet where they were meant to be.
If they weren't and you had no reasonable excuse, you would be prosecuted. I think that just as most people rego their car, most people would register their guns.
Sorry, but I'm not really seeing the point of it. The police can drop by already if they really wish to examine your firearms. I don't see what a registry will add to the mix except for costs to the taxpayer and unwanted work for the police.
What use is the hypothetical registry if your 9 firearms are stolen? None whatsoever. Is the person who stole them going to register them? Unlikely. So the 9 formerly registered firearms have now vanished. Utility of register, pretty much zero.
If you are a law abiding gun owner, the register serves no earthly purpose as you aren't going to use your guns for anything illegal. If you are criminally inclined, the register will not be something you concern yourself with.
In fact with the somewhat less than watertight police data security track record, it could serve to give criminals a great shopping list for people to rob.
The assumption that law abiding people would register/hand in their rifles was found to be somewhat wanting in aussie.
I'd worry more that treating the law abiding as potential criminal held back from murderous mayhem only because of a register isn't exactly going to endear the police to them, or make them inclined to support them much either. Result, less support for the police to do their job, rather similar to the issues associated with recreational drug use and a lack of support for the police.