Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Minister of Maori Affairs Michael Lhaws
Isn't he about to be appointed head of the Geographical Board?
-
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.
-
I have some more suggestions:
Attorney General: Joe Karam
Chief Judge of Waitangi Tribunal: Leighton Smith
Communications Minister: David Farrar
Army Chief of Staff: Bishop Tamaki
-
The Goldstein ads just irritate me. I wish I banked at ASB so I could have the pleasure of closing my accounts.
As for the anti-semite thing, not sure. The thought had also occurred to me.
-
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.
-
Can I add my own suggestions:
Corrections Minister: Garth McVicar
Head of Alcohol Advisory Council: Jessie Ryder
Supermayor: Charlotte Dawson
Minister for Arts: Colin Meads
Head of SIS: Bridgit Saunders
-
I actually have no big worries about the second amendment, the right to bare arms.
What has Michelle Obama to do with any of this?
-
NZ native, you said:
Also earlier in this thread Russell said that Jan shot the police "in cold blood" , I disagree, he did it in red hot enraged blood. He did not coldly climb a watch tower and start killing people.
This was a prohibition crime, prohibition made the man, created the scene and gave us this result.
……………. And I wont pretend otherwise
That's ridiculous. The guy flipped and started shooting people, and you want to blame drug laws? The man was armed to the teeth and would probably have snapped over something eventually. The police raid was probably just the match that lit the explosion. It probably wasn't the fuel.
And as for the "red hot enraged blood" comment, how do you explain the fact that the siege lasted days, he was shooting at other houses, and he left boobytraps throughout his house?
-
In response to this incident a lot of people are calling for gun laws to be reviewed (including on this thread). This happens every time there is a significant incident such as this one. But I wonder how useful a review would be. If we accept that people in society should have a right to have guns in some circumstances, we also have to accept that on occasion guns will fall into the wrong hands.
I don't see any easy legislative fix. We can tamper with gun laws if it will make people feel like something is being done. But unless we ban all guns (and I'm not advocating that) we'll always have people with guns shooting other people.
I don't like to criticise the police, but in hindsight they should perhaps have devoted more resources to finding out what happened to the guns held by people who didn't register when the gun laws were changed in the 1990s. I wonder if it's too late to do this now. This is a potential example of where enforcing the existing laws might be a better option than rushing to pass new ones.
-
The headline in Saturday's Herald was "GUNMAN DEAD", even though the same article reported: "Police last night believed the Napier gunman to be dead"
So the police didn't know but the Herald did. Did they have a man on the inside?