Guns don’t kill people, people kill people
volia – you get it – see my post above.
If you want to build an argument for guns then you need to start with data. Not cherry-picked data or massaged statistics, real data.
cross out for and insert against – you want to build an argument to change the law of this country.
As the custodians of the arms register the NZ Police do not have those stats. Our Firearms law, rightly or wrongly, licensed gun owners not firearms and the mechanism itself has become complacent and needs to change.
While you’re doing that we’ll ban your toys that kill people.
Very democratic and potentially criminalising 250000 NZ firearms owners by badly worded legislation and possibly costing the country millions. Lets get it right.
The whole point of the article is to look at current law, the proposed reforms and make it clear and workable to keep guns out of the hands of the
“mentally unwell” and “lone gunman”.
I think we can agree that we have different opinions on how to get there but agree it needs to happen.
you are desperately trying to make out you are the very epitome of normal
I’d say an average New Zealander if there is such a thing.
That hoary old chestnut again?
Yes, oddly enough the truth keeps on resurfacing.
You need to really study up on some actual current psychology
I have thank you: I’ve studied both criminal and terrorist motivations as well as the governments actions to try to understand the actions of al-Qaeda, ISIS, PLO, IRA, RAF to name a few. I could ask you the same question – Have you studied the motivation and history to get the WHY someone would go outside the accepted noms of the law of their country or society? You would perhaps then get the above point that they will use anything at their disposal to hurt their perceived enemy to effect change or bring attention to their cause.
You been on an NRA public relations course?
NRA is a US organization. NZ does not have a NRA – we do not have a multi billion dollar arms industry with a vested interest in sales to fund it. In NZ we have loosely affiliated clubs run by volunteers – hence it is not a strong lobby group. Please do not confuse the US with NZ.
Umm Some interesting points I'd like to debate.
Simon you make some very good points. I am aware of further legislation, perhaps we should have one encompassing reform instead of piecemeal hacks?
To put it in context since the introduction of the E Cat licence in response to the Aramoana massacre in 1990 there have been about 3000 persons gone through quite stringent vetting processes and inspections to operate and legally own Military Style Semi Automatic Weapons. (MSSA).
Although it was not perfect it worked in my opinion. However with budget constraints on non sworn police (which firearms officers usually are) the arms offices were seriously undermanned. This allowed more online transactions which I believe were exploited by the shooter. He then modified his A Cat weapon to an E Cat MSSA without the checks and balances in place.
I understand the shooting community has raised numerous concerns about the lack of control (this is hearsay as I’ve heard it from a number of sources but haven’t researched it) for a while to the police.
Presumably the crackpot fringe do not represent most gun owners, but they do fill a vacuum – one created by decades of silence and indifference. If you want better laws for both gun owners and the wider public, get a much better lobby group to argue for them.
I am forced to revert to an adage that I heard that those “that shout the loudest are normally the least informed”. Name calling doesn’t achieve anything, was unfortunate that the media jumped on if for a good story.
His point about Uzis didn’t really seem to address your average kiwi shooter doesn’t have the same resources as the state of Israel. But I get his point, that if your force someone to give something up they want / need they’ll find another way. Think home made bombs, planes, trucks, cars.
The shooting community are by and large your average kiwi bloke (and a few lasses too) who enjoy the solitude of shooting in isolation or small groups. They generally have that national apathetic “she’ll be right” attitude. They are not your type of person who lobbies or gets on a soap box.
I, like 99.99% of the population, are horrified with the mosque shootings, but honestly don’t think gun legislation is the answer. It will penalise the law abiding owners who respect the law. Do you think the shooter who has so little disregard for life would declare or give up his guns?
It is how to keep the public safe from that 0.01% is the question.
Sir (I assume) I would like to, but due to the speed of this legislation happening I haven’t a chance to even collect my thoughts or gather information. I have spoken to the police twice and they are as confused as I am about the content of proposed legislation or even what action I should be taking. Their (the police’s) last advice is do nothing – we’ll be in contact.
The only reason I even stumbled across this post is I was trying to find out what actions, if any, I should be taking with my firearms.
I would love to spend time reading posts but I also have a job, a family, as well as community commitments.
The point that seems to be missed here is that this proposed legislation seems to be badly considered as it is being rushed through without due deliberation and consultation.
Don't misunderstand me; as a responsible firearm owner all my adult life I totally support any reform that would stop any weapon getting into the wrong hands by stringent licensing of both owners and guns. But please do not rush some politically reactionary garbage, but legislate something clear, concise, considered, workable and sustainable.