Illegal Doco on TV2. [Archive]

ynot slow

9th July 2009, 22:08

Watched this programme by a reporter who used to work for Sunday Star Times about buying firearms without a license.He went into a gun fair with hidden camera and took footage of people and arms,asking if he needed a license doh?Came out bemused with right wing and other loonies actions there,and the type of weapons for sale,as well as police present for sales I presume and security.

Then he proceeded to get a rifle delivered to him with a fake arms license,that hadn't been seen by police and documented as ok,then met 3 other guys selling and asked if he could buy,but had to wait till his application was approved,2 guys said no way,other one was dubious.The dubious one fired a .22 into the air in town(had home made silencer),said if it hadn't sold he would give a call and was iffy on license.Ended up the reporter took a licensed person to meet up with the dubious guy and bought a .303 without sighting a license,thus he had 2 rifles.

What I want to know is why the police hadn't prosecuted the reporter for having firearms when having no license,as the rifles were delivered to his work,no sign of any license holder at his work,double standards maybe.

I bought a new .22 about 2 months ago from a sports shop,put it on hold and paid it off,the time I paid deposit wasn't asked for license,but when I paid the balance it was asked and written down in a book,along with serial number,my address,type of rifle.

All or most auction on trade me require a license to be sighted or police sighting faxed to buyer,the reporter seemed to think everyone would just sell him without a license,only about 600 rifles on trademe and he managed to buy 2.

Then the ultimate act of stupidity turning up to Hells Angels asking to buy rifles,was told to piss off.Idiot.And it continues next week,he is named and no attempt at disguising his face so hope he is in a bullet proof home,could be interesting doco me thinks.

scumdog

9th July 2009, 22:31

Yup 'documentries' like that piss me off - what a beat up.

But dumb gun owners giving reporters 'ammo' for such a doco piss me off more.

Laxi

9th July 2009, 22:36

that's tv! my pet peev is target, makes tradesmen all look like cunts, I recon they hand pick the worst dropkicks they can find and then show the worst things said dropkicks get up to

Laava

9th July 2009, 22:46

I reckon! I like to think I can piss in someones shower, or flick through the old undy drawer in privacy! Fuck Target!
Actually , I can't stand it but it is amazing what they get on camera!

scumdog

9th July 2009, 22:48

And how many NZers are killed by bullets falling out of the sky each year anyway????

Timber020

9th July 2009, 22:48

that's tv! my pet peev is target, makes tradesmen all look like cunts, I recon they hand pick the worst dropkicks they can find and then show the worst things said dropkicks get up to

In all fairness alot of tradesmen are cunts. And before you bitch, I am a tradesman.

mynameis

9th July 2009, 22:50

However stupid he may have been, (have to agree with you there, what's right wing got to do with it) he still outlines some very good valid points.

Then he proceeded to get a rifle delivered to him with a fake arms license,that hadn't been seen by police and documented as ok,

No he didn't the seller clearly said he didn't care if he had a licence or not and just sent it anyway via mail. Clearly seller must have lied about what he was posting because firearms of anykind are banned items through NZ Post (Normal Mail). He just said it's easy to create a fake licence using photoshop.

What I want to know is why the police hadn't prosecuted the reporter for having firearms when having no license,as the rifles were delivered to his work,no sign of any license holder at his work,double standards maybe.

Why shoot the messenger.

All or most auction on trade me require a license to be sighted or police sighting faxed to buyer,the reporter seemed to think everyone would just sell him without a license,only about 600 rifles on trademe and he managed to buy 2.

You only need 1 to go on a murderous rampage.

Then the ultimate act of stupidity turning up to Hells Angels asking to buy rifles,was told to piss off.Idiot.And it continues next week,he is named and no attempt at disguising his face so hope he is in a bullet proof home,could be interesting doco me thinks.

That was very very stupid, wonder what's gonna happen next week.

mynameis

9th July 2009, 22:52

And how many NZers are killed by bullets falling out of the sky each year anyway????

Still illegal shooting in your backyard and the bullet ended up where? Perhaps on the primary school backyard.

scumdog

9th July 2009, 22:56

Still illegal shooting in your backyard and the bullet ended up where? Perhaps on the primary school backyard.

Granted.
But a mortar bomb it ain't.

And he made a point about a safe area where he thought the bullet would land I believe.

mynameis

9th July 2009, 23:00

Granted.
But a mortar bomb it ain't.

And he made a point about a safe area where he thought the bullet would land I believe.

Most parents wouldn't be too happy with their kids coming across used bullets found on their school playground.

He just shot aimlessly in the air, could have deflected with one of the many trees he had and fired back.

mynameis

9th July 2009, 23:01

0oh time to watch naked and funny :lol:

Shadows

10th July 2009, 00:05

The guy had a couple of points re the availability of guns but I couldn't get over the bullshit he was spouting about the gun fair and how it could "get ugly" if they spotted the camera. That and knocking at the gate of the HA pad and asking about what sorts of guns they had.

What a fucking cock smoker.

firefighter

10th July 2009, 00:35

target, makes tradesmen all look like cunts, I recon they hand pick the worst dropkicks they can find and then show the worst things said dropkicks get up to

totally agree, absolute slander.

I say this because even if they do nothing wrong, in a desperate attempt at reporting something bad they will wank on that "he should be wearing goggles/gloves etc"

I can't watch it anymore because of this, I don't really give a fuck if a tradesman is'nt using the right ladder!!! or not being an angel with a miniscule little PERSONAL safety breach.....

I just wanna know if they do the job well and at a fair price!!!

Slanderous fuckers!

mynameis

10th July 2009, 00:45

I don't really give a fuck if a tradesman is'nt using the right ladder!!!

Chit chit chit.

Wrong ladder = tradesmen falling off = rise in ACC levies in the long run.

ACC Police here :D

mynameis

10th July 2009, 00:47

I reckon! I like to think I can piss in someones shower, or flick through the old undy drawer in privacy! Fuck Target!
Actually , I can't stand it but it is amazing what they get on camera!

I like Target Brook Howard-Smith is a funny coont. :D

In all fairness alot of tradesmen are cunts. And before you bitch, I am a tradesman.

And that's why none of these cunts enter my hose without me there. :done:

firefighter

10th July 2009, 00:49

Chit chit chit.

Wrong ladder = tradesmen falling off = rise in ACC levies in the long run.

ACC Police here :D

LOL, more importantly he may have leave the job incomplete!

Usarka

10th July 2009, 08:14

Fuck target up the arse. I bet these cafe owners feel that way - harold (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/restaurants/news/article.cfm?c_id=304&objectid=10581183). Target inccorrectly accused them of having high shit levels in their food. Surprise no customers anymore, business going down the toilet (excuse the pun).

ynot slow

10th July 2009, 10:18

Re no license for reporter,it is against the law to be in posession of a firearm without a relevant license,I and several mates with licenses have a slight delemma if we died,the partners have to get the rifles off the property pretty quick,so we arrange each other to remove and store tull they(arms)are sold on behalf of estate.I asked the local arms officer if I died how long do we have,reply lawfully none,no license holder is against the law,but common sense is descretion.

Any military regalier expo I've been at which includes weapons has been well recieved,totally organised,and if sellers don't see a valid license and class will not sell.

Swoop

10th July 2009, 10:19

The programme had all the quality of a reporter from a Sunday paper...

Shocking reporting. He already had his mind made up and went about attempting to prove that his one-sided reporting was gospel.
Unfortunate that the HAMC didn't give him a beating. What a tosser, showing up at the gate and asking that!

And how many NZers are killed by bullets falling out of the sky each year anyway????
Some years back, the local rag printed an article about a lady who had a window broken and SWORE it must have been a lunatic flying around in a plane shooting a rifle!:rolleyes::clap::doctor:

The Stranger

10th July 2009, 10:25

Yup 'documentries' like that piss me off

Didn't see the doco, so not sure why it would piss you.
What part annoys you?

Mr Merde

10th July 2009, 10:40

As a responsible firearms owner I was shocked by the way this documentary was presented. I had the feeling that the reporter was a Mike Moore wannabe.

Even the presentation was a piece of crap.

Personally I think that the reporter himself should be charged under the firearms act as well as that dickhead who fired the rifle into the air, but he (the reporter) will claim "freedom of the press".

As to the gunshow, I've been there. What he focussed on was the more heavily controlled types of weapons which are all securely chaind to the displays. They are there as a display, not for sale. The Nazi flag shown is part of the military re enactors area where there is also displays of British and US WW2 equipment etc. So a biased view of the show. This kind of reporting is exactly why there is a ban on taking a camers into this show. Its amazing how judicious editing can be used to prove a point of view.

If anyone of you has seen Mike Moore's "Bowling for Colombine" you will remember the speech by Charlton Heston that comes accross extreme right wing. Look carefully at this part. His tie and shirt change colour andf pattern on numerous occasions in this short piece of the film. Editing is wonderful.

As to Trade Me. If you bid on a firearm or part thereof then you have to submit a firearms licence number.

I also felt that this whole programe was in colusion with the upper echelon of the police firearms dept. It plays directly into their hands. They can now attempt to implement stricter controls upon us by using this as "independant reserarch". Look at what the senior police officer (forgot his name) said. He stated that the police should start tracking and refgistering firearms from now and keep a register. In otherwords bring in individual registration of firearms via a backdoor rather than going through the parliamentary process of law.

This attitude is why the police have recently decided that they can arbitarily reclassify a particular type of firearm without recourse to the laws of our land. They are to busy trying to make sure that their interpretation of the law is how we are controlled and not enforcing it as it is in the books. This is wrong.

ANyway back to the subject.

This reporter should have the full weight of the law brought down on him, but he wont as he is convienient.

Chris

Anyone interested in watching "gutterpress" at its worse here is the link

http://tvnz.co.nz/illegal-nz/s1-e1-video-2835335

Finn

10th July 2009, 10:45

The very fact that the HOS prick didn't know anything about firearms just goes to show what a completely unbalanced doco it was.

Clockwork

10th July 2009, 10:52

Mr Merde

10th July 2009, 11:04

I take your points about selective editing and the "sensationalist" way this program was presented but with respect to whether he has broken any laws... I saw the doco and he made a point of stating the guns were passed on to a license holder. Apart from that, is it an offence to buy without a license or is the offence only commited by the seller?

Yes it is illegal to pocess or buy a firearm without a licence.

That is why we who are responsible get such. We have to undergo a required process and comply with standards set down by law.

Thats the problem Its law and criminals by the nature of their chosen lifestyle dont pay any attention to such.

BTW I have just made a complaint to TVNZ re this programme. Pretty much stating what I said in my earlier post. I doubt wether anything will come of it.

wbks

10th July 2009, 11:10

What are these Expos that you guys mentioned? Didn't watch it, and might take dial up a while to load that vid...

Mr Merde

10th July 2009, 11:21

What are these Expos that you guys mentioned? Didn't watch it, and might take dial up a while to load that vid...

It was the biannual gunshow held in Henderson. A 2 day event. For a firearms owner and shooting sportsmanit is a very good visit. Sure there are things there that dont interest me but there are many stands that re of great interest.

There is strict control on bringing in bags and cameras, for security reasons, and there is a police prescence for licencing reasons.

In the 6 years since I first started going I have never seen any trouble, rabble rousing or extreme right wing activities. Everyone is well behaves=d and polite.

It is usually very well attended by shooters, enthusiasts and families.

mynameis

10th July 2009, 11:27

Yes as mentioned in my initial post, he's a mug, stupid presenter and you can clearly see that throughout the doco HOWEVER he still does have some very good valid points about Kiwis slack attitude towards firearms.

e.g. That muppet shooting in the air next to a primary school, the guy clearly stating in the phone convo that he doesn't give a shit if you have a licence or not, goes to show.

I wonder if the stats he presented were accurate i.e. we have one of the highest number of firearms/gun holders in the world per captia. Mainly because a lot of farmers have them...

Mr Merde

10th July 2009, 11:32

mynameis

10th July 2009, 11:36

I have just made a complaint with the Broadcasting Standards Authoirity stating that the programme was biased, bigoted and showing illegal activity by the presenter.

Never complained about TV before.

LOl..he really pushed your buttons aye :lol:

The most stupid moment ringing the bell at HA Inc gates and asking them if they sold guns. LOl.."naaah fuck off you idiot" :lol:

Mr Merde

10th July 2009, 11:46

LOl..he really pushed your buttons aye :lol:

The most stupid moment ringing the bell at HA Inc gates and asking them if they sold guns. LOl.."naaah fuck off you idiot" :lol:

Oh yes he did.

I do believe that every one is entitled to their own point of view but this programme was a POS of the worst kind. It wasnt even very well produced.

Pompous dickhead of a presenter. Bet his shit doesnt stink.

In actuallity its probably the final straw. There has been so much going on lately and I see my sport being eroded bit by bit with no means of answering. I classs myself as tolerant and lawabiding but there is a limit.

How do you think the members of this group would feel if they were constantly branded as evil and as a result more and more restrictions were placed on what , where and how we could ride. Then to top it off government sponsored TV programmes were made in support.

ynot slow

10th July 2009, 12:05

And the military part of these arms shows requires nazi gear,along with the alies gear to give an insight to what weapons were used,have a mate who was in the infintry along with his brother,their dad had heaps of medals from ww2 and exhibited them at these shows.As mate was in infintry he was able to get firearms license by saying he was in the army,mind you that was 25yrs ago,his weapon was a .223 due to army using this calibre,he reckoned the amount of guys with this calibre instead of .222 was due to the availability of free ammo to those in the forces lol.

And best part was reporters lack of knowledge on rifles and workings,he didn't want to blow his cover by being ignorant(didn't stop him in doco presentation) to seller.Then being put in a dangerous situation palllease,he wasn't buying from the bronx.

When I got my firearms license at 17 I had to register the rifle,the firearms officer said he preferred to do register rifle,as license tells you who has one,not how many rifles you have.

Yes we have shitloads of unregistered owners with rifles,some changing address,and not contacting police,others don't renew license but keep rifle on the farm maybe,but those others are imported illegally or stolen from farms,hence rigid storage required,no longer able to leave in the garage cupboard without locks.

Mr Merde

10th July 2009, 12:16

I've had a reply from the BCA

+++++++++++++++++++

Thank you for submitting a complaint through the BSA website.

Your complaint has been sent to TVNZ, the broadcaster responsible for TV
One and TV2. This is because broadcasters always deal with formal
complaints in the first instance.

You will need to look at the attached Television Code and let TVNZ know
the standard(s) under which you would like your complaint to be
considered. Please email TVNZ directly at:
Complaints.Committee@tvnz.co.nz (Complaints.Committee@tvnz.co.nz)

Once they have this information, the broadcaster will respond to you
directly, and it has 20 working days to send a written decision to you.

If you are dissatisfied with the decision you are entitled to refer your
complaint to the BSA within 20 working days of receiving it. Also, if
you do not receive a decision from the broadcaster within 20 working
days, you are entitled to refer your complaint to the BSA within 60
working days of the broadcast.

Please feel free to contact a member of our complaints team on 0800
366996 if you wish to discuss this process.

Regards

BSA Complaints
+++++++++++++++++++

awayatc

10th July 2009, 12:42

In all fairness alot of tradesmen are cunts. And before you bitch, I am a tradesman.

Cunt................

Or did I misunderstand your post again....?:msn-wink:

The Stranger

10th July 2009, 12:56

jono035

10th July 2009, 16:32

Fooken moaning rednecks.
Guns should be banned anyway and the sooner the better.
Wont be long before we have our Columbine and everyone stands around wringing their hands wondering why. Well duh, it's not hard to figure out is it?
But hey, what's a few kiddies and cops for that matter, plenty more out there.

Wow.

I've been target shooting for 3 years and hunting possums/rabbits for many years before that. My experience of firearm owners in generally has been entirely positive, with no 'rednecks' or people likely to do a 'Columbine' at all.

I'm not going to bother replying to the above quote because this individual has already made up their mind that firearms are bad for whatever reasons.

To everyone else: Firearms are tools. Firearms are sporting equipment. Firearms are no more dangerous than many other things that we interact with on a day to day basis, as I would expect motorcyclists especially to be aware of! Bows/crossbows on trademe, slingshots, high powered air rifles, throwing knives. Hell, there was a kid stabbed in Auckland central late at night with a 3" kitchen knife that could have been bought from the Warehouse for about $2. A firearm by itself is not inherently bad in the same vein as a person murdering their spouse with a kitchen knife does not make knives inherently bad.

Nothing is absolute, nothing is purely black and white. Anyone telling you this has their own agenda and should be treated with utmost suspicion. Firearms have been used for bad things, but in the same vein are used by hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders every year for hunting Possums, Goats, Rabbits, Deer etc. for recreation, to feed their families and to stop these animals destroying our pastures and beautiful native bush, which are two of New Zealands defining characteristics. Australia has some quite serious pest problems after responding to a tragedy with a knee-jerk firearms legislation change, and their population are no safer because of it.

Please think of these things before you condemn firearms as needless and evil.

I would also like to take the opportunity to extend an invitation to anyone in or around Auckland who would like to learn more about firearms and firearm safety to come to the Central Shooters Inc. target range on Nelson St in the city. Visitors nights are Tuesday and Thursday from 7pm to 9pm. We shoot .22 rifles and various .22 and centerfire (larger) caliber pistols there. Anyone who wishes to create an informed opinion for themselves (whatever that opinion turns out to be) is welcome. I am also happy to answer any questions anyone may have in PMs about firearms stuff in general within NZ.

jono035

10th July 2009, 16:44

In terms of that documentary, it was obviously made by people with an axe to grind for people with a similar axe to grind. I have NEVER bought a single firearm or round of ammunition without being asked for my firearms license. This includes at the stores that I go to every week to pick up target ammunition and am recognised by the staff.

The guy shooting the .22 in the air was an idiot, but a .22 bullet at terminal velocity would do nothing more than give you a nasty rap on the head, resulting in a bump, a sore head and maybe a bit of bleeding. It will not kill you. More annoyingly would be it chipping your windscreen or the paint on your car/bike.

All bullets slow down the minute they leave the gun barrel. All bullets are still slowing down when they hit their target. All bullets are still slowing down when they reach their maximum effective range (the range where they start to lose their ability to penetrate objects). They will keep slowing down until they get to the speed that they will fall at. This is MUCH slower than they are fired at, and for long thin rifle bullets, generally they land side-on, so are even slower/less dangerous than the .22 perhaps? There was an episode of Mythbusters that tested this I believe.

ManDownUnder

10th July 2009, 16:56

Fooken moaning rednecks.

Bikes should be banned anyway and the sooner the better.
Wont be long before we have Biker Gangs destroying society and everyone stands around wringing their hands wondering why. Well duh, it's not hard to figure out is it?
But hey, what's a few people getting robbed, assaulted and murdered for that matter, plenty more out there.

... sorry - what was your point again?

ManDownUnder

10th July 2009, 16:59

Just hold them accountable. The law is already there. They purchase guns without a license... throw the fucken book at them!

They go out of their way and premeditate the illegal purchase of guns... throw a fooken BIGGER book at them. Responsible shooters everywhere will be up in arms (good choice of words huh?) about this, just like motorb'cyclists will be about sweeping reforms that affect us.

Don't tar the vast majority by the stupidity of the distinct (and lawless) minority.

The Stranger

10th July 2009, 17:03

Wow.

I've been target shooting for 3 years and hunting possums/rabbits for many years before that. My experience of firearm owners in generally has been entirely positive, with no 'rednecks' or people likely to do a 'Columbine' at all.

Yes, I saw a member of the local gun club on the news saying the same thing about one of the latest shooters too. Who'd have thought eh?

Indiana_Jones

10th July 2009, 17:08

I was laughing and crying at how this sad cunt was trying to push his own anti-firearm message across as independent reporting.

-Indy

jono035

10th July 2009, 17:10

Yes, I saw a member of the local gun club on the news saying the same thing about one of the latest shooters too. Who'd have thought eh?

It's obviously firearms then! Firearms make you crazy, I'm astounded I didn't figure this out before!

It is illegal to even make people THINK that you have a gun and are going to cause them harm. There is already tonnes of legislation 'stopping' people from doing things like this, you really think a 'gun ban' will do it? I wish I lived in the world you've made for yourself in your head, it sounds nice.

The Stranger

10th July 2009, 17:11

... sorry - what was your point again?

Right guns don't kill people, people kill people so hey they must be safe.
Ironically it is illegal for Americans to sell guns to Mexicans. Hell why not? guns are safe, we all know this, the Americans tell us so.

jono035

10th July 2009, 17:16

Right guns don't kill people, people kill people so hey they must be safe.
Ironically it is illegal for Americans to sell guns to Mexicans. Hell why not? guns are safe, we all know this, the Americans tell us so.

And cars kill people and knives kill people and arrows kill people and ropes kill people and hammers kill people... Your point?

That is a law that probably has more to do with making Americans feel better and nothing to do with keeping them safe. Same thing that further firearm restrictions will do in NZ (nothing but piss law abiding people off).

The Stranger

10th July 2009, 17:21

And cars kill people and knives kill people and arrows kill people and ropes kill people and hammers kill people... Your point?

When was the last time a knife, rope, hammer or car weilded by a pimply deranged snot rag took out a bunch of cops? or a heap of kids before he could be over powered? How often does this happen.

Hell why shouldn't everyone have nukes? They will be even more fun, bigger bang and can kill even more people quicker than a gun. I can't wait to get mine.

Swoop

10th July 2009, 17:24

And cars kill people and knives kill people and arrows kill people and ropes kill people and hammers kill people... Your point?

I am led to believe that motorcycles kill people... A person can only use one of them at a time, as well.

jono035

10th July 2009, 17:28

When was the last time a knife, rope, hammer or car weilded by a pimply deranged snot rag took out a bunch of cops? or a heap of kids before he could be over powered? How often does this happen.

Hell why shouldn't everyone have nukes? They will be even more fun, bigger bang and can kill even more people quicker than a gun. I can't wait to get mine.

Nice scenario. Generally anyone who shows up anywhere with a firearm gets shot pretty quick by the armed offenders squad. If you're talking about Jan Molenaar, I'm pretty certain that if he hadn't had any firearms then he would still have done a similar amount of damage with a knife.

The scenario you outlined, even in the US, is an isolated situation. If someone wanted to they could gas a classroom full of people with chlorine gas, barricade people in and set fire to a building, make themselves a pipebomb from fertilizer and set it off in a crowd.

Personally I prefer the idea of some guy wandering around with a firearm, that at least you can see coming and he has to be there to be taken care of.

Either way, I don't think either of us is going to convince the other and we are getting away from the thread topic so I'm going to leave this here.

To everyone else, I am serious about my invitation to come and see for yourselves what firearms owners in NZ are really like (a lot of fathers, often shooting with their families)...

jono035

10th July 2009, 17:29

cars kill people and knives kill people and arrows kill people and ropes kill people and hammers kill people...

I am led to believe that motorcycles kill people... A person can only use one of them at a time, as well.

Well, motorcycle and a hammer on a rope might be the way to go! Just think of the unstoppable power!

Banning motorcycles because they kill people makes about as much sense!

awayatc

10th July 2009, 17:54

Hell why shouldn't everyone have nukes? They will be even more fun, bigger bang and can kill even more people quicker than a gun. I can't wait to get mine.

better lay that pipe down for today sonny, you seem to have had enough.....

The Stranger

10th July 2009, 17:57

Nice scenario. Generally anyone who shows up anywhere with a firearm gets shot pretty quick by the armed offenders squad.

Yes I see that (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html).
I did look up mass killing via swinging a rope froma motorcycle, but it appears that is not a weapon of choice to nutters. Go figure, I was so sure you were onto something there.

NDORFN

10th July 2009, 17:57

Yup 'documentries' like that piss me off - what a beat up.

But dumb gun owners giving reporters 'ammo' for such a doco piss me off more.

I agree. Two wrongs don't make a right. They make enough for stories like this to pay thier dues, so he should be procecuted, plead guilty, and pay a fine which will come out of the revenue.

awayatc

10th July 2009, 18:07

Yes, I saw a member of the local gun club on the news saying the same thing about one of the latest shooters too. Who'd have thought eh?

That shooter apparently also had a dick......
as did Molenaar...and most other lunatics
It is therefor safe to conclude that people with dicks are likely to go on shooting rampages....

So to remove yourself from the list of possible gunslinging mentaly deranged prospects I suggest you hand in your dick........
without balls they are only half the fun anyway.......:msn-wink:

ManDownUnder

10th July 2009, 18:14

Right guns don't kill people, people kill people so hey they must be safe.

Nooo... gun are dangerous. Who said they're safe?

They're a force multiplier... just like anything else that we humans can use to inflict damage on others. That doesn't mean we shoudl outlaw 'em all though. Ban... cranes? Planes, Cars? Bikes? Guns? Crowbars? Big bits of wood, sharp bits of wood? Small fast bits of wood? Stones?

And as with many in the shooting fraternity I'm all for reasonable control of them. My limits differ from others in the shooting world, just like your limits on bike use/ownership differ from other. No biggy.

I think it's simply prudent to recognise there are some idiots that will use firearms in a manner that's against the accepted public good and they need to have their access to firearms cut off. How that's done is a matter for debate - and I enjoy it - it's a goodie.

Stick yer troll back under the bridge

jono035

10th July 2009, 18:15

Yes I see that (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html).
I did look up mass killing via swinging a rope froma motorcycle, but it appears that is not a weapon of choice to nutters. Go figure, I was so sure you were onto something there.

126 deaths and 122 wounded in the past 10 years. That list covers the US, Germany, Canada, Argentina, Bosnia, Sweden, Yemen, Scotland, Finland, totalling over 500 million people.

That is 13 deaths per year in that population or 1 death in every 40million people per year in that population.

These are tragedies to be sure, but I do not believe banning guns would have stopped these tragedies from occurring. These are disturbed, isolated individuals who wanted to go out in a spotlight and take a few people who had hurt them with them. There are many ways of doing this too numerous to mention. Assuming that removing their access to guns would turn them into normal, well adjusted members of society is completely ludicrous.

Your kid is probably more likely to be killed by drinking drain-cleaner from under the sink. Lets ban drain cleaner?

ManDownUnder

10th July 2009, 18:16

jono035

10th July 2009, 18:27

Look up robbery, drug peddling, assault, disorder, protectionism... "Motorcycle and gang" out to do it...

Damn, I was about to apply for a patent on it :(

I wonder how many of those 'high school shootings' which have become the latest fad would have been high school arsons, or bombings, or poisonings, or gassings, or knifings, or ... uhhh... arrowings(?!) if the person didn't have access to a firearm?

Don't blame the tool, blame the workman. Or in this case, the parents of the kids who were too distracted to see that their kid was so isolated, alone and depressed that they would resort to this kind of behaviour. Not to mention a pretty huge proportion of those kids shouldn't have had access to weapons anyway. That's why gun racks are a legal requirement in NZ and why I have a gun safe. (6mm hardened steel walls, 6mm door, couldn't get into it without destroying the guns, couldn't get it out without destroying the house.

The Stranger

10th July 2009, 19:06

Nooo... gun are dangerous. Who said they're safe?

They're a force multiplier... just like anything else that we humans can use to inflict damage on others. That doesn't mean we shoudl outlaw 'em all though. Ban... cranes? Planes, Cars? Bikes? Guns? Crowbars? Big bits of wood, sharp bits of wood? Small fast bits of wood? Stones?

And as with many in the shooting fraternity I'm all for reasonable control of them. My limits differ from others in the shooting world, just like your limits on bike use/ownership differ from other. No biggy.

I think it's simply prudent to recognise there are some idiots that will use firearms in a manner that's against the accepted public good and they need to have their access to firearms cut off. How that's done is a matter for debate - and I enjoy it - it's a goodie.

Stick yer troll back under the bridge

So why draw the line at guns then MDU. As you note they are a force multiplier. Why does one need that much extra force? If there is not a need why have it? There is a need for transport, stones and lumps of wood. Ok, if you need for example a semi auto assault rifle fine demonstrate a clear need, but posession for the sake of compensation is not a need. If need is not a requirement, why stop at guns, why not allow hand grenades for example? Honestly I would be in for a decent gatling gun, could be a fuck load of fun so why not?

Troll? Me? Come on. That said the merest thought of dads army here loosing their cuddle rugs does bring with it a certain amount entertainment however I must admit.

wbks

10th July 2009, 19:06

We should probably ban knifes, dudes. They, like rifles, can be used to gather food and use as tools, but can also be picked by nutters to go kill people. EXACTLY like the stranger prescribed. We should probably ban blunt objects, also. So that rules out knifes and anything from a tireiron to a hockey stick
Yes, comparing a nuke to a rifle is fair enough, I mean can't we AAALLLL see the legitimacy in the argument?

The Stranger

10th July 2009, 19:10

We should probably ban knifes, dudes. They, like rifles, can be used to gather food and use as tools, but can also be picked by nutters to go kill people. EXACTLY like the stranger prescribed. We should probably ban blunt objects, also. So that rules out knifes and anything from a tireiron to a hockey stick

Why do you gun nutters always go over the top and want to ban everything.
That is just plain stupid.

wbks

10th July 2009, 19:14

I don't even own a gun. What? Knifes can be used as tools, but nearly always are used to harm someone else when a nutter has got one.

jono035

10th July 2009, 19:15

You shouldn't have to demonstrate why a right is required, you should have to demonstrate why that right should be curtailed. How is a semi-automatic 'assault rifle' any different from a similarly chambered hunting rifle? Semi automatic hunting rifles are very useful for pest control and hunting for sport/food, as well as for certain types of target shooting. Given that you say you don't need a semi-automatic 'assault rifle', then isn't that just a quibble over how the firearm looks? If you want to band firearms because of the way they look, then I think your actual motives differ from your claimed motives.

If you don't like firearms then that is fine, just don't try and tell me what I can or cannot do.

jono035

10th July 2009, 19:16

Why do you gun nutters always go over the top and want to ban everything.
That is just plain stupid.

Now you know how most firearm owners feel when confronted by people who want to ban their rifles because they don't 'look right'.

The Stranger

10th July 2009, 19:18

I don't even own a gun. What? Knifes can be used as tools, but nearly always are used to harm someone else when a nutter has got one.

A lump of 4x2 can be used to harm someone as well. Banning that is just plain stupid - unless perhaps someone comes up with a cheap, effective workable alternative. So stop putting up silly exagerated examples.

jono035

10th July 2009, 19:20

A lump of 4x2 can be used to harm someone as well. Banning that is just plain stupid - unless perhaps someone comes up with a cheap, effective workable alternative. So stop putting up silly exagerated examples.

The knife is an accurate example. With declining firearm ownership in the UK, knife attacks became the norm and you are more likely to die from a stab wound than a bullet wound.

wbks

10th July 2009, 19:21

A lump of 4x2 can be used to harm someone as well. Banning that is just plain stupid - unless perhaps someone comes up with a cheap, effective workable alternative. So stop putting up silly exagerated examples.Name a cheap, effective workable alternative to a rifle for use in industry. You are the one who first mentioned nukes, so don't point at me for exagerating. And yea, jono, I'd rather take a 22 in the belly than a 12 inch kitchen knife

The Stranger

10th July 2009, 19:22

Now you know how most firearm owners feel when confronted by people who want to ban their rifles because they don't 'look right'.

Where did that come from? Stop clutching at straws. I never mentioned looks, though I am sure most of the gun nuts get more pleasure looking at, fondling and oiling their guns than a hot chick.

wbks

10th July 2009, 19:24

Where did that come from? Stop clutching at straws. I never mentioned looks, though I am sure most of the gun nuts get more pleasure looking at, fondling and oiling their guns than a hot chick.The looks have a big part in it. People like you (actually, they're more reasonable) want to restrict even further certain guns because they look dangerous.

The Stranger

10th July 2009, 19:25

Name a cheap, effective workable alternative to a rifle for use in industry. You are the one who first mentioned nukes, so don't point at me for exagerating. And yea, jono, I'd rather take a 223 in the belly than a 12 inch kitchen knife

Go back a few posts - you will see I mentioned a clear need. Hey, where there is a need, there is a need, cool. Hell I got my gun license for a need, I could hardly begrudge a farmer having what is necessary for the execution of his work.

The Stranger

10th July 2009, 19:29

The looks have a big part in it. People like you (actually, they're more reasonable) want to restrict even further certain guns because they look dangerous.

Oh well, I'm getting tired and you guys have run out of ideas and are as usual just resorting to silly inferences now, so it's time to split.

jono035

10th July 2009, 19:30

Go back a few posts - you will see I mentioned a clear need. Hey, where there is a need, there is a need, cool. Hell I got my gun license for a need, I could hardly begrudge a farmer having what is necessary for the execution of his work.

It should be up to you to demonstrate a clear 'need' before saying we can't do something that were previously allowed.

1 death per 40 million people per year does not work out to infringing upon the rights of over 200,000 licensed gun owners within NZ.

RON SOAK

10th July 2009, 19:36

jono035

10th July 2009, 19:38

Where did that come from? Stop clutching at straws. I never mentioned looks, though I am sure most of the gun nuts get more pleasure looking at, fondling and oiling their guns than a hot chick.

If you look at the post I was referring to, you were talking about semi-automatic 'assault rifles'. I said there are clear and obvious reasons why a semi-automatic rifle is advantageous for hunting, which means that the only thing left to define a rifle as an 'assault rifle' as opposed to a hunting rifle is the aesthetics.

Please stick to the argument rather than making insulting insinuations about other peoples personal behaviour.

Personally, I do not take my guns out of their safe unless they are going to be used. I do not 'fondle' them and I do not clean them any more than is required to keep them functional. For my target guns this consists of 10 minutes of cleaning every time I shoot them, for my hunting guns it consists of about 5 minutes before they get put back after a weekend away.

I supply my parents with possums and rabbits which they feed their dogs. This also does a small part to help control the possum population in the area which has devastated the native bush that my parents built their house on the edge of over 15 years ago. I have friends who hunt pigs in the area for food as well as to stop them destroying native undergrowth and rooting out kiwi nests. I have friends who shoot Mynahs (semi-auto shotgun an absolute requirement here) to keep their population down to stop them muscling other native birds out of the area. I have met people who cull deer and goats to protect native land in the south island.

All of these require the rifles that I have previously mentioned to be effective in the pursuits there of. I have demonstrated a clear and tangible need. You need to do better than 1 death per 40mil people per year that may or may not have happened irregardless. 1 person in NZ in the past 10 years by that average? I'm not surprised people here think you're a troll.

jono035

10th July 2009, 19:42

why did he go for a rifle - shit - pistols are easy enough to get hold of if you know the right people ( he said stroking his $200 .22 saturday night special courtesy of a local bikey)

I know of a tradesman (noty a cunt) who carries a pistol under his seat every time he has to drive through south auckland at night - but hes probably a bit extreme......

And again, a few people ruin it for the law abiding many. Among the pistol owners that I know, all of them are incredibly careful to stay within the law at all times, no matter what their interpretation of it. Your comment also runs directly in contrary to my experiences with the purchase of several rifles and a couple of pistols.

The behaviour of a few people who ignore firearms laws will not change when the firearm laws are toughened. Firearms will always be available somewhere in the world, and as someone who has worked at a port I can safely say that when something is available somewhere in the world and it is worth a lot of money to someone else, somewhere else, these things will always make it through one way or another. It is too hard to stop everything, and prohibitively expensive to pretend you can. This means that firearms will always be available, the only difference really will be the price.

jono035

10th July 2009, 19:44

Oh well, I'm getting tired and you guys have run out of ideas and are as usual just resorting to silly inferences now, so it's time to split.

And who is making the 'silly inference' now. You are the only one to use comments like this to try and imply that we are not talking 'on the level'.

Little Miss Trouble

10th July 2009, 19:46

I would also like to take the opportunity to extend an invitation to anyone in or around Auckland who would like to learn more about firearms and firearm safety to come to the Central Shooters Inc. target range on Nelson St in the city. Visitors nights are Tuesday and Thursday from 7pm to 9pm. We shoot .22 rifles and various .22 and centerfire (larger) caliber pistols there. Anyone who wishes to create an informed opinion for themselves (whatever that opinion turns out to be) is welcome. I am also happy to answer any questions anyone may have in PMs about firearms stuff in general within NZ.

I thought visitors night was only on Thursday? not seen a suzuki accross parked outside before...

jono035

10th July 2009, 19:49

I thought visitors night was only on Thursday? not seen a suzuki accross parked outside before...

They have started doing visitors on Tuesdays at the same time because Thursday has been a mad-house for the past year! So many new shooters and so little space.

I've never taken the bike to the range before, but I am looking forward to being able to (although it might make shooting my rifles a little hard). When I go I take the cage and drop my girlfriend off at Border's to read and have a coffee while I go shooting. She shoots with me when I go hunting sometimes, but doesn't find target shooting all that fun.

Little Miss Trouble

10th July 2009, 20:05

They have started doing visitors on Tuesdays at the same time because Thursday has been a mad-house for the past year! So many new shooters and so little space.

I've never taken the bike to the range before, but I am looking forward to being able to (although it might make shooting my rifles a little hard). When I go I take the cage and drop my girlfriend off at Border's to read and have a coffee while I go shooting. She shoots with me when I go hunting sometimes, but doesn't find target shooting all that fun.

Yep Thursday nights is madness for sure.

Theres a guy who comes on Thursday who I've seen ride off on his 250 with his rifle in a bag across his back, is that even legal?!

ManDownUnder

10th July 2009, 20:05

Ok, if you need for example a semi auto assault rifle fine demonstrate a clear need, but posession for the sake of compensation is not a need.

The defence forces need those weapons - I personally agree with you that Joe Public does not. But if they want them, enjoy using, loading, the asthetics of them, and are of an appropriate character to have them... why not?

ManDownUnder

10th July 2009, 20:07

So why draw the line at guns then MDU. As you note they are a force multiplier. Why does one need that much extra force?

Sorry - I missed a critical part of your question.

BECAUSE CATCHING BAMI ON FOOT IS NEARLY FUCKEN IMPOSSIBLE... and I enjoy venison

jono035

10th July 2009, 20:11

Yep Thursday nights is madness for sure.

Theres a guy who comes on Thursday who I've seen ride off on his 250 with his rifle in a bag across his back, is that even legal?!

I have no idea... You're allowed to carry rifles around providing they are in a bag but it is discouraged. You have to have them in the boot of your car, or out of sight if that isn't possible. Not sure how either of those rules apply to motorcycle riders though. I carry my target .22 in a hard-case and it is damn heavy, those 2 things combined would mean I'd probably lose it somewhere along the way, which would be awkward to explain to the police...

Tuesday night is definitely the night to show up now, though. Or failing that just join up and then shoot during the weekends or earlier in the evening :)

jono035

10th July 2009, 20:15

Sorry - I missed a critical part of your question.

BECAUSE CATCHING BAMI ON FOOT IS NEARLY FUCKEN IMPOSSIBLE... and I enjoy venison

Someone sprinting off after a deer on foot with a knife between their teeth would worry me a whole lot more than your average hunter, thats for sure!

ManDownUnder

10th July 2009, 20:15

Theres a guy who comes on Thursday who I've seen ride off on his 250 with his rifle in a bag across his back, is that even legal?!

Yup, so long as it conforms to the general rules of firearms carriage - not loaded, bolt removed where possible.. etc.

Generally a good idea to have it in a carry case rather than simply having the gun slung over your shoulder by it's strap, but I don't beluieve carriage in a bag or case is required by law...

... certainly would get a lot of attention though.

Delerium

10th July 2009, 20:15

A lump of 4x2 can be used to harm someone as well. Banning that is just plain stupid - unless perhaps someone comes up with a cheap, effective workable alternative. So stop putting up silly exagerated examples.

You, are a tool. You refer to firarms users as gun nuts, and the type that sits their oiling their weapons? Get clue!

Shooters come from all walks of life. Licensed users are NOT the ones going on rampages. As soon as logical arguments come about that starts to turn against you, you leave? You dont like guns, fine, nobody is asking you, but why should my sport be punished becuase your paranoid and ignorant of the facts?

jono035

10th July 2009, 20:18

The defence forces need those weapons - I personally agree with you that Joe Public does not. But if they want them, enjoy using, loading, the asthetics of them, and are of an appropriate character to have them... why not?

A lot of that comes down to what the difference really is, too. If you're quick with a bolt action, it really isn't that much slower, which means that banning semi-autos wouldn't have any effect. Once you think about that, then in reality the only difference (beyond weapon length and magazine size which are already controlled) is aesthetics. The day we get a few people killed by a rifle looking 'scary' then it'll be time for a rethink!

jono035

10th July 2009, 20:21

Yup, so long as it conforms to the general rules of firearms carriage - not loaded, bolt removed where possible.. etc.

Generally a good idea to have it in a carry case rather than simply having the gun slung over your shoulder by it's strap, but I don't beluieve carriage in a bag or case is required by law...

... certainly would get a lot of attention though.

Just checked my Arms Code (in the top draw of my desk for this very reason) and it says 'you are strongly advised to get a padded case or cover to carry it in', which doesn't sound like a legal requirement. Less chance of getting shot by the AOS that way though... <_<

scumdog

10th July 2009, 20:25

Yep Thursday nights is madness for sure.

Theres a guy who comes on Thursday who I've seen ride off on his 250 with his rifle in a bag across his back, is that even legal?!

No worries, when I had my dirt bike I use to ride through town regularly with rifle over my shoulder, never got stopped.

And no, I was not 'in the job' then.

jono035

10th July 2009, 20:28

No worries, when I had my dirt bike I use to ride through town regularly with rifle over my shoulder, never got stopped.

And no, I was not 'in the job' then.

Yeah, not quite central Auckland though I'm guessing ;)

Little Miss Trouble

10th July 2009, 20:28

jono035

10th July 2009, 20:33

This guy does have it in a proper carry bag, still looks pretty funny though.

Will try & make it for Tuesday then. Joining up, hmm why do I have a feeling that'd be a slippery slope to becoming completely addicted? much like 'just have a go on the dirt bike...'

Heh, yeah it is a bit. I started going just to sight in my hunting rifle and to have a bit of a look around. Been properly hooked ever since.

Joining the club doesn't really work out any cheaper unless you're shooting more than once a month ($200 per month, $100 to join), but it does make things a lot easier, especially if you have a license and your own rifle/pistol to bring along whenever the range is free.

duckonin

10th July 2009, 20:39

jono035

10th July 2009, 20:42

Nz needs to drop the Ausie system it adopted,which is what we have now, a licence system and go back to a permit to procure (from Police) the purchaser needs this before they get any gun sold to them..

Years back the system knew who had what, well almost, each gun was recorded in the system and beside that gun and its number was a name, so when the police intercepted a stolen firearm in went the number and out came a name..next step to call on the person if they could not show the gun in their possession they were in DEEP SHIT....:Oi:

Now with and basicly without a licence if you are lucky you can buy as many guns as you like from other people without there being a record of any transaction at all, now how dumb is that, it is know wonder the police carn't do their job efficently, they have a flat ball to kick around

The general consensus as I understand it with regards to this system is that it provided a lot of work for the police without really much benefit. I'm pretty sure that this was the official opinion from the NZ Police at the time of the change. What you describe is still the case with weapons held under any of the endorsements, just not the ubiquitous hunting rifles.

scumdog

10th July 2009, 20:52

A lot of that comes down to what the difference really is, too. If you're quick with a bolt action, it really isn't that much slower, which means that banning semi-autos wouldn't have any effect.!

Raurimu massacre - single-shot 12 guage shotgun, 9 (from memory) dead.

ynot slow

10th July 2009, 21:14

Now with and basicly without a licence if you are lucky you can buy as many guns as you like from other people without there being a record of any transaction at all, now how dumb is that, it is know wonder the police carn't do their job efficently, they have a flat ball to kick around

Mind you if buying from a shop they take license number,name,address,model and serial number,well the one I dealt with did.

And to add to the further crap,the guy fired a military style semi auto (mssa) .22 on a farm or similar,almost to invoke the scarry military type weapon he wanted to buy ILLEGALLY.

Have an uncle who used to hunt pigs with knife and a 9mm lugar(brought back from Malaya outbreak in late 1950's,until the cops found out,but had used most of the ammo he had anyway.He had .303 and others for pig and deer hunting,his latest was a semi auto .308 standard type thought.

The NZOutdoor mag had an article years ago on SLR.223 and AK 47.308 semi autos for deer and goat control by air and ground,general consensus then was pest destruction board at time thought they were a good option for their hunters,but legislation was problem.

jono035

10th July 2009, 21:19

Raurimu massacre - single-shot 12 guage shotgun, 9 (from memory) dead.

Had never looked at what had happened there, thanks for that info. Proves my point in a sad, tragedic way.

wbks

10th July 2009, 21:20

Had never looked at what had happened there, thanks for that info. Proves my point in a sad, tragedic way.I'll bet it had a pistol grip...

jono035

10th July 2009, 21:22

Sorry ynotslow, misread your comment there.

In terms of the semi-autos for deer and goat control by chopper that is exactly what I'd heard too. If you're going to go through the expense of choppering a bunch of guys into an area to do some culling, you want them as armed to the teeth as they can be because you're going to be counting on getting as many kills per hour as possible.

Stop people being able to do that and it won't be economical to do it by chopper, which will leave us with a big pest problem on our hands.

jono035

10th July 2009, 21:23

I'll bet it had a pistol grip...

Doesn't matter if it isn't a semi-auto. :)

scumdog

10th July 2009, 21:31

I'll bet it had a pistol grip...

Nup, just a plain 'ol 'fire-a-shot, break-it-open, put-another-shell-in-it, fire-again' type of gun.

ynot slow

10th July 2009, 21:35

And most semi autos of shotgun and centre fire are pinned to max of 5 rounds,except MSSA ones if I'm informed correctly,or it is my thinking of them.

scumdog

10th July 2009, 21:37

And most semi autos of shotgun and centre fire are pinned to max of 5 rounds,except MSSA ones if I'm informed correctly,or it is my thinking of them.

Nup.
Informed wrong.

jono035

10th July 2009, 21:39

Nup, just a plain 'ol 'fire-a-shot, break-it-open, put-another-shell-in-it, fire-again' type of gun.

Which is pretty good evidence, one would think, to say that it isn't the gun that is the problem quite as much as it is the nutjob behind it.

Indiana_Jones

10th July 2009, 22:17

Firearms are here to stay.

No homo lefty feel good shit is gonna change that.

But I am a law abiding firearm owner, why should should the actions of a few who will get the weapons they desire not matter what laws are in place reflect upon me?

This cunt doing the show doesn't like firearms, that's cool i respect that, but that doesn't make me or any other gun owner a bad person.

-Indy

Swoop

10th July 2009, 22:22

Joining the club doesn't really work out any cheaper unless you're shooting more than once a month ($200 per month, $100 to join)
$200 per month?????????
Bloody hell!

Nz needs to drop the Ausie system it adopted,which is what we have now, a licence system and go back to a permit to procure (from Police) the purchaser needs this before they get any gun sold to them..

Years back the system knew who had what, well almost,

Now with and basicly without a licence if you are lucky you can buy as many guns as you like from other people without there being a record of any transaction at all, now how dumb is that,
Hang on a second. The present system was brought in because the old PTP system was unworkable, plain and simple.
The error rate was massive.

The current PTP system appears just as bad. Many instances of inaccuracies in records have come to light. People have had their registered guns confiscated because they "were not on the system", and then the police had to return them (with apologies - which was nice of them) when the balls-up was found.
The prime cilprit in all of this appears to be Wellington and the keyboard jockeys that input/stuff-up the data.

The current system is the best in the world for workability. For the worst system, refer to Canada.

jono035

10th July 2009, 22:32

$200 per month?????????
Bloody hell!

Hang on a second. The present system was brought in because the old PTP system was unworkable, plain and simple.
The error rate was massive.

The current PTP system appears just as bad. Many instances of inaccuracies in records have come to light. People have had their registered guns confiscated because they "were not on the system", and then the police had to return them (with apologies - which was nice of them) when the balls-up was found.
The prime cilprit in all of this appears to be Wellington and the keyboard jockeys that input/stuff-up the data.

The current system is the best in the world for workability. For the worst system, refer to Canada.

Ahhh crap, $200 per year... not sure where the hell that came from.... it's a further $70 a year if you join Pistol NZ too

Swoop

10th July 2009, 22:34

Ahhh crap, $200 per year... not sure where the hell that came from.... it's a further $70 a year if you join Pistol NZ too
Ahh!

What's with the "if you join"? Compulsory for B.

jono035

11th July 2009, 08:46

Ahh!

What's with the "if you join"? Compulsory for B.

Yeah, compulsory for a B, optional otherwise. There are plenty of shooters at CSI who don't have pistols.

jono035

11th July 2009, 08:50

And most semi autos of shotgun and centre fire are pinned to max of 5 rounds,except MSSA ones if I'm informed correctly,or it is my thinking of them.

For a firearm to be designated a MSSA it has to fulfill one of the following criteria:

Folding or Telescopic Butt
Magazine of more than 15 rounds for .22 rimfire or more than 7 rounds all others (shotgun included)
Bayonet lug
Free standing 'military style' pistol grip
Flash Suppressor (Sound Suppressors and Muzzle Brakes don't count)

This is in addition to it being a semi-automatic, obviously.

jono035

11th July 2009, 08:52

And to add to the further crap,the guy fired a military style semi auto (mssa) .22 on a farm or similar,almost to invoke the scarry military type weapon he wanted to buy ILLEGALLY.

He was firing a G22 if I recall, which is currently an A category (hunting) rifle.

ynot slow

11th July 2009, 09:39

He was firing a G22 if I recall, which is currently an A category (hunting) rifle.

Yep have seen a few on trademe and thought nice looking weapon,then saw category A.Thought shit hot lol,can get one.

Cheers for info re mag maximum on MSSA/semi auto centre fire,knew they had smallish mags,hell if you need more than 7 rounds in a semi .308 Ruger type you shouldn't be hunting.

jono035

11th July 2009, 09:46

Yep have seen a few on trademe and thought nice looking weapon,then saw category A.Thought shit hot lol,can get one.

Cheers for info re mag maximum on MSSA/semi auto centre fire,knew they had smallish mags,hell if you need more than 7 rounds in a semi .308 Ruger type you shouldn't be hunting.

Yeah, I don't find the current restrictions too bad really, I think it is a good balance.

If I recall, those G22s are pretty expensive for a semi-auto .22. I would say get something like a Ruger 10/22. I have a target-kitted one and if I needed a lightweight semi-auto .22 for hunting (I use the target gun for rabbits) then I'll buy another one with a stainless barrel and stick a polymer stock on it...

ynot slow

11th July 2009, 09:55

Yeah, I don't find the current restrictions too bad really, I think it is a good balance.

If I recall, those G22s are pretty expensive for a semi-auto .22. I would say get something like a Ruger 10/22. I have a target-kitted one and if I needed a lightweight semi-auto .22 for hunting (I use the target gun for rabbits) then I'll buy another one with a stainless barrel and stick a polymer stock on it...

About $1250 from gun city I think,the ruger was my choice for semi,but grabbed a Norinco b/a set up for $349,scope,2 mags,bag and the ENN? model,nicer bolt,smooth as.

jono035

11th July 2009, 10:23

About $1250 from gun city I think,the ruger was my choice for semi,but grabbed a Norinco b/a set up for $349,scope,2 mags,bag and the ENN? model,nicer bolt,smooth as.

Yeah, that is at the upper end of prices for a stock .22 semi auto, the Norinco sounds like a good deal, that's about what I paid for my bolt-action stainless Stirling.

Shadows

11th July 2009, 10:29

For a firearm to be designated a MSSA it has to fulfill one of the following criteria:

Folding or Telescopic Butt
Magazine of more than 15 rounds for .22 rimfire or more than 7 rounds all others (shotgun included)
Bayonet lug
Free standing 'military style' pistol grip
Flash Suppressor (Sound Suppressors and Muzzle Brakes don't count)

This is in addition to it being a semi-automatic, obviously.

Soon to be ANY 'military style' pistol grip. So all those guys who have glued or screwed a bar between the end of the pistol grip and the butt will have to come up with another out.

duckonin

11th July 2009, 11:19

$200 per month?????????
Bloody hell!

Hang on a second. The present system was brought in because the old PTP system was unworkable, plain and simple.
The error rate was massive.

The current PTP system appears just as bad. Many instances of inaccuracies in records have come to light. People have had their registered guns confiscated because they "were not on the system", and then the police had to return them (with apologies - which was nice of them) when the balls-up was found.
The prime cilprit in all of this appears to be Wellington and the keyboard jockeys that input/stuff-up the data.

The current system is the best in the world for workability. For the worst system, refer to Canada.

Our system really is the pits, the police have no Idea how many guns anyone person has at any time, at least the old system gave them a very good hint..

Back a few years ago computers were not as good at spitting out info as they are today but yes you are right it all comes back to (keyboard jockeys )

jono035

11th July 2009, 11:23

Soon to be ANY 'military style' pistol grip. So all those guys who have glued or screwed a bar between the end of the pistol grip and the butt will have to come up with another out.

Yeah, we'll see how that goes. The problem is that there are quite a few rifles that the change will designate as MSSA without reason, such as the H&K SL8 Sporting Rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sl8). The NZ Police also appear to have undertaken this change without contacting or allowing submissions from any of NZs sporting organisations, which leaves a few question marks as the motive.

There is a guy who is contesting this issue in the High Court at the moment. You can find more info here (http://frommycolddeadhand.blogspot.com/) if you are interested or think the cause is worth supporting.

jono035

11th July 2009, 11:23

Our system really is the pits, the police have no Idea how many guns anyone person has at any time, at least the old system gave them a very good hint..

Back a few years ago computers were not as good at spitting out info as they are today but yes you are right it all comes back to (keyboard jockeys )

I do not believe that 'number of guns owned' necessarily translates to anything that is useful in the way you are implying.

ManDownUnder

11th July 2009, 11:25

From another forum (http://www.fishnhunt.co.nz/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1247125304/0), for those wishing to raise the issue with www.bsa.govt.nz (http://www.bsa.govt.nz)

I'm personally in favour of writing your own complaint based on what you think (rather than cut and paste) but I think this is a pretty good response which deciphers the sections/bases of a possible complaint and will enable more time to be spent complaining, and less deciphering the sections and grounds of relevance.

===
Relevant-Standards: I am writing to complain about the content of the show \'Illegal New Zealand\', and site standards 4, 5, 6,8.

.
Complaint-Details: Standard 8 - Responsable Programming. I believe this show was alarmist and beat up the potential threat to ordinary New Zealand. For a start the journalists acted in fear of his safety while tending to an otherwise normal transaction in a way that he may experience threat or death at the hands of any normal law abiding firearms owner if he were to be \"exposed\". This is sensationalism.

I felt the statistics given on firearm incidents should have been placed in context, i.e firearms account for 7 deaths (accident/ criminal) per year while on average Vehicles account for 300- 500 deaths (accident/ criminal) per year for example.

The host also took two small portions of conversations while at the arms expo and attempted to turn those quotes into something sinister with more over dramatic acting. One, a good one line quip that would raise a laugh at many social occasions, the other a comment by someone with a right of center slightly liberal veiw, certainly couldn\'t be called an extremist veiw.

The bag confiscation wasn\'t the near perral made out. It seemed an act of responsibility by those running the event to insure items inside were not stolen. The presence of police at the event also showed of a calm, controlled and well organised event.

The types of firearms on display were not there as a free for all, or a show of what is \"out there\" on our streets. Some of the firearms on display may have been available to a select few who hold the appropriate catagory license for such purchases.

What was wrong with stuffed animals? It\'s not barbarick or sinister in any way. Personal veiws should be withheld on issues of taste when attempting serious reporting.

The host failed to mention how many responsible traders turned down his efforts to purchase firearms without a license. Which brings me to:-

Standard 5 :- Accuracy. The shows host claims on many occasions he was able to buy firearms on two separate occasions without a license. This was a fabrication. The Ruger 10/22 purchase was completed on someone elses license, a person hired by the show. If he allowed the host to take possesion of the firearm then he is in breach of the arms act. This is also a breach of Standard 8 as it is unfair to hire a license holder to purchase a firearm then pass it over as being now owned by your host.

The second purchase will have knowone acknowledging the seller is a responsible license holder, but he was guilty of taking your hired license holder at face value when asked if he had a firearms license. As he did hold a license he was the purchaser, not the shows host.

Your host was not able to purchase firearms without a license. Please note your hired license holder was in breach of the law placing a loaded firearm a vehicle. I expect as a responsible employer you should see to it that a compaint is laid with police.

Standard 4:- Controvesial Issues.

There are 10\'s of thousands of responsible lawabiding firearm owners in New Zealand who enjoy hunting and shooting sports. This show, which was tax payer funded propaganda for anti gun groups was over dramatised, inaccurate, alarmist, and gave little or no time toward presenting facts on firearm ownership in a positive way. With the exception of Greg Occonor, the show consisted of a journalist turned poor actor, and didn\'t even closely resemble true firearm ownership or trading.

Standard 6:- Fairness. TVNZ has run a series of highly biased shows regarding Hunting, Firearms and ownership, and licensing in the rescent past.
1/ There was a current affairs programme (20/20?) belittleing how easy it was to obtain a firearms license, which was not a true representation of the process.

2/ You ran a well edited show on Closeup showing a bunch of twits duck hunting which portrayed them as being anything but the extreme fringe of our sport.

3/ The programme this complaint is related to.

4/ There are many instances on your news bulletins, such as the AK47 totting terrorists displayed for any firearm incident. This seemed to stop after I informed you of this and about your use of the term \"Long Barrelled Shotgun\" in a news item, when infact the average firearm owner could have told you it was an air rifle. Firearm issues seem to get disproportionate attention at TVNZ. Irresponsible alarmist, biased doctrine

ManDownUnder

11th July 2009, 11:37

I am also going to advocate the guy the set off the rilfe in the middle of town be identified and prosecuted. I think he's a loose unit flagrantly disobeying the law which puts us all in a bad light if we don't condemn his actions.

Swoop

11th July 2009, 11:38

at least the old system gave them a very good hint..
Correct. It only gave a "hint", because it was so inaccurate. That is why it was abandoned.:clap:

Firearms registration does not work. Plain and simple. We see it today with the current system.

Indiana_Jones

11th July 2009, 15:19

Complaint made.

-Indy

Shadows

11th July 2009, 20:35

I do not believe that 'number of guns owned' necessarily translates to anything that is useful in the way you are implying.

Quite right. I have half a dozen and counting, but I could only ever effectively use one at a time!

jono035

11th July 2009, 20:47

Quite right. I have half a dozen and counting, but I could only ever effectively use one at a time!

Then you obviously haven't watched enough Rambo movies and practised the dual-wielding automatic-rifles pose in the mirror enough.

And you call yourself a firearms owner? Pah.

On a serious note, between a .22 pistol, a couple of different centerfire semi-automatics, a revolver, a .22 target rifle, a .22 hunting rifle, a centerfire target rifle, a couple of different centerfire hunting rifles (say a .223 for goats/bunnies and a .308 for deer), a double-barrelled shotgun for clays/bird hunting, a pump action cylinder-choke for pig hunting with slugs and maybe a lever action .22 for plinking and you would have most of your options covered. If you have the money to buy these weapons, they each have their own very different use for which very few are interchangeable. If you are a hunting/target shooting enthusiast then it is quite possible to see how you would end up with all of these weapons. Obviously you would have to be a pretty damn keen hunter to get much use out of them all, but that is entirely up to the individual concerned. If you were to go hunting with mates, then you may even have double-ups of some of the above weapons.

Of course, the people who suggest that the police need to know how many guns you have so they 'know who they are dealing with' seem to think that this automatically makes you a crazed killer, rather than an avid hunter. Doesn't seem logical to me.

And none of that covers the people among us who have an interest in firearms history and shoot black powder or buy an old service rifle or similar for its historic/reminiscent value.

Edit: I find it sad that I felt like I should edit this post to make it more obvious to the firearm-ignorant among us that the first few lines were joking in case it got turned around on me later. I figure this is an acceptable compromise...

Shadows

11th July 2009, 21:01

Then you obviously haven't watched enough Rambo movies and practised the dual-wielding automatic-rifles pose in the mirror enough.

And you call yourself a firearms owner? Pah.

Rambo never had a #1 cut, I don't look good in a singlet, and I'd have to get completely trollied in order to be able to slur my words as badly. And seeing as one isn't supposed to get trashed and play with guns I've never had the oppurtinuity *hic*

jono035

11th July 2009, 21:05

Rambo never had a #1 cut, I don't look good in a singlet, and I'd have to get completely trollied in order to be able to slur my words as badly. And seeing as one isn't supposed to get trashed and play with guns I've never had the oppurtinuity *hic*

Well that's another thing you're doing wrong!

The other acceptable reason for having so many different guns is that it means you can keep em all loaded and that way you can go for longer without reloading when the swine flu finally mutates into its zombie-causing phase and you have to defend yourself from hordes of zombies hungry for your brain.

Then who is going to have the last laugh? It certainly won't be the people who think firearms should be banned, unless your idea of a laugh sounds something like "brraaaaiiiiiinnnnsssssssss....."

Shadows

11th July 2009, 21:11

The other acceptable reason for having so many different guns is that it means you can keep em all loaded and that way you can go for longer without reloading when the swine flu finally mutates into its zombie-causing phase and you have to defend yourself from hordes of zombies hungry for your brain.

Then who is going to have the last laugh? It certainly won't be the people who think firearms should be banned, unless your idea of a laugh sounds something like "brraaaaiiiiiinnnnsssssssss....."

Fuck I wish I'd given that as a reason when I applied for my license. That's a goodie.

jono035

11th July 2009, 21:25

Fuck I wish I'd given that as a reason when I applied for my license. That's a goodie.

Was very tempted to apply for my E-cat with a stupid reason like that when I applied for my B. Figured the extra safe was a bit much while renting and that getting an E later on wouldn't be that hard (when the safe costs $1k, $200 filing fee isn't that bad) so applying for an E at the same time and getting denied wouldn't cost me anything. Chickened out in case they decided to deny my B application because of it :o

Mr Merde

11th July 2009, 21:33

jono035

11th July 2009, 21:42

I have been thinking of getting my E cat and a C cat licence.

For a C cat I have to write an essay of my interest in firearms.

I have been advised to make it as broad as possible without making it too general or I will be severely limited in what I can collect.

Luckily my interest is in those firearms used by the military and government departments.

Covers pretty much every firearm ever made.

Just for interests sake. In the UK I used to go to a lot of firearms auctions. It was a pain finding something really nice and having to go backwards and forewards with the police (individual firearms reg as well as user) to be able to get what I bid at auction. I went to the poilce, explained this and they decided that I should have a firearms dealers licence. No photo, no references, able to deal in any sort of firearms, valid for 10 years. Way better than the standard firearms licence. I was even legally able to deal in the international firearms trade if i soi desired.

That sounds like a pretty decent system. From my understanding the UK firearms laws are pretty stringent at the moment. No pistols at all (the UK still has a pistol shooting team though, but I believe they have to practice outside the UK). Individual tickets for individual weapon types etc. Was this the same environment that you had a dealers license in or have things changed since then?

The storage requirements for a collectors license are pretty hefty aren't they? Reinforced concrete strongroom or similar isn't it?

Mr Merde

11th July 2009, 21:54

That sounds like a pretty decent system. From my understanding the UK firearms laws are pretty stringent at the moment. No pistols at all (the UK still has a pistol shooting team though, but I believe they have to practice outside the UK). Individual tickets for individual weapon types etc. Was this the same environment that you had a dealers license in or have things changed since then?

The storage requirements for a collectors license are pretty hefty aren't they? Reinforced concrete strongroom or similar isn't it?

No I had no more safety restrictions placed on me than a normal firearms certificate holder. This was before pistols were banned and this is what I coolected. I had 15 different handguns plus rifles.

Yes the British team trains in Switzerland.

Handgun crime has gone up 50% since handguns have been banned. Strange that

jono035

11th July 2009, 21:57

No I had no more safety restrictions placed on me than a normal firearms certificate holder. This was before pistols were banned and this is what I coolected. I had 15 different handguns plus rifles.

Yes the British team trains in Switzerland.

Handgun crime has gone up 50% since handguns have been banned. Strange that

Yeah, but coming up with solutions (not sure what the problem actually is however) other than 'firearms bad, ban them!' is difficult!

Was referring to the NZ C endorsement requirements.

Although, anything you get on a C category you cannot fire, so I guess that would be a case of last resort for weapons you could not get on an E cat?

Swoop

11th July 2009, 22:58

The storage requirements for a collectors license are pretty hefty aren't they?
Essentially the same as B/E-cat security. Disassembly of the firearm is required for inoperability when being stored. The other categories can be left assembled inside the safe.

ManDownUnder

11th July 2009, 23:43

Luckily my interest is in those firearms used by the military and government departments.

Covers pretty much every firearm ever made.

Possibly add or discuss your apparent interest in firearm education and safety also.

wbks

12th July 2009, 11:20

So if C is collector and you can't fire, I would assume you can get anything from a fully auto AK to an old Anti-Aircraft gun. Then what is E-category for?

jono035

12th July 2009, 11:34

So if C is collector and you can't fire, I would assume you can get anything from a fully auto AK to an old Anti-Aircraft gun. Then what is E-category for?

Yeah, pretty much. There are a lot of machine guns, AA guns, RPGs etc. held on a collectors license, and all stored in inoperable fashion.

E category is for operable semi-automatic rifles that have one of the following things:
Folding or Telescopic Butt Stock
Free Standing Military-Style Pistol Grip
Magazine capacity of more than 15 rounds for .22 rimfire, more than 7 rounds for all others
Bayonet Lug
Flash Suppressor (Sound Suppressors and Muzzle Brakes are excluded from this)

Swoop

12th July 2009, 13:27

So if C is collector and you can't fire, I would assume you can get anything from a fully auto AK to an old Anti-Aircraft gun. Then what is E-category for?
For making the firearm go "BANG"...

The Stranger

12th July 2009, 23:29

You, are a tool. You refer to firarms users as gun nuts, and the type that sits their oiling their weapons? Get clue!

Shooters come from all walks of life. Licensed users are NOT the ones going on rampages. As soon as logical arguments come about that starts to turn against you, you leave? You dont like guns, fine, nobody is asking you, but why should my sport be punished becuase your paranoid and ignorant of the facts?

They needn't go on a rampage to be dangerous need they. This guy didn't (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10548683). He was just regular nice guy gun nut too.

Indiana_Jones

12th July 2009, 23:39

They needn't go on a rampage to be dangerous need they. This guy didn't (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10548683). He was just regular nice guy gun nut too.

So what the other 200,000+ gun owners?

If one person crashes a car, do the other so many million car owners get tossed into the same basket?

-Indy

wbks

12th July 2009, 23:46

The Stranger

12th July 2009, 23:47

So what the other 200,000+ gun owners?

If one person crashes a car, do the other so many million car owners get tossed into the same basket?

-Indy

Indy, Indy, Indy.
As noted many times previously.
Anything can kill you, so don't trot out the tiresome braindead ban everything argument. Cars have a useful purpose, there is a need for cars in society. There is a need for guns too. By all means demonstrate a need and obtain the correct tool for the purpose.
As noted also. Why allow guns and not machine guns, or gatling guns or hell nukes. Blowing up cities could become a sport too you know.

The Stranger

12th July 2009, 23:51

Think about this: Motorcycles are unnecessary. Cars are cheaper (including initial cost and lower maintenance),

Tried lane splitting in Auckland traffic in a car? How did that work for you?

wbks

12th July 2009, 23:52

Tried lane splitting in Auckland traffic in a car? How did that work for you?Lane splitting is unnecessary.

wbks

12th July 2009, 23:53

Indy, Indy, Indy.
As noted many times previously.
Anything can kill you, so don't trot out the tiresome braindead ban everything argument. Cars have a useful purpose, there is a need for cars in society. There is a need for guns too. By all means demonstrate a need and obtain the correct tool for the purpose.
As noted also. Why allow guns and not machine guns, or gatling guns or hell nukes. Blowing up cities could become a sport too you know.So what's your stance on the current gun control? More or less control in your opinion?

Indiana_Jones

13th July 2009, 00:00

I'm not talking about control, I was just saying/asking how come the actions of one or two people dictate what should happen to the thousands of others who have done no wrong?

What if one or two people got caught doing wheelies and then the government decided that they will restrict the HP of all bikes because of those one or two people.

Edit: I guess I am talking about control lol

-Indy

wbks

13th July 2009, 00:02

I'm not talking about control, I was just saying/asking how come the actions of one or two people dictate what should happen to the thousands of others who have done no wrong?

What if one or two people got caught doing wheelies and then the government decided that they will restrict the HP of all bikes because of those one or two people.

-IndyI agree with you, but to be fair, I think it's a little bit more important when you're dealing with more direct effects.

The Stranger

13th July 2009, 00:02

Lane splitting is unnecessary.

Correct, but it does have a useful purpose.

Indiana_Jones

13th July 2009, 00:07

Correct, but it does have a useful purpose.

The same could be said of firearms.

Useful for when I want to shoot rabbits, targets or just to fulfill my interest in historical arms.

Unnecessary and dangerous to someone else.

Lane splitting is useful as it helps me get to work on time and to stop my biek over heating if it's hot.

Unnecessary and dangerous to someone else.

All depends where you sit on the fence really.

-Indy

wbks

13th July 2009, 00:09

Correct, but it does have a useful purpose.So does a certain HK with a thumb hole stock. What they're doing at the moment categorizing that style of gun is the equivalent of making you apply for a new type of license for a bike narrow enough to lane split

The Stranger

13th July 2009, 01:12

The same could be said of firearms.

Useful for when I want to shoot rabbits, targets or just to fulfill my interest in historical arms.

Unnecessary and dangerous to someone else.

Lane splitting is useful as it helps me get to work on time and to stop my biek over heating if it's hot.

Unnecessary and dangerous to someone else.

All depends where you sit on the fence really.

-Indy

Come on Indy, I know you have a brain. I did expect better from you.
Why do you insist on the everything is dangerous so ban everything argument.

Try very hard to put that purile gem away and give me some real reasons.

Ok, ok, Tell you what.
As I seem to be confusing everyone here, lets try one issue at a time eh.

So some responsible gun owner sells 120 guns from his collection to crims AND at least one has been used to shoot a cop.
I guess first thing first, is this even a problem or a concern?

jono035

13th July 2009, 05:57

We already have laws with serious consequences that this guy was in breach of.

How about effectively enforcing existing laws before making new ones?

Given the amount of noise that was made not so long ago about that big shipment of firearms/drugs that was found being imported, I doubt some guy with a collectors license is supply the majority of weapons, most of them will be coming from overseas. Until they ban weapons as well (lol) then that avenue of argument is pointless. Criminals will ignore the law, while law-abiding people get punished and no-one is any safer.

jono035

13th July 2009, 05:58

And the fact that you see motorcycles as more needed than firearms made me lol :D

Indiana_Jones

13th July 2009, 08:13

Come on Indy, I know you have a brain. I did expect better from you.
Why do you insist on the everything is dangerous so ban everything argument.

Try very hard to put that purile gem away and give me some real reasons.

Ok, ok, Tell you what.
As I seem to be confusing everyone here, lets try one issue at a time eh.

So some responsible gun owner sells 120 guns from his collection to crims AND at least one has been used to shoot a cop.
I guess first thing first, is this even a problem or a concern?

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence here.

I'm also not insisting on the 'Ban everything that's dangerous arguement'

I'm just trying to say, whether it's dangerous or not is a point of view.

And responable gun owners don't sell guns to crims, "oh but he was responable for 32 years, blah blah", he WAS, right up till the point he did that, and he broke the law and shall and should be punished to the full extent.

-Indy

-Indy

Dare

13th July 2009, 10:54

Think about this: Motorcycles are unnecessary. Cars are cheaper (including initial cost and lower maintenance), and marginally safer. There are also many bike nuts out there that have plowed through cars in excess of 200kp/h killing whole families and have caused more deaths in NZ than firearms. There is no absolute need for them. Fuckin bike nuts, I bet they get more pleasure out of riding a bike than a woman, they spend more time doing the former.

Heh. Pull the other one, it hath bells on.

http://www.mtedenmotorcycles.co.nz/shop/New+Bikes/Kawasaki/Supersports/2009+Ninja+ZX-6R.html
Initial cost of an 09 zx6r inc GST: $18,595.00
http://www.ccs.co.nz/new+cars/porsche/porsche+911/porsche+911+carrera+gt3
Initial cost of a 09 Porsche GT3 (Arguably similar purpose): Price NZ$270,000
http://www.thecaryard.co.nz/results.asp?cboMake=7&cboCategory=1
Initial cost of a used 09 Mazda 3: $31,995.00

And I guarantee buying and fitting a part for the porsche is likely to cost as much as a replacement engine on the zx6r. And forget about tyres.

Cost to fill my mini: $50
Range: ~350k on a tank
Cost to fill my GSF: $25
Range:~220k on a tank

Safer? Can't argue with that, statistics don't lie! :D

As for firearms, having been raised in the UK where guns are a no-no I haven't had much experience with them. But I find it offensive when the government decides to increase limitations under the guise of 'safety'. If you are spending more money then I doubt safety is its actual purpose. Shouldn't there be a way for the general public to say 'back off' when the government gets too over protective? (and don't say vote for the other guy, that doesn't make much difference to this kind of thing) We don't need babying ffs. Well, some of us do, but darwin has his ways..

Mr Merde

13th July 2009, 11:08

.......
As for firearms, having been raised in the UK where guns are a no-no I haven't had much experience with them. But I find it offensive when the government decides to increase limitations under the guise of 'safety'. If you are spending more money then I doubt safety is its actual purpose. Shouldn't there be a way for the general public to say 'back off' when the government gets too over protective? (and don't say vote for the other guy, that doesn't make much difference to this kind of thing) We don't need babying ffs. Well, some of us do, but darwin has his ways..

There should be but unfortunately there isnt.
Once elected a government pretty much has a free hand until the next election.

Look at the current referendum on the smacking bill. The voting population forced the government to hold the referendum but then the government actually has come out and stated they no matter what the outcome they are not bound to do anything . Basically we are allowed to make our views known but other than that just go away and behave yourselves as big brother knows best.

wbks

13th July 2009, 11:30

Dare

13th July 2009, 12:39

Well no shit if you're going to compare a gt3 and a bike. Last car I bought was 500, road legal. Last chitty bike that will never be road legal-1500. It's pretty obvious looking on trademe that cars are cheaper. And tyres on the average car are going to be longer in between compared to a bike, and probably cheaper, too. Cars ARE cheaper.

I'm comparing a supersport to a sport car... Notice the mazda 3?

Going by rock bottom trademe prices cars are cheaper, mainly because the market is flooded with them. However a $500 mid nineties car isn't going to win many crash tests, which is why NZ stopped importing pre 1995 japanese cars. My car was $600 and my bike was over 2g so I won't argue with you on that :) However once you start looking up around 7k or more bikes rapidly become better bang for buck, depending of course on what you want them for... Upgrades on bikes are also cheaper than upgrades for cars. And no sound system to worry about!

Going on safety, older cars are less safe but cheaper than bikes, nineties cars are fairly reliable. But a big job on a bike does not cost the same as a big job on a car. Our subaru can attest to that. Essentially bike ongoing costs are certain, whereas if your lucky a car can give you thousands of miles of grief free tedium. Or it can cost a bomb. Buying a new car gets rid of the worries of buying a lemon but at the expense of costing 10X more than a used bike. Sliding scale of course.

Your average bike is cheaper than your average car, on the basis that your average NZ'er doesn't drive a $500 car.
EDIT:
A thought. At rock bottom prices petrol becomes a big factor, a years petrol probably costs more than your $500 car. But then Rego costs less.
There are many factors here, and each price bracket has a different answer, so I guess what i'm saying is it's nothing as simple as saying 'cars are cheaper'.

scumdog

13th July 2009, 13:30

I'm comparing a supersport to a sport car... Notice the mazda 3?

Going by rock bottom trademe prices cars are cheaper, mainly because the market is flooded with them. However a $500 mid nineties car isn't going to win many crash tests, which is why NZ stopped importing pre 1995 japanese cars. My car was $600 and my bike was over 2g so I won't argue with you on that :) However once you start looking up around 7k or more bikes rapidly become better bang for buck, depending of course on what you want them for... Upgrades on bikes are also cheaper than upgrades for cars. And no sound system to worry about!

Going on safety, older cars are less safe but cheaper than bikes, nineties cars are fairly reliable. But a big job on a bike does not cost the same as a big job on a car. Our subaru can attest to that. Essentially bike ongoing costs are certain, whereas if your lucky a car can give you thousands of miles of grief free tedium. Or it can cost a bomb. Buying a new car gets rid of the worries of buying a lemon but at the expense of costing 10X more than a used bike. Sliding scale of course.

Your average bike is cheaper than your average car, on the basis that your average NZ'er doesn't drive a $500 car.
EDIT:
A thought. At rock bottom prices petrol becomes a big factor, a years petrol probably costs more than your $500 car. But then Rego costs less.
There are many factors here, and each price bracket has a different answer, so I guess what i'm saying is it's nothing as simple as saying 'cars are cheaper'.

The only thing 'cheap about a motorbike is the fill-ups at the petrol pump, its ability to cover a long distance for little fuel and the initial purchase price.

Rego, insurance and general maintenance are way ahead - (for example, not many bike tyres last 35,000km or so, OK, you have to buy four instead of two but generally the car tyres are also cheaper.)

But back on topic....I fail to see how the status of a weapon purely because of the appearance of a NON-FREE STANDING pistol grip is going to make things safer for anybody, it didn't seem to stop Molenaar, hell just about all his firearms had them, most put there by him - the man with no fire-arms licence.

The Pastor

13th July 2009, 14:35

Indy, Indy, Indy.
As noted many times previously.
Anything can kill you, so don't trot out the tiresome braindead ban everything argument. Cars have a useful purpose, there is a need for cars in society. There is a need for guns too. By all means demonstrate a need and obtain the correct tool for the purpose.
As noted also. Why allow guns and not machine guns, or gatling guns or hell nukes. Blowing up cities could become a sport too you know.

Gatling guns (that are hand operated) are legal in NZ, cost about 10k tho

Mr Merde

13th July 2009, 15:14

Gatling guns (that are hand operated) are legal in NZ, cost about 10k tho

Add another $15,000 to your guestimate. Thats for a .22 version. If you want a large calibre you need to spend more

Actually made in Mt Eden, not far from Her Magesty's holiday hotel.

The Pastor

13th July 2009, 16:20

add another $15,000 to your guestimate. Thats for a .22 version. If you want a large calibre you need to spend more

actually made in mt eden, not far from her magesty's holiday hotel.
35k, what a bargin- wonder how accurate they are

Mr Merde

13th July 2009, 16:23

35k, what a bargin- wonder how accurate they are

25k for a .22.

Like all machine type guns they are spray and pray.

put enough bullets downrange and you will hit something.

Gatling Gun fired up to 600 rouds per min and went up to a .80 calibre

jetboy

13th July 2009, 16:24

0oh time to watch naked and funny :lol:
I miss Sky TV

:bye:

Shadows

13th July 2009, 16:34

35k, what a bargin- wonder how accurate they are

Not very. And not the best for a killing spree either. They need a couple of guys to wheel the thing around and are easily outflanked (basically harmless unless you walk in front of them).

One would be far better off with a "run of the mill" automatic rifle.

ManDownUnder

13th July 2009, 16:40

Gatling Gun fired up to 600 rouds per min and went up to a .80 calibre

uh uh - here's one 30mm... and does about mach 0.7

qSHuYQU3U1w

Cheshire Cat

13th July 2009, 16:51

Think about this: Motorcycles are unnecessary.

NEVER!!!:Offtopic::bash:

Pixie

13th July 2009, 17:21

Most parents wouldn't be too happy with their kids coming across used bullets found on their school playground.

He just shot aimlessly in the air, could have deflected with one of the many trees he had and fired back.

What's the big deal? It's just a lump of lead.
Even if some moron kid ate it he'd just shit it out again.

skidMark

13th July 2009, 17:23

Yup 'documentries' like that piss me off - what a beat up.

But dumb gun owners giving reporters 'ammo' for such a doco piss me off more.

Yes and no a slimy reporter can make a juicy story of just about anything.

I loathe them about as much as parking wardens.

awayatc

13th July 2009, 17:30

25k for a .22.

Like all machine type guns they are spray and pray.

put enough bullets downrange and you will hit something.

Praying for those on receiving end......
Used to Hit helmet size targets at 600 meters with 7.62 GP machine gun at over 90 % hits.....
VW combi van shredded at 1000 meters with one 100 round belt on the .50 calibre......
Ther old Bren was sniper material,
only useless ones are shortbarreled 9mm Machine pistols like uzi's and the like.

jono035

13th July 2009, 18:39

Heh. Pull the other one, it hath bells on.

http://www.mtedenmotorcycles.co.nz/shop/New+Bikes/Kawasaki/Supersports/2009+Ninja+ZX-6R.html
Initial cost of an 09 zx6r inc GST: $18,595.00
http://www.ccs.co.nz/new+cars/porsche/porsche+911/porsche+911+carrera+gt3
Initial cost of a 09 Porsche GT3 (Arguably similar purpose): Price NZ$270,000
http://www.thecaryard.co.nz/results.asp?cboMake=7&cboCategory=1
Initial cost of a used 09 Mazda 3: $31,995.00

And I guarantee buying and fitting a part for the porsche is likely to cost as much as a replacement engine on the zx6r. And forget about tyres.

Cost to fill my mini: $50
Range: ~350k on a tank
Cost to fill my GSF: $25
Range:~220k on a tank

Safer? Can't argue with that, statistics don't lie! :D

As for firearms, having been raised in the UK where guns are a no-no I haven't had much experience with them. But I find it offensive when the government decides to increase limitations under the guise of 'safety'. If you are spending more money then I doubt safety is its actual purpose. Shouldn't there be a way for the general public to say 'back off' when the government gets too over protective? (and don't say vote for the other guy, that doesn't make much difference to this kind of thing) We don't need babying ffs. Well, some of us do, but darwin has his ways..

Did you just compare a 600cc ninja to a porsche? :blink:

Not sure I quite followed where you were going with that one. Neither of those are 'need' cars/bikes, they're both indulgences. A 'need' car is something more like a corolla. If you want to drive a fast car, sure, but if it can exceed the speed limit, then it probably isn't 'needed', it's a want, and a truck load more people are killed by speeding in Porsches than by high school shootings :D.

If you want to learn a little more about firearms safety and handling and are anywhere near Auckland then you should come out to Central Shooters (Nelson St in central city) on one of the visitors nights and take a look. I'm happy to make a special trip in and talk you through the whole shebang. Then if it's something you're interested in you can punch some holes in a paper target with a rifle and maybe one of the .22 pistols even.

Send me a PM if you're keen.

jono035

13th July 2009, 18:46

I'm comparing a supersport to a sport car... Notice the mazda 3?

Going by rock bottom trademe prices cars are cheaper, mainly because the market is flooded with them. However a $500 mid nineties car isn't going to win many crash tests, which is why NZ stopped importing pre 1995 japanese cars. My car was $600 and my bike was over 2g so I won't argue with you on that :) However once you start looking up around 7k or more bikes rapidly become better bang for buck, depending of course on what you want them for... Upgrades on bikes are also cheaper than upgrades for cars. And no sound system to worry about!

Going on safety, older cars are less safe but cheaper than bikes, nineties cars are fairly reliable. But a big job on a bike does not cost the same as a big job on a car. Our subaru can attest to that. Essentially bike ongoing costs are certain, whereas if your lucky a car can give you thousands of miles of grief free tedium. Or it can cost a bomb. Buying a new car gets rid of the worries of buying a lemon but at the expense of costing 10X more than a used bike. Sliding scale of course.

Your average bike is cheaper than your average car, on the basis that your average NZ'er doesn't drive a $500 car.
EDIT:
A thought. At rock bottom prices petrol becomes a big factor, a years petrol probably costs more than your $500 car. But then Rego costs less.
There are many factors here, and each price bracket has a different answer, so I guess what i'm saying is it's nothing as simple as saying 'cars are cheaper'.

Sorry mate, I appreciate the sentiment but I think the fairway is about 40m to the west of here. Doesn't matter if the car passes crash tests, how many bikes do?

Even crapped out old bangers can be kept running for cheap. Hell, my dad is still driving a Mazda 323 (NZ assembled!) around that we bought about 12 years ago and it is still going strong. Had a couple of CV joints done, clutch, couple of sets of tires, brake pads, various dents removed and it is still going strong at I believe around 350k kms (about 20k of which I probably put on and I was NOT soft on the thing). Cost $2.5k

jono035

13th July 2009, 18:51

uh uh - here's one 30mm... and does about mach 0.7

The actual Gatling gun refers to the original hand-cranked cannon-carriage mounted version, invented by Watshiznehm Gatling. The modern ones are multi-barrel rotary auto-cannons (for smoothbore ones like that one you linked) or something.

Least that was always my understanding of it...

ManDownUnder

13th July 2009, 20:43

The actual Gatling gun refers to the original hand-cranked cannon-carriage mounted version, invented by Watshiznehm Gatling. The modern ones are multi-barrel rotary auto-cannons (for smoothbore ones like that one you linked) or something.

Least that was always my understanding of it...

I hear ya (but did you notice the word "FAIL" on the screen... very apt I thought)

jono035

13th July 2009, 20:54

I hear ya (but did you notice the word "FAIL" on the screen... very apt I thought)

Lol nice, hadn't actually watched the vid.

skidMark

13th July 2009, 21:03

jono035

13th July 2009, 21:08

Not very. And not the best for a killing spree either. They need a couple of guys to wheel the thing around and are easily outflanked (basically harmless unless you walk in front of them).

One would be far better off with a "run of the mill" automatic rifle.

Similar idea to them banning .50 cal rifles in California to stop terrorists shooting planes out of the sky.

The average .50 cal shooter is something like a middle-aged white male working in a middle-management role making around 80-120k US per year... There has never been any issues with .50 cals being used in crime at all, in fact so called 'assault weapons' as classified by their legislation occurred in something like 4% of all gun crime. Probably less after you adjust to remove gang-related crime *sigh*

Shadows

13th July 2009, 21:17

The average .50 cal shooter is something like a middle-aged white male working in a middle-management role making around 80-120k US per year...

Like this dumbarse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABGIJwiGBc

scumdog

13th July 2009, 21:22

Like this dumbarse?

I watched that one a while ago - amazing the bullet bounced back that far - and so directly in the shooters direction too!

I've had a few bullet bounce off 'targets' - but never straight back at me. (although I did get a splinter from one embeded in my forehead:shutup:)

skidMark

13th July 2009, 21:23

I always preferred this clip

FRgYtp3HfvY

wbks

13th July 2009, 21:25

Fake.Fake. I wasn't there, but it's hard to believe that would ever happen. Especially with a .50. Wouldn't it just crush and drop, even if it bounced back slightly?

mynameis

13th July 2009, 21:35

I miss Sky TV

:bye:

Here's one for you :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO8RxJ_rvJQ&feature=related

jono035

13th July 2009, 22:13

Fake.Fake. I wasn't there, but it's hard to believe that would ever happen. Especially with a .50. Wouldn't it just crush and drop, even if it bounced back slightly?

Not a fake. Not the bullet bouncing either. It's pretty hard to get an entire bullet turned around and coming back at you unless you've done something very wrong with what you're shooting into (rocks for instance).

It's actually the jacket being shedded as it goes through the target. You hear them say at the end 'nope, no more iron' because they are shooting at steel targets. When the bullet hits the target the denser lead core punches a hole through, scraping the copper jacket off on the outside. Once it is done, the copper springs back and heads pretty damn close to straight where it came from.

Don't shoot steel targets with jacketed rifle rounds.

Edit: If it was even a fragment of the original bullet he wouldn't have stood up afterwards. A 22LR to the head can kill you, doesn't take much in the way of pieces of .50 cal bullet to equal a .22 bullet.

scumdog

13th July 2009, 22:19

Not a fake. Not the bullet bouncing either. It's pretty hard to get an entire bullet turned around and coming back at you unless you've done something very wrong with what you're shooting into (rocks for instance).

It's actually the jacket being shedded as it goes through the target. You hear them say at the end 'nope, no more iron' because they are shooting at steel targets. When the bullet hits the target the denser lead core punches a hole through, scraping the copper jacket off on the outside. Once it is done, the copper springs back and heads pretty damn close to straight where it came from.

Don't shoot steel targets with jacketed rifle rounds.

Edit: If it was even a fragment of the original bullet he wouldn't have stood up afterwards. A 22LR to the head can kill you, doesn't take much in the way of pieces of .50 cal bullet to equal a .22 bullet.

Yup, listen carefully and you can hear the clang of the bullet strike just before the puff of dust on front of the shooter.

jono035

13th July 2009, 22:20

Mark: Yeah, I've seen that one a few times before. Had a turn with a guys .44 magnum desert eagle and was utterly terrified of doing the same thing. The .44 magnum was loaded up hotter than factory .50AE rounds too (CSI isn't certified for .50AE though).

It's not as bad as you'd think, hell of a recoil but it's actually pretty well spread out by the sheer weight of the pistol.

I found it more pleasant to shoot than the polymer frame walther with 9mm +P handloads in it that I shot a couple of weeks ago.

jono035

13th July 2009, 22:23

Yup, listen carefully and you can hear the clang of the bullet strike just before the puff of dust on front of the shooter.

Yeah, and that whine as it moves, sheeeeesh, he'll be having nightmares about that...

jono035

13th July 2009, 22:30

Hilarious. The blog linked to by the poster of that video mentions the incident on
http://www.madogre.com/Archives/June%202007.htm
For a start they say its a 750 grain bullet, thats 50 grams. If that had been what actually hit him, they'd have been cleaning him off the rifle with a squeegee.

Secondly, they said the range was 100 yards... What the hell are you doing firing a .50 BMG at 100 yards?! Might be a typo and they are meaning 1000 yards, but I can't say from the video...

Tempted to set that sound as a ringtone or something. Bloomph pink nnyyeeeeaaaarrrrrrr POK. Hilarious.

Edit: It occurs to me that it sounds like the bullet travels for about a second before hitting, which at 1km/s for the bullet and 330m/s for sound would put the target at about 250m... Definitely not 1000 yards though!

wbks

13th July 2009, 22:54

Not a fake. Not the bullet bouncing either. It's pretty hard to get an entire bullet turned around and coming back at you unless you've done something very wrong with what you're shooting into (rocks for instance).

It's actually the jacket being shedded as it goes through the target. You hear them say at the end 'nope, no more iron' because they are shooting at steel targets. When the bullet hits the target the denser lead core punches a hole through, scraping the copper jacket off on the outside. Once it is done, the copper springs back and heads pretty damn close to straight where it came from.

Don't shoot steel targets with jacketed rifle rounds.

Edit: If it was even a fragment of the original bullet he wouldn't have stood up afterwards. A 22LR to the head can kill you, doesn't take much in the way of pieces of .50 cal bullet to equal a .22 bullet.Well now that I hear the science behind it, it doesn't seem so far off.

Yup, listen carefully and you can hear the clang of the bullet strike just before the puff of dust on front of the shooter.I heard that loud and clear. I thought it was fake because I didn't think you could rebound something like that for a start, and all of the "produced by so and so studios" type credits made me think it was one of those things they make, kind of like the comedy central adds at the moment with the guy that gets flung onto the soccer field...

jono035

14th July 2009, 06:01

Well now that I hear the science behind it, it doesn't seem so far off.

I heard that loud and clear. I thought it was fake because I didn't think you could rebound something like that for a start, and all of the "produced by so and so studios" type credits made me think it was one of those things they make, kind of like the comedy central adds at the moment with the guy that gets flung onto the soccer field...

Nah, the adds were due to them using a piece of software they hadn't paid for... Strictly speaking you can deflect something like that, but the longer/thinner the bullet the less it can be deflected in a single hit as far as I understand it.

Which is why you have to be damn careful with .22s because the bullets are damn near spherical by comparison. You can quite easily take a shot at a possum in a tree and hear the bullet whine off at 45 degrees to where it should be, which is why I always try to get any houses etc. beyond 90 degrees to the line of fire.

ManDownUnder

14th July 2009, 16:06

http://www.killsometime.com/video/video.asp?ID=953

Didn't someone say they were only good for taking lives? Damn - I guess that sniper got it wrong...

jono035

14th July 2009, 16:18

http://www.killsometime.com/video/video.asp?ID=953

Didn't someone say they were only good for taking lives? Damn - I guess that sniper got it wrong...

Holy crap. That's a pretty awesome shot and an incredibly confused guy. I don't think they really needed to be all that vigorous with pulling him backwards over the chair by his neck though lol

Mr Merde

16th July 2009, 13:49

jono035

16th July 2009, 19:14

The second part of the peusdo documantary is on tonight.

Supposedly he is looking to buy illegal guns rather than guns illegally.

As much as I dont want to weatch this programme, I am going to.
I am going to take note and make further complaint to BSA and TVNZ.

It has been a long time since I have had such a antagonistic attitude but this dickhead and his bigotted, biased viewpoints really got under my skin.

An interesting point is one of the ROs at CSI recognised the guy as someone who had been in at some point a while back. Probably wired with his "my mum thinks I'm a secret agent" camera all the while making wisecracks about how if anyone spots the camera 'it could get ugly'.

I'm guessing none of the footage showed up though because he couldn't find anything even remotely dangerous or dubious. Must have been a hell of a let down...

Poor dear...

wbks

16th July 2009, 19:21

Are those csi guest nights very crowded? 5 mins and move on kind of thing?

jono035

16th July 2009, 21:29

Are those csi guest nights very crowded? 5 mins and move on kind of thing?

The thursday nights are really crowded but they are generally run such that it is a first in, first served basis... If you're there early enough to get a bay at 7 then you have that bay until 8, where they will ask people to move off and let the people waiting have a turn for the final hour. There are also some times where you will get multiple people taking turns shooting at 2 targets in the same bay.

Tuesdays are normally full, but only just. I think we had 1 or 2 people waiting until 8 but they may have arrived late. There are 10 bays total, normally 5 for visitors, 5 for members on those nights.

kokonutcreme

16th July 2009, 21:39

http://www.facebook.com/groups/create.php?success=1&customize&gid=121594183102#/group.php?gid=121594183102
Join the revolution and get this 'Mr 'X' off the screen.....damn I'm going to start a Doco about Gang Patches..Are they Taylor made and what texture is best preffered by members? Rough, Smooth, Soft...ha ha. What a dicky media trash doco that is paid by us tax payers! LOL

Swoop

16th July 2009, 22:57

Well, the second episode was as poorly done as the first.
Truly shocking reporting.

jono035

17th July 2009, 06:06

Well, the second episode was as poorly done as the first.
Truly shocking reporting.

Will have to take a look for it on the website sometime today. Not looking forward to it at all, but oh well...

jrandom

23rd July 2009, 20:28

jono035

23rd July 2009, 20:40

I see that tonight's episode is about anabolic steroids.

It's embarrassingly stupid.

Surely even the average TV viewer, completely uneducated on the subject, will be rolling their eyes and assuming that they're being condescended to by a programme that was based on about twenty minutes of internet research.

Surely.

Yeah, the problem is I've got to spend some time with my girlfriend's family this weekend and I can forsee myself getting the 3rd degree from someone about my passtime... I have pretty much zero faith in the 'average' persons ability to apply even the smallest amount of critical reasoning to a subject. They said it on TV so it must be true!

Can't wait.

Blackshear

23rd July 2009, 20:42

jrandom

23rd July 2009, 20:43

Yeah, the problem is I've got to spend some time with my girlfriend's family this weekend and I can forsee myself getting the 3rd degree from someone about my passtime...

You lift and juice?

What a very bad man you must be. And you're going to die. Of, like, cancer and stuff. Or liver damage... from injections of a hormone your body produces naturally. Yes, that's about as hepatotoxic as it gets.

(I doubt the presenter of that show has ever heard the phrase 'alpha alkalinised'.)

Do you have D cups and peanut-sized testicles yet?

:lol:

jono035

23rd July 2009, 20:54

You lift and juice?

What a very bad man you must be. And you're going to die. Of, like, cancer and stuff. Or liver damage... from injections of a hormone your body produces naturally. Yes, that's about as hepatotoxic as it gets.

(I doubt the presenter of that show has ever heard the phrase 'alpha alkalinised'.)

Do you have D cups and peanut-sized testicles yet?

:lol:

Was referring to the couple of episodes on firearms :D but that comment gave me a hell of a laugh. Maybe I should take up doing whatever he does an investigation of.

What a sad, pathetic little man. Either he actually is terrified of everything or he's just another tv attention whore.

scumdog

23rd July 2009, 21:28

Was referring to the couple of episodes on firearms :D but that comment gave me a hell of a laugh. Maybe I should take up doing whatever he does an investigation of.

What a sad, pathetic little man. Either he actually is terrified of everything or he's just another tv attention whore.

My thoughts too.

Never bothered to watch tonights episode, frikkin' waste of time..:angry:

sil3nt

23rd July 2009, 21:33

This program annoys me more than target :(

ManDownUnder

23rd July 2009, 21:35

What a sad, pathetic little man...he's just another tv attention whore.

+1 (sad)
+1 (pathetic)
+1 (attention whore)

wbks

23rd July 2009, 21:52

My thoughts too.

Never bothered to watch tonights episode, frikkin' waste of time..:angry:Basically, every steroid vendor he encountered (was actually surprisingly easy for him!) stressed to him how it's a serious decision and how much he should take, how often etc, and weren't really "dodgy" like he was saying. Well, as "non-dodgy" as someone selling 'roids can be... He tried hard, as usual... He practically dropped his superdooper spy cam on the floor and ran out of the room when the guy got the needle out to 'jab him', and then put on a painful facial expression as a nurse got a blood sample from him ("would you like a lolly pop?:sweatdrop) and said "wow, never had to give a blood sample for a story before!"

peasea

24th July 2009, 15:27

The 'series' is horribly rage-inducing.

It's almost like watching yank t.v, where they blow everything out of proportion, or over-react to anything.

'I can't believe how easy it was to get a gun off trademe...'. Even though he clearly said he provided the seller with a LEGITIMATE gun licence, he still raved on and did the whole dramatic 'omgeeee so scary' pause. 'But it would take all of 2 seconds to knock one up with a photoshop'.

New Zealand t.v is so fucking poorly done, I barely watch it. THere is, however, one programme with just enough substance to endure.
AFV.

True, if it hasn't got cheap 'shock' value then it's not entertainment, right? Shallow fucking rubbish presented by overpaid dorks who call themselves journos and give themselves awards for all sorts of dumb shit. If that's not bad enough they make programmes about themselves for crying out loud! Paul Holmes and his dizzy daughter's P habit for example. How many people out there face that sort of shit every day? They need to get over themselves, they aren't that fucking important!

As for Jason Gunn....could we please paste a pic of Sohpie Elliott on his face and stand him in front of Clayton Weatherston?

SOME New Zealand doco's are standouts though, especially things like the Wild South series. I don't doubt the talent is there to produce quality television but the bleeding heart softies who choose what gets funding, goes into production and ultimately goes to air need the bash.

Check out the credits of a bunch of local shows, you'll see the same names again and again, sometimes they are related. TVNZ is an old folks home with 'jobs for the boys'. (And I have had that confirmed from within.)

Interesting how they've not put together a natural history doco' on the evidence of Pre-Maori colonisation isn't it? On the other hand they throw shitloads at programmes only a minority can understand. Odd that.

peasea

24th July 2009, 15:30

Basically, every steroid vendor he encountered (was actually surprisingly easy for him!) stressed to him how it's a serious decision and how much he should take, how often etc, and weren't really "dodgy" like he was saying. Well, as "non-dodgy" as someone selling 'roids can be... He tried hard, as usual... He practically dropped his superdooper spy cam on the floor and ran out of the room when the guy got the needle out to 'jab him', and then put on a painful facial expression as a nurse got a blood sample from him ("would you like a lolly pop?:sweatdrop) and said "wow, never had to give a blood sample for a story before!"

Because he's never been out of the office before probably.

He also texts while he's driving.

peasea

24th July 2009, 15:35

My thoughts too.

Never bothered to watch tonights episode, frikkin' waste of time..:angry:

I feel an obligation to at least watch a few episodes of new series, just so I can see what TV is up to. The results are fairly consistent and going by what I've read here perhaps it's time the Minister got some letters of complaint. The more paper that gets sent in the more chance there is something might change. OK, it's a slim chance but for people to bleat and whinge here without doing something about it puts my eyes well up into my forehead.

It's the kiwi (and kb) way I suppose.

wbks

24th July 2009, 16:07

It's the kiwi (and kb) way I suppose.Not trying to start an argument, but why do people say that a lot on here? Most bad "kiwi habits" are just the average humans habits... Like bitching about something with no intention of doing something about it. It's human nature...

He also texts while he's driving.Haha, yea. I would risk putting money on the fact that more people die on the roads every year from txting while driving and crashing, rather than using steroids.

peasea

24th July 2009, 16:26

Not trying to start an argument, but why do people say that a lot on here? Most bad "kiwi habits" are just the average humans habits... Like bitching about something with no intention of doing something about it. It's human nature...

Haha, yea. I would risk putting money on the fact that more people die on the roads every year from txting while driving and crashing, rather than using steroids.

That's WHY those are the kiwi and kb ways, we're all human here. (Tui ad....)

Right about the texting/steroid thing too.

boostin

30th July 2009, 21:39

Anyone see this show tonight? Assuming what was shown on TV was what actually happened. The guy sets up cameras to catch the cattle russlers, then 'someone' finds the cameras, and the cameras are so shit they cant see who it was....

ynot slow

30th July 2009, 22:06

And rule 1 with covert camera operations,make sure the bloody sun doesn't hit the lens there by giving the game away.Seems a bit dodgy though,almost like the "rustlers" were tipped off to burn the shed down,insurance claim maybe,firey's knew it was arson,not a bad way to get payout,cynical moir.

Would be interested on how widespread this epidemic is,losing 1800 sheep is pretty well gutting granted,not much cops can do as the buggers are well gone,but hell when a truck is required,numerous guys and dogs needed,the thieves are brazen.

peasea

30th July 2009, 22:43

MSTRS

31st July 2009, 09:19

That show is shit, but we knew that anyway. Didn't we? Does anyone truly believe that a .22 with silencer and subsonic ammo will put a cattlebeast down?

ynot slow

31st July 2009, 10:10

That show is shit, but we knew that anyway. Didn't we? Does anyone truly believe that a .22 with silencer and subsonic ammo will put a cattlebeast down?

.22 Magnum is weapon for a couple guys who do it for living.

Get up close enough .22 ok,but silencer not needed,wasn't any less noise with it on anyway.And the dick head reporter said "I don't feel comfy now"as they drove around the paddock prior to shooting,wtf you're doing a doco on illegal meat,did he think the beast killed itself.

MSTRS

31st July 2009, 11:02

.22 Magnum is weapon for a couple guys who do it for living.

Get up close enough .22 ok,but silencer not needed,wasn't any less noise with it on anyway.

Magnum...yep. Packs much more wallop. Problem is, need subsonic load for silencer to be any good. Same as for ordinary .22LR. Subsonic loads just wouldn't have the hitting power. Both types of cartridge using high velocity would do it, placed just right. Difficult in the rustler's circumstance, though.
http://www.levergun.com/articles/images/7.jpg

ynot slow

31st July 2009, 19:00

Using 40 grain .22 should suffice if experienced and close enough,these aren't wild animals.And will be despatched with knife immediately.

And watching the pictures of cattle to build up suspense was a laugh,showed a paddock of bulls,great idea guys lets rustle us some 2 yr old bulls for meat.

Indiana_Jones

31st July 2009, 19:06

lol this 'reporter' is the laughing stock of the nation

-Indy

jono035

31st July 2009, 20:21

A .22LR can be used to kill cows providing you know where to shoot them (my veterinarian sister explained this to me, I didn't believe her at first but she has actually done it several times).

A suppressor makes perfect sense in this setting. Suppressors DO work with supersonic ammo, they suppress the muzzle report all the same. The only difference is that they can't do anything about the noise the bullet makes while traveling, which is why they aren't as good for hunting when they are used to avoid spooking other game and allowing possible follow up shots on the same or different targets.

The other reasons to use a suppressor are to avoid needing hearing protection and to avoid pissing off neighbours. Both of these are perfectly valid reasons and are why they are used by the guy who kills/skins/quarters/hauls away the home kill we get done.

Of course, the show is utter shite and I didn't bother watching any further episodes of it, but that kind of goes without saying, really...