Gunshop employee charged [Archive] - Page 2

ManDownUnder

15th November 2006, 13:40

and who's gonna pay for that MDU?

Tax payer of course. Yes it's more money but I'd rather see money put into a rigorous examination of a point of law so decent precedents can be set for future consideration.

Otherwise we get a precendent that's set based on a weak defence. The defendant gets shat on from a great height and judges know to shit on all future defendants from a similar height.

The specifics of this case lend themselves to sympathies from me, but the principle holds for all such cases where good decisions, and good law can come of it. Why get bad law because a defendant is financially contrained?

I'm not saying provide crown defence for all cases (which raises an interesting point.. the uneven amount of justice available to people depending on the depth of wallet). But the crown should fund those it wants to use to it's own end... i.e. set precendents and test point of law.

spudchucka

15th November 2006, 16:32

In the past 3 years there have been 11 incidents where police officers have injured themselves with firearms whilst training. They dont get enough proper training with these weapons to be proficient

Where did you get that from?

spudchucka

15th November 2006, 16:40

i think its more a case of the media twisting the story.

Do they do that? Surely not!

davereid

15th November 2006, 19:06

Its really an old arguement I think... all these quotes from 1700-1799 or.. even earlier !

"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." — Thomas Jefferson

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." — Patrick Henry, spoken during Virginia's ratification convention, June 14, 1788

."..and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." — Jesus Christ, Luke 22:36 NKJV

Big Dog

15th November 2006, 19:14

Does this work?

http://www.petitiononline.com/create_petition.html

Can someone with some legal nouse do up the wording for it? Basically, people should be allowed to keep a firearm in a state that is semi-ready to use in self defence.

Semi-ready: Gun accessible but hidden, bullets in magazine and stored separately. Both out of sight.

Something like that?

Whole other can of worms going down the concealed weapon path.
I support the use of reasonable force.
I support the individuals right to bear arms.
I support the right of duly licensed persons to possess loaded weapons ( I mean for fuck sake we let people drive 4x4's that have no "reasonable purpose" for possessing one."

I do NOT support the carrying of concealed weapons, of any type (with the possible exception of a knife where you have a reasonable purpose for carrying one e.g for opening the many packages a store person would receive, or a hunting knife for a hunter when hunting).

I do think that if we are going to go down that route as a country we need to first review our gun laws and have stiffer penalties for unjustified hommocide.
Concealed weapons licenses would need to include a mental health requirement, a eyesight test and a clean criminal record on top of what is currently required.

I think a gun shop owner who's goods pose a significant risk to the public should be reasonable. Also he is likely to be someone who takes firearm ownership seriously, as evidenced by the single non lethal shot. (this argument becomes counter productive when you consider that the bullet then traveled through the intruder, through the window and into the street)
A dairy owner who just has to do as he is told is a little more marginal unless he has adequate training in how to handle a firearm.

Question of the ages is where do you draw the line?

Currently the law of the land says that a gun shop owner may not carry a loaded gun. Ifs and buts aside he knew he broke the law if and when he "strapped his piece".

I support his actions but if the law is wrong then the law must be challenged, not ignored.

I do hope he gets off, but he new what he was doing.

davereid

15th November 2006, 19:21

I feel a bit like all I'm doing is quoting others tonight. But the law is not always right - remember it was OK to enslave blacks, kill abos and beat women.

A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless ONE of the duties of a good citizen, but it is not THE HIGHEST. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
-- Thomas Jefferson

I'm not sure he did break the law - all we know is that he was able to produce a loaded firearm in a few seconds.

But laws that reduce your ability to defend yourself in an increasingly violent society should be treated with the respect they deserve.

Big Dog

15th November 2006, 20:06

I feel a bit like all I'm doing is quoting others tonight. But the law is not always right - remember it was OK to enslave blacks, kill abos and beat women.
An important factor here is the question of how much reason did he have to believe that he would need a firearm in a loaded state that day or does he break the law every day?

Lets say he has worked at the store for 1 year.
minus weekends and holidays thats 200+ times that he has knowingly "strapped one on" in direct violation of a law.

I do not see how this is a legit form of protest if there has been no attempt to change the law. In the absence of an attempt to change the law that is premeditation. He saw the law. New the law. Actively chose not to adhere to the law.

This is no different to a person who speeds every day complaining because they were caught once.

If as has been suggested in one of the many earlier posts (don't you people have jobs?) he held a valid license (F?) to carry a concealed weapon the question then becomes why is he being charged. Does the law relating to gun shops explicitly take away that right?

davereid

15th November 2006, 20:18

We don't know that he was carrying do we ?

As I understand it all we know is that he managed to obtain and load a firearm in a short period of time. We dont even know how long it took him.

I will watch the case carefully - was he carrying a loaded gun ? - in which case he has broken the law - but maybe the law should be reviewed. But I don't think its yet proven he was carrying the firearm that day. If there is other info please let me know.

jrandom

15th November 2006, 20:19

An important factor here is the question of how much reason did he have to believe that he would need a firearm in a loaded state that day or does he break the law every day? ... I do not see how this is a legit form of protest if there has been no attempt to change the law.

You make an excellent point here, which gets to the core of the matter.

valid license (F?) to carry a concealed weapon...

This wafts of bullshit. No such thing in NZ as a licence allowing Joe Public to carry concealed.

don't you people have jobs?

:o

Big Dog

15th November 2006, 21:31

This wafts of bullshit. No such thing in NZ as a licence allowing Joe Public to carry concealed.

Much as I thought. Was not screening 5 pages looking for the one post though.

McJim

18th November 2006, 15:13

You make an excellent point here, which gets to the core of the matter.
This wafts of bullshit. No such thing in NZ as a licence allowing Joe Public to carry concealed.
:o

It would waft of bullshit if it had not been mis-quoted. The gunshop has an F licence due to the fact that it has a shooting range contained therein. This class of licence allows them to have a range and also to use it - hence the implicit permission to have a loaded weapon on the premises.

I shall be watching the case with interest - as some other KBers have expressed a wish to assist - Please PM me and I will send you the bank details for the Greg Carvell defence Fund.

Ixion

18th November 2006, 15:16

This wafts of bullshit. No such thing in NZ as a licence allowing Joe Public to carry concealed.

So, how about when we get one of those foreign big wigs visiting. Accompanied by numerous bodyguard types all sporting dark glassess and bulges under the arm?

Either they are issued some sort of licence or the police decide not to enforce the law. If the latter they could do the same for Mr Carvell.

Pixie

20th November 2006, 10:50

On "sunday" last night:It seems the weapon was "in a semi loaded state,for protection in the shop"
The cop interviewed was a nob-"you can defend yourself but can't provide yourself with a weapon to do so"
Said no comment a lot

Pixie

20th November 2006, 10:52

Dooly

20th November 2006, 10:52

McJim

20th November 2006, 11:04

So, how about when we get one of those foreign big wigs visiting. Accompanied by numerous bodyguard types all sporting dark glassess and bulges under the arm?

Either they are issued some sort of licence or the police decide not to enforce the law. If the latter they could do the same for Mr Carvell.

I suspect that they probably would have done had the case not received so much publicity from the word go. Once the general public is made aware that someone got shot people demand answers and there are probably a lot of people who want people held responsible for discharging a firearm at another human being. (The more vocal people are the ones who believe he was right to shoot the fella).

And I'm quite close to the facts on this one and cannot believe how much inaccurate info people (and the media) have got hold of.

We'll see how it goes eh?

As I've said before if you wish to assist Greg then I'll PM the Greg Carvell Defence Fund Account details to anyone who asks.

Hitcher

20th November 2006, 11:58

The cop looked very uncomfortable trying to answer the questions.

That's because the matter is before the Court. Inappropriate public discussion may prejudice the likelihood of a fair trial.

Dai

20th November 2006, 12:01

That's because the matter is before the Court. Inappropriate public discussion may prejudice the likelihood of a fair trial.

As though the press coverage to date hasnt already.

Dooly

20th November 2006, 12:01

That's because the matter is before the Court. Inappropriate public discussion may prejudice the likelihood of a fair trial.

I realise that.

But he looked especially uncomfortable than they normally would in that situation, especially when asked what HE would do in that situation.

Dai

20th November 2006, 12:03

I realise that.

But he looked especially uncomfortable than they normally would in that situation, especially when asked what HE would do in that situation.

He would have used a Tazer or pepper spray. You know the non lethal deterant that is too dangerous for the public to have.

jrandom

20th November 2006, 15:36

So, how about when we get one of those foreign big wigs visiting. Accompanied by numerous bodyguard types all sporting dark glassess and bulges under the arm?

Oh, yeah, fun and games. I was working at the Navman office when the Chinese gubmint 2IC came calling. Love the bulgy suits and earpieces, eh? Local cops swept the place for bombs beforehand, but missed our little area. Good thing, too, 'cos I had a couple boxes of ammo in my desk.

Never liked them Tie-neez bastards anyway, eh? If I'd thought to chuck a firearm in my tankbag that morning, I coulda popped a cap in his little yellow arse and died riddled with 9mms, just like in the movies.

But, like I said. Joe Public. Bulgy-suit-diplomatic-protection-guys aren't Joe Public.

jrandom

20th November 2006, 15:42

I'm quite close to the facts on this one...

You sound like you're dropping hints. Do you know stuff you promised someone you wouldn't talk about?

If you didn't promise, how about sharing? We'd all love the inside goss.

scumdog

20th November 2006, 15:53

The cop looked very uncomfortable trying to answer the questions.

Hmmmm, probably because some shiney-bum higher up duck-shovelled the 'speak to the media' job onto him,

mstriumph

20th November 2006, 15:55

So, how about when we get one of those foreign big wigs visiting. Accompanied by numerous bodyguard types all sporting dark glassess and bulges under the arm?

Either they are issued some sort of licence or the police decide not to enforce the law. ..............

this annoys the bejaysus out of me, too .............. laws should be applied equally if you expect any sensible person to respect them

how come foreign racehorses and circus animals can come trotting [or cantering - slithering or watever] into the country when your great aunt maud [if you had one] would have to have her pekenese languishing in quarantine for umpty-ump months before it was deemed 'no longer a risk to resident fauna'????

it's a travesty!

every time the authorities give a bunch of imports a 'special case' status that advantages them over the country's citizenery it encourages flouting by that citizenery [if there is such a word - admit i just made it up - 'citizens' just didn't seem to fit]

[I]...... and i don't even HAVE a great aunt maude ...... with or without pekenese ...

jrandom

20th November 2006, 16:03

this annoys the bejaysus out of me, too...

'One law for all' doesn't apply here.

You don't want the public carrying guns because it will result in an upswing in the effects of violent crime.

You do want foreign bigwigs protected by guys with guns, because it's a Bad Thing when foreign bigwigs get hurt by nutters in your backyard. Embarrassing, like. And the guys around them with guns are not going to cause trouble. They are going to reduce the likelihood of trouble.

It's called pragmatism, and it beats the hell out of mindless application of the letter of the law.

McJim

20th November 2006, 16:15

You sound like you're dropping hints. Do you know stuff you promised someone you wouldn't talk about?

If you didn't promise, how about sharing? We'd all love the inside goss.

I've made a promise. no more comments from me on this subject.

I'm sure all relevant details will be made public at the appropriate time.

mstriumph

21st November 2006, 13:03

'One law for all' doesn't apply here.

You don't want the public carrying guns because it will result in an upswing in the effects of violent crime.

You do want foreign bigwigs protected by guys with guns, because it's a Bad Thing when foreign bigwigs get hurt by nutters in your backyard. Embarrassing, like. And the guys around them with guns are not going to cause trouble. They are going to reduce the likelihood of trouble.

It's called pragmatism, and it beats the hell out of mindless application of the letter of the law.

not personally convinced

we are not worthy of adult status - not to be trusted to exercise equality prudently?

and it follows that it is a Good Thing that the nanny state removes it from us by being ever vigilant to protect us, each and every one, from our own base impulses?

we are worthy of something more, methinks

It's called freedom - and it beats the hell out of mindless acceptance of authority

jrandom

21st November 2006, 13:29

It's called freedom - and it beats the hell out of mindless acceptance of authority

Presumably you're thinking about the 'right to go forth armed' question. Generic talk about freedom is neither here nor there.

'Exercise equality prudently'? Gimme a break. Go read the 'P' thread, and then come back here and tell me with a straight face that we should acknowledge some sort of broad human right to carry weapons around each other.

You want to have the 'right' as part of your 'adult status' to walk past my house carrying a firearm, and expect me to trust your 'adult judgment' while my kids are playing in the front yard? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

mstriumph

21st November 2006, 13:31

arrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh :dodge:

but isn't that what civilization is meant to be about? mutual trust and interdependance? :mellow:

jrandom

21st November 2006, 13:42

but isn't that what civilization is meant to be about? mutual trust and interdependance?

"Peace for our time", eh?

No.

It's about keeping the monster chained.

There will always be a class of individual, always in the minority, who are trustworthy enough to guard the locked door. It's foolish to pretend that everyone should be given the key.

mstriumph

21st November 2006, 13:58

i don't necessarily disagree about the 'trusted minority'

............. just about who that minority is...... and the criteria for determining 'trustworthiness'

.. oh yes - and who should do the 'determining' *sigh*

power corrupts [etc., et al ..............]

but then - i'm a 6', left-handed, middle-aged, celtic, female bike-rider with a thirst for truth and justice and a bad attitude - what the hell do i know??..............

scumdog

21st November 2006, 16:00

but then - i'm a 6', left-handed, middle-aged, celtic, female bike-rider with a thirst for truth and justice and a bad attitude - what the hell do i know??..............

SNAP!
I'm a 6'3" left-handed middle-aged celtic male bike rider with a thirst for truth and justice and a bad attitude - oh and a penchant for fire-arms and gas-guzzling dinosaur cars - what the hell do I know?......

ManDownUnder

21st November 2006, 17:52

So the prosecution is going ahead? (sory - much to do, little time. reading 20 pages is too much at the mo)

davereid

21st November 2006, 18:39

For what its worth mstriumph, I'm with you.

Fish is saying if you carry a gun past his kids, suddenly you could become nutty and kill them.

Quite true, but of course you could easily kill them with your bare hands, a knife or a club.

We have actually had mass murders in this country with a club.

What fish doesnt like to consider is the fact that if you were watching a nutter killing his kids, unarmed you would probably just have to watch them die. Armed you could stop it.

Guns dont make people more violent, thats just anti gun rubbish. What guns do is make females, the elderly, and the small able to defend themselves.

There is a mistaken belief that guns and violence go together. In fact the reverse is true.

The safest 25 american states all allow you to carry a gun for self defence. The most dangerous state is NYC where guns are banned.

You're 3 times more likely to be shot in Manchester England (Coronation st City) than you are to murdered by all causes in North Dakota.

So, while I wont break the law and carry a gun for self defence, I do think I should be able to.

davereid

21st November 2006, 18:43

Oops I said NYC.. should be Washington DC

Jamezo

21st November 2006, 19:32

Yes but that's because of the niggers. Check your facts. (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Check_your_facts)

Jamezo

21st November 2006, 19:37

Virago

21st November 2006, 19:56

.......You want to have the 'right' as part of your 'adult status' to walk past my house carrying a firearm, and expect me to trust your 'adult judgment' while my kids are playing in the front yard? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Pure emotive bullshit.

Statistically speaking, guns are safer than cars, and a hell of a lot safer than bikes. Perhaps we can't be trusted to drive past your house either?

Due to media hype, there's too much hysteria surrounding the firearms issue. You should have heard the near panic that ensued when a gunshop in Dunedin shifted to new premises across the road from a school.

Kickaha

21st November 2006, 19:58

Fish is saying if you carry a gun past his kids, suddenly you could become nutty and kill them.

He didn't say any such thing

Quite true, but of course you could easily kill them with your bare hands, a knife or a club.

Not as easily as with a gun though and bystanders would have more chance of stopping it

We have actually had mass murders in this country with a club.

Bet there's more with guns though http://massmurder.zyns.com/murder.php?country=New%20Zealand

What fish doesnt like to consider is the fact that if you were watching a nutter killing his kids, unarmed you would probably just have to watch them die. Armed you could stop it.

Not if he's got a gun and is a better faster shot than you are

Guns dont make people more violent, thats just anti gun rubbish. What guns do is make females, the elderly, and the small able to defend themselves.

They also let those groups of people kill others a lot easier to

The safest 25 american states all allow you to carry a gun for self defence. The most dangerous state is NYC where guns are banned.

You're 3 times more likely to be shot in Manchester England (Coronation st City) than you are to murdered by all causes in North Dakota.

some sources to back that up please and not from some pro gun site either something independent

So, while I wont break the law and carry a gun for self defence, I do think I should be able to.

what situation have you ever been in that you would have needed it?

geoffm

21st November 2006, 20:00

On a lighter note, it's possible to pull all kinds of folk wisdom statements out of ones arse to 'prove' that greater gun availability decreases crime and makes people safer, however, the only evidence we should really be trusting, objective scientific studies, has repeatedly found the opposite.

Do we really want far-reaching societal decisions to be based on the rhetoric of what 'should' happen in some imaginary libertarian fantasy?

Greater gun availability amongst the law abiding does reduce crime. You be wanting to read Lott and Mustard's huge report on the matter, which did a longitudinal study broken down by the 4000 counties in the US.
David Kleck's report is another one.
Both of these are academically peer reviewed papers published in respected journals.
If you want the links, I have them in the archives.
Geoff

jrandom

21st November 2006, 20:07

emotive bullshit... guns are safer than cars... Perhaps we can't be trusted to drive past your house either... too much hysteria

Guns are weapons. Cars are transport appliances.

Yes, I'd love it if I could stop people driving down the road past my front gate; I live on State Highway 16 in an 80kph zone, and I always make a point of closing the gates when the kids are outside playing. Unfortunately, it's just too inconvenient to ban people's main means of transport, even though multi-ton chunks of metal rolling along at 100kph are pretty dangerous things.

Stopping people from wandering past my front gate with something that has the sole design purpose of killing things is another matter, however. I reckon I've got a pretty good argument there.

Don't accuse me of gun hysteria, either; if you followed my posts you'd note that I own plenty of them myself.

Hitcher

21st November 2006, 20:21

Guns are weapons. Cars are transport appliances.
Well done. I get annoyed when people use completely unrelated comparisons to demonstrate relative actuarial risk. If one fears cars, one can choose other forms of transport. If a bullet is heading one's way, one has comparatively few options...

davereid

21st November 2006, 20:31

Thanks Geoff, I dont have all the links to hand, but there is a wealth of evidence linking crime to criminals, and rejecting links between access to firearms and crime.

Just for your interest..

Dominica leads the world in total crime per capita, with 113.822 per 1,000 people. New Zealand is second with 105.881 per 1,000 people, and Finland is third, with 101.526 per 1,000 people. Yemen has the lowest, with 1.16109 per 1,000 people. The data comes from the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

Just looking at homocide..

NZ rate 2000 = 3.0 per 100,000 people - Source NZ Police

US rate : lower than ours in 16 states, with Maine, New Hampshire and Nth Dakota at half our rate or better and iowa at 1.6.
Source wikipedia

scumdog

21st November 2006, 20:34

Well done. I get annoyed when people use completely unrelated comparisons to demonstrate relative actuarial risk. If one fears cars, one can choose other forms of transport. If a bullet is heading one's way, one has comparatively few options...

Both are mere mechanical devices, yet the one NOT designed to kill does just that better than the one that IS designed to kill.
Go figure.

Mr Skid

21st November 2006, 20:39

Source wikipediaAh, well it *must* be right then.

Kickaha

21st November 2006, 20:40

Just looking at homocide..

NZ rate 2000 = 3.0 per 100,000 people - Source NZ Police

US rate : lower than ours in 16 states, with Maine, New Hampshire and Nth Dakota at half our rate or better and iowa at 1.6.
Source wikipedia

So it's higher than ours in the other 34?

jrandom

21st November 2006, 20:43

Maine, New Hampshire and Nth Dakota at half our rate or better and iowa at 1.6...

Not to put too fine a point on it, those states are all full of nice white people who wouldn't hurt a fly. A lack or abundance of guns has nothing to do with their lower crime rate. Don't confuse correlation with cause.

sAsLEX

21st November 2006, 20:44

Ah, well it *must* be right then.

It aint bad....... who writes the other sources? And are they free from influence?

davereid

21st November 2006, 20:47

Quote Fish : Not to put too fine a point on it, those states are all full of nice white people who wouldn't hurt a fly. A lack or abundance of guns has nothing to do with their lower crime rate.

Err, does that mean that I have convinced you and your now on my side ?

davereid

21st November 2006, 20:49

ps Wiki quotes SOURCE: US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004

jrandom

21st November 2006, 21:02

Err, does that mean that I have convinced you and your now on my side ?

Dunno, what's your side?

I'm just sayin'. I've already proposed an idea in this thread relating to what I think would be a common-sense approach to legally arming deserving citizens.

The idea of throwing the gates wide open on the basis of some sort of supposed universal right to bear arms, however, stinks to high heaven.

Edit: To reinforce my point, what was the violent crime rate in NYC before the handgun ban, eh?

I dunno what it is with gun nuts and their apparent love affair with fallacious arguments.

mstriumph

22nd November 2006, 01:22

dunno about davereid, but MY side is .............. well - the right of the weaker members of society to survive, i guess

i'm female, good with a cutting word but not good with my fists
i rode an unreliable bike in south africa - i carried an automatic
in two afterdark bike breakdown situations it turned me from 'prey' to 'person' in the eyes of potential attackers

that's sufficient for me - in that situation i wouldn't have hesitated one second to shoot - that must have been obvious - they went away

the automatic was given to me by my garage-owning boss at a time when necessity forced me to keep reletively large sums of company money at my home - i did tell him that, given half a chance, i would hand his money over to an attacker rather than shooting him/her

i am defensive - not aggressive

i am a miltant pacifist [with occassional homicidal tendancies when pushed but no malice]

......... unless aggression is my only means of defense

mstriumph

22nd November 2006, 01:34

............................
I'm just sayin'. I've already proposed an idea in this thread relating to what I think would be a common-sense approach to legally arming deserving citizens.

The idea of throwing the gates wide open on the basis of some sort of supposed universal right to bear arms, however, stinks to high heaven.

.............................
I dunno what it is with gun nuts and their apparent love affair with fallacious arguments.

i think you'd need to define 'deserving' and specify who would decide who met that criterion [and how those judges would be qualified ............... and by what standard --------- and by whom ..... and so on - ad infinitum - ad nauseum :zzzz: ]

attractive as it may be to place trust in our politicians and lawmakers, it is probably naive to believe these authorities are sufficiently moral or upright to recognise those qualities in others.:mellow:

mstriumph

22nd November 2006, 01:49

Well done. I get annoyed when people use completely unrelated comparisons to demonstrate relative actuarial risk. If one fears cars, one can choose other forms of transport. If a bullet is heading one's way, one has comparatively few options...

I get annoyed when people attack the wording of a post to denigrate a perfectly simple, understandable comparison that
gives weight to an argument and moves the debate forward

IMHO if a CAR is headed one's way, one has comparatively few options .......

... by manipulation of language a horse chestnut CAN be made to seem to become a chestnut horse ..............it may be clever, but it detracts from the thread mr hitcher ........

Finn

22nd November 2006, 03:42

New Zealand is second with 105.881 per 1,000 people

Fuck, I'm getting a gun.

Lou Girardin

22nd November 2006, 05:42

Both are mere mechanical devices, yet the one NOT designed to kill does just that better than the one that IS designed to kill.
Go figure.

Unless, there were two guns in every home and they were used mindlessly several times a day by ill-trained people.
I think that you might find the figures reversed.

Hitcher

22nd November 2006, 19:09

IMHO if a CAR is headed one's way, one has comparatively few options

Especially if the car is travelling at, say, 600 metres a second and was less than 500m away the last time you saw it...

Big Dog

22nd November 2006, 20:49

The partisan nature of this thread is clear and present evidence of why gun control is important.
If like minded individuals who were surfing the same site (a special interest one at that and limited to those who already had a profile) and were attracted to the same thread by a three word heading can spark 22 pages of debate (that often loses it's point by becoming personal as opposed to logical) where would the intelligence be in having us all now congregate in the same room while each armed with a 9?

How many of us would still be standing at the end of a evening of conversation?

Add a little booze, how many now that our inhibitions and social concience are gone?

Now have someone cheat on their mrs by F?>king someones sister and spread the word, is there any one not at least wounded?

Now have start an argument about gun control? The only people left are those that are willing to kill anyone who disgrees with their idea of human rights....

Sadly, these are all things that people have been killed for.
Unfortunatly Darwin is incorrect in this case it will not be the best specimens or the fittest that survive. It will be with those with the lowest sense of social decency and least sense that they will have to live with the result.

Laws exist because by and large as individuals we lack the ability to make it through our lives (and in some notable cases our days) without offending someones sense of decency.

Sadly we will always need someone to weild a big stick and say I don't give a shit what you think, I don't care what I think because when I pull on by Uniform I carry a my (insert weapon relative to armed force or police) at the behest of the people for the people.

Equally sadly the people who set the rules these bastions of democracy enforce are chosen by people (too stupid to not get caught selling forged paintings or cheating on their wives) who were elected by people who are too stupid to live without rules or wars.

In conclusion to my little rant:
Thems the rules, don't like it and want to carry a concealed weapon at work?
go work a 7/11 in the us.
Want to live where you can have a reasonable expectation that no one is carrying a concealed weapon (excepting armed offenders) stay here.

Big Dog

22nd November 2006, 20:58

As an aside rather than a statement because I no longer have the statistics, according to one of the three armed robery courses I did, you are seven times likey to be harmed in a armed robbery in the U.S.A.

The Armed Robbery Tutor believes that the reason is that in an armed robbery the offender is concious that the attendant will be armed 50% of the time. This paranoia is then fuelled further because they got pretty desperate by the time they got here , and usually "medicate" their nerves before they start.

Pixie

22nd November 2006, 21:52

" Seven years ago Badger Outdoors,a gun shop in West Milwaukee,stopped selling $70 handguns,after a govt. study showed that it was the nations leading supplier of guns that were later recovered from criminals.Now,follow-up research shows that the move singlehandedly reduced the supply of new guns to criminals in the city by 44%.
While the shop was selling the handguns,it took 90 days on average before police confiscated them from criminals.Now that the cheapest gun costs $350,the average period has gone up to five and a half years.
- New Scientist 7/9/2006

Pixie

22nd November 2006, 22:03

Patrick

23rd November 2006, 10:09

[I can think of no more hideous society where people arm themselves with weapons they don't understand, or appreciate, or most of all respect.
[/LEFT]

I can... the USA...Hideous...

Patrick

23rd November 2006, 10:28

Patrick

23rd November 2006, 10:29

That's because the matter is before the Court. Inappropriate public discussion may prejudice the likelihood of a fair trial.

Doh... like "E" sed....

Patrick

23rd November 2006, 10:39

Guns are weapons. Cars are transport appliances.

Not forgetting cars CAN be weapons too... just like that guy who deliberately ran over that chick who was helping a guy he had run over just moments before...

jrandom

23rd November 2006, 11:31

Not forgetting cars CAN be weapons too...

So can [insert random object of choice].

By saying that, you ignore and dilute the point I was making. The primary reason for cars is transport. The primary reason for guns is killing stuff. They are both regulated on that basis, which is as it should be.

The fallacy behind any attempt to associate firearms law with driver licencing or anything else of that nature is the implicit argument in the form:

A. Cars are widely available.
B. Cars can kill people.
C. Guns can also kill people, therefore guns should also be widely available.

Hopefully, when I state it like that, its syllogistic ridiculousness becomes apparent.

Patrick

23rd November 2006, 11:51

So can [insert random object of choice].

By saying that, you ignore and dilute the point I was making.

No I wasn't...just making a small point...

The fallacy behind any attempt to associate firearms law with driver licencing or anything else of that nature is the implicit argument in the form:

A. Cars are widely available.
B. Cars can kill people.
C. Guns can also kill people, therefore guns should also be widely available.

Hopefully, when I state it like that, its syllogistic ridiculousness becomes apparent.

Yes, it does.... but I was still just making a small point about cars (or any other item as you correctly point out) being turned into weapons...

jrandom

23rd November 2006, 12:21

Yes, it does.... but I was still just making a small point about cars...

I wasn't taking a contrary position, just using the opportunity to belabour a point which I suspect has not yet fully sunk through the world's supply of overly-thick skulls.

Your post simply served as a Socratic foil for my dialectic exposition of truth.

;)

mstriumph

23rd November 2006, 14:36

Especially if the car is travelling at, say, 600 metres a second and was less than 500m away the last time you saw it...

WOW :gob: ...... where can i get me one of those?? :love:

jrandom

23rd November 2006, 14:43

WOW :gob: ...... where can i get me one of those?? :love:

Dig a deep shaft, stick a nucular bum at the bottom, and park your car over the top (http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/20021021/manhole.shtml).

duncan_bayne

23rd November 2006, 14:47

... where would the intelligence be in having us all now congregate in the same room while each armed with a 9?
That's known as projection - projecting your own reactions and fears onto others. You may think that you'd be unable to control yourself from harming people while armed, but I prefer to do the other forum members the courtesy of assuming that they're responsible adults.

I know for a fact that I am, as I have had many an angry, heated conversation with someone while being armed myself (obviously not with a gun, being NZ, but with a knife & baton), and the disagreement never proceeded beyond the verbal. Why? Because being armed carries certain responsibilities, which I accept.

Chief amongst them are that one should obtain sufficient training to be able to use the weapon safely, that one should refrain from starting physical fights when armed (not that starting a physical fight is ever a good idea, but it becomes positively evil if you are armed), and that one shouldn't drink and carry - being armed and drunk is not a good plan.

By all means, if you think you're insufficiently mature to stay sober while armed, or worry that you might decide to assault someone because he insults yo' momma, please do refrain from going armed yourself. But don't force that choice on others.

mstriumph

23rd November 2006, 14:48

So can .

By saying that, you ignore and dilute the point I was making. The primary reason for cars is transport. The primary reason for guns is killing stuff. They are both regulated on that basis, which is as it should be.

The fallacy behind any attempt to associate firearms law with driver licencing or anything else of that nature is the implicit argument in the form:

A. Cars are widely available.
B. Cars can kill people.
C. Guns can also kill people, therefore guns should also be widely available.

Hopefully, when I state it like that, its syllogistic ridiculousness becomes apparent.

.... or, conversely:

A. Guns can kill people
B. Guns are strictly regulated
C. Cars, MacDonald's, unfenced rivers, ....... [etc. etc.] can also kill people, therefore .......................... ?

[I]sublime or ridiculous ... how you see things depends on where you are standing .......

mstriumph

23rd November 2006, 14:51

Dig a deep shaft, stick a nucular bum at the bottom.......................

:sunny: are you volunteering? :innocent:

jrandom

23rd November 2006, 15:13

A. Guns can kill people
B. Guns are strictly regulated
C. Cars, MacDonald's, unfenced rivers, ....... [etc. etc.] can also kill people...

See, that's valid logic (A implies B, C equals A, therefore C implies B - my original post had 'C equals B, therefore C implies A', which was invalid).

There are shades of grey in that idea of 'killing people', of course. It's hard to point an unfenced river at someone and pull the trigger.

All things in moderation, including regulation.

I'm certainly prepared to argue that restrictions around motor vehicles and swimming pools are good ideas. Once the connection between a thing and its consequent harm passes a certain threshhold of tenuousness, probability and time delay, though, it becomes a strawman for the purposes of argument. The ideas of banning McDonalds or insisting on fencing around back-country rivers fall into that category.

jrandom

23rd November 2006, 15:15

are you volunteering? :innocent:

I like the way you think.

Patrick

23rd November 2006, 15:23

The ideas of banning McDonalds or ....

They haven't yet???? Have you seen "Supersize Me" ???

jrandom

23rd November 2006, 15:30

They haven't yet???? Have you seen "Supersize Me" ???

Yes, I've seen it.

I take the 'right to decide' position when it comes to letting people sell food that contains somewhat more fat and/or sugar than ideal.

McDonald's won't kill you. Sitting on your arse eating nothing but McDonald's will, and quite possibly faster than smoking a half-pack a day, too.

However, I gotta admit, after a two-hour training ride on my Trek, a couple of cheeseburgers and a banana shake just, well... hit the spot. Stupid to ban food based on arbitrary dietary guidelines. Much better to continue and extend efforts to grow an 'active lifestyle' culture.

sAsLEX

23rd November 2006, 16:51

All things in moderation, including regulation.

My favourite was our decorative pool behind the flag pole, roughly 1 foot deep, inside a military base was required to be filled in due to the pool regulations..... a stones throw away there are 80 foot cliffs going in to the ocean!?

Blinded by bearacuracy *sp* some people!

Big Dog

23rd November 2006, 21:33

That's known as projection - projecting your own reactions and fears onto others. You may think that you'd be unable to control yourself from harming people while armed, but I prefer to do the other forum members the courtesy of assuming that they're responsible adults.

I know for a fact that I am, as I have had many an angry, heated conversation with someone while being armed myself (obviously not with a gun, being NZ, but with a knife & baton), and the disagreement never proceeded beyond the verbal. Why? Because being armed carries certain responsibilities, which I accept.

Chief amongst them are that one should obtain sufficient training to be able to use the weapon safely, that one should refrain from starting physical fights when armed (not that starting a physical fight is ever a good idea, but it becomes positively evil if you are armed), and that one shouldn't drink and carry - being armed and drunk is not a good plan.

By all means, if you think you're insufficiently mature to stay sober while armed, or worry that you might decide to assault someone because he insults yo' momma, please do refrain from going armed yourself. But don't force that choice on others.
This is my point, the sensible ones would need no laws. The number of world wide murders is evidence that not everyone can be trusted.
Going out to arrest the and disarm those to stupid to disarm themselves is a bit like "shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted".
Fact: My reasoning for gun control is that those who cannot be trusted would not know to remain sober nor have the prescience of mind to disarm in case they came across alcohol.

I have no fear that I would harm others, I have a great deal of self control. I have no such faith in others before I have met them and had the opportunity to judge for myself.

If you do I suggest you get some life insurance.

scumdog

23rd November 2006, 21:42

This is my point, the sensible ones would need no laws. The number of world wide murders is evidence that not everyone can be trusted.
Going out to arrest the and disarm those to stupid to disarm themselves is a bit like "shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted".
Fact: My reasoning for gun control is that those who cannot be trusted would not know to remain sober nor have the prescience of mind to disarm in case they came across alcohol.

I have no fear that I would harm others, I have a great deal of self control. I have no such faith in others before I have met them and had the opportunity to judge for myself.

If you do I suggest you get some life insurance.

How about car control???

After all, there's more cars than guns in NZ yet more people die from contact with cars than guns.

Make it as hard (and the penalties as harsh) to own a car as to own a gun.

The car importers might not like it when their market ran dry overnight.

Big Dog

23rd November 2006, 22:19

How about car control???

After all, there's more cars than guns in NZ yet more people die from contact with cars than guns.

Make it as hard (and the penalties as harsh) to own a car as to own a gun.

The car importers might not like it when their market ran dry overnight.

Where do I sign that petition?

The major differences:
* You can't carry a concealed car.
*The primary design concept of cars is not to kill, that is the owners.
* with a Car the more you train the less probable you are to get a long list of kills.
* hunting deer is less expensive ( but equally hard) with a revolver than a skyline.
*You can't shag in a handgun.

I don't see any reason to tighten gun control but i have posted a few reasons why laws about carrying a concealed firearm are necessary.

When you have been working a **Safe** club and someone from the shallow end takes the time to bring back a shotgun for a drive by threaten because you threw him out of a club for being "excessively intoxicated" on the same day he got out of jail you can tell me otherwise. (incidentally to this day I believe his mate losing his nerve and speeding away has more to do with my not getting shot than this geniuses self control.)

scumdog

23rd November 2006, 22:29

Where do I sign that petition?

The major differences:
* You can't carry a concealed car.
*The primary design concept of cars is not to kill, that is the owners.
* with a Car the more you train the less probable you are to get a long list of kills.
* hunting deer is less expensive ( but equally hard) with a revolver than a skyline.
*You can't shag in a handgun.

I don't see any reason to tighten gun control but i have posted a few reasons why laws about carrying a concealed firearm are necessary.

When you have been working a **Safe** club and someone from the shallow end takes the time to bring back a shotgun for a drive by threaten because you threw him out of a club for being "excessively intoxicated" on the same day he got out of jail you can tell me otherwise. (incidentally to this day I believe his mate losing his nerve and speeding away has more to do with my not getting shot than this geniuses self control.)

Counter:
NOBODY is supicious if they see you with a car.

Cars aren't designed to kill - so people are SO surprised when somebody is killed with one

With a gun - the more you train the more likely you're not going to kill anybody by 'accident'

Hardly anybody in NZ HAS a handgun (but they can 'shag' you if they do)

Tighten car control - if the tracky-wearing non-English reading F.O.B. is is then deemed incapable of legally owning a car? - then the rest of us are better off. (and there's always a bus anyway).

Ixion

23rd November 2006, 22:31

But would that mean that all the bolts in the car would have to be stored separately to the rest of the car? Could make for long delays in going for a drive? And a major mechanic shortage.

scumdog

23rd November 2006, 22:34

But would that mean that all the bolts in the car would have to be stored separately to the rest of the car? Could make for long delays in going for a drive? And a major mechanic shortage.

But look at the safety aspect, won't somebody PLEASE think of the childern???

Street Gerbil

24th November 2006, 08:25

Folks, I've listened to a lot of arguments before chipping in and here is my $0.02:
We don't want to be like USA, do we? NZ and USA are virtually antipodes. Therefore we need to do exactly opposite of what they do in USA. If Americans allow citizens to bear firearms, NZ should restrict it to crooks only. And if in USA banning firearms causes a surge of crime, by the same logic in NZ it would be just the opposite.
That's my personal opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Just one more thing: in Israel, where two thirds of the population carry firearms at all times, gun-related crimes are unheard of and (due to draconian training and re-certification requirements) gun-related accidents are rare and far between.

Dai

24th November 2006, 08:34

...Just one more thing: in Israel, where two thirds of the population carry firearms at all times, gun-related crimes are unheard of and (due to draconian training and re-certification requirements) gun-related accidents are rare and far between.

A similar situation exists in Switzerland where all able bodies males between the ages of 18-40 do military service and keep a fully operational and loaded assault rifle in their home. The very rifle that when they finish their obligatory service the Swiss gov gives to them as a gift.

Firearm related crimes are the lowest in the world.

I remeber visiting a jewelers shop in Interlaken and seeing the owners military rifle hanging on the wall behind the counter. Locked and loaded. I wouldnt want to try and rob that store.

sAsLEX

24th November 2006, 09:19

*The primary design concept of cars is not to kill, that is the owners.

Military Rifles are not designed to kill, well FMJ's aint. A wounded soldier is far more detrimental to the opposition as if they have any morals(rangers etc) it takes three people out with one bulet as two people are left carrying guttless harry.

So lets change the projectiles......

The_Dover

24th November 2006, 09:25

Military Rifles are not designed to kill, well FMJ's aint. A wounded soldier is far more detrimental to the opposition as if they have any morals(rangers etc) it takes three people out with one bulet as two people are left carrying guttless harry.

So lets change the projectiles......

no, ask sniper.

he was in the A.S.S. and M.X.5 (with James Bond)

a dead soldier takes up far more resources than a wounded one.:shutup:

Patrick

24th November 2006, 09:35

It was all an accidental shooting... the arsewipe robber accidentally lived.

The gunshop dude needs to be sentenced to a lengthy sentence... of target shooting.

Jamezo

24th November 2006, 09:36

Sounds great doesn't it. But existing in completely different cultures. It is not nearly always feasible to transplant one country's gun policy to another.

For a start, reconsider what Fish was saying, and examine the potential logical fallacies in your assumption that low Swiss gun crime rates are the effect of widespread ownership of assault rifles.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc anyone?

For instance, the causality could be inverted, and the reason that the government lets many people own these weapons is because of the low crime rate and culture (possibly related to the direct crime-reducing effects of Switzerland's large social program?)

Indeed, there could also be no causality at all, or another factor directly behind both, or indeed, a complex network of inseparable factors. Are you going to make arguments based on what are basically guesses?

NB. Sniper, if you're reading this, this is what I meant in that post so long ago about logical inaccuracies. Interesting subject ja?

Swoop

24th November 2006, 10:09

Counter:
NOBODY is supicious if they see you with a car.

Cars aren't designed to kill - so people are SO surprised when somebody is killed with one

With a gun - the more you train the more likely you're not going to kill anybody by 'accident'
PLUS...
I have never seen anyone able to TXT and shoot a firearm at the same time!!! (Much safer than vehicles on that point!)

jrandom

24th November 2006, 10:43

cum hoc ergo propter hoc anyone?

Good chap.

Of course, the one thing that can be inferred from the Swiss situation is that widespread gun ownership and readiness don't inevitably cause a high crime rate.

Identifying the totality of contributing factors is, of course, the difficult stage. I'd suggest that socioeconomic demographics would be the place to start. Otara and Zürich are more than a world apart.

Imagine if there was a shop in Mangere selling $400 pistols to anyone with a valid driver's licence. Just imagine what would happen.

SPman

24th November 2006, 13:37

I would imagine that part of the effectiveness of Swiss gun control would be the 2 yrs training they have before they get to take the gun home.

Knowing most homes have a gun, with a trained operator.

And the fact they would still be under military edicts of discipline with said firearm, seeing as how they are in the territorials until they are 40.

And probably less crap gangsta videos on the box .............

Hitcher

24th November 2006, 14:17

cum hoc ergo propter hoc anyone?

Hmmm. Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?

sAsLEX

24th November 2006, 15:03

no, ask sniper.

a dead soldier takes up far more resources than a wounded one.:shutup:

Umm no they dont, they dont need food or water or ammunition or medicine.

Snipers are know to shoot to wound as well, as some poor soul lying in the open screaming for help doesn't do the moral of the company very good, you seen Full Metal Jacket the movie? They use it in Saving Private Ryan as well..

But what would you know? You are quick to diss Sniper but you are what? A Suzuki crash test dummy?

Big Dog

24th November 2006, 16:03

Counter:
NOBODY is supicious if they see you with a car.

Cars aren't designed to kill - so people are SO surprised when somebody is killed with one

With a gun - the more you train the more likely you're not going to kill anybody by 'accident'

Hardly anybody in NZ HAS a handgun (but they can 'shag' you if they do)

Tighten car control - if the tracky-wearing non-English reading F.O.B. is is then deemed incapable of legally owning a car? - then the rest of us are better off. (and there's always a bus anyway).

I'm suspicious of anyone with a car.
I don't own a car so be suspicious.
I support capital punishment for for gross stupidity leading to death on or off the road.
Last but not least, you have just described the people who do drive the buses except they make them wear a uniform.

Big Dog

24th November 2006, 16:04

Big Dog

24th November 2006, 16:06

A similar situation exists in Switzerland where all able bodies males between the ages of 18-40 do military service and keep a fully operational and loaded assault rifle in their home. The very rifle that when they finish their obligatory service the Swiss gov gives to them as a gift.

Firearm related crimes are the lowest in the world.

I remeber visiting a jewelers shop in Interlaken and seeing the owners military rifle hanging on the wall behind the counter. Locked and loaded. I wouldnt want to try and rob that store.

And there is the heart of the success the people with guns have had adequate professional training.

sAsLEX

24th November 2006, 16:15

And there is the heart of the success the people with guns have had adequate professional training.

how often do they re qualify though?

Big Dog

24th November 2006, 16:17

Umm no they dont, they dont need food or water or ammunition or medicine.

Snipers are know to shoot to wound as well, as some poor soul lying in the open screaming for help doesn't do the moral of the company very good, you seen Full Metal Jacket the movie? They use it in Saving Private Ryan as well..

But what would you know? You are quick to diss Sniper but you are what? A Suzuki crash test dummy?

Movies are not really evidence, that's why its called poetic license.
In a full on fire fight - I suspect anything that stops the them shooting back will do.
in a Sniper role it will depend largely on the morals of the General giving the order.

On a sortie a wounded soldier is definatley a bigger liability but in fire base people dropping dead without a trace would offer more damage to the morale of the battalion than the same number going home early.

Horses for courses. Primary role of anassualt weapon is to suppress the ememy in as short an order as possible. Also hardly the point of the thread.

jrandom

24th November 2006, 16:29

full on fire fight... Sniper role... morals of the General...

Well, I'm no sniper, never even served in the military, so what would I know. But at any range over 200m in a battle situation I imagine you'd just be shooting for central mass and consequent disablement. Whether the target dies or not simply wouldn't be a consideration. For that matter, I imagine the majority of military snipers are relatively civilised and would prefer to have their targets get away with a ticket home and a hospital stay, all other things being equal. It may be war, but there's no point being nasty about it...

Obviously law-enforcement snipers tend to have somewhat more specialised mission requirements and shoot at shorter ranges, so the selection of a disabling or instant-kill shot could come into play in that situation, with very different motives than an enemy's resource allocation or unit demoralisation.

Big Dog

24th November 2006, 16:30

how often do they re qualify though?
i don't have the foggiest - I was just stating that the statement made previously was supported by that quoted statement because, the major differential factor is that training is required.

I'm betting the chap running the till your corner dairy has never had weapons training on any scale.

I have only spent enough time around firearms to know that even as a responsible person with good manners above average intellect and enough patience to make a practice I am not a suitable person to carry a concealed weapon.
I do not have professional training.
I do not have close quarters experience.
I am responsible enough to put a gun away properly, but I am to easily sidetracked to have the responsibility of ensuring that the safety is always on, there is never a bullet in the chamber except when ready to fire and to keep the trigger clear when putting said firearm into my pants. Hence I do not and will not carry a firearm.
In my less than humble opinion the people that the law needs to control are those who are not self aware enough to know that they do not need a gun and or that they are not responsible enough to carry one.

If you have genuine reason to carry a concealed weapon do so, but do so after you have demonstrated a need and ability to do so safely.

I have during a gun safety seminar had the person beside me accidentaly discharge a rifle when they were "clearing the weapon". Said discharge made a .22 whole in the floor between my feet.

SPman

24th November 2006, 16:32

how often do they re qualify though?If they are in the reserves until they're 40, I would imagine once a year at least.

SPman

24th November 2006, 16:37

For that matter, I imagine the majority of military snipers are relatively civilised and would prefer to have their targets get away with a ticket home and a hospital stay, all other things being equal. It may be war, but there's no point being nasty about it...

But.....war is nasty!

A sniper will shoot to TOTALLY incapacitate - which normally means a kill!
George Hulme (Denny Hulmes old man) was real good at it in Crete - killed 17 German snipers I beleive - an anti-sniper, sniper!

jrandom

24th November 2006, 16:42

an anti-sniper, sniper!

Killing other snipers is a sniper's canonical primary mission.

Swoop

24th November 2006, 16:43

It may be war, but there's no point being nasty about it...
Why can I hear those words emanating from the mouths of WW1 English Generals?

jrandom

24th November 2006, 16:46

Why can I hear those words emanating from the mouths of WW1 English Generals?

WW1 was plenty nasty, and the generals of the time arguably cared less for the niceties of human wellbeing than those directing later 20th-century conflicts.

How about all those Commonwealth soldiers who've only just recently been posthumously pardoned after being shot for 'cowardice', eh?

Swoop

24th November 2006, 17:05

WW1 was plenty nasty, and the generals of the time arguably cared less for the niceties of human wellbeing than those directing later 20th-century conflicts.

How about all those Commonwealth soldiers who've only just recently been posthumously pardoned after being shot for 'cowardice', eh?

You are quite correct on that point. Generals were appointed on their social standings and their position in "society" rather than any mental aptitude in things "military" (strategy/tactics, etc).
"10,000 dead on our first attack on the "hun's" fortified postions... dash it all, what a shame, pour me another Gin & tonic!"

Kiwis wonder why there were so many (un-necessary) deaths under the leadersip of the british.

General Melchett portrays that mentality so very well... "what a barren, featureless desert out there!"

sAsLEX

24th November 2006, 17:37

But at any range over 200m in a battle situation I imagine you'd just be shooting for central mass and consequent disablement.

Should be able to kill out to 600m with a standard rifle kills of 1000m are common with .50cals

and

The current record for longest range sniper kill is 2,430 meters (7,972 feet), accomplished by a Canadian sniper, Corporal Rob Furlong, of the third battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (3 PPCLI), during the invasion of Afghanistan, using a .50 BMG (12.7 mm) McMillan bolt-action rifle. This meant that the round had a flight time of four seconds, and a drop of 78.4 meters (257 feet).

Ixion

24th November 2006, 17:57

You are quite correct on that point. Generals were appointed on their social standings and their position in "society" rather than any mental aptitude in things "military" (strategy/tactics, etc).
"10,000 dead on our first attack on the "hun's" fortified postions... dash it all, what a shame, pour me another Gin & tonic!"

Kiwis wonder why there were so many (un-necessary) deaths under the leadersip of the british.

General Melchett portrays that mentality so very well... "what a barren, featureless desert out there!"

Not always. Bobs is the classic counter to that statement. He certainly had no social position until he established himself as a competant general . And a competant general he MOST certainly was. There were many others.

It was only after the slaughter of the first year or so of WW1 that the attrition rate amongst officers made it necessary to drag out the second raters who would not normaly have been entrusted with senior command.

Many of the later C19 and early C20 officers were competant professional soldiers, the British Army in India (and, indeed , the British Indian Army also) in particular. Just because someone came fro, the British upper classes didn't mean they weren't competant.

Incidentally , social rank was actually a far more important determinator of high rank in the Imperial German army than the British - because of the lack of a German equivalent of the BAI.

Ixion

24th November 2006, 18:02

,,

I'm betting the chap running the till your corner dairy has never had weapons training on any scale.
,,

You'd lose your bet. He was a full Colonel in the Indian Army (the modern one).

Surprising common, how many of the Indian immigrants (and more so still, the Sikhs) have had military experience. Go talk to them, you may be surprised.

Big Dog

24th November 2006, 18:05

You'd lose your bet. He was a full Colonel in the Indian Army (the modern one).

Surprising common, how many of the Indian immigrants (and more so still, the Sikhs) have had military experience. Go talk to them, you may be surprised.
The only exception to any rule is that there is an exception to every rule...
In my time managing retail outlets I had Corporate CEO's, doctors, phramacists, business owners, but never a General.

davereid

24th November 2006, 20:57

Of course the debate is made irrelevent by the easy access to firearms we have. Last night on the TV news we were shown gang gun collections seized by police. Of course there were plenty of sporting guns, but also no end of military rifles, machine guns and even a rocket launcher.

The real facts are, criminals will always have access to firearms. Do you think the good guys should be allowed them too ?

p.s. got a file and a drill press ?
http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/

Swoop

25th November 2006, 12:37

The real facts are, criminals will always have access to firearms. Do you think the good guys should be allowed them too?
England at the moment is a classic example. Private posession is almost gone, yet London in particular suffers a fairly high crime rate which is firearms related. A friend over there says she "goes to sleep to the sound of gunfire" in the area in which she lives.

Should the good guys be allowed them? Any law abiding citizen should be allowed them if they are deemed to be a good citizen who is "fit and proper".

sAsLEX

25th November 2006, 12:43

p.s. got a file and a drill press ?
http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/

pfft guns are so last century

Got some diesel and some fertiliser and a car?

jrandom

25th November 2006, 14:16

gang gun collections... military rifles, machine guns and even a rocket launcher.

But I bet there weren't any pistols, were there? Go find some stats on the percentage of firearms injuries and homicides in the USA caused by handguns vis-a-vis shoulder weapons. Battle rifles and machine guns have limited application to an urban criminal's needs.

The real facts are, criminals will always have access to firearms. Do you think the good guys should be allowed them too?

Tut tut, you and your fallacious gun-nut appeals to emotion... at least so far you've avoided Thinking of the Children or accusing anyone of National Socialist tendencies.

Right now, in New Zealand, it's easier and cheaper for you or I to legally purchase a 12-gauge, a hunting rifle or an E-cat semiauto than it is for a crim to get hold of the same.

And speaking as someone who's just started his B-cat qualification process (Sportways in Mt Eden have a SIG P226 on ice for me :love:) I can tell you that buying pistols is an order of magnitude easier for good guys than it is for crims.

I don't really see a problem that needs fixing, to be honest. The balance is pretty good.

The_Dover

25th November 2006, 19:20

Big Dog

25th November 2006, 20:21

Tut tut, you and your fallacious gun-nut appeals to emotion... at least so far you've avoided Thinking of the Children or accusing anyone of National Socialist tendencies.

Okay I'll say it

Think of the criminals!

Think of their work safety, and the impact arming shopkeepers will have on their income protection insurance.......

OSH will pitch a fit if we ever arm our shopkeepers and put criminals at risk......

davereid

27th November 2006, 19:46

QUOTE FISH : But I bet there weren't any pistols, were there? Go find some stats on the percentage of firearms injuries and homicides in the USA caused by handguns vis-a-vis shoulder weapons. Battle rifles and machine guns have limited application to an urban criminal's needs.

You need to get out more Fish, I promise you that I could buy a handgun from a pub in Levin within 24 hours of looking. And the stats on USA injuries from handguns show that most states in the US that have no gun control are safer than Manchester England where they are quite keen on gun control.

QUOTE FISH : Tut tut, you and your fallacious gun-nut appeals to emotion... at least so far you've avoided Thinking of the Children or accusing anyone of National Socialist tendencies.

You are the one using emotion, I always quote facts.

QUOTE FISH : Right now, in New Zealand, it's easier and cheaper for you or I to legally purchase a 12-gauge, a hunting rifle or an E-cat semiauto than it is for a crim to get hold of the same.

No, you are completely incorrect. Criminals have unrestricted access to firearms. The only issue for them is the price, they will pay top dollar, but given they are paying in tax free P dollars, they have easier access than normal citizens.

You keep on repeating the mantra that "we dont want to be like America".
Well I do.

I want the right to defend myself and my family from criminals.

And I know that 25 states in the USA have no gun control at all. And 16 of those have 1/2 our murder rate and they all have lower crime rates.

Bend-it

6th December 2006, 10:06

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3890428a11,00.html

So, any of you gonna be there?

duncan_bayne

6th December 2006, 10:13

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3890428a11,00.html

So, any of you gonna be there?
Nope. But I have donated Greg's Defense Trust Fund (http://www.guns.co.nz/defense.html).

jrandom

6th December 2006, 10:15

I promise you that I could buy a handgun from a pub in Levin within 24 hours of looking.

Let's ask one of the resident coppers what they think on this one. I remain doubtful.

And the stats on USA injuries from handguns show that most states in the US that have no gun control...

You're confusing correlation with causation again. Do you understand what I mean when I say that?

Criminals have unrestricted access to firearms. The only issue for them is the price, they will pay top dollar, but given they are paying in tax free P dollars, they have easier access than normal citizens...

On what basis do you claim such familiarity with New Zealand's criminal underworld?

You keep on repeating the mantra that "we dont want to be like America".
Well I do.

Well, fuck off back to septic country, then, old fruit. I believe it's already like America over there.

lower crime rates...

Hmm.

If you're going to make assertions about statistics, quote your sources.

Patrick

6th December 2006, 10:15

And still the media bend it their way...

"charged after he shot an intruder..."

Sheesh...:doh: :slap:

Bend-it

6th December 2006, 10:34

And still the media bend it their way...

"charged after he shot an intruder..."

Sheesh...:doh: :slap:

What's wrong with that? He did shoot an intruder... and rightfully so too! :)

McJim

6th December 2006, 10:35

And still the media bend it their way...

"charged after he shot an intruder..."

Sheesh...:doh: :slap:

Well, they've got advertising space to sell buddy.

Think of the children....of advertising execs...they deserve an education too.

FilthyLuka

6th December 2006, 10:50

"alleged attacker"
What the hell? there aint nothing alleged about it. The fool walked into a gunstore with intent to rob and/or cause harm and he got his fool arse (or in this case stomach) shot...

eeediots...

Denis

Swoop

6th December 2006, 12:50

Todays electronic Harold.
Gunshop owner in court charged with shooting intruder

12pm Wednesday December 6, 2006

An Auckland gunshop director who shot a machete-wielding intruder threatening to kill him, has elected to be tried by a jury on firearms charges.

Gregory Joseph Carvell, 33, of the Small Arms International gunshop in Penrose, shot Ricky James Beckham in the stomach with a .45 calibre pistol after he allegedly entered his shop on July 27, waved a machete around and threatened to kill Carvell and a staff member.

Carvell appeared in Auckland District Court today charged with possessing a firearm without lawful, proper or sufficient purposes, and he elected for a trial by jury to defend the charge.

He will reappear in the court on February 12 for a pre-depositions hearing.

Outside court Carvell said "the charges are totally unfounded and we will fight this fully".

Beckham appeared in court last month and pleaded not guilty to a charge of assault with intent to rob. He has been remanded in custody to appear in the High Court in February.

Pleading NOT guilty??!! He should also be charged with wasting the courts time!

jrandom

6th December 2006, 13:13

I'm going to attend the trial when it starts.

The_Dover

6th December 2006, 13:15

Carvell appeared in Auckland District Court today charged with possessing a firearm without lawful, proper or sufficient purposes, and he elected for a trial by jury to defend the charge.

I'd say that possesing a firearm to shoot some cunt that was stupid enough to try and rob a gunshop, whilst not technically legal, is a proper and sufficient purpose??:yes:

jrandom

6th December 2006, 13:29

I'd say that possesing a firearm to shoot some cunt that was stupid enough to try and rob a gunshop, whilst not technically legal, is a proper and sufficient purpose??

Read the fucking thread, you whinging immigrant turd. You may have the attention span of a hyperactive gnat, but that's no reason to drag the rest of us down to your pathetic level of mental retardation.

The_Dover

6th December 2006, 13:45

Read the fucking thread, you whinging immigrant turd. You may have the attention span of a hyperactive gnat, but that's no reason to drag the rest of us down to your pathetic level of mental retardation.

Get fucked Dan.

Ixion

6th December 2006, 13:46

:love: Isn't she sweet . So sensitive, too You and Mr idleidolidylly really *must* team up.

jrandom

6th December 2006, 13:50

Get fucked Dan.

Oooh, are you actually pissed off? I tried so hard with that post. I was, like, squinting at the screen and all. It went through about three revisions.

I even used thesaurus.reference.com.

FilthyLuka

6th December 2006, 14:04

you whinging immigrant turd

Immigrant turd... uhhuh... Hey maybe the guy was an Asian? Then he wouldve deserved to get shot because "his kind" are bringing down NewZealand economy and are therefore the cause of all our problems... Didnt some other country have similar thoughts in relation to jews?

Pick you words carefully arsehole. You might just end up pissing off more people than you inteded to... :tugger:

fuck you very much

Rant/Flame over

Denis

jrandom

6th December 2006, 14:13

Immigrant turd... uhhuh... Rant/Flame over

Oooh, that was awesome.

Do it again!

FilthyLuka

6th December 2006, 14:15

Oooh, that was awesome.

Do it again!

Hehe... you made me giggle. (no sarcasm, i actually giggled here)
You win a cookie

Denis

The_Dover

6th December 2006, 14:21

ManDownUnder

6th December 2006, 14:22

Oooh, that was awesome.

Do it again!

fuck - too much rep given out... do you accept beer?

Ixion

6th December 2006, 14:26

Oooh, are you actually pissed off? I tried so hard with that post. I was, like, squinting at the screen and all. It went through about three revisions.

I even used thesaurus.reference.com.
"hyperactive gnat" was a nice touch. Delicate, like.

jrandom

6th December 2006, 14:27

End of the day Dan it's wankers like you with their flowery language and bullshit rhetoric that make the law the ass it is.

Most everyday people just want the right to defend themselves and their property.

Gerroff it, read my other posts.

Ban guns for all and sundry, bar military and police, and there would be no need to worry about a nutcase with a machete robbing a gunshop. There is no gunshop.

But then you can't take part in your sadistic little pleasure of murdering goats at the weekend.

Exactly. I, and many others, demand to be allowed the pleasure of the hunt. You mostly need guns for that.

I had read the thread and it's my opinion that a man charged with the resposibility of the sale of weapons should be allowed the responsibility to shoot some fucker that tries to steal them.

Whether that fits with in some ridiculously worded firearms legislation or not I don't really care.

Well, what do you think of my idea of modifying the storage requirements so that people can defend themselves, then? If the law's an ass, fix it.

They let sick cunts like you access rifles don't they?

I pretty much just pretend to be a sick cunt.

In reality, I weep over every fallen sparrow.

Bend-it

6th December 2006, 14:27

I blame fish and ixion for switching avatars...

ManDownUnder

6th December 2006, 14:31

I blame fish and ixion for switching avatars...

I just enjoy blaming Fish and Ixion - you mean you have something in mind to blame them for???

Bend-it

6th December 2006, 14:35

Of course... you cannot blame someone for nothing... hmmm... well actually you can.

What a pointless post. Who says a post with more than 10 chars is necessarily meaningful? I'll go have another coffee.

FilthyLuka

6th December 2006, 14:36

Gerroff it, read my other posts.
Exactly. I, and many others, demand to be allowed the pleasure of the hunt. You mostly need guns for that.

well actually, theres these dudes down in the naki... they hunt pigs with combat knives and dogs... so guns arent necessary...
Theres also crossbow/archery bow hunting... Some fools in canada hunt bears with compound bows... So "in reality" (as opposed to to the lala land of my own conciousness(sp) ) guns arent really a necessity... you could do with out them...

But its like riding a bicycle 20k's to work instead of taking your shiny new gsxr750... technically you can, but do you really want to?

In reality, I weep over every fallen sparrow.

So, im taking it your one of the people weepin over the dude with the machete(sp) aswell? :p

ladies and gentleman. What you have just witnessed is the longest explanation of nothing known to man kind...

teehee

Denden

The_Dover

6th December 2006, 14:37

Gerroff it, read my other posts.
Exactly. I, and many others, demand to be allowed the pleasure of the hunt. You mostly need guns for that.
Well, what do you think of my idea of modifying the storage requirements so that people can defend themselves, then? If the law's an ass, fix it.
I pretty much just pretend to be a sick cunt.
In reality, I weep over every fallen sparrow.

Your argument will always change to suit your agenda.

If what you really believe is he should be charged for improper storage of a firearm do you also believe you should be charged for careless use of a motorvehicle based on the pictures of you wheelying an fxr?

You cry for proper application of the law in relation to a gun dealer shooting a fuckin robber, should every little infraction of the law be punished equally?

Firearms, motorvehicles or council bylaws governing pet ownership. It's either strict enforcement or common sense.

I couldn't give a rats arse if every gun dealer in the country was armed to the bollocks at all times, if it prevents them being robbed of the weapons they sell.

Likewise I don't give a fuck if people wheelie up and down the street without harming anyone.

This charge and prosecution is a load of shit and a waste of public money.

jrandom

6th December 2006, 14:40

well actually, theres these dudes down in the naki... they hunt pigs with combat knives and dogs... so guns arent necessary...

Do you want to try chasing down a sika or mountain goat on its own territory, dogs or no dogs?

Guns are necessary.

Theres also crossbow/archery bow hunting...

Sure. I did say 'mostly' necessary.

But its like riding a bicycle 20k's to work instead of taking your shiny new gsxr750... technically you can, but do you really want to?

I ride my bicycle 24km each way to and from work every day, Whenuapai to Newmarket and back. It's a Trek 1500, alloy frame with Shimano Ultegra.

Nuts to you!

So, im taking it your one of the people weepin over the dude with the machete(sp) aswell? :p

Dover may have read my posts, but you didn't...

Hillbilly

6th December 2006, 14:40

FilthyLuka

6th December 2006, 14:50

I ride my bicycle 24km each way to and from work every day, Whenuapai to Newmarket and back. It's a Trek 1500, alloy frame with Shimano Ultegra.

err, i ride an oldschool aloy frame scott mountain bike with slick road tyres (thankyou torpedo seven) every chance i get... usually its just an odd 30-40 km ride from town along the waterfront past mission bay to a mates place... But if im with my bro, then its every mornin and everynight from remuera to cook street... However i should hopefully be gettin a Giant STP0 (07 model... bwahaahaa) from RnR...

so, would that be "nuts to you " ??

Dover may have read my posts, but you didn't...

please note the ":p" smiley, indicating the act of taking the piss...

FilthyLuka

6th December 2006, 14:53

The way it reads, it looks as if he didn't have a licence for that particular gun.

"possessing a firearm without lawful, proper or sufficient purposes"

doesnt the dude work at a gun store?
hmm, so if he blew the dude apart with a .308 from the shelf, it would be all good?

i cant really say i understand...

Denden

jrandom

6th December 2006, 15:24

err, i ride an oldschool aloy frame scott mountain bike with slick road tyres (thankyou torpedo seven) every chance i get... 30-40 km ride from town along the waterfront past mission bay to a mates place...

40km from town via Mission Bay gets you to about... Mangere.

That's quite a way to ride on a pig of an old MTB, dude. Respect.

so, would that be "nuts to you "??

Roasted almonds, if you'd be so kind.

Mmmm. Almonds...

jrandom

6th December 2006, 15:24

The way it reads, it looks as if he didn't have a licence for that particular gun.

Greg's a licenced pistol shooter who competes regularly at various events.

ManDownUnder

6th December 2006, 15:27

Greg's a licenced pistol shooter who competes regularly at various events.

HE'S BEEN PRACTICING????

PREMEDITATION... the bastard (p/t)

FilthyLuka

6th December 2006, 15:31

40km from town via Mission Bay gets you to about... Mangere.

spose i better explain better... 40k to get there and back, so approximately 20k each way

jrandom

6th December 2006, 15:36

Your argument will always change to suit your agenda.

That's kind of self-evident, isn't it?

If what you really believe is he should be charged for improper storage of a firearm do you also believe you should be charged for careless use of a motorvehicle based on the pictures of you wheelying an fxr?

You cry for proper application of the law in relation to a gun dealer shooting a fuckin robber, should every little infraction of the law be punished equally?

Me wheelieing an FXR in a carpark doesn't really matter one way or the other. If I got nicked and charged, I wouldn't whinge about it, because it was careless. Sort of.

We've already done this to death on the thread. If the law says shop owners can't keep guns ready to defend themselves against robbers, you can't have exceptions when someone gets shot in violation of that. It's just not in the same league as a small speeding infringement or lofting the front wheel for a few seconds. Certainly I'd say a decision not to prosecute would be justified if nobody had been shot, but things went a bit beyond that.

I agree that the law should be changed, though.

The_Dover

6th December 2006, 15:42

that's bullshit and you know it.

law is law, whether it is to control the use of firearms or motorvehicles.

Like you say, had no one got shot, no one would care. The fact that some dick got shot does not alter the crime.

jrandom

6th December 2006, 15:45

that's bullshit and you know it.

You asked, "should every little infraction of the law be punished equally?"

I answered "no".

I don't actually think we disagree; you're just pissed off that I was all mean and called you names.

This calls for banana cream pies at dawn, I think. Name your second.

FilthyLuka

6th December 2006, 15:47

The fact that some dick got shot does not alter the crime.

But the circumstances in which he got shot does. Theres a difference between shooting some random dude that walks in and shooting a person threatening to cut you the fuck up.

The difference being homocide or self defence, the later of which (in my oppinion) should not be punished

Denden

FilthyLuka

6th December 2006, 15:48

This calls for banana cream pies at dawn, I think. Name your second.

mmm... banana cream pies... Damnit fish! now you've gone and gotten me all hungry!

The_Dover

6th December 2006, 15:50

You asked, "should every little infraction of the law be punished equally?"

I answered "no".

I don't actually think we disagree; you're just pissed off that I was all mean and called you names.

This calls for banana cream pies at dawn, I think. Name your second.

Again?

No, I can see from your other posts that you think Greg Carvell should rightly be charged with the shit he has been.

I do not.

But the circumstances in which he got shot does. Theres a difference between shooting some random dude that walks in and shooting a person threatening to cut you the fuck up.

The difference being homocide or self defence, the later of which (in my oppinion) should not be punished

Denden

Had he shot some random dude then the charge he is currently facing would be the very least of his worries and quiet possibly would not have been brought against him.

jrandom

6th December 2006, 15:51

FilthyLuka

6th December 2006, 15:51

Had he shot some random dude then the charge he is currently facing would be the very least of his worries and quiet possibly would not have been brought against him.

hmm... good point... Cookie?

FilthyLuka

6th December 2006, 15:52

Anyone got any useful remarks about the best way to make a law change happen?

Cream pies? Oh! shit, my bad. you said usefull :p

jrandom

6th December 2006, 15:55

you think Greg Carvell should rightly be charged with the shit he has been.

I do not.

No no. That's not really what you think. You really think that the shit Greg Carvell did should not be illegal. When stuff's illegal, there's got to be a line somewhere beyond which the police will lay charges instead of letting it go.

Having something come out in a very public, media-driven manner tends to force it to cross that line. No way could the cops have let this go - it would have taken about 30 seconds from any announcement that no charges were being laid for the media to be all over it like rabid dogs, pointing out that Greg must have been carrying that pistol illegally.

Not laying charges just wasn't a practical option.

I do hope that all this prompts a law change.

The_Dover

6th December 2006, 15:58

How about I repeat a point I made a while ago, and comment that Greg C's not being charged over shooting the guy; he's being charged over how he stored the gun.

I think we all grasp that now.

The other point I just made was an attempt to show that if the attempted robbery itself had not taken place, quite likely common sense and expediency would not have resulted in a prosecution, regardless of what Greg C had been doing with his pistols.

But when there's guys lying around bleeding and media on the scene, it's difficult for the cops to do anything but be sticklers for the law.

Anyone got any useful remarks about the best way to make a law change happen?

I am fully aware of what he has been charged with.

The fact is had he not been allegedly guilty of this offence then he would possibly now have some interesting scars and a good story for the grandkids.

If he had survived.

Charging him with one crime because another (which he was the victim of) took place is quite frankly ridiculous and whether media driven or not should not have occured.

FilthyLuka

6th December 2006, 15:58

suckfull... it appears that we live in a society that has more concern for the views of the media than whats right and wrong... bleh

Denden

The_Dover

6th December 2006, 16:04

No no. That's not really what you think. You really think that the shit Greg Carvell did should not be illegal. When stuff's illegal, there's got to be a line somewhere beyond which the police will lay charges instead of letting it go.

You are wrong. I do not think he should be charged.

Yes I do think someone who sells guns should also be entrusted to protect them from falling into the wrong hands.

Having something come out in a very public, media-driven manner tends to force it to cross that line. No way could the cops have let this go - it would have taken about 30 seconds from any announcement that no charges were being laid for the media to be all over it like rabid dogs, pointing out that Greg must have been carrying that pistol illegally.

Not laying charges just wasn't a practical option.

I do hope that all this prompts a law change.

It was an option. It would just require leadership and balls. Something that our government and heads of public office sorely lack.

ManDownUnder

6th December 2006, 16:09

Charging him with one crime because another (which he was the victim of) took place is quite frankly ridiculous and whether media driven or not should not have occured.

Yes and no. Holding him accountable for his actions? I have no problem with that. This is simply a test of whether he did the right thing in the eyes of the law. I personally think he did the right thing and think most reasonable people would have done the same. There was an aspect of premeditation to it though - which has all involved unfortable... the availability of a loaded gun (if I have my facts right).

Making that weapon ready in anticipation is questionable and the outcome of a robbery could have been entirely different if a theif knew of the weapons presence and used it to their tactical advantage - who knows, they may have used it to gain access to a virtual armory.. or not.

What would the charge have been then? I'm not sure of the technical detail but failing to secure a loaded firearm would be the basis of it in my mind. That's a basic tenet of firearm law. The outcome does affect the crime, despite the actions being exactly the same.

Whether the law is acceptable in this situation is the question (which is, what I suspect you are getting at?). In which case the law itself needs to be tested.

Either way it hurts the guy financially which is where I believe the initial injustice is

ManDownUnder

6th December 2006, 16:10

It was an option. It would just require leadership and balls. Something that our government and heads of public office sorely lack.

Yes - but the leadership and balls of Greg were already on display when he shot the guy (IMHO). Leadership and balls of thre Govt are currently lacking - strange considering the pronounced swagger of Mizz Clark

The_Dover

6th December 2006, 16:18

Would you expect a ticket for an unwarrantable vehicle (blown bulb for example, borderline tread depth which you were aware of but "were getting fixed tomorrow") if you were involved in an accident in which you were found to be not at fault and the vehicle condition was not a contributing factor?

If Greg C were involved in the scenario above, a charge of failing to secure a loaded firearm would be the least of his worries. A gunshot wound or other injury would be higher on his list of priorities.

The man was defending himself and his property and is going to suffer because of it.

We have dickheads in suits calling for legal precedents to be set and people to suffer, the focus should be on the knob with the machete.

jrandom

6th December 2006, 18:43

Would you expect a ticket for an unwarrantable vehicle (blown bulb for example, borderline tread depth which you were aware of but "were getting fixed tomorrow") if you were involved in an accident in which you were found to be not at fault and the vehicle condition was not a contributing factor?

Probably, traffic cops being the cunts they generally are. I wouldn't really be able to argue against it, though, would I?

The man was defending himself and his property and is going to suffer because of it.

We have dickheads in suits calling for legal precedents to be set and people to suffer, the focus should be on the knob with the machete.

Yeah... shit happens, precedents do sometimes need to be set. How about we just stop argy-bargying about it and contribute to his defense fund?

Hillbilly

6th December 2006, 19:11

It would just require leadership and balls. Something that our government and heads of public office sorely lack.

Of course they lack balls.... they're all women
:bleh:

Swoop

6th December 2006, 19:35

I'm not gonna wade through pages and pages of threads to see if someone's posted this. So if anyone's missed it, here's the NZ Herald article:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10414091
Please at least look at the posts from the time/date of the article...
I posted the Harold article to breathe some life back into this thread due to the nature of the courtcase.

The way it reads, it looks as if he didn't have a licence for that particular gun.
Greg is a licenced gun dealer. He was on the premises of his business.
Please read the charge that has been laid before the court, as it has nothing to do with "licence" issues.

Greg has elected trial by jury, which is the best option IMHO.
The media is supplying free coverage at the moment, so he is improving his chances rapidly. The ecilop prosecutor will be in for a very humbling time...

Storm

6th December 2006, 19:58

Heres hoping :)

scumdog

6th December 2006, 22:59

I'm not gonna wade through pages and pages of threads to see if someone's posted this. So if anyone's missed it, here's the NZ Herald article:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10414091

The way it reads, it looks as if he didn't have a licence for that particular gun.

C'mon dude, it's frikkin NEWSPAPER!!
FFS The link between a newspaper story and truth&fact is VERRRRY tenuous at best.:yes:

And that goes for the rest of you lot posting newspaper links as a source of 'fact'

davereid

7th December 2006, 09:08

Well Fish, I hadn't read this thread for a while, and I come back and see you've stooped to abuse, telling me to "Fuck Off" and calling Dover and various others "whinging immigrants" and "mental retards".

Not cool at all pal, pretty clearly you have an anger management problem, bravely abusing people from behind your keyboard.

And your logic is all over the place - you accuse me of not having facts, yet I have quoted Goverment sources for every statistic I have presented.

You on the other hand spout self evident truths like ;

"You don't want the public carrying guns because it will result in an upswing in the effects of violent crime"

Well, where is your source for that ?
If the upswing is a few shot criminals and a few unrobbed/burgled/raped/murdered normal citizens then thats a positive outcome, not a negative outcome.

If you can contribute usefully, with good facts and figures then do so.

If all you can manage is calling people names then please go and play in the pointless drivel forum.

:done:

Dai

7th December 2006, 10:11

I konw I contributed to this thread somewhile back but i have been following it with great interest.

Apart from biking my other lifetime passion has been shooting in all its various aspects.

I lived through two firearm banns in the UK with the final one taking away my sport permanently.

All these arguements posted here are all so very familiar.

I am naturally biased as I am a shooter but from what i remember here is a brief synopsis of firearms laws in the UK, from which NZ laws originated (I suspect).

In 1920 a law was brought in to restrict the persons able to hold firearms such as handguns, machine guns and rifles. There are records in Hansard (parliamentary report from Westminster) that this was in direct response to the number of revolutions and such that had been happening in Europe. They wanted to be able to take firearms off the "lower classes" and distribute them to the upper classes in case of a rising in the UK.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH FIREARMS CONTROL BUT MORE WITH POPLUACE CONTROL

In 1935 they brought in another major law that even further limited private ownership of firearms.

1939 The Uk didnt even have enough fiorearms to arm their poplulation in case of a possible incvasion. US has to lend them.

1965 Three police officers shot to death by bank robbers in Shepards Bush. The criminals used pistols so what did the gov do? They restricted shoptgun licences. ???????

1986 Michael Ryan goes nuts. Result they ban semi auto rifles and pump action rifles (never been used in and crime ever in the UK). This was just after they sold off all their old SLR's to the civilian shooters.

1996. Dunblane. Complete ban on pistols. Even those for Olympic sports.

I'm not very good at writing things down but from what I remeber and have learnt is that there is no such thing as firearms control. It is all about controlling the population of a country by denying them the means of defending themselves as a last resort. Germany in the 1930's totally banned firearms of any sort except for members of the Nazi party. Look what happened there.

Every person, in my opinion, has the right to defend their family and themselves. With the use of leathal force in the needs demand that. They shouldnt be then dumped upon by those who decide what is best for us.

Italy has recently abolished all firearms laws and made it legal to use such to defend oneself, ones family and any other person who could be in danger. Why?
Because they found that restrictive laws just do not work.

Greg, in my opinion, acted proprerly, with very good judgement and a lot of bravery.

For those of you who object to firearms I respect your decision but please try and see past the emotive issues. Guns dont kill. People kill. In fact we are one of the few animals that relish in killing our own species. If we didnt why is our history told by the wars we have fought?

I ramble here so I will now cut short this diatribe.

Flame me, disagree with me, or agree with me but please leave emotions out of it.

I have personally seen what happens whenpeople get too emotive and violence breaks out. It is not nice, it is not pretty and I dont ever want to see it again.

Dai (my 2 cents worth)

jrandom

7th December 2006, 10:42

calling Dover and various others "whinging immigrants" and "mental retards".

No, I just called Dover that. I mean, have you met the guy? :p

Not cool at all pal, pretty clearly you have an anger management problem, bravely abusing people from behind your keyboard.

Yes, I'm very very angry. I abuse people in real life too, though. Why, only last night, I leaned in through the window of a Corolla that turned in front of me and screamed abuse at the driver. It was awesome.

quoted Goverment sources...

But not identified your source for verification.

You on the other hand spout self evident truths like...

In your own words, it's a self-evident truth. I don't need to prove common sense via statistics. Would you insist on a double-blind study to determine whether people hit in the head by a baseball bat suffer greater harm than people hit with a banana cream pie?

Mmmm. Banana cream pie...

If all you can manage is calling people names then please go and play in the pointless drivel forum.

Have you seen through my needling and realised that we actually share the same viewpoint on this issue?

Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time-a.

ManDownUnder

7th December 2006, 10:49

Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time-a.

You forgot the alderberries...

ManDownUnder

7th December 2006, 10:50

You forgot the [sic] alderberries...
...elderberries...

Dai

7th December 2006, 10:52

...elderberries...

vicious little fruits, especially when fermented. I wouldnt want to go against an angry wild fermented elderberry.

jrandom

7th December 2006, 10:53

...elderberries...

Oh, just bloody edit it, dude. Better than spamming up a quality thread with one-liners.

jrandom

7th December 2006, 10:54

vicious little fruits, especially when fermented. I wouldnt want to go against an angry wild fermented elderberry.

... but what about pointy sticks?

Dai

7th December 2006, 10:58

... but what about pointy sticks?

Careful here. its only a hop step and jump from pointy sticks to firearms.

Then we would be back on topic.:innocent:

davereid

7th December 2006, 11:22

jrandom

7th December 2006, 12:38

OK so yer daddy made you play with his pee pee and now you're all emotionally challenged. Get over it and grow out of screaming at girls in Toyotas. I'll never understand the decision to put mental patients back in the community...

That was a silly post. Come on. You have to insult with relevance and, preferably, wit. "No, you're a poopoo-head" and equivalents are unworthy of airtime.

When flaming, don't reach back to primary school; rather, let yourself slide into a Zen-like state of supercilious disdain, and the Muse will grant her blessing.

You can do it! You can do it!

Sniper

7th December 2006, 12:43

Your way with words and your wit and charm makes your posts a pleasure to read Fish.

( I have given up on the Mr or Mrs thing too)

FilthyLuka

7th December 2006, 12:43

yawn... jesus christ! you guys are still at it...

I gotta start runnin the books on who's gonna back out first...

come one people! gather round... anybody on dover?
come one? five bucks on the dovenator to back down and go elsewhere (okay, even i can see that one aint gonna fly...) How about the ixion/fish tag team duo , by far the dominators of this verbal fued... i mean, thread (honest)... Ten bucks on ixion/salmon (shit, fish... i meant fish) to stop posting? anybody?
Howabout the new contender Davereid? five bucks for the davereid to lay the slap down on everyone... COME ON PEOPLE!

Denden (bookie for the day)

p.s: bwahahahaha! im so happy...

jrandom

7th December 2006, 12:51

Your way with words and your wit and charm makes your posts a pleasure to read Fish.

I give you... Sniper!

Isn't he great, folks?

And, for a small additional fee, he swallows.

:love:

Sniper

7th December 2006, 12:53

I give you... Sniper!

Isn't he great, folks?

And, for a small additional fee, he swallows.

:love:

You better start paying me bloody extra to sing your praises, its christmas and I have mouths to feed.

(Not like that you dirty buggers)

FilthyLuka

7th December 2006, 12:53

you sniper! theres a brown smudge on your lips...

Denden

Dai

7th December 2006, 12:54

I give you... Sniper!

Isn't he great, folks?

And, for a small additional fee, he swallows.

:love:

Are you sure he swallows?

Maybe he just saves it to give back to you, when you swop spit

Sniper

7th December 2006, 12:55

you sniper! theres a brown smudge on your lips...

Denden

Camo paint

jrandom

7th December 2006, 12:55

Maybe he just saves it to give back to you, when you swop spit

Sniper, you bastard. You assured me that the funny taste was due to a diet high in tuna.

FilthyLuka

7th December 2006, 13:00

Sniper, you bastard. You assured me that the funny taste was due to a diet high in tuna.

tuna... so thats what the kids are calling syphilus these days...

The_Dover

7th December 2006, 13:00

I see no reason for a legal precedent needing to be set.

The guy had guns at his disposal, some twat tried to rob him with a machete and got his just deserts.

If the crown (read: lesbian tree hugging liberal mafia) feel the justification to drag this man through court then they should foot his legal bill.

The just verdict in this case would be to sentence Greg to a few more days at the range using some of Her Majesty's detainees as targets.

Maybe next time he'll make his shot count.

jrandom

7th December 2006, 13:09

I see no reason for a legal precedent needing to be set.

Actually, I was thinking about this last night. I'm not sure if the definition of 'justifiable purpose' or whatever the term is in the offense Greg's been charged with has ever been defined in detail.

If it hasn't, and the question of whether a gun shop keeping a pistol ready for staff to defend themselves with is 'justifiable purpose' is left open to the jury to decide, we could end up with a real case law pearler that opens the door to legally arming oneself.

I reckon it's definitely worth putting a hundred bucks into Greg's defense fund. I'm popping down to SAI tomorrow to do just that.

Dai

7th December 2006, 13:10

I see no reason for a legal precedent needing to be set.

.....
Maybe next time he'll make his shot count.

After having been in two armies (NZ and UK) I can state that if when I was serving and I had to make the decision to shoot and I deliberately shot to wound, I would be hauled accross the coals by my firearms instructor.

It was drilled into me

3 shots, 2 to the chest and 1 to the head. It became second nature to shoot that way.

I have a good friend that was in bullet catcher game for the diplomatic corps. He had an instance to draw and use his Browning. When the shooting was over he realised that he had been through 2 magazines of ammo. Thats 30 rounds of 9mm. Training took over.

Greg fired one shot at a non lethal area. Lots of thought and bravery to do that.

If it had of been me in the same situation I can quite catagorically state that the machete weilding (sorry alleged) assailant wouldnt be there to plead NOT GUILTY.

jrandom

7th December 2006, 13:11

Maybe next time he'll make his shot count.

As a matter of fact, aiming below the navel was smart shooting in this case.

A yarpie friend who used to be in the SA police force lent me a book on small arms tactics that he used as a manual back in the day, and it made some illuminating comments on the instantly incapacitating pain of a gutshot, as opposed to the instances where guys have continued to attack for 30 seconds after being shot through the heart, and the cases where guys have walked out of the bush days after being shot through a lung.

The_Dover

7th December 2006, 13:14

I'd like to think that in that situation the machete weilding assailant would have ended up in the basement with Maurice, never to escape with a tale that he'd wish to tell.

However, I'd probably have screamed like a bitch, shot at the cunt, missed and be chopped to ribbons whilst the gangs of South Auckland were left to think Christmas had come early with a new supply of weapons to terrorise the NZ public.

jrandom

7th December 2006, 13:15

Greg fired one shot at a non lethal area. Lots of thought and bravery to do that.

Absolutely. Huge respect to Greg for being able to pull off a single incapacitating shot under such stress.

The canonical center-mass double tap followed by a headshot would certainly have been justifiable, and undoubtedly resulted in no more legal hassle that he's already in.

[Edit: Perhaps it helps that Greg's pistol skills come from competitive practical shooting, rather than combat training.]

The_Dover

7th December 2006, 13:16

yeah, yeah Dan, yarpie books.

If Greg was a competitive pistol shooter, as you profess, he could have put one in this wankers right eye and done the world, and the taxpayers of NZ, a favour.

Sniper

7th December 2006, 13:16

A yarpie friend who used to be in the SA police force lent me a book on small arms tactics that he used as a manual back in the day, and it made some illuminating comments on the instantly incapacitating pain of a gutshot, as opposed to the instances where guys have continued to attack for 30 seconds after being shot through the heart, and the cases where guys have walked out of the bush days after being shot through a lung.

Its spelt Jarpie.

Depends on what you get shot with too as well as how your body responds to the shock. I think I have seen that same book, interesting read

davereid

7th December 2006, 13:17

Yeah, I'll be chucking a few bob into the defence fund.

I have a suspicion that the police have given up charging people who use a firearm for self defence as they have never won.

So they are taking an underarm bowl by using the current charge of "insufficient legal purpose etc".

As Fish points out if they lose this one, prosecuting joe citizen for using a firearm in self defence may get even harder.

:apint:

jrandom

7th December 2006, 13:26

yeah, yeah Dan, yarpie books.

Shrug. Made sense to me. Greg probably didn't want to kill the guy, you know. Drop the gung-ho attitude and realise that most people don't like harming other people, even when it's unavoidably necessary.

Then again, maybe we're all giving him too much credit, and Greg actually just closed his eyes, flinched, and pulled the trigger.

Its spelt Jarpie.

Mmmph. I thought it might be, but, you know. I've only ever heard it.

I think I have seen that same book, interesting read

Isn't it just. I got in trouble shortly after finishing it when Mrs Fish caught me pulling out bushes in the back yard. 'Defensive perimeter' and 'field of fire' didn't go down too well as explanations.

jrandom

7th December 2006, 13:30

As Fish points out if they lose this one, prosecuting joe citizen for using a firearm in self defence may get even harder.

I know at least one copper who's hoping that happens.

The_Dover

7th December 2006, 13:39

Shrug. Made sense to me. Greg probably didn't want to kill the guy, you know. Drop the gung-ho attitude and realise that most people don't like harming other people, even when it's unavoidably necessary.

Then again, maybe we're all giving him too much credit, and Greg actually just closed his eyes, flinched, and pulled the trigger.

Fair comment re human nature but as I said, it would have been a very community spirited thing for him to have done.

The guy would also have suffered far less with a clean headshot than a hole in the guts, so maybe you are wrong??

jrandom

7th December 2006, 13:42

The guy would also have suffered far less with a clean headshot than a hole in the guts, so maybe you are wrong??

There's a sort of creepout-factor associated with actually killing a person. I don't know if I'd be able to put a bullet between someone's eyes, even if there was no difficulty aiming the shot.

Anyway, are you telling me you'd rather be killed instantly than take a bullet in the guts less than 10 minutes away from a hospital emergency room?

FilthyLuka

7th December 2006, 13:43

3 shots, 2 to the chest and 1 to the head. It became second nature to shoot that way.

Hmm... see, ive always been taught to put one round where you want it to go... Guess that target shooting for ya :p

FilthyLuka

7th December 2006, 13:45

Anyway, are you telling me you'd rather be killed instantly than take a bullet in the guts less than 10 minutes away from a hospital emergency room?

that depends... is dover a machete weilding criminal (dont answer that)

jrandom

7th December 2006, 13:45

Hmm... see, ive always been taught to put one round where you want it to go...

There you go, my point exactly. Target shooting vs. combat shooting.

Sports are so much more civilised than war...

Dai

7th December 2006, 13:46

Hmm... see, ive always been taught to put one round where you want it to go... Guess that target shooting for ya :p

Military training.

Excuse words but they encourage you to put them down fast and dirty.

someone with 2 shots to central mass can still function. 1 in the head stops them instantly.

FilthyLuka

7th December 2006, 13:47

There you go, my point exactly. Target shooting vs. combat shooting.

Sports are so much more civilised than war...

make no mistake... in a time of war, all matters of the "civilised" persuasion go out the window... You want the round in the opposing soldier so that his shot doesnt come anywhere near you...

After all "the object of war is not to die for your country, but make the other man die for his" is it not?

FilthyLuka

7th December 2006, 13:50

Military training.

Excuse words but they encourage you to put them down fast and dirty.

someone with 2 shots to central mass can still function. 1 in the head stops them instantly.

very true... if i hunt i aim for the head, stops the poor sucker bleeding to death. But hopefully, ill never have to aim at another human being.

in the words of metallica "my lifestyle, determines my death syle." Hence why i dont want a life in the military...

denden

jrandom

7th December 2006, 13:52

After all "the object of war is not to die for your country, but make the other man die for his" is it not?

Good old Georgie Patton, eh? The Samuel L. Jackson of WW2 general staff.

And I believe it went "... to make the other bastard die for his."

One day, I'm going to shoot an ivory-handled Colt .45 in his memory.

jrandom

7th December 2006, 13:54

very true... if i hunt i aim for the head, stops the poor sucker bleeding to death.

I stopped doing that after I saw a fallow deer sprinting for its life, bleeding out with no lower jaw left.

Center chest always.

FilthyLuka

7th December 2006, 13:58

I stopped doing that after I saw a fallow deer sprinting for its life, bleeding out with no lower jaw left.

Center chest always.

my hunting experience is limited to bunnies and pukeko's... Im a very picky shooter, takes me between 1-5 minutes to get comfortable and fire the shot. So it almost always go where i want it to... I find hunting strange, well, atleast rifle wise. Im used to my Walther LGR (7-8kg's of target rifle) that is precision craftsmanship. shooting a marlin 22 magnum afterwards is, heh, i cant really explain it...

bah

denis

duncan_bayne

7th December 2006, 14:01

someone with 2 shots to central mass can still function. 1 in the head stops them instantly.
As with most things in life there is no silver bullet - that is, no tactic that will succeed regardless of context.

There are many documented cases of people surviving being shot in the head. Sure, it's less likely than continuing to function after, say, being shot in the chest - but it does happen.

American civilians I know who train in this field are advocates of the "shoot to the ground" mentality: that is if you have to fire on someone, keep shooting him until he falls to the ground & doesn't move.

jrandom

7th December 2006, 14:02

Walther LGR...

Ooh, can I 'ave a go, mister?

FilthyLuka

7th December 2006, 14:06

Ooh, can I 'ave a go, mister?

When i get it fixed i dont see why not. Loading port seal need a change... Ill give ya a PM and we'll go to the range eh?

denden

jrandom

7th December 2006, 14:10

When i get it fixed i dont see why not. Loading port seal need a change... Ill give ya a PM and we'll go to the range eh?

Lovely jubbly.

p.s: dude, im 15, just to let you know

Ah. That would be why you're fit enough to ride 40km of an evening, but too poor to afford a nice road bike.

It hardly matters what age you are, anyway. I don't expect illuminating or mature conversation; I just want to play with your toy.

FilthyLuka

7th December 2006, 14:15

It hardly matters what age you are, anyway. I don't expect illuminating or mature conversation; I just want to play with your toy.

:Oi: Not a toy... dont even talk about guns as toys man, bad form!
Besides, i was kinda raised around guns (long story about croatian target shooting champoin and my mother... Good ol' ma and the Zastava m48) so gun ettiquete(sp) is a high priority.

As for the illuminating conversation, you could be suprised... but im not about to blow my own trumpet.

hmm... what do you have that i can play with... hold on a sec, that was unintentionally naughty. Do you own any firearms?

denden

Sniper

7th December 2006, 14:16

Im yet to see anyone with no training or even less than 10 hours on a pistol able to put 1 let alone 2 rounds in a head at 30yards on a static target. And you expect someone to do it to a moving person????

The_Dover

7th December 2006, 14:23

and the thirty yards came from???????????

FilthyLuka

7th December 2006, 14:28

and the thirty yards came from???????????

well you see dover... when facts love an anus very much... #shudder# i think you see where im going with this

scumdog

7th December 2006, 14:29

American civilians I know who train in this field are advocates of the "shoot to the ground" mentality: that is if you have to fire on someone, keep shooting him until he falls to the ground & doesn't move.

I'm with that!

Keep shooting until they comply.

And two 17 shot mags should give me a chance to get anybody to comply -even (heaven forbid) I was only able to achieve a 25% hit rate.

The_Dover

7th December 2006, 14:29

you on the scotch yet scummy?

jrandom

7th December 2006, 14:30

dont even talk about guns as toys man, bad form!

Most shooters I hang out with speak of guns as toys with intentional irony, in acknowledgement of the fact that they're primarily tools of recreation rather than necessity.

Now loosen up and stop being a prissy bitch.

im not about to blow my own trumpet.

... so you're not as flexible as placidfemme, then?

Do you own any firearms?

At the moment, I 'ave, in order of love:

- 1943 (the receiver, anyway - rest of it is a postwar-shuffle bucket o' bits) Kar98K Mauser.
- 1943 (matching serial numbers) model 38 Mosin Nagant, currently residing in an ATI FiberForce stock.
- Marlin 30-30 lever action
- Akkar 18" 12-gauge pump
- Ruger 10/22

Next on the shopping list is a Savage .243 (synthetic/stainless) which will be graced with a Leupold 3-9x scope, fat-arse MAE suppressor and a bipod.

Once I get my B endorsement, the above will be joined by a SIG Sauer P226 in .40S&W and a Ruger Mk II or III.

scumdog

7th December 2006, 14:31

you on the scotch yet scummy?

Yep.
Starting work in 1/2 hour - need something to steady my nerve - and aim.

jrandom

7th December 2006, 14:34

Im yet to see anyone with no training or even less than 10 hours on a pistol able to put 1 let alone 2 rounds in a head at 30yards...

Well... my first ever time on the range punching paper with a pistol (CZ 75) I put 20 rounds in a row in the black at 25m, standing, with a two-handed grip, square-on stance.

FilthyLuka

7th December 2006, 14:35

Now loosen up and stop being a prissy bitch.

At the moment, I 'ave, in order of love:

- 1943 (the receiver, anyway - rest of it is a postwar-shuffle bucket o' bits) Kar98K Mauser.
- 1943 (matching serial numbers) model 38 Mosin Nagant, currently residing in an ATI FiberForce stock.
- Marlin 30-30 lever action
- Akkar 18" 12-gauge pump
- Ruger 10/22

i dont know you well enough to loosen up around you...
mmm... mosin nagant.... ghaaauuuuuurrrggg (homer simpson noise here)

dont know if you want precision or durability or both but check out the product of my home country (said in a russian voice :p). Cold forged barrels, stupid range of calibers ect ect. The dont cost much either. Similar to baikal, nothing special just a brick of a rifle that will just last and last...

http://www.zastava-arms.co.yu/index.htm

denden

Sniper

7th December 2006, 14:37

Well... my first ever time on the range punching paper with a pistol (CZ 75) I put 20 rounds in a row in the black at 25m, standing, with a two-handed grip, square-on stance.

Not too shabby. But not everyone is as blessed as you and I

Sniper

7th December 2006, 14:39

and the thirty yards came from???????????

Fuck knows. Seemed like a good number at the time

Dai

7th December 2006, 14:41

Yep.
Starting work in 1/2 hour - need something to steady my nerve - and aim.

Nice one SD

Got a bottle of single malt, cask strength 100 proof, sitting at home waiting for me. actually its only a half bottle.

jrandom

7th December 2006, 14:42

mmm... mosin nagant....

It's hardly a precision weapon. I love it precisely because you can see the tooling marks where the receiver was milled out in a freezing Izhevsk factory by some underpaid peasant and chucked into the new-parts bin as soon as it came within a few millimeters of spec.

Maybe it was put into a crate destined for Stalingrad, and never made it to the front.

Who knows?

jrandom

7th December 2006, 14:45

not everyone is as blessed as you and I

True dat.

I was surprised; I fully expected to suck. Isn't one supposed to suck when one starts pistol shooting?

The rounds just seemed to do what I wanted them to, though. The RO raised eyebrows when we went forward to score and asked, very flatteringly, if this was really the first time I'd held a pistol.

That comment didn't make up for my years of childhood abuse and neglect, but it sure put a grin on my face for the rest of the evening.

FilthyLuka

7th December 2006, 14:46

It's hardly a precision weapon

i doubt that makes it any less cool...

mmm.... mosin nagant....

denden

jrandom

7th December 2006, 14:47

mmm.... mosin nagant....

I'll make sure to have a few rounds handy for you to put through it.

Be advised, it's quite... loud.

The_Dover

7th December 2006, 14:47

I'm beginning to think you were right.

Greg should be locked up for good and all gun dealers closed down, guns banned and civilians disarmed.

FilthyLuka

7th December 2006, 14:49

True dat.

I was surprised; I fully expected to suck. Isn't one supposed to suck when one starts pistol shooting?

The rounds just seemed to do what I wanted them to, though. The RO raised eyebrows when we went forward to score and asked, very flatteringly, if this was really the first time I'd held a pistol.

That comment didn't make up for my years of childhood abuse and neglect, but it sure put a grin on my face for the rest of the evening.

The first time i shot a pistol, 7 of the ten went into the black, the rest were in 4 and 5... Rifles are still my passion, although my feinwerkbau pistol is serving me well...

denis

ManDownUnder

7th December 2006, 14:50

Not too shabby. But not everyone is as blessed as you and I

LOL.... yeah - my wife is though ... well possibly. She doesn't like guns but gave it a go for me - y'know... sharing interests and all that. Very cute.

Till she was sitting there, had a shot at the target (big enough - a 1.5 litre coke bottle.)

Took the lid off the fucker... first shot. So I said ok... you were lucky that time - a bit high y'know - the labels down there etc... "Oh no - I was aiming for the lid".
Righto... gotcha.
Next shot... same bloody thing... I can't recall - we put a lump of dirt up there or something - same size...
Next shot missed *phew*
shots 4 and 5... hit... and hit... BUGGER!

Quote of the moment - "That's easy enough, you just put the crossharis on the target and pull the trigger"...

My response - "Yes dear, that's why it's an olympic sport." I'd love to see what she can really do with a bit of encouragement and training - but as I say... not really interested...!

edit - not ideal for the ego...