Gunshop employee charged

[ManDownUnder]

might be wise to not get caught with your pants down Nige, unless the keys to the gunsafe are in your pocket at teh time.

Yeah - one extra arsehole coming up - between the shoulder blades...

[ManDownUnder]

Mwahahahaha. With a .22, sure.

Let's give her my Mosin or a .300 WinMag.

Thirty rounds later she'll have developed a flinch she'll carry to her grave...

Tempting mate - I'd rather give her something she wants to shoot so she (literally) go for gold. Dunno... but I reckon she'd do ok. How do newbies get on in a pistol club... is that something I could organise for her?

Who do I talk to?

[jrandom]

How do newbies get on in a pistol club... is that something I could organise for her?

You need an A class firearms licence to start with, so get her onto that, which takes a few months. Once she has it, she can apply for pistol club membership after turning up for a couple of supervised sessions. Your choices are pretty much limited to the Warkworth, Central or Waiuku (who meet at a range in Howick) clubs.

Six months down the track the club can recommend her for a B endorsement on her licence if she passes the Pistol NZ written test and has 'demonstrated competence', ie, never screwed up on the range and managed respectable scores in whatever competitive shoots she's participated in.

[scumdog]

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.

Not uncommon to see non-shooting types put out really impressive groups first time up.

The lack of previous gun use shows up when there's pressure on though - the bullets start to spray a bit then.

[jrandom]

Not uncommon to see non-shooting types...

You callin' me a non-shooting type?

Them's fightin' words, pardner.

Silhouettes at 300m next time you're oop norf, I'd say, with Laphroaig riding on the better score.

[scumdog]

You callin' me a non-shooting type?

Them's fightin' words, pardner.

Silhouettes at 300m next time you're oop norf, I'd say, with Laphroaig riding on the better score.

You trying to say SHOOTING-types also spray bullets when the pressure is on??:wait: :nya: :whistle: :laugh:

[Dai]

You callin' me a non-shooting type?

Them's fightin' words, pardner.

Silhouettes at 300m next time you're oop norf, I'd say, with Laphroaig riding on the better score.


With handguns I hope.

[Swoop]

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.

This is exactly the procedure followed in Fiji. I presume that public access to firearms there, is minimal at the best, so the military take away the police firearms and hey-presto! Instant coup.

I believe this is the way most dictatorships go... Hitler followed the same procedure.

[Sniper]

With handguns I hope.

:eek5: :eek5: :eek5: :eek5: :eek5:

[Dai]

:eek5: :eek5: :eek5: :eek5: :eek5:

In the Uk my chosen event was "Long Range Pistol"

3 sighters and then 10 shots to count in 1/2 an hour

Distance 300 yards

Butt of the pistol allowed to rest on a sandbag, no other support

I regularly shot 6" groups but the top shooters could halve this.

[Sniper]

In the Uk my chosen event was "Long Range Pistol"

3 sighters and then 10 shots to count in 1/2 an hour

Distance 300 yards

Butt of the pistol allowed to rest on a sandbag, no other support

I regularly shot 6" groups but the top shooters could halve this.

What pistol were you using? I have heard of long range pistol before. Much longer barrel than standard though isnt it?

[Dai]

What pistol were you using? I have heard of long range pistol before. Much longer barrel than standard though isnt it?

I shot a Thompson Contender with a 10" barrel.

Chambered for 7mm TCU

Basically a .223 case resized to 7mm and fireformed.

A 130 gn head with H322 powder achieving a velocity of about 2000 fps.

[Sniper]

I shot a Thompson Contender with a 10" barrel.

Chambered for 7mm TCU

Basically a .223 case resized to 7mm and fireformed.

A 130 gn head with H322 powder achieving a velocity of about 2000 fps.

Cool. So its like shooting a minature rifle without a butt

[Dai]

Cool. So its like shooting a minature rifle without a butt

Oh yes. Recoil was fantastic. Made .44 mag look like a .22

[Sniper]

Oh yes. Recoil was fantastic. Made .44 mag look like a .22

Really? Thats amazing. I would have thought the recoil to be horrible.

/sarcasm

[geoffm]

You need an A class firearms licence to start with, so get her onto that, which takes a few months. Once she has it, she can apply for pistol club membership after turning up for a couple of supervised sessions. Your choices are pretty much limited to the Warkworth, Central or Waiuku (who meet at a range in Howick) clubs.



Correction - the Waiuku club shoots at their range in Waiuku. Also do rifle and a monthly fun shotgun shoot.
Geoff

[scumdog]

I guess you guys have seen the video of the fat Yank touching off a large pistol - and it flies back out of his hands into the distance?

Tried a 308 pistol, just a tad vicious for my liking.:yes:

[jrandom]

Correction - the Waiuku club shoots at their range in Waiuku. Also do rifle and a monthly fun shotgun shoot.

I know - but the Howick indoor range is hosting matches under the Wai-ook badge on Tuesday nights until the 'Howick Pistol Club' is successfully incorporated, and MDU isn't going to want to travel much past Howick, I don't imagine.

[jrandom]

Tried a 308 pistol, just a tad vicious for my liking.:yes:

I, er, 'made' a 380mm long 12-gauge a couple months back, just for fun. Crazy stuff. You wouldn't want to shoot it more than once.

(Chopped it to bits with the cutoff saw when we were finished playing, of course.)

[Finn]

In the Uk my chosen event was "Long Range Pistol"

3 sighters and then 10 shots to count in 1/2 an hour

Distance 300 yards

Butt of the pistol allowed to rest on a sandbag, no other support

I regularly shot 6" groups but the top shooters could halve this.

Lets see you try and claim "self defense" using this technique.

[Dai]

Lets see you try and claim "self defense" using this technique.


I wouldnt even be able to carry this pistol as a self defence weapon.

The only times I carried for self defence I used one of three pistols,

A model 1900 Browning in 7.65mm, 1911 A1 in .45, or a Charter Arms Bulldog revolver in .44 spl, 5 shot that weighed only 19 oz unloaded.

Never had to use them but at the time I was very glad I had them available.

When I went away on exercise I was encouraged to leave one of these for my wife to have if she needed it.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[Xtat1k]

I wouldve loosed 2 shots, both head. You need to make sure pricks that do shit like that dont wake up to do it again.

Let me know if he needs some $$ dude.

3 for me just to be sure, 2 in the heart, 1 in the head. I think it was a 1911 colt he used so the other 4 rounds from the clip would just be for entertainment purposes lol

[jrandom]

the other 4 rounds from the clip would just be for entertainment purposes lol

With all due respect, if you think shooting someone is entertaining, you're fucked in the head.

[Dai]

With all due respect, if you think shooting someone is entertaining, you're fucked in the head.

Fish,

Dont know if this is a first but this time I am in complete accordance with yourself. Owning, carrying and using a firearm is a serious responsibility and I always have respected them. Accidents account for more firearms injuries than do intentional acts and one of the biggest methods of having an accident is lack of respect.

Not that I dont enjoy my shooting and have fun.

IMHO the popular entertainment medias have for too long glamourised the use of firearms. Even down to the level of cartoons. If people could see what the use of a firearm actually does to another human being then we would have less of these cavalier attitudes.

Sorry to preach but a nerve was struck.

[Xtat1k]

dude... joke

[Dai]

dude... joke


OK.

Joke understood. Super sensitive and touchy.

Old age brings on such irrational responses.

[Xtat1k]

no probs, maybe should of added the joke part into first post lol.

[jrandom]

Not that I dont enjoy my shooting and have fun... popular entertainment medias have for too long glamourised the use of firearms... Sorry to preach but a nerve was struck.

Absolutely.

I witter on about guns as toys, but I've never covered another person with a muzzle or passed around a gun with a hot round in the chamber in my life.

I view anyone who can't treat firearms, be they tools or toys, with the respect they deserve, as akin to drunk drivers. Cages and bikes are definitely toys a lot of the time, but they can still kill, and you're all good so long as you remember that.

Dover's ragged on me in this thread along the lines of hunting being a "sick pleasure", but I don't see him turning down beef steaks, and I'd trust anyone who's ever had to carry the responsibility of a fellow creature's death with a gun far more quickly than I'd let the bleeding-heart hippy movie-watcher likes of him near anything that goes 'bang'.

No offense meant, Dover, old fruit. YKWIM and you're welcome to come out for a shoot sometime.


dude... joke

IMHO, it's OK to needle people by being intentionally controversial. It's not OK to genuinely think that this is a lighthearted matter.

< /pontification >

[Ixion]

Dover's ragged on me in this thread along the lines of hunting being a "sick pleasure", but I don't see him turning down beef steaks


Hm. Given that the purpose of a pistol is to kill human beings, not animals, I can't resist answering when pistol shooters last enjoyed long pig ?

Each to his own. I just like blowing things up.

[jrandom]

Hm. Given that the purpose of a pistol is to kill human beings, not animals...

Bollocks. Rabbit hunting with .22 pistols is great sport, as is deerstalking with large-caliber revolvers.

But, you know. Whatever. Sometimes human beings need killin', too.


I just like blowing things up.

Yeah baby. Blackpowder bottle bombs!

I think I just came up with a way to pass the rest of the afternoon.

[Swoop]

The ecilop prosecutor will be in for a very humbling time...
I would just like to publicly retract this comment. Some interesting facts have been brought forward and I do hope the Carvells have the very best of legal defence.

[Timber020]

Pistols stink for hunting with. People who use them for hunting over rifles are largely doing it for the novelty factor. I have used a few dozen types of pistol, and carried them, been given them as gifts and not one of them I would choose over a rifle. Unless I was hunting people or as a close self defence against bears while hiking. (which is like owning a parachute while working in an office block)

The guys on here who want us to adopt a more american style of gun ownership have no fucking idea what they ask for or its consequence. Harden up, take your paranoia medicine and stop being scared of boogie men. What you ask for would only mean more deaths, paranoia, fear and danger to innocent members of NZ society so you can feel more powerful and manly. Carrying a gun is a powerful drug, its one to many people are ready to abuse on both sides of the law.

Hope he gets off, the charge is bullshit

[davereid]

Pistols stink for deer shooting, but they are just great for pig hunting. Thats close quarters, dogs milling around, dont get it wrong, but be quick before you or the dog cops a fang in an artery stuff.

Quote Timber020The guys on here who want us to adopt a more american style of gun ownership have no fucking idea what they ask for or its consequence. Harden up, take your paranoia medicine and stop being scared of boogie men. What you ask for would only mean more deaths, paranoia, fear and danger to innocent members of NZ society so you can feel more powerful and manly.

Actually we do understand. If you go back through the thread and read what has been said, a few things may surprise you. The most common thing is the assumption that NZ is safer than the US states with no gun control. But it actually the reverse - US states with no gun control are SAFER than NZ.

Yes, for those who want facts figues and references..

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).

Hmm so we are not so safe for overall crime.

What about murders then ?

Well in the USA, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachuetss, Minesota, Montana, Nth Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Is, Sth Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming all have murder rates lower than NZ.
Source - US Bureau of Justice 2004, & NZ sensible senticing trust.

If it was true that allowing joe citizen to be armed made it more dangerous then the US could never be safer than NZ. But clearly it often is.

And on the reverse, Manchester England. 3.9 murders with guns per 100,000 people. (yep, I cant find the reference.. but watch this space.) guess what - you cant easily own a gun in Manchester. Yet heaps of US staes manage lower murder rates, some even half the Manchester rate.

So, please stop assuming that increased freedom to own, carry, and use firearms in self defence will increase crime rates.

In fact, if you can, show me somewhere that it has worked !

I know it seems to contradict what you "feel".

But there are lots of unsafe places with total gun control. And there are lots of safe places with no gun control.

And, when I was 22, fit and strong, I knew no one needed a gun for self defence. Now I'm grey, with high blood pressure, a bikers leg, and a crook back , I'm not so sure the strong should decide what I need for self defence.

Cos the guy breaking in my house may not be as old and grey as me.

[Kickaha]

What about murders then ?

Well in the USA, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachuetss, Minesota, Montana, Nth Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Is, Sth Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming all have murder rates lower than NZ.
Source - US Bureau of Justice 2004, & NZ sensible senticing trust.

So the murder rates in all the other states are higher then?

[Timber020]

I was a member of the NRA, I used to teach kids to shoot, went through the whole NRA instruction thing and got to listen to LONG speals on how wonderful everyone life was in america because they all had guns.

Only one problem, the only people who feel safer are the gun nuts. The statistics that the NRA use, are very well "tuned".
Have you any idea how much money they throw around to insure they keep as much firepower as they could want? How about the amount of school shootings, do you want the youth gangs in NZ to tool up?
I worked with the youth at risk program in the states and in NZ. Their youth are no more violent than ours, but its easier for them to do more harm without any balls because they have access to handguns. In some places I visited, gunshots didnt even bring the police out in the city. They cant keep track of shootings because they are not well reported. Unless a guy ends up in hospital or in the morgue, many shootings go unrecorded or unproven, and thus statisticly they didnt occur. (which is great for the statistics that the NRA like to use, as they count "suspected or possible shootings" only if it suits there arguement at the time.) Cops I worked with who were based in NJ, PA and NY said that they sometimes shot at fleeing suspects but didnt report it as they paperwork was to huge and it would cause further investigations.

The US is screwed, handguns are so ingrained in there society, they can never do anything else. The arms race between police, citizens and criminals continues, unfortunately its one thats never won, and everyone suffers. Besides whats wrong with a shotgun as personal defence when your at home?

I always found a "lightened" single 12g a good pig gun, and with a few buckshot rounds in your pocket, you could bag a few rabbits or a phesant on the way home if the dogs had a quiet day.

[davereid]

Yes kickaha, you are quite correct. Many places in the USA are extremely violent with murder rates many times New Zealands. I understand that in some places with drug and gang problems, the murder rate can be 10x NZs.!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What I am saying is that free access to firearms does not necessarily cause an increase in crime or firearms violence.

And the other thing I am saying is that restricting firearms does not necessarily cause a decrease in crime or firearms violence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The reality is that we need and will always need to at least attempt to control criminal misuse of guns. But in New Zealand we appear to me at least, to have given up trying to control criminal misuse of guns.

We appear to be trying to make self defence illegal instead, by using backdoor rules about access to weapons.

[jrandom]

Is anyone else here aware of just how recently pistols have become available to competitive target shooters in NZ? We're talking late '80s. Even olympic-style .22 pistol shooting only started to come out of the woodwork in the late '70s. Prior to that, pistols were simply illegal in private ownership.

This is partially why I call bollocks to any suggestion that handguns are easy for criminals to get hold of here. The back-end supply just isn't there, and hasn't been since the 1920s. I'm open to being proved wrong.

The NZ Pistol Association has fought a long, hard fight to get things where they are. When there is not an existing supply of firearms, and particularly handguns, to the general population, the fear that opening such supply would increase violent crime is very valid.

If we're going to be pragmatic, a tightly-controlled trickle of armaments to society's most deserving and qualified members is the only possible next step. I'm sure we all agree that in principal, Greg Carvell should have had that gun, and should have been able to use it in the way he did.

US-style open-slather gun ownership, though, is just never going to happen. Without any picking, choosing or filtering, just simply looking at the ratio of murders to population one country at a time, the USA is a violent place. Several times deadlier than NZ. Any suggestion that the culture of open availability of small arms to the general populace over the last century has had nothing to do with that is pure horseshit. The Founding Fathers undoubtedly did not envisage their society degenerating to the extent that it has.

America is a failed experiment and an empire in decline. Let's learn from its mistakes; why wait for another Edward Gibbon to hit us over the head with them?

[boomer]

What a fascinating thread, i'm amazed i didn't stumble on it before:mellow:


I lost my two front teeth as a young 'en cos i couldn't see down the barrel so i put the stock on my chin :third: and as kids we use to hunt each other with .22's..that was fun but thinking back on it probably not very bright. Had a mate on 'stag' shoot himself in the foot 'cos he had one loaded :innocent: he neve knew he could dance so well :Punk:

I reckon bob the shop keeper should get told off for having firearms at the ready.. no doubt about it.

[Ixion]

We also probably overestimate how common it is to have an unarmed population.

Only very recently indeed has it been the norm for men NOT to go about armed.

For most of history men carried arms, quite openly. Swords, cudgels , guns (the latter less common 'cos they weren't a lot of use). Moreover, in a good deal of the world this is still the norm.

Within my lifetime I can remeber when bank tellers were REQUIRED to keep a loaded revolver ready to hand. And were expected to be ready to use it at need.

The notion that ordinary people would NOT be armed is very much a Johnny Come Lately. And perhaps a temporary aberration, whose time is passing ?

[Dai]

We also probably overestimate how common it is to have an unarmed population.

Only very recently indeed has it been the norm for men NOT to go about armed.

For most of history men carried arms, quite openly. Swords, cudgels , guns (the latter less common 'cos they weren't a lot of use). Moreover, in a good deal of the world this is still the norm.

Within my lifetime I can remeber when bank tellers were REQUIRED to keep a loaded revolver ready to hand. And were expected to be ready to use it at need.

The notion that ordinary people would NOT be armed is very much a Johnny Come Lately. And perhaps a temporary aberration, whose time is passing ?

When I first started work it was for the National Bank. The manager took great delight in showing the new junior the pistol he was required to keep in the drawer of his office desk. He had to go on a course once a year, fire the pistol 6 times and that was it.

It was expected that if the need arose he was to use the pistol.

When was this?

1974. 32 years ago. Long before the "nanny state" decided that we couldnt be trusted to look after ourselves and of course protect the rights of the crims.

[Swoop]

Is anyone else here aware of just how recently pistols have become available to competitive target shooters in NZ? We're talking late '80s. Even olympic-style .22 pistol shooting only started to come out of the woodwork in the late '70s.

You almost got it right.
http://www.pistolnz.org.nz/default.asp

[davereid]

Yep, Bank Tellers (amongst others) always had a handgun, right up to the early 70s.

4 years ago, my buddy was standing in a Levin Bar (Sels Place) when he had a handgun shoved in his face while the till was emptied.

And I just googled "New Zealand Handgun" and got :

A bus passenger yesterday placed herself in front of a man pointing what appeared to be a pistol at the back of a child's head on a central city route. Anne Baker, 32, had just boarded the Link bus in Queen St when the man sitting next to her pulled out a black and silver handgun...
Friday 27, January 2006

Police are hunting for a man who walked into a south Auckland pub this morning and threatened staff with a handgun. The incident happened at a pub on Charles St, Papatoetoe at about 10.30am. Terrified staff locked themselves in an adjoining office and called police. Inspector...
Published: Friday 17, February 2006 12:20.00 PM

Hamilton police were last night hunting a man who leapt from a car and robbed a guard at gunpoint, and Auckland police were searching for a man who stormed a pub in Papatoetoe. Police said they were astounded at the brazen nature of the Hamilton robbery, which happened as a Rapid...
Published: Saturday 18, February 2006 5:00.00 AM

The alleged killer of a Whangarei teenager has evaded an intensive police manhunt after crashing a stolen car off a remote road east of Russell. Police found the stolen blue BMW coupe Nathan Fenton was driving 30m down a bank on a heavily forested inland scenic route - known locally...
Published: Thursday 07, September 2006 5:00.00 AM

Tuesday November 14, 2006
By Elizabeth Binning
A secret witness has described watching alleged hitman Wan Yee Chow load a pistol and don black clothing before shooting dead Top Karaoke Bar owner Tam Yam Ah.

Armed pair raid housie evening
9.00am Friday October 27, 2006
Two armed men held up a housie evening in Mangere last night.
More than 100 people were in the community hall in Waokauri Place soon after 9pm when one of the men pointed a handgun at a member of the staff and demanded the money till.

Liquor store raid in Mt Albert
Four people were tied up and locked in the back of a liquor store in Mt Albert during an aggravated robbery yesterday. Three men, including one with a handgun, entered Local Liquor on the corner of New North Rd and Woodward Rd just before 5pm. A staff member and three customers...
Published: Wednesday 18, May 2005 5:00.00 AM

I'm not suggesting this is an accurate summary of facts - but I am suggesting that handguns are available easily to crims.

[jrandom]

... new junior... pistol... once a year, fire the pistol 6 times... if the need arose he was to use the pistol... "nanny state" decided that we couldnt be trusted to look after ourselves and of course protect the rights of the crims.

You're arguing against yourself here. Giving that pistol to the kid made things worse, not better.

Habitual shooters tend to think of firearms as straightforward, but I watched a complete neophyte shoot a plain old .22 bolt-action rifle the other week. It was a bit frightening to see her white knuckles, the wild spray of bullets around the target, and the random swinging of the muzzle in all directions.

Opening up the availability of firearms for self-defence will result in people like that junior bank employee and my shooting buddy's ditzy girlfriend picking one up and using it in a high-stress situation.

Training and licencing would be essential.

[jrandom]

I am suggesting that handguns are available easily to crims.

I'd be willing to bet that every one of those 'handguns', bar the one used by the Asian gang assassin, was an AirSoft replica or a cut-down rifle or shotgun.

It's impossible to tell the difference between a .22LR SIG and a CO2-powered replica. It's still very difficult to tell the difference between one in a fullbore caliber and the toy unless you're staring at the muzzle in a state less than panic.

And bear in mind that that gang hitman probably wouldn't have had a pistol without significant logistical support from overseas.

My points regarding handguns in NZ still stand.

[jrandom]

You almost got it right.

Close enough... :p

I should have googled before posting.

[davereid]

Yeah you are possibly right about a lot of guns being sawed off rifles or shottys - I know the one my buddy got pointed at him was a cut down Ruger 10/22.

We can't assess the others, as you say its very difficult to tell if a handgun is real or not until it goes pop.

[jrandom]

Yeah you are possibly right about a lot of guns being sawed off rifles or shottys - I know the one my buddy got pointed at him was a cut down Ruger 10/22.

Yup.

Cut-down long guns are easier to transport and conceal, but they still aren't particularly useful as 'carry' weapons, even when compared to a full-size service sidearm.

Like I posted earlier, I turned a single-shot 12-gauge into a 380mm-long 'pistol' a wee while back, just for shits and giggles. The shotgun was a fully fold-back design. I could fit what was left of it, folded, in a very large coat pocket, but it still weighed a ton and was unshootable for all practical purposes. (Although I got a friend to stand and cover me with it, and it was fucking SCARY. I can see why sawn-offs are so popular for robberies.)

So long as crims still have to plan on transporting a (modified) long gun to the scene of a crime, carrying out the armed robbery or whatever, then getting away and re-stashing the weapon, we're spared the casual violence amongst the criminal classes that real pistols are so handy for.

[FilthyLuka]

I turned a single-shot 12-gauge into a 380mm-long 'pistol' a wee while back, just for shits and giggles.

see, i woulda used a .410 and put solid slugs in it myself...

[jrandom]

see, i woulda used a .410 and put solid slugs in it myself...

There was no .410 going for < $150 on TardMe that week.

[jrandom]

Here you go (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/167356,CST-NWS-main10.article), folks. Some news from three days ago that I ran into while searching for Roger Ebert's page. Welcome to the United States of America.

Two points:

1. That couldn't have been done with a long gun; the shooter would never have made it into the building.

2. The guy sounds like a total deadbeat. If he'd had to meet NZ's requirements for pistol ownership, he would never have had access to one. Realistically, no other weapon would have enabled that crime.

Make up some bullshit right of citizens to bear arms, and that's what you get.

[geoffm]

Here you go (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/167356,CST-NWS-main10.article), folks. Some news from three days ago that I ran into while searching for Roger Ebert's page. Welcome to the United States of America.

Two points:

1. That couldn't have been done with a long gun; the shooter would never have made it into the building.

2. The guy sounds like a total deadbeat. If he'd had to meet NZ's requirements for pistol ownership, he would never have had access to one. Realistically, no other weapon would have enabled that crime.

Make up some bullshit right of citizens to bear arms, and that's what you get.

Pump action shotgun with folding stock, carried either in a duffle bag or under a long coat. 7-8 shots with buckshot is a damn sight more deadly than a 38 revolver.
You do realise of course that handguns have been illegal in Chicago since 1968? It is still a regualr for "murder capital of the US" despite that. Somehow, I don't think the laws bothered this particular fruitcake, and didn't slow him down at all.
Geoff

[jrandom]

Pump action shotgun with folding stock, carried either in a duffle bag or under a long coat. 7-8 shots with buckshot is a damn sight more deadly than a 38 revolver.

You really think that building wouldn't have had a security guard insisting on checking bags? I'm not saying it'd definitely be the case, but it'd be likely.


You do realise of course that handguns have been illegal in Chicago since 1968?

Doesn't help much when an out-of-state road trip is all that's necessary for one to fill an arbitrary firearms shopping list.

People don't seem to find that law hard to flout (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53677,00.html); bans don't work unless they actually result in restricted supply.


Somehow, I don't think the laws bothered this particular fruitcake

I'm not suggesting that making something illegal stops people from doing it; I'm suggesting that the idea of restricting supply is valid, so long as the horse hasn't already bolted.

[Swoop]

From this mornings Harold.
Another (mis)use of a handgun?



Auckland policeman in court after firing at suspect

Tuesday December 12, 2006
By Elizabeth Binning


A policeman has gone on trial after firing his gun in a swoop on a man subject to a three-month hunt.

Constable Allan Windrum is charged with one count of carelessly using a Glock pistol while trying to arrest fugitive Zeke Lowe two years ago.

The Auckland officer was knocked to the ground as Lowe - believed to be using methamphetamine and considered to be armed and dangerous - tried to escape in a car. Windrum fired a shot that went through the rear window of the car.

No one was hit or injured and Lowe was eventually pepper-sprayed and then arrested with the help of two other officers.

After the incident, Windrum told his superiors he had acted in self-defence. But during the opening of his trial at the Auckland District Court yesterday, Crown prosecutor Emma Priest told the jury the policeman was reckless.

"The Crown says he should not have fired his gun at all."

The court heard how Windrum was a constable with the Special Tactics Unit and was staking out a hotel in Remuera where Lowe was staying on June 16, 2004.

The suspect, who had been on the run for nearly three months, was believed to be using methamphetamine and in possession of a rifle that had been stolen in a burglary a month earlier.

During the stakeout, police became suspicious of a car as it left the hotel and pulled it over. The female driver got out, but Lowe, who was hiding in the back, climbed into the driver's seat and tried to get the car moving.

Ms Priest said Windrum approached the open driver's door and pointed his gun at Lowe, telling him he was under arrest.

Another policeman got into the passenger seat and tried to put Lowe into a headlock to prevent him from driving away.

As they struggled, the car moved back and forward, hitting two other cars, and knocking Windrum to the ground. As the constable fell, his gun accidentally went off but no one was injured.

Ms Priest said the officer got up but was knocked down for a second time. When he stood up again, he fired a shot through the back window of the car.

At the station, Lowe reported the shooting to his supervisor, saying the first shot was an accidental discharge caused when he was knocked over. The second shot was self-defence.

It was also to prevent Lowe from getting away as he was dangerous and could place other police or members of the public at risk if he escaped.

Windrum's lawyer, Richard Earwaker, told the jury that some of the facts - such as whether the second officer was actually in the car at the time of the shooting - were a matter of dispute.

The fact that the gun was fired was not challenged. The question for the jury would be whether Windrum, who attended court in his uniform, was actually reckless in pulling the trigger.

The trial, before Judge Michael Lance QC, is expected to last seven days.

[jrandom]

Another (mis)use of a handgun?

Sounds like it. Shooting through the back window of someone's car as they speed away isn't quite 'self defence'.

[Ixion]

Perhaps not. But taking out a (believed to be) armed and dangerous criminal in the process of escaping sounds like a reasonable use of police fire power to me. I see no problem with the cops using a gun in such circumstances.

[jrandom]

... taking out a (believed to be) armed and dangerous criminal in the process of escaping sounds like a reasonable use of police fire power to me.

Agreed. Armed criminals shouldn't be able to get away scot-free by doing a runner in front of a gun muzzle. What's the point of giving the cops guns if they have to live by some bullshit 'fire only when attacked' rule? Recruitment would be a nightmare.

[mstriumph]

......... 7-8 shots with buckshot is a damn sight more deadly than a 38 revolver.
..................
Geoff

------ :yes: AND plastic knitting needles ........just ask Qantas....

funny thing being that, after they'd nixed the knitting, they gave me a metal knife and fork to eat my [what-they-laughingly-refered-to-as] dinner with
-go figure!

hmmmmmmmmmmm they may be able to protect passengers from crazed knitters running amok in the isles with pink plastic knitting needles ....... but WHO's gonna protect them from AIRLINE FOOD???? :shit: now THAT'S the question!

[duncan_bayne]

According to the Air NZ staff member I spoke with, Air NZ allows passengers to fly domestically with a kubotan (http://www.themartialist.com/0503/pocketsticks.htm) attached to your keyring, provided the air security people let it through. I've never had any problem flying with one, but have never attempted to take one through the lone secure domestic gate in Auckland.

With a few exceptions (bomb detection being one), airport security is all about making people feel secure, & has no effect whatsoever on actual security.

In fact, no, that's wrong. It makes actual security worse, because people are lulled into thinking that because they're on an airliner they must be secure, so they can forget about taking precautions (like carrying a kubotan) and just drift off in condition white (http://www.teddytactical.com/SharpenBladeArticle/4_States%20of%20Awareness.htm).

[Swoop]

Perhaps not. But taking out a (believed to be) armed and dangerous criminal in the process of escaping sounds like a reasonable use of police fire power to me. I see no problem with the cops using a gun in such circumstances.

This instance appears to have another officer in the passenger seat of the vehicle trying to get the subject "in a headlock". Firing into the back of this vehicle could get your fellow officer shot.

[Ixion]

Yes indeed. And whilst I have no problem with the cop using his gun to protect public safety and enforce the law (because I am not in the firing line) his hapless collegue may not be so happy. But that's the risks of the job I guess, though I suspect a few words were said back at the station. But that should be an internal matter within the force not a criminal charge.

[spudchucka]

This instance appears to have another officer in the passenger seat of the vehicle trying to get the subject "in a headlock". Firing into the back of this vehicle could get your fellow officer shot.

Exactly! I'd be pretty pissed off if I was the cop that was inside the car.

And Glocks don't just go off accidentally when you fall over, unless you have your finger inside the trigger guard.:nono:

[spudchucka]

Yes indeed. And whilst I have no problem with the cop using his gun to protect public safety and enforce the law (because I am not in the firing line) his hapless collegue may not be so happy. But that's the risks of the job I guess, though I suspect a few words were said back at the station. But that should be an internal matter within the force not a criminal charge.

No its not the risks of The Job! We need to be better than that.

No one goes to work accepting that they might be shot by one of their own colleagues and it most certainly isn't in any police job description that I've seen. Getting assaulted on the job is something that you need to be prepared for, getting shot or stabbed by an offender is becoming more of a regular occurence but it is in no way an acceptable risk.

My single most overwhellming duty when I go to work is to ensure that I finsh work in a state that allows me to remain breathing and to return home to my family upright.

[scumdog]

No its not the risks of The Job! We need to be better than that.

My single most overwhellming duty when I go to work is to ensure that I finsh work in a state that allows me to remain breathing and to return home to my family upright.

Too true - I have the same attitude - and if the other guy ends up worse for the wear due to his own course of action and poor choices then it's his bad luck.

[davereid]

There seems to be a problem with senior police management. Not only do they prosecute joe citizen for protecting himself with a firearm, they also seem very quick to savage police officers.

For some reason we seem to be giving a disproportionate amount of care to the criminals.

Good luck to the cop.

[duncan_bayne]

For some reason we seem to be giving a disproportionate amount of care to the criminals.
For the same reason that we give so much stick to businessmen, & endless amounts of money to bludgers ... nowadays, people are punished for their virtues & rewarded for their flaws.

[jrandom]

Your a bunch of self righteous wankers... Go fuck yourself.

Nice rant! I didn't see anybody judging him, dude. Now chill.

Seriously, though, what would have happened if it'd played out like the final scene in 'Chinatown'?

[jrandom]

I've been thinking about this.

If Al was justified in drawing his pistol and putting his finger on the trigger, we shouldn't second-guess his decision to fire.

Charging him is complete bullshit. We can't arm our police officers and then condemn them every time 20/20 hindsight reveals potential imperfections in their decision-making under stress. I for one am not going to pretend that I could have done any better.

I sincerely hope the charge against him is thrown out of court.

[NZHog]

Hi Duncan,a Surefire Executive Elite will give you Kubotan capabilities & a VERY bright light. Much more possabilities available,granted for much more cost also.
http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/prrfnbr/1132/sesent/00

[spudchucka]

I've been thinking about this.

If Al was justified in drawing his pistol and putting his finger on the trigger, we shouldn't second-guess his decision to fire.

Charging him is complete bullshit. We can't arm our police officers and then condemn them every time 20/20 hindsight reveals potential imperfections in their decision-making under stress. I for one am not going to pretend that I could have done any better.

I sincerely hope the charge against him is thrown out of court.

Thats an insightfull approach to the situation.

Cops have to make split second decisions in such situations but the media, public and courts have months to micro analyse the cops actions, usually resulting in a bunch of "should have" statements from self appointed experts.

[duncan_bayne]

Much more possabilities available,granted for much more cost also.
Yeah ... I like the SureFire products a lot ... but a plain aluminium kubotan costs $8.50 from AMAS :yes:

[Swoop]

I have a small problem with the tactics used, if this is to be believed as presented.

"Ms Priest said Windrum approached the open driver's door and pointed his gun at Lowe, telling him he was under arrest.

Another policeman got into the passenger seat and tried to put Lowe into a headlock to prevent him from driving away."

If another officer gets into your line of fire, any chances of firing a shot have disappeared.

[spudchucka]

From this mornings Harold.
Another (mis)use of a handgun?

After reading the Herald piece for a second time the greatest concern I have about this matter is that the cop is being defended by a guy called Dick Ear-Whacker.

[Clivoris]

After reading the Herald piece for a second time the greatest concern I have about this matter is that the cop is being defended by a guy called Dick Ear-Whacker.

Do you think his name got hyphenated after marrying Miss Ear? Poor bastard must have got hell at school...He's either grown up with an amazing sense of humour and great self-defense skills, or a huge chip.

[Ixion]

I've been thinking about this.

If Al was justified in drawing his pistol and putting his finger on the trigger, we shouldn't second-guess his decision to fire.

Charging him is complete bullshit. We can't arm our police officers and then condemn them every time 20/20 hindsight reveals potential imperfections in their decision-making under stress. I for one am not going to pretend that I could have done any better.

I sincerely hope the charge against him is thrown out of court.

Yith. Thats why I said it should be an internal matter. decision may not have been the right one (cos of risk of collateral damage to the other cop) but it's a justifiable one. A training/competancy issue (assuming it is anything at all) not a criminal one.

[Lou Girardin]

Nice rant! I didn't see anybody judging him, dude. Now chill.



I'll judge him. The wanker's seen too much TV. The unspoken inference is that he lost control after being driven at and opened fired without consideration for who was near his target.
It's not much different to the two cops who fired on a car near the Mercer gas station because "they saw something silver in the drivers hand and it could have been a gun"

[scumdog]

It's not much different to the two cops who fired on a car near the Mercer gas station because "they saw something silver in the drivers hand and it could have been a gun"

Got to balance that against "Yeah, I saw the silver thing in his hand and never thought it would be a gun, shame he managed to shoot my mate before I realised it WAS a gun" scenario.

[jrandom]

I'll judge him. Rassin' frassin' rootin' tootin' dog-blasted ornery no-account long-eared varmint...

Have you considered therapy?

[davereid]

Seems to me we need guidelines as to when its appropriate to use a firearm or indeed any weapon in self defence.

(I remain unconvinced that the guidelines should be different for police, although I accept that they are going to be armed much more frequently, and exposed to risk much more frequently that joe public.)

To me the test should be something like it was in the old days... I can't quite remember it but it was something like;

"Every person has the right to use force in the defence of himself or others to the minimum amount necessary, in the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be"

Pretty clearly the court is the right place for any dispute or potential breach of the law to be heard. Not much point having judges if it can all be decided outside the court.

But clearer rules would make it easy to decide if it needs go near a court in the first place !

[jrandom]

To me the test should be something like it was in the old days... I can't quite remember it but it was something like;

"Every person has the right to use force in the defence of himself or others to the minimum amount necessary, in the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be"

The law already exists in (almost) those exact words.

Problem is, we also have some pretty restrictive regulations surrounding the storage and carrying of weapons, which would be the best place to start in terms of reform, if reform is necessary.

Put it this way - in NZ, nobody is on a better footing than a hunter in the field with an E-cat rifle who suffers an attempted mugging... :D

[spudchucka]

Seems to me we need guidelines as to when its appropriate to use a firearm or indeed any weapon in self defence.

(I remain unconvinced that the guidelines should be different for police, although I accept that they are going to be armed much more frequently, and exposed to risk much more frequently that joe public.)

To me the test should be something like it was in the old days... I can't quite remember it but it was something like;

"Every person has the right to use force in the defence of himself or others to the minimum amount necessary, in the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be"

Pretty clearly the court is the right place for any dispute or potential breach of the law to be heard. Not much point having judges if it can all be decided outside the court.

But clearer rules would make it easy to decide if it needs go near a court in the first place !

http://www.legislation.co.nz/

Go to Crimes Act 1961

Check sections 39 - 62.

Pay particular attention to sections 39, 40, 41, 48 & 62.

All sections apply to members of the police no more and no less than they apply to any New Zealander.

[0arbreaka]

do this petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/Defence/petition.html

[Lou Girardin]

Have you considered therapy?

I got bored with all the concern about my bowel and how I felt about my Mother.

[Lou Girardin]

Seems to me we need guidelines as to when its appropriate to use a firearm or indeed any weapon in self defence.


I have a personal one, Try to harm me or my loved ones and I will make sure youl will regret it. (Briefly, in your last moments of consciousness)

[davereid]

It looks like the law gives us pretty good protection for the use of force in self defence. The problem is it restricts access to the tools.

[Swoop]

It looks like the law gives us pretty good protection for the use of force in self defence. The problem is it restricts access to the tools.
So, just be very good at getting access then.

[duncan_bayne]

So, just be very good at getting access then.
... and then get arrested and charged like Greg Carvell :-(

The law regarding access to weapons needs to be improved (read: liberalised), and the Govt. needs to stop bringing prosecutions against those who defend themselves with weapons.

[Swoop]

... and then get arrested and charged like Greg Carvell :-(

The law regarding access to weapons needs to be improved (read: liberalised), and the Govt. needs to stop bringing prosecutions against those who defend themselves with weapons.

You are correct on the "access needs to be liberalised" issue, however, the Carvell charge is a seperate issue in itself. Once the issue comes before the court, clarifications may be made.

[jrandom]

Some research results (http://www.pharma-lexicon.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=59264) from data surrounding the Australian firearms buyback and illegalisation of semiautos.

[scumdog]

Some research results (http://www.pharma-lexicon.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=59264) from data surrounding the Australian firearms buyback and illegalisation of semiautos.

I am well aware of that political rort, I wonder how many criminals are now without firearms as a result of that crap????

The paradox of having the 'safest' community is that it also is the community with the least personal freedoms (Singapore?).

That is one of the main reasons I have never really been struck with the idea of moving to Aussie - I'd have to sell about 75% of my firearms and as for my modified vehicles? - forget about it!

[geoffm]

Some research results (http://www.pharma-lexicon.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=59264) from data surrounding the Australian firearms buyback and illegalisation of semiautos.

It was not a "buy back", it was confiscation, since the owners had no choice, and the government never owned the guns in the first place, so coulnd't buy them back.
The numebr of guns confiscated was less than the number of SKS and Ruger 22 rifles imported into Oz, yet these only formed a small part of those taken. Hardly successful when it increases thenumber of illegal guns. Unsurprisingly, most owners went out and bought new guns with the money, so it hardly decreased the pool of guns in the community. And no, the fact they were evil, baby killing semi autos confiscated did not improve safety, since it doesn't matter how fast you miss... As another example, in the first battle of the Marne in 1914, the attacking Germans were convinced they were facing machine guns, when it was the BEF with the SMLE Lee Enfield rifle.
Geoff

[jrandom]

The paradox of having the 'safest' community is that it also is the community with the least personal freedoms (Singapore?).

You know what's funny? You talk to the average Singaporean guy about firearms, and his eyes just light up. Compulsory military service, the ever-present worry of Malaysian invasion and the remaining memories of being swarmed over by Japanese make them very weapons-conscious. Small arms and heavy weapons trivia is a good way to get a conversation going in a Singaporean pub, in my experience.

The guys there absolutely drool at the idea of being able to personally own guns and go hunting, etc. Poor bastards.


It was not a "buy back", it was confiscation... Hardly successful when it increases thenumber of illegal guns... hardly decreased the pool of guns in the community... evil, baby killing semi autos

Shrug. I'm just the messenger. That was a study reported in a medical journal, not political propaganda.

Read Agents of Mayhem by Bill O'Brien. He gives details of Martin Bryant's actions at Port Arthur. If he'd had to make do with an Enfield instead of having an AR-15 and a FAL, the body count could well have been lower.


in the first battle of the Marne in 1914, the attacking Germans were convinced they were facing machine guns, when it was the BEF with the SMLE Lee Enfield rifle.

"The current world record for aimed bolt action fire was set in 1914 by a musketry instructor in the British Army - one Sgt. Snoxall - who placed 38 rounds into a 12" target at 300 yards in one minute."

So let's say the average rifleman could manage 15 aimed shots in a minute with a SMLE. A Vickers MG had a ~600rpm rate of fire, meaning that it would take 40 troopers with SMLEs concentrating their fire on a target to achieve the same effect.

I suspect that the old "Germans convinced they were facing MGs" chestnut has been exaggerated a little over time.

[Ixion]

,,
"The current world record for aimed bolt action fire was set in 1914 by a musketry instructor in the British Army - one Sgt. Snoxall - who placed 38 rounds into a 12" target at 300 yards in one minute."

So let's say the average rifleman could manage 15 aimed shots in a minute with a SMLE. A Vickers MG had a ~600rpm rate of fire, meaning that it would take 40 troopers with SMLEs concentrating their fire on a target to achieve the same effect.

I suspect that the old "Germans convinced they were facing MGs" chestnut has been exaggerated a little over time.

Difference is "aimed". Vickers could lay down more metal, but I don't think they normally aimed them much, just pointed in the general direction and laid down a curtain of metal, sweeping back and forth .

So to an individual soldier aimed rifle fire at 15 rpm (maybe more if two or three shooters aimed at the same target) could appear pretty similar to a machine gun which would sweep across them for a moment and then be gone.

But, I wasn't there at the time, so i'm just guessing.

[Swoop]

"The current world record for aimed bolt action fire was set in 1914 by a musketry instructor in the British Army - one Sgt. Snoxall - who placed 38 rounds into a 12" target at 300 yards in one minute."

Impressive by any standard.
60 seconds.
38 shots.
+ reloads.

[sAsLEX]

Impressive by any standard.
60 seconds.
38 shots.
+ reloads.

reloads? A big magazine would of worked

[scumdog]

"The current world record for aimed bolt action fire was set in 1914 by a musketry instructor in the British Army - one Sgt. Snoxall - who placed 38 rounds into a 12" target at 300 yards in one minute."

I'm IMPRESSED!
Shee-it, I'm a 'lefty' and about 15 aimed shots in a minute with a three-oh is my limit.

[scumdog]

reloads? A big magazine would of worked

Ya know of a 40 shot mag for a three-oh?

I'd say they would have had four full mags - but if they just used clips (chargers is the proper term) I'd be REALLY impressed!

[sAsLEX]

Ya know of a 40 shot mag for a three-oh?

I'd say they would have had four full mags - but if they just used clips (chargers is the proper term) I'd be REALLY impressed!

Not rocket science to make one, you only need a spring and some metal, seen a 50 clip on a semi 22 so no need to reload spotlighting

[Dai]

Not rocket science to make one, you only need a spring and some metal, seen a 50 clip on a semi 22 so no need to reload spotlighting

E cat of course:done: :done:

[jrandom]

about 15 aimed shots in a minute with a three-oh is my limit.

Likewise. That's why I postulated the same ROF for the average WWI rifleman.

I imagine the above world record would have been set with a Mk II SMLE. The Enfield's detachable 10rd mag certainly contributed to its ROF advantage over the K98.

I intend to get a Mk IV SMLE at some point to go with my Kar98K and Mosin Nagant, but I really badly want an '03 Springfield. There was a bewdyful one on TardMe last week, but I didn't have enough brownie points (or cash) to spend a four-figure sum on yet another smelly [sic] old bolt-action.

:crybaby:

At least when I start dropping major bucks on pistols I'll have justifiably sexy movie-gun toys to wave at Her when She sees the bank statements...

[jrandom]

E cat of course

I do so love the legal loophole that makes magazines, on their own, purchasable by anyone, licensed or not. Regardless of capacity.

The dodgy person, with or without an 'E' endorsement on their licence, desiring to own a large-capacity assault rifle without having its serial number registered by the Police, may well feel moved to praise the Lord for all those L1A1 owners who've tacked a metal strip from the bottom of the pistol grip to the back of the stock, unscrewed the flash suppressor, and are selling them with a 7-round magazine.

Often listed on TradeMe immediately above the "20 round L1A1 magazine, buy now $30" listings that don't require proof of FAL.

Of course, I couldn't possibly comment on that subject.

[jrandom]

L1A1 magazine... proof of FAL.

Nyuk nyuk. I just realised I made a pun-funny. Multipurpose TLAs are always a hoot.

[Swoop]

reloads? A big magazine would of worked

For a bolt action?
In 1914???

That would be rarer than snail drums for Lugers.

[Swoop]

Auckland police officer cleared of gun charge
Email this storyPrint this story Wednesday December 20, 2006
By Allan Windrum


The jury agreed that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Allan Windrum's use of his pistol was careless. Photo / Dean Purcell
An Auckland police officer who fired a pistol during a swoop on a dangerous criminal has been acquitted of a firearms charge.

A jury in Auckland District Court took about two hours yesterday to find Constable Allan Windrum not guilty of careless use of a weapon during the June 2004 police swoop on Zeke Lowe in suburban Remuera.

The Crown alleged Mr Windrum fired a Glock pistol at Lowe, a P addict police were treating as armed and dangerous.

It argued Mr Windrum was careless when he fired a shot as his colleague, Constable David Mayes, was struggling with Lowe inside a vehicle.

But the jury agreed with Mr Windrum's lawyer, Richard Earwaker, that there was reasonable doubt as to whether his client's use of the weapon was careless in the circumstances.

Mr Earwaker also argued that Mr Mayes was not in the car when Mr Windrum fired his pistol.

He said Mr Windrum was delighted with the verdict.

"He's very relieved and he's going to enjoy Christmas much more now that this is over."


Mr Windrum had not been stood down by the police while the prosecution proceeded.

He has spent much of the intervening period doing traffic work, which Mr Earwaker said he had enjoyed.

"It's always tough on police officers who are in the eye of the public. This has been a long process but Allan is pleased it has been resolved."

Mr Earwaker did not wish to comment when asked whether the case should have been brought to trial.

Mr Windrum was charged after the incident on June 16, 2004, when Lowe was captured.

Lowe had been on the run from police for three months when incident involving Mr Windrum occurred.

He was being treated as armed and dangerous because he had taken a firearm during a burglary beforehand and was possibly irrational due to an addiction to methamphetamine.

Mr Earwaker told the jury that after a car which Lowe was travelling in had been pulled over, Mr Windrum had pointed his pistol at the fugitive from beside the driver's door and tried to arrest him, after which Lowe had reversed the car with the door open to knock Mr Windrum over.

He said Mr Windrum fired a shot at Lowe through the rear window shortly afterwards - a shot that did not hit anybody - because all options other than lethal force were gone and the constable was fearful Lowe would get away and be a serious threat to fellow officers and Remuera residents.

The Crown had argued that Mr Mayes was in the car at the time the pistol was fired and had Lowe in a headlock.

Mr Earwaker said Mr Mayes had yet to get into the car at this time.

Mr Windrum did not fire a second shot because the rear window shattered and he could not see Lowe.

He then went towards the front, pepper-sprayed Lowe and later helped Mr Mayes and another constable, Lisa Magnusson, to arrest him.

Crown prosecutor Chris Morris did not wish to comment after the verdict.

- NZPA

[jrandom]

Auckland police officer cleared of gun charge

Excellent. Glad to hear it.


By Allan Windrum...

ROFL - he wrote his own press release? That's truly classic!

I absolutely have to meet this guy some day and buy him a beer or three.

[Lou Girardin]

Excellent. Glad to hear it.





I wonder if the cop in the front seat is as glad.

And, just slightly off-topic, who saw the documentary on the anniversary of Dunblane?
That was a thought provoking story.

[Dai]

I wonder if the cop in the front seat is as glad.

And, just slightly off-topic, who saw the documentary on the anniversary of Dunblane?
That was a thought provoking story.

I deliberately didnt watch it. I was a pistol shooter in the UK at the time. I remember the incident vividly and I also remember the abuse I got from people when they discovered or remembered that I was a COMPETITION TARGET PISTOL SHOOTER.

It was almost as though I had been up there shooting babies and biting the heads off chickens.

I remember the Snowdrop petition. 600,000 signatures asking to abolish gun ownership. I remeber the sorrow and bitterness that criminalised, in the minds of most people, a sport that took all the blame.

I remeber the recriminations. Turns out that Hamilton had been denied a licence as he was a known sex offender but on the direct intervention of Lord Robertson the police were ordered to give him a licence? Arse bandits stick together.

Still bitter about it today. One of the major reasons I came home.

Sorry the bitterness is still there so I will end now.

[jrandom]

I wonder if the cop in the front seat is as glad.

Now, now. There was significant doubt cast on that point of fact (whether the other officer was in the car at the time) in Court. If a jury decided the shooting wasn't negligent, then it wasn't.

Unless you've spoken to someone involved, stop stirring.

[jrandom]

I remember the incident vividly...

Imagine, for a moment, that the teacher in that gymnasium had whipped her own .380 out of a fanny pack and double-tapped Hamilton between the eyes.

Sweet justice.

[Dai]

Imagine, for a moment, that the teacher in that gymnasium had whipped her own .380 out of a fanny pack and double-tapped Hamilton between the eyes.

Sweet justice.

Then the "antis" would have harped on about a teacher having a gun in her possesion whilst in charge of children.

We (the shooters) have always been on a losing streak.

The bleeding heart liberals want total disarmament and will use or abuse any situation to pervert the minds of the cattle who listen to them

[jrandom]

Goddamn. Speak of the devil.

Some unprincipled arsehole may have just done a Dunblane on every collector and dealer in the country (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10416328).

I hate to think of the potential repercussions.

The real question is, though...

Where's my MP5? :crybaby:

[ManDownUnder]

Where's my MP5? :crybaby:

Black power bought it for a really good price out of a ute near Otara. I'm sure they'll deliver if you ask nicely enough...

[jrandom]

Black power bought it for a really good price out of a ute near Otara...

Like the article says, it won't have been a "good price"; it will have been a price that sufficiently recompensed the supplier for their initial outlay and risk. Big biccies. But, I mean, hell's bells - H&K only sell MP5s to law enforcement or military customers. Someone somewhere is seriously bent.

I'm pissed off at this. Selfish idiots going and spoiling it for the rest of us. I really hope the media don't run too hard with this one.

[ManDownUnder]

I'm pissed off at this. Selfish idiots going and spoiling it for the rest of us. I really hope the media don't run too hard with this one.

Ditto - don't be confused about that. This isn't even the thin end of the wedge. We're heading rapidly toward the thick end.


Like the article says, it won't have been a "good price"; it will have been a price that sufficiently recompensed the supplier for their initial outlay and risk. Big biccies. But, I mean, hell's bells - H&K only sell MP5s to law enforcement or military customers. Someone somewhere is seriously bent.

Re the good price - yaaaa.. y'know. $70,000 worth of P would take what - a day to make and sell... maybe two? Two manday work for a specialised death machine ain't too bad in my book.

As a general aside - the gun community in general should be livid about this. And make it public. Let the powers that be, and the public know we're actually on their side in respect of crims getting guns.

Acknowledge we have differences in opinion about ownership of guns, but we all have a common enemy in these cocksmokers getting their grubby little paws on them.

[jrandom]

the gun community in general should be livid about this. And make it public. Let the powers that be, and the public know we're actually on their side in respect of crims getting guns.

There's a real problem here, though. It seems that properly licenced and trusted dealers and collectors were feeding stuff through to the dark side.

What do you do? The licencing process is already very strict. And when it boils down to it, if there's a chance to keep criminals disarmed (as opposed to just making things more difficult for law-abiding shooters), I'd have difficulty opposing any measures necessary.

I'd rather live in Singapore than Detroit.

[ManDownUnder]

There's a real problem here, though. It seems that properly licenced and trusted dealers and collectors were feeding stuff through to the dark side.

What do you do? The licencing process is already very strict. And when it boils down to it, if there's a chance to keep criminals disarmed (as opposed to just making things more difficult for law-abiding shooters), I'd have difficulty opposing any measures necessary.

I'd rather live in Singapore than Detroit.

Peer pressure. Let the bastard dealing arms know that the whole damned country is against them. Escalate this to the highest court in the land and give the prosecution the pleasure of having every senior person from the Plice Comissioner, Gun Collectors, the NRA... whatever - right behind them.

Nail the fuckers to the wall

The process is strict - but not effective. There needs to be a considerable effect... and right now. In reaction to the dealers doing this shit (assuming their guilt of course).

I hate to go on like the broken record I sspect I actually am - but the broken windows policy is needed. Buy a gun without the requisite permits etc - you're fucked for life. No slap on the wrist, no faffing around. Sell a gun without the necessary docs or with intent, you're fucked for life, on hard labour.

Make the sentences public, make them stiff and show that the whole country is against them.

Turn them into the villans they really are, in the eyes of the shooters as well as non shooters. Fuck 'em over.

[sAsLEX]

I like this bit


f prosecutions against the dealers and collectors involved succeeded, Mr Whitehead said, police would seek to have all the weapons destroyed.

This would be regardless of whether some were registered with police and therefore held lawfully.

[sAsLEX]

Buy a gun with the requisite permits etc - you're fucked for life. No slap on the wrist, no faffing around. Sell a gun without the necessary docs or with intent, you're fucked for life, on hard labour.


Maybe without permits?

[jrandom]

I like this bit

If the police can prove that there was a conspiracy to supply these lawfully registered and owned weapons to criminals, then by all means their owners should have a very large and spiky book thrown at them. Hard. And not get to own guns ever again.

[sAsLEX]

What do you do? The licencing process is already very strict. And when it boils down to it, if there's a chance to keep criminals disarmed (as opposed to just making things more difficult for law-abiding shooters), I'd have difficulty opposing any measures necessary.



How many crimes in this country are committed with MSA's or whatever the TLA is?

Most is a sawn off 22 or shotgun, something that anyone can basically get their hands on.


If the police can prove that there was a conspiracy to supply these lawfully registered and owned weapons to criminals, then by all means their owners should have a very large and spiky book thrown at them. Hard. And not get to own guns ever again.

Yeah I think I misread that bit, jumped the gun you could say.

[ManDownUnder]

Maybe without permits?


errrr yeah - what you said

[scumdog]

I wonder if the cop in the front seat is as glad.

And, just slightly off-topic, who saw the documentary on the anniversary of Dunblane?
That was a thought provoking story.

I thought I had just read that the cop was yet to get in the front seat area when the shot was fired????

Still, it would ruin yet another colourful strory if that was the case though eh?


Dunblane?
A beaurocratic cock-up to the max.

And all lawful gun owners pay for it.

But crims are just as well armed as usual around Dunblane.

[scumdog]

Don't forget chaps, - certain politicians and other members of society see motorcycle ownership as only marginally removed from firearm ownership as far as attitude to them both is concerned.

[spudchucka]

I wonder if the cop in the front seat is as glad.

Apparently there was reasonable doubt that he was in the front seat.

One would assume that this cop was available to give evidence for either the prosecution or the defence?

[Lou Girardin]

Now, now. There was significant doubt cast on that point of fact (whether the other officer was in the car at the time) in Court. If a jury decided the shooting wasn't negligent, then it wasn't.

Unless you've spoken to someone involved, stop stirring.

The prosecution said he was IN the car, the defence said he wasn't. The jury, for reasons of their own, went with the defence. As with most trials, we still don't know the truth.
The bottom line is that the cop was prepared to kill the driver and he did not KNOW that he was armed.

[Lou Girardin]

I thought I had just read that the cop was yet to get in the front seat area when the shot was fired????

Still, it would ruin yet another colourful strory if that was the case though eh?


Dunblane?
A beaurocratic cock-up to the max.

And all lawful gun owners pay for it.

But crims are just as well armed as usual around Dunblane.

Aren't spree killings ALWAYS someones cock-up?
David Grey, Hamilton, the Columbine killers, all of these could have been prevented. If society isn't going to act on these nutters, then everyone will lose their guns.

[spudchucka]

The prosecution said he was IN the car, the defence said he wasn't. The jury, for reasons of their own, went with the defence. As with most trials, we still don't know the truth.
The bottom line is that the cop was prepared to kill the driver and he did not KNOW that he was armed.

So neither side could prove where the cop was at the time the shot was fired, in the car or not.

Surely in such a case the jury would normally find in favour of the defence. Or should the jury take a different approach because the accused was a cop?

[awesker]

Hey guys, I was just at SAI's today and I picked up a piece of paper on Greg Carvells defense fund, Ive got the bank account number and a postal address if anyone is interest in helping him out. Just give me a PM, sorry if this has been already brought up but Im not going through 40 odd pages to see ;D

[ManDownUnder]

Hey guys, I was just at SAI's today and I picked up a piece of paper on Greg Carvells defense fund, Ive got the bank account number and a postal address if anyone is interest in helping him out. Just give me a PM, sorry if this has been already brought up but Im not going through 40 odd pages to see ;)

If it's published information - what's the harm in putting it up here?

Post it

[Swoop]

If society isn't going to act on these nutters, then everyone will lose their guns.

The law abiding will be affected, not the criminals that "society" aims to disarm.

[awesker]

If it's published information - what's the harm in putting it up here?

Post it

sweet as, just making sure I didnt get in trouble for some random reason...

Ok, it goes like thissssssssss:

Greg Carvell's Defense Fund
Westpac Viaduct Branch
Account: 03-1527-000-3691-000

or post:

Greg Carvell's Defense Fund
C/- Chartered Accountant
P.O. Box 76 127
Manukau City

If you want any more info Im sure the guys down at SAI's can help, their details are (09) 579-3771 or try their electronic mail at sales@guns.co.nz

Im happy I can help him to be honest, and Im sure he'll be most thankfull! Take it easy guys!

[Patrick]

The bottom line is that the cop was prepared to kill the driver and he did not KNOW that he was armed.

Geez Lou... :spanking: The cop KNEW he had a gun stolen in a Burglary, he KNEW he was a P head paranoid arsewipe.. he KNEW quite a bit about this skidmark, and he believed him to be armed.

He was prepared to arrest at gunpoint. He was assaulted with a weapon (the car) as a result and he fired a round at him, apparently.

Surely you don't expect him to walk up to him and say to the P head, "excuse me kind sir, are you armed and about to blow my head off today?" before taking action?

A bit like the arsehole who pulled out an unloaded sawn off shotgun on a cop and he received a lead injection the head as the cop ran back to his car firing... comments back then were "but the gun wasn't loaded...he shouldn't have been shot." Jeez there are some dumb feckers out there....but we are off topic...

[Lou Girardin]

Geez Lou... :spanking: The cop KNEW he had a gun stolen in a Burglary, he KNEW he was a P head paranoid arsewipe.. he KNEW quite a bit about this skidmark, and he believed him to be armed.

He was prepared to arrest at gunpoint. He was assaulted with a weapon (the car) as a result and he fired a round at him, apparently.

.

So if he HAD hit the other cop, it would be OK because he KNEW all those things.
BTW How's the Bandit?

[Patrick]

So if he HAD hit the other cop, it would be OK because he KNEW all those things.
BTW How's the Bandit?

Shit no... but I seriously doubt he let rip knowing his mate was anywhere near harms way...

And the Bandit? Still goes fine, could go better... but still, at 200kmph, who needs more...:innocent:

Did you find your missing ponies? I heard they might be at Bombay Pet Foods....

[scumdog]

Constable Allan Windrun was found not guilty in court.

The Judges comments were that it was one of the first times that he had unconditionally agreed with the Jury that a Defendant should not of been found guilty; only the second time in his career.

He further stated he could not understand why Police charged the Constable after only 2 out of the 15 witnesses said that the other officer was in the car at the time of the round being fired.

The Police officer who was in the rear of the vehicle himself did not know if he was in the car when the shot was being fired as he didnt realise a shot had been fired.

There was no way this charge should of been brought before the Court, its just Political Correctness gone mad. Put allan through a year of hell though for doing his job and bringing a known violent offender who preyed on the public into custody.

I notice there has been no media mention of the result.

Lou??:wait:

[Lou Girardin]

And the Bandit? Still goes fine, could go better... but still, at 200kmph, who needs more...:innocent:



Closed road? Medical facilities at hand? Mine does 240.:shit:
Want a micron can? Cheap!

[Lou Girardin]

Judge yourself before you judge others.

I have. Found guilty.
But then I am a left footer. (Second only to Jews for guilt)

[Dai]

Back to Greg.

Anyone read the editorial in "Guns and Hunting" Jan/Feb issue.

In my opinon very well written and very explanatory.

I particularly like the quote they lead and finish with

"For justice to prevail the jury will have to see this charade for what it is-- a lawyers game in which, one way or another, the citizen always loses. The jury should reject the charge and award costs against the Crown"

Peter Maxwell has expressed my own feelings in this matter a lot more elequently than I am able.

The SSANZ newsletter on page 86-88 also is about the Carvell case and again is well written with some very interesting facts. I particulrly enjoyed the part about the turn around in the self defence law in the UK and Ireland.

Would appreciate input from other members

[davereid]

Sorry Dai - can you explain what the turn around in UK law is all about ?

[Dai]

Sorry Dai - can you explain what the turn around in UK law is all about ?

Its quite a long piece about the UK and Ireland 1 1/2 pages of the magazine but I will try to summarise the UK part.

A recent pamphlet entitled

"Householders and the Use of Force against Intruders"

was distributed to every household in the UK.

I have been to the UK Gov site and the following has been copied over. Bold and underlined statements are my addition. Which whilst not changing the wording seems to emphasise the document, to me at least.

=====================

"Householders and the use of force against intruders

Joint Public Statement from the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers

What is the purpose of this statement?

It is a rare and frightening prospect to be confronted by an intruder in your own home. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Chief Constables are responding to public concern over the support offered by the law and confusion about householders defending themselves. We want a criminal justice system that reaches fair decisions, has the confidence of law-abiding citizens and encourages them actively to support the police and prosecutors in the fight against crime.

Wherever possible you should call the police. The following summarises the position when you are faced with an intruder in your home, and provides a brief overview of how the police and CPS will deal with any such events.
Does the law protect me? What is 'reasonable force'?

Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in selfdefence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence.

Do I have to wait to be attacked?

No, not if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others. In those circumstances the law does not require you to wait to be attacked before using defensive force yourself.
What if the intruder dies?

If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted. However, if, for example:

* having knocked someone unconscious, you then decided to further hurt or kill them to punish them; or
* you knew of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or to kill them rather than involve the police,

you would be acting with very excessive and gratuitous force and could be prosecuted.
What if I chase them as they run off?

This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.
Will you believe the intruder rather than me?

The police weigh all the facts when investigating an incident. This includes the fact that the intruder caused the situation to arise in the first place. We hope that everyone understands that the police have a duty to investigate incidents involving a death or injury. Things are not always as they seem. On occasions people pretend a burglary has taken place to cover up other crimes such as a fight between drug dealers.

How would the police and CPS handle the investigation and treat me?

In considering these cases Chief Constables and the Director of Public Prosecutions (Head of the CPS) are determined that they must be investigated and reviewed as swiftly and as sympathetically as possible. In some cases, for instance where the facts are very clear, or where less serious injuries are involved, the investigation will be concluded very quickly, without any need for arrest. In more complicated cases, such as where a death or serious injury occurs, more detailed enquiries will be necessary. The police may need to conduct a forensic examination and/or obtain your account of events.

To ensure such cases are dealt with as swiftly and sympathetically as possible, the police and CPS will take special measures namely:

* An experienced investigator will oversee the case; and
* If it goes as far as CPS considering the evidence, the case will be prioritised to ensure a senior lawyer makes a quick decision.

It is a fact that very few householders have ever been prosecuted for actions resulting from the use of force against intruders."

===================================

Sorry about the length of the article but I felt that publishing it in this thread was important.

This is the UK where a Cheif Constable when asked what someone should do when confronted with a violent intruder replied

"Shout Loudly"

Hence this document being released by the above mentioned parties.

[davereid]

Thanks Dai, interesting article.

[davereid]

I see how effective gun control is ! Graeme Burton released from jail on parole under "strict supervision." Now police looking for him find "military style weapons" including Glock pistol, rifles etc etc (The DOM Jan 6) And the police say he's still armed. This is just another example of how easy it is for crims to get firearms including pistols. The only barrier is the cost.

[jrandom]

I see how effective gun control is!

Oh well. Looks like they've got him (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10417991) now.

Someone at the Herald was obviously in a hurry to type that headline up, though; see attachment. :)

Can you link to info about what guns he had? I didn't see any pistols in the photo of seized firearms in the Herald a couple of days ago.

[parsley]

Blimey Fish, he looks like you. Without the earwig balanced on your chin, obviously.

[davereid]

No sorry, no link, Im reading the old paper version.. " Police uncovered an arsenal of military style weapons at his home, including a Glock pistol, sawn off rifles.."

And last week we had the arms dealer (accused of) flogging handguns, machine guns etc, and this week we have the aussies looking for lost RPGs. Not forgetting last month the local police showing a gang collection of guns including RPGs.

And in spite of the dozens of arrests recently, I still know exactly what pub to go to, and exactly who to see, to get a handgun etc if I want one.

[jrandom]

I still know exactly what pub to go to, and exactly who to see, to get a handgun...

Sweet! Any chance you could score me a discount on an STI TruBor (http://www.stiguns.com/guns/TruBor/images/Trubor06_800w.jpg)?

:shutup:

[jrandom]

Blimey Fish, he looks like you.

You're just jealous because you have long hair and no guns.

Fucking hippy.

[parsley]

You're just jealous because you have long hair and no guns.

Least I have a motorbike, bitch. :scooter:

[Patrick]

Closed road? Medical facilities at hand? Mine does 240.:shit:
Want a micron can? Cheap!

Sign said open road... so I opened up.

Medical facilities? Ummmm..... I carry a plaster, sometimes even two...

Have after market can, but summit up with the carbies...hits 200 and will do no more... but I don't wanna any more... been there, done that...

[Patrick]

I have. Found guilty.
But then I am a left footer. (Second only to Jews for guilt)

Must be the foot you keep shooting...

[Swoop]

Judge: Charging man who shot intruder an 'injustice'
Email this storyPrint this story 5:35PM Friday February 02, 2007



Ricky Beckham
A High Court judge has added his weight to a public chorus of objections over a police decision to charge a gunshop worker who shot an armed intruder.

In a relatively rare move Justice Rhys Harrison several times today said he was worried that a man who defended himself against an attacker armed with a machete, now faced firearms charges.

Greg Carvell shot Ricky Beckham in the stomach with a .45 calibre Colt revolver last July.

Beckham had entered his Penrose gunshop with a machete, threatened to kill him and demanded guns.

Minutes before he today jailed Beckham for two years and nine months on a charge of aggravated burglary, Judge Harrison said he felt a "sense of injustice" that Carvell had been charged with a firearms offence.

"I am most concerned that Mr Carvell, acting in his own defence and in the defence of another employee, is facing serious criminal charges," he said.

Carvell had spent $10,000 so far on the defence.

"There is an element of unfairness in this," said the judge who also asked if both men attended a restorative justice meeting, the charges could be dropped.


Beckham's lawyer, Jim Boyack, said Mr Carvell had refused to attend restorative justice.

The court was told Beckham was on a suicide mission and intended no harm to anyone other than himself.

He wanted to scare the gunshop workers, whom he anticipated would flee. That would allow him to get guns, drink beer and look at pictures of his son before killing himself.

Beckham was originally charged with aggravated robbery.

He initially pleaded not guilty but charged his plea to guilty when the charge was changed to aggravated burglary. Both charges carried a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.

Crown prosecutor Aaron Perkins told the court the police summary of the incident showed Beckham was warned repeatedly to stop but kept advancing until he was shot.

The police believed Beckham intended to steal one or more guns but he told a detective he only wanted to get a gun to kill himself.

Mr Boyack said after six months of reflection in prison, Beckham appreciated the harm he had done.

He did not blame the victim for shooting him and wanted to apologise for the extreme harm "his self-centred behaviour occasioned".

He was anxious to confess as soon as he was medically able to after his treatment, Mr Boyack told the court.

He had gambled family money and separated from his partner who said he would never see his son again and that he was an unfit father.

"I was tired, very tired of life," Beckham had said, Mr Boyack told the court.

"I couldn't see the point of carrying on," he had said.

Mr Boyack told the court Beckham had said he deserved to be shot and no one else should be charged.

Outside the court, gunshop owner Ray Carvell said he did not believe Beckham and did not accept that his remorse was genuine.

"I don't swallow the bill of goods that he wanted guns to kill himself," Mr Carvell said.

Greg Carvell has been charged with possessing a firearm without lawful, proper or sufficient purposes and is due back in court later this month for a pre-depositions hearing.

- NZPA

[Clivoris]

Good news eh. Lifts my confidence in the justice system.

[Dai]

Judge: ......
Greg Carvell has been charged with possessing a firearm without lawful, proper or sufficient purposes .....
- NZPA

Its all good and well but the charge against Greg isnt that he shot the man. Or that he invoked his human right to self defence.

In this country to get a pistol licence one needs to show to the powers that control us that you have a valid reason for wanting one.

Self defence is not considered a valid reason.

All of us who use pistols have to belong to pistol clubs, we have to attend so many days either on the range at club level or in competition. Our pistol licences are granted to us so that we can use them for such purposes. ie sporting.

What the police have charged Greg with is using the pistol for another purpose other than that stated. ie he defended himself by shooting a man rather than firing it at an authorised "target"

This is a bullshit charge brought by a power hungry corrupt segment of our society who choose to impose their personal beliefs and moral standards upon the majority. They knew they had no chance of sucessfully proscecuting Greg of anything directly related to him defending himself and protecting others, so they dreamt up this charge.

Just as an example let me try and parody this charge.

Suppose that you were only allowed to buy machetes if you lived on a farm.

You had to give reason why you wanted this item and you explained it was for scrub cleearance. One day you needed some firewood and couldnt find the axe so you proceed to chop small logs with the machete. Along comes the local police who, seeing you using this item for a purpose you hadnt stated, promptly arrests you.

The reasoning is absurb.

The powers that RULE and their enforcers, the police, are looking for any way that they can take all right of self determination , self protection and therefore self respect from those they percieve to be little more than cattle, fit only to provide them with the means of justifying their existance.

If you think I an a bit off wack then look around, read a little history, think for yourself.

As bikers and road users we are constantly having new rules and regulations thrust upon us. Our speed limit was set by those in power, not for any reason but because they chose a number. The old age pension was originally set at 65 for the very fact that then life expectancy wasnt as high as it is now and the govenments wouldnt have to pay out as much as the operson paid into the scheme. Even now they are talking about raising the retiring age because they cant afford to give you back your own monies.

I digress.

They are charging Greg with a bullshit charge so that they can sneak in bullshit regulations without having the general populace realising what they are doing.

If Greg is sucessfully proscecuted then the next time somone uses a firearm to defend themselves the case against Greg will form the basis of the charge.

I'm really sorry to say it but as I have gotten older my faith in a fair and equitable government has diminished dramatically. All I can see is miorities furthering their own aims at the expense of the majority. These persons/groups are not in the least interested in what we the people want. Only in what they can get.

I've said it before and I will say it again.

Firearme laws have nothing whatso ever to do with "gun control" and everything to do with "people control"

Rant over

[jrandom]

These persons/groups are not in the least interested in what we the people want...

All very good points.

The only flaw in your reasoning is that in fact, We are not The People. We are a minority.

The People, generally speaking, are shit-scared of firearms, and will bleat their assent to anything that takes guns away from anyone. It's not corrupt leaders we have to blame - it's the ignorant populace.

I've personally seen a couple of friends change from complete ambivalence, tending toward anti-gun sentiment, to enthusiasm and support for the idea of a gun-owning citizenry, after nothing but a single afternoon's instruction and shooting.

I'm on a mission from God.

[rok-the-boat]

If the guy gets charged and sent down, then the message is clear. If a thief wants your gun then you have to hand it over with no resistance. Might as well give him some bullets too, especially if he asked for them. And if he looks like he's going to shoot you then you may as well prevent a crime and shoot yourself.

[ynot slow]

i renewed my firearms licence back in sept 06,talk about 3rd degree,nice guy doing interview though had a brain for once,interviewed wife stepson there too,passed that stage ok re mental ability,asked couple of questions re self defence if burglar came in ,my reply was use enough force required was my understanding and said if the guy had a .22 or so you can't pull out your ak47 and waste him,but if he had a machete or knife or just himself and i could get .22 from locked cupboard in garage and bolt from small safe in wardrobe and ammunition from bedside cabinet also in locked cash tin then ask him if i could load then shoot him would that be self defence,guy nearly pissed himself,if you break into firearm dealer you can't expect the salesperson to give rifles so they can cause mayhem,if you produce arms in public with menace you expect the wrath of the cops,be you have a golfclub axe or similar,remember the mangakino cop was killed by guy in steelcap boots,so don't give me that crap about arseholes with weapons not meaning to kill,you don't need to have weapons feet can kill

[Patrick]

you don't need to have weapons feet can kill

Shit... lets licence 'em... give em an odour tax, like the fart tax the farmers were/are going to get?

[Dai]

All very good points.

The only flaw in your reasoning is that in fact, We are not The People. We are a minority.

The People, generally speaking, are shit-scared of firearms, and will bleat their assent to anything that takes guns away from anyone. It's not corrupt leaders we have to blame - it's the ignorant populace.

I've personally seen a couple of friends change from complete ambivalence, tending toward anti-gun sentiment, to enthusiasm and support for the idea of a gun-owning citizenry, after nothing but a single afternoon's instruction and shooting.

I'm on a mission from God.

Are we a minority?

From the COLFO website

http://www.colfo.org.nz/Reference_Library/Research/Guide_to_New_Zealand_Firearms_Laws.php

Comments in bnlue are by me and not from site

"Statistics

Around 225,000 New Zealanders have firearms licences and a recent Government inquiry estimates that New Zealand civilians hold between 700,000 and 1,000,000 firearms.

Thats about a 1/16th of the population of the country with that number owning enough firearms to arm 1/4 of the population

Nearly half a million responsible New Zealanders used firearms in the year to Dec 1996. They safely fired around 15 million cartridges.

So 1/8th of the population participated in the shooting sports in some way

Each year around 5,500 New Zealanders apply to the Police for firearms licences. Almost all applicants list hunting or pest destruction as the reason for their application. "

If 5500 people a year got motorcycle licences we would consider ourselves quite a political force


My own thoughts now.

Yes the majority of the people are very nervous of firearms. That is because of the climate of fear the anti gun lobby insist upon fostering and the media expolit to sell papers, get viewers and entertain people with.

I too have introduced a number of people to the sport of shooting and all of them have become real enthusasts. Not one has gone out and commited atrocities or eaten any babies.

If you watch the arguements by the anti firearms groups, as I have over the years, you will note that they very rarely resort to statistics. When faced with raw stats that show that sports like fishing kills more people in this country than firearms, they inevitable resort to pure emotional rhetoric, name calling and character assasination.

We are a very sizable minority. If 230,000 people marched to the steps of the beehive demanding that we cut our time scale from a 24 hour day to a 23 1/2 hour day, the PC tree huggers would find the time to listen to them.

If 230,000 motorcycle riders rode through Auckland demanding the right to use all the bus lanes the ARC would shit themselves.

The problm with firearms owners is that we are an extremely timid and law abiding lot. We know that if we kicjk up a fuss the powers will remove our sport.

When, in the UK, they brought in the regulations that all shotgun serial numbers had to be recorded, especially those multi shot pumps or semi autos, they made a great fuss that 50,000 had been converted to 3 shot only. It was only later they realised that 500,000 multi capacity shotguns had been imorted and sold in the UK. 450,000 shotguns just legally ceased to exist. Similar has happened in Australia, especially the Northern Teritories.

[Swoop]

Auckland gunshop owner in court
New 11:00AM Wednesday June 06, 2007

The man who shot an intruder threatening him at his south Auckland gunshop faces a depositions hearing today on a gun possession charge.

Greg Carvell is accused of with possessing a firearm without lawful, proper or sufficient purpose. The hearing is being held in Auckland District Court.

Carvell shot Ricky James Beckham in the stomach with a .45 calibre revolver when Beckham entered Carvell's south Auckland gunshop in July, threatened staff with a machete and demanded guns.

The police decision several months later to charge Carvell was met with a chorus of public opposition.

Beckham was jailed for two years and nine months for aggravated burglary.

At his sentencing at the High Court in Auckland in February, Judge Rhys Harrison said he was worried that a man who defended himself against an attacker armed with a machete now faced firearms charges.

Judge Harrison said he felt a "sense of injustice" that Carvell had been charged.

"I am most concerned that Mr Carvell, acting in his own defence and in the defence of another employee, is facing serious criminal charges.

"There is an element of unfairness in this."

- NZPA

[peasea]

I took the time to go and meet Greg Carvell. He's a nice guy, so is his dad. I took with me a sum of cash (from passing round a hat to help his defence fund) and I personally shelled out for a box of Corona's (Greg's fave) which I delivered to Greg personally.

Why?

Because I firmly believe that this man deserves this nations support for defending himself, his family, his fellow workers and his livelihood. Plus he prevented a demented dickhead from getting his hands on some guns; Greg is a hero.

Any of you would do the same, if you had the balls, and then Greg is charged for doing this!!! WTF?

I also firmly believe the charges are BOLLOCKS! So lame, so hollow and it's a new-age witch hunt that needs to be stomped on. I'm not cop-bashing here, I think this is politically motivated. I doubt the cop that delivered the charges was happy about it.

Really, that poor pizza delivery guy (Choi) who got killed for working hard, the RSA killings, don't start me. The list is endless, then some guy (Greg) defends himself....????? He needs a medal, not a trial. He needs our support and I can hold my head high when I say I took the time to go and give him some hard cash, some beer and a handshake. I met the guy, face to face, he's one of us. I shook his hand and put my cash where my mouth is.

I challenge you all to do the same.

[Swoop]

It is always better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six.

[MisterD]

I took the time to go and meet Greg Carvell. He's a nice guy, so is his dad. I took with me a sum of cash (from passing round a hat to help his defence fund) and I personally shelled out for a box of Corona's (Greg's fave) which I delivered to Greg personally.

Why?

Because I firmly believe that this man deserves this nations support for defending himself, his family, his fellow workers and his livelihood. Plus he prevented a demented dickhead from getting his hands on some guns; Greg is a hero.

Any of you would do the same, if you had the balls, and then Greg is charged for doing this!!! WTF?

I also firmly believe the charges are BOLLOCKS! So lame, so hollow and it's a new-age witch hunt that needs to be stomped on. I'm not cop-bashing here, I think this is politically motivated. I doubt the cop that delivered the charges was happy about it.

Really, that poor pizza delivery guy (Choi) who got killed for working hard, the RSA killings, don't start me. The list is endless, then some guy (Greg) defends himself....????? He needs a medal, not a trial. He needs our support and I can hold my head high when I say I took the time to go and give him some hard cash, some beer and a handshake. I met the guy, face to face, he's one of us. I shook his hand and put my cash where my mouth is.

I challenge you all to do the same.

On ya. What's the country coming to when stupidity gets you $10k and bravery gets you a kick in the teeth

[oldrider]

I took the time to go and meet Greg Carvell. He's a nice guy, so is his dad. I took with me a sum of cash (from passing round a hat to help his defence fund) and I personally shelled out for a box of Corona's (Greg's fave) which I delivered to Greg personally.

Why?

Because I firmly believe that this man deserves this nations support for defending himself, his family, his fellow workers and his livelihood. Plus he prevented a demented dickhead from getting his hands on some guns; Greg is a hero.

Any of you would do the same, if you had the balls, and then Greg is charged for doing this!!! WTF?

I also firmly believe the charges are BOLLOCKS! So lame, so hollow and it's a new-age witch hunt that needs to be stomped on. I'm not cop-bashing here, I think this is politically motivated. I doubt the cop that delivered the charges was happy about it.

Really, that poor pizza delivery guy (Choi) who got killed for working hard, the RSA killings, don't start me. The list is endless, then some guy (Greg) defends himself....????? He needs a medal, not a trial. He needs our support and I can hold my head high when I say I took the time to go and give him some hard cash, some beer and a handshake. I met the guy, face to face, he's one of us. I shook his hand and put my cash where my mouth is.

I challenge you all to do the same.

He should have just shot him dead!!!! The charge is ridiculous! (IMHO) John.

[peasea]

OMG!!!!
Finally it appears we have a judge (or whatever) with some common sense. It sounds like the charge was thrown out!

Yeehar!

[Lias]

Gunshop worker not to face trial after shooting
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4087100a10.html

Gunshop worker Greg Carvell will not face trial on a charge of possession of a pistol for unlawful purposes.

In the Auckland District Court today two justices of the peace said there was insufficient evidence for the charge to proceed.

Carvell said after the hearing in the Auckland District Court yesterday he had no choice but to shoot Ricky James Beckham in July last year.

The court was told Beckham threatened to kill Carvell and gunshop worker, Bruce Motley as he advanced on them in the Penrose gunshop, waving a machete over his head.

Carvell fired one shot into the man's stomach with a.45 calibre Colt automatic pistol he had kept loaded but hidden on a shelf under his desk.

The court heard that Beckham, now serving a two year and nine month jail term for the aggravated burglary of the gunshop, told Carvell and Mr Motley he would kill them.

He demanded guns and ignored orders to stop advancing on the two men.

The court heard 10 or 15 seconds later Carvell shot him in the stomach with the pistol.

Carvell's lawyer Greg King said yesterday there was no case to answer and he should not be committed for trial.

He said it was a life and death situation and Beckham had to be incapacitated.

Great news IMHO. Our softcock government needs to change legislation so that the use of force (including lethal force) in defence of life and property is enshrined in law and we never see any more cases like this, or the northland farmer who shot at thieves etc.

The right to defend yourself, your family, and your property is to my mind such a basic right that I cannot comprehend why its not legal to do so in NZ.

[spudchucka]

Great news IMHO. Our softcock government needs to change legislation so that the use of force (including lethal force) in defence of life and property is enshrined in law and we never see any more cases like this, or the northland farmer who shot at thieves etc.

As if they are likely to do that when they have just outlawed smacking!!

[ManDownUnder]

As if they are likely to do that when they have just outlawed smacking!!

Firm words are next on the list... that way we're not allowed to complain about what they've done.

[Beemer]

I was very pleased to see he wasn't going to end up in court. The guy he shot mustn't have been Samoan...

[ghost]

Great news IMHO. Our softcock government needs to change legislation so that the use of force (including lethal force) in defence of life and property is enshrined in law and we never see any more cases like this, or the northland farmer who shot at thieves etc.

The right to defend yourself, your family, and your property is to my mind such a basic right that I cannot comprehend why its not legal to do so in NZ.

For life it already is, "Crimes Act 1961. 48. "Self defence and defence of another - Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.""

Police prosecutors should take a longer look at themselves before they decide to prosecute, it seems to be an automatic response if anyone but a police officer defends themselves, regardless of the situation.

I also believe you should be allowed to defend your property as well but thats a different kettle of fish.

[oldrider]

The crime stats would go down if these pricks thought they were going to get spliced by a .45 slug for their trouble. :yes: John.

There is no consequence. Crime in NZ pays, under current administration!

[Lias]

For life it already is, "Crimes Act 1961. 48. "Self defence and defence of another - Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.""

Police prosecutors should take a longer look at themselves before they decide to prosecute, it seems to be an automatic response if anyone but a police officer defends themselves, regardless of the situation.

I also believe you should be allowed to defend your property as well but thats a different kettle of fish.

Police prosecutors bow to political pressure to make sure that the crminals rights arn't interfered with..


As if they are likely to do that when they have just outlawed smacking!!

If we'd elected national under brash it might have been a reality.. Key is just too damned centrist and moderate. We need a Chopper Read political party imo.

[jrandom]

Absolutely stoked to hear that the case against Greg has been thrown out. I shall pop in and congratulate him.

Ray and Greg are two of my favourite people. They didn't deserve any of this shit.

Glad to see that something works right in the justice system.

[shafty]

Great outcome - tho as others have said so well, should never have gotten to this stage. Does anyone have an e-mail address fo a message of Congrats for the Guy?

[sAsLEX]

Glad to see that something works right in the justice system.

Personally I think he is lucky. Most of the time bullshit charges like this are carried through to courts and peoples lives ruined as the cops MUST charge someone if something goes wrong.

[pritch]

Police prosecutors should take a longer look at themselves before they decide to prosecute, it seems to be an automatic response if anyone but a police officer defends themselves, regardless of the situation.

They've also had Police officers before the Courts for this in the past.
"The Courts should decide," is given as the justification.

Machiavelli in his book "The Prince" urges the Prince, (from memory and it was a long time ago) "Be well advised."
By way of explanation he also offers words to the effect,
"Never ask Generals if you should go to war, Generals always answer yes to that. Once you've decided war is inevitable though, by all means ask the generals how to conduct the war."

So our Police chiefs ask lawyers if they should go to Court...

[The Pastor]

Police prosecutors bow to political pressure to make sure that the crminals rights arn't interfered with..



If we'd elected national under brash it might have been a reality.. Key is just too damned centrist and moderate. We need a Chopper Read political party imo.

Vote for me


renegade's dictatorship party.


I'll sort this shit out and be nz's first elected dictator.


Make it happen.

[spudchucka]

For life it already is, "Crimes Act 1961. 48. "Self defence and defence of another - Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.""

Police prosecutors should take a longer look at themselves before they decide to prosecute, it seems to be an automatic response if anyone but a police officer defends themselves, regardless of the situation.

I also believe you should be allowed to defend your property as well but thats a different kettle of fish.

The charge had nothing to do with the force used, section 48 clearly justifies it in the circumstances as you have pointed out. The charge was to do with the possession of the pistol, (under the counter in a loaded state) and whether it was lawful or not. This is something that the bone-headed public of NZ fail to comprehend and that the filthy media scum will not clearly portray because it doesn't make quite the same sensational news story.

[jrandom]

The charge had nothing to do with the force used...

I suspect that most of the folk who've bothered to read the thread have had this hammered into them by now. You'd hope so, anyway.

I'm not sure what the implication of what's happened now is, in terms of the legal position vis-a-vis storage and readiness of firearms. Probably nothing, since it didn't get to Court.

Curious that there was 'insufficient evidence'. I'd love to hear more details. I'll have to go for a visit and see how much Greg is willing to say on the subject...

[scumdog]

This is something that the bone-headed public of NZ fail to comprehend and that the filthy media scum will not clearly portray because it doesn't make quite the same sensational news story.

Sounds like most of what is heard/read on the media most of the time.

The most accurate item on them is the days TV programmes and the page numbers at the top of each page - MOST of the time.

[McJim]

Sounds like most of what is heard/read on the media most of the time.

The most accurate item on them is the days TV programmes and the page numbers at the top of each page - MOST of the time.

I must protest - the recent wave of Ribena ads have been particularly accurate :rofl:

seriously - I'm Glad Greg, Nicola and their family can breathe a sigh of relief and get on with their lives.

[Lias]

The charge had nothing to do with the force used, section 48 clearly justifies it in the circumstances as you have pointed out. The charge was to do with the possession of the pistol, (under the counter in a loaded state) and whether it was lawful or not. This is something that the bone-headed public of NZ fail to comprehend and that the filthy media scum will not clearly portray because it doesn't make quite the same sensational news story.

I certainly understsand the distinction, but I believe the prosectuion was still politically motivated to discourage people from keeping weapons in a state where its practical to use them for self defence.

Let me relate an anecdote I heard from Wolf awhile ago. When he was getting his license awhile ago he was asked what his position was on using firearms for self defence. He told the cop something along the lines that by the time he retrieved the firearm, bolt, and ammo form 3 seperate locked (as required) locations his entire family would be dead and the perps would be 10 km's away.

Which to be honest is a pretty valid point. The law needs to be changed to allow people to legally keep loaded firearms in an accessible location for self defence. Personally I'm all for allowing loaded shotguns and handguns to be kept in the house for self defence. Concealed carry is another law we need to introduce as well, If the police decide someone is fit and proper to posess firearms, the law should allow those people to be armed at all times for self defence.

PS: RM, your scarf was too gay for the police what makes you think its not too gay for dictatorship? :-P

[Dave Lobster]

Concealed carry is another law we need to introduce as well, If the police decide someone is fit and proper to posess firearms, the law should allow those people to be armed at all times for self defence.


You can now, can't you? Just join a gang..

[Lias]

You can now, can't you? Just join a gang..

Thats where the fit and proper comes into it :innocent:

[Mr Merde]

As someone who has been involved in the pistol shooting sports since 1982, I find this a very refreshing outcome.

I wish Greg and family well. I hope the politically minded arseholes who brought the charges against him get a right royal reaming (probably wont happen) and I hope that in the light of what has transpired that the government takes a long hard look at their policies on self defence and realise that they dont have any.

It was pointed out to me by fellow target shooters that if Greg had of been tried and found guilty, then having a firearm in a ready state would have been illegal at any time for any body. The question I was asked here was how would the police justify carrying a loaded firearm when not in direct need of one.

Any way a win for common sense. One of the very few.


Mr :shit:

[ghost]

The charge had nothing to do with the force used, section 48 clearly justifies it in the circumstances as you have pointed out. The charge was to do with the possession of the pistol, (under the counter in a loaded state) and whether it was lawful or not. This is something that the bone-headed public of NZ fail to comprehend and that the filthy media scum will not clearly portray because it doesn't make quite the same sensational news story.

Easy fella, my post was in a response to one saying we should be abe to defend ourself, which I believe (maybe wrongly) that under section 48 we can. I agree with you on the media and most of the bone headed population. Even yesterday the media were quoting that the charge was "illegal possesion of a firearm" which it wasnt. I thought the charge brought was "possesion of a firearm without a lawful purpose" or words to that effect. My only gripe is that I beleive it is a rather long bow for the prosecutors to charge a licenced firearm dealer, who was on a licenced premesis, contucting a licenced business, for possessing a firearm without a lawful purpose.

From what I have heard from the case I believe it should not have gotten as far as it should have, but then what do I know anyway:mellow:

[Swoop]

Fantastic result.
Most unusual for JP's to dismiss... (I wonder if the prosecution will appeal to the high court for a review of the decision?)

Greg and Ray were on Campbell Live last night. It was stated the gun was not loaded and "ready to fire" but was close to being so.


Great outcome - tho as others have said so well, should never have gotten to this stage. Does anyone have an e-mail address for a message of Congrats for the Guy?
http://www.guns.co.nz/defense.html

[jrandom]

Greg and Ray were on Campbell Live last night. It was stated the gun was not loaded and "ready to fire" but was close to being so.

The pistol was probably a 1911, so I imagine it would have been stored in Jeff Cooper's 'Condition 3' - empty chamber, magazine inserted, hammer down. That's the canonical state to have a 1911 in to balance readiness and safety when it's not being carried.

Or so I've heard.

But then, perhaps it wasn't a 1911. Ray does like his Glock 21s...

[Edit: Why do I get the feeling, though, that if it'd been a Glock, the media would've been all 'Glock Glock Glock!'?]

[Dave Lobster]

[Edit: Why do I get the feeling, though, that if it'd been a Glock, the media would've been all 'Glock Glock Glock!'?]

Because glocks are mentioned in rap records.. so its likely to be one of only a handful of brands recognisable to the retarded masses. Hence, a newsworthy story that can 'relate' to the intended audience.

[Winston001]

I'm surprised at this result. It isn't lawful to have a loaded firearm available for "just-in-case" self-defense. If it was, we could all sit around with loaded shotguns sprinkled through our houses and workplaces.

Furthermore it is as rare as finding a hen's tooth for JPs to dismiss a prosecution.

[Dave Lobster]

I'm surprised at this result. It isn't lawful to have a loaded firearm available for "just-in-case" self-defence. If it was, we could all sit around with loaded shotguns sprinkled through our houses and workplaces.


It'd be nice if it were.

[Storm]

Then we wouldnt have to sit and wait to be robbed/raped/whatever like meek little sheep then would we folks?

[Patrick]

I'm surprised at this result. It isn't lawful to have a loaded firearm available for "just-in-case" self-defense. If it was, we could all sit around with loaded shotguns sprinkled through our houses and workplaces.

Furthermore it is as rare as finding a hen's tooth for JPs to dismiss a prosection.


It'd be nice if it were.


Then we wouldnt have to sit and wait to be robbed/raped/whatever like meek little sheep then would we folks?

But there lies the problem... people would go out, and being the lazy farkers so many are, they can't even be bothered to lock a window or door... why lock away the readily accessable loaded firearms?? Burglar helps themselves to the supplied arsenal...

Good result by the way, but I feel this isn't then end, just yet...

[Storm]

Good result by the way, but I feel this isn't then end, just yet...

Aint that the truth. There'll be a few more chapters to this book

[Mr Merde]

......
Good result by the way, but I feel this isn't then end, just yet...

I definitely agree with you here. I feel as though the axe has lifted only to be weilded by something else.

Comes to something when you fear those who are supposed to serve.

Mr :shit:

[Patrick]

Nah...; just think it is an issue that should be decided by a judge, not a JP.... that's all...

[Winston001]

Then we wouldnt have to sit and wait to be robbed/raped/whatever like meek little sheep then would we folks?

What robbed/raped whatever? Where? NZ and indeed much of the developed world has experienced a decline in crime over the past 10 years. You are safer today than in 1996. http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/media-releases/social-conditions/crime-in-new-zealand-1996-2005-mr.htm

What's different is that our media beat-up stories much more than they used to giving the impression that murders and rapists lie around every corner. It just aint so.

[Dave Lobster]

These figures are based on offences recorded by the New Zealand Police.

So, crime falls if the police record fewer offences?


The only category for which the rate increased was violence. In 2005, the rate of recorded violent crime was 118 offences per 10,000 population, a rise of 10 percent from 1996.

Looks like the muggers and rapists are round 10% more corners than ten years ago.

[ynot slow]

i was asked by the arms officer on renewal of my firearms licence define self defence,is probably if he comes at me with a knife or machete,golf club i could use reasonable force,to which he said if you had time to unlock rifle,unload ammo,load and fire would you fire,i said i'd be dead before i got to the gun cabinet,but if i could use firepower and life threatening i would.i suspect that most firearms shops would have access to a semi loaded firearm, should a drop kick want to take out his frustration on not being able to smack his kids,come into his shop and ask politely to use a .303,or menacingly grunt gimme a fucken shotgun or i'll kill ya,whilst wielding an axe.

[sAsLEX]

You are safer today than in 1996.

you reckon? The youth gang problem not visible through your rose coloured glasses? You miss the bit in the news where the cops suggested avoiding a certain area as they couldn't control the violent gang on the street?

[spudchucka]

Easy fella, my post was in a response to one saying we should be abe to defend ourself, which I believe (maybe wrongly) that under section 48 we can. I agree with you on the media and most of the bone headed population. Even yesterday the media were quoting that the charge was "illegal possesion of a firearm" which it wasnt. I thought the charge brought was "possesion of a firearm without a lawful purpose" or words to that effect. My only gripe is that I beleive it is a rather long bow for the prosecutors to charge a licenced firearm dealer, who was on a licenced premesis, contucting a licenced business, for possessing a firearm without a lawful purpose.

From what I have heard from the case I believe it should not have gotten as far as it should have, but then what do I know anyway:mellow:

The fact that the charge was laid under the Arms Act, not the Crimes Act should give people a big clue that it has nothing to do with the squeezing of the trigger and that section 48 was never part of the equation.

He would have been charge under section 45 of the Arms Act:


45 Carrying or possession of firearms, airguns, pistols, restricted weapons, or explosives, except for lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose

(1)Every person commits an offence and is liable on [conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or to a fine not exceeding $5,000] or to both who, except for some lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose,—

(a)Carries; or

(b)Is in possession of—

any firearm, airgun, pistol, restricted weapon, or explosive.

(2)In any prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) of this section in which it is proved that the defendant was carrying or in possession of any firearm, airgun, pistol, restricted weapon, or explosive, as the case may require, the burden of proving the existence of some lawful, proper, [and sufficient purpose] shall lie on the defendant.

So the question has always been whether the keeping of a loaded hand gun under a shop counter for the intended purpose of using it to shoot an attacker is lawful. It shouldn't make any difference under law if the shop is a gun shop or an antique dealer, the rules are the same for all.

[spudchucka]

So, crime falls if the police record fewer offences?

No. The true crime rate can never be known. The stats have only ever been a representation of reported crimes.

[Dave Lobster]

No. The true crime rate can never be known.

Are you suggesting that publishing these lists is pointless, and that the government is wasting our money trying to make us feel safer - thus strengthening their own position of power?


The stats have only ever been a representation of reported crimes.

Do we know for a fact that the police record all reported crime?

[scumdog]

Do we know for a fact that the police record all reported crime?

No, we don't know - but then we never have known throughout time.....it's a historical consistant feature of 'reported' crime

[Mr Merde]

No. The true crime rate can never be known. The stats have only ever been a representation of reported crimes.

Surely the question isnt wether or not the police publish the correct statistics regarding reported crime but wether the public are actually reporting the crimes.

Confidence in our police forces here and in other countries seems to be very low over the last few years.

Do people report "crimes" nowadays when the feel that very little will be done to remedy the situation.

The response times to burgalries, vehicle thefts etc do no inspire the public to report these things immediately. They will only be given a form and told to contact their insurance company.

Assaults, rapes and crimes of violence seem to be on the rise but the percieved response to them from the police forces hasnt risen proportionately. The case of the young girl up north sent a taxi when she rang about being assaulted springs to mind.

I know the average police officer on the job wants to do something to benifit the population but lately they are being hamstrung by their political masters who are either trying to make a name for themselves or for their particular viewpoint.

Too many people today see the police as a self funding revenue gatherer for the government (through road traffic enforcement) to really care about them in the role they were originally formed for, the protection of your populace from criminals.

I dont really think my ramblings have actuaslly conveyed what or how I feel correctly but close enough.

Back to the subject of this thread.

The case against Greg was a political one.

He seems to have won the battle ( so far)

but given that those who brought the charges have virtually unlimited funds (from our fine and taxes) I fully expect them to carry on with the persecution of this individual untikl they force a win over him. Someday, sometime they will make Greg suffer.

[spudchucka]

Are you suggesting that publishing these lists is pointless, and that the government is wasting our money trying to make us feel safer - thus strengthening their own position of power?



Do we know for a fact that the police record all reported crime?

1: No.

2: No way of knowing.

[spudchucka]

Surely the question isnt wether or not the police publish the correct statistics regarding reported crime but wether the public are actually reporting the crimes.

There are other methods available to assess the true crime rates, such as victimisation surveys. When you compare these to the actual reported crime stats it is quite alarming. The Govt & police management are fully aware of all this.

If every offence that every occurred was reported and recorded the current system would probably collapse under the strain.

[Winston001]

The case against Greg was a political one.



Sorry Monsieur Le Merde but that won't fly. You imply that a Minister of the Crown or perhaps the Police Commissioner told the police to prosecute Greg. Nonsence. If that was true, they'd have charged him with attempted manslaughter or similar.

In prosecution terms this was a minor case. Not difficult at all, any junior crown solicitor could have advised and run the case.

Until it becomes accepted in New Zealand that we can use lethal force to defend ourselves, cases like this will continue to occur. Fortunately they are rare.

Even in gungho places like the USA, very few states allow carte blanc use of weapons for self defence. In fact only Florida and South Dakota. So the prosecution of Greg isn't out of step with what happens elsewhere.

[spudchucka]

Until it becomes accepted in New Zealand that we can use lethal force to defend ourselves, cases like this will continue to occur. Fortunately they are rare.

It takes ages to sink in sometimes.

He wasn't charged over the use of force, which means that it was justified under the current laws.

[Winston001]

It takes ages to sink sometimes.

He wasn't charged over the use of force, which means that it was justified under the current laws.

Dyareckon? He was charged with possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose - so I understand. And that unlawful purpose? The intended use of the firearm against robbers. You cannot use a firearm without using or unleashing force - basic law of physics. Even the threat of a firearm is unlawful because the threat is one of (potentially lethal) force.

Just so you know we are on the same page I completely understand your point and you are right to make it.

My point is that the right to self defence and use of force is the main issue which comes to peoples minds and should be discussed - even if it isn'twhy this prosecution took place.

[oldrider]

Dyareckon? He was charged with possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose - so I understand. And that unlawful purpose? The intended use of the firearm against robbers. You cannot use a firearm without using or unleashing force - basic law of physics. Even the threat of a firearm is unlawful because the threat is one of (potentially lethal) force.

Just so you know we are on the same page I completely understand your point and you are right to make it.

My point is that the right to self defence and use of force is the main issue which comes to peoples minds and should be discussed - even if it isn'twhy this prosecution took place.

He was charged because he was careless about what he "said" to the police and left the door open for them to prosecute him on the "unlawful purpose" charge!

The message I take from this is, if you have such a situation in place, have your statement of intent ready and within the law, or face the risk of prosecution!

It's their job, it's what they do!

How much clearer do the police have to spell it out? Give them some slack here, they are not all fcukwits.

Even I can take a hint. :yes: Cheers John.

PS: During six o'clock closing, a Sergent of police pushed his way between me and the bar, called out to the barman and said, barman, if you see any underage drinkers in here tell them I will be back in 5 mins.

Do you think I should have stayed there?

[spudchucka]

My point is that the right to self defence and use of force is the main issue which comes to peoples minds and should be discussed - even if it isn'twhy this prosecution took place.

It isn't anything to do with this case. The force used was justified, always was. By all means discuss the issue of self defence, (there have been other threads on that topic) but it has no relevance to the charges that were laid in this case.

[Patrick]

Dyareckon? He was charged with possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose - so I understand. And that unlawful purpose? The intended use of the firearm against robbers.

Just so you know we are on the same page I completely understand your point and you are right to make it.

My point is that the right to self defence and use of force is the main issue which comes to peoples minds and should be discussed - even if it isn'twhy this prosecution took place.

I get your point, and a good one it is at that, which is why it should be sorted in a court by a judge, even a panel of judges, not a couple of old JPs. It is that important, but has nothing to do with the charge he faced, so it would be out of thier scope of review.

But Self defence was not the issue... his use of force was completely justified, which is why he was not charged in relation to shooting the sack of shite... It was then the media beat up which made this the "main issue which comes to the peoples minds..."

[Winston001]

But Self defence was not the issue... his use of force was completely justified, which is why he was not charged in relation to shooting the sack of shite... It was then the media beat up which made this the "main issue which comes to the peoples minds..."

Thanks Patrick. I think our news media are very shallow these days and often fail to understand the real issues - or ask pertinent questions, such as in the cut-off electricity case.

However we can't blame them for the public view of arguments over self defence. It is completely understandable that when a victim shoots a criminal, and gets charged afterwards, most people feel something is wrong. We all regard ourselves as having the right to defend ourselves and our families.

Its a shame that there has been so much misunderstanding over the correct charges in this case.

Look - if I was Greg Carvell, I'd probably have shot the guy too, knowing I might be charged. Better a live martyr than a decapitated law abiding citizen.

[Patrick]

Agreed on all...

Including shooting the prick... wouldn't hesitate but would have double tapped at least to be sure...

[ghost]

He was charged because he was careless about what he "said" to the police and left the door open for them to prosecute him on the "unlawful purpose" charge!

The message I take from this is, if you have such a situation in place, have your statement of intent ready and within the law, or face the risk of prosecution!

It's their job, it's what they do!

How much clearer do the police have to spell it out? Give them some slack here, they are not all fcukwits.




Agreed on that one. Maybe in future, all the employee's should carry a loaded magizine on themselves, for the purpose of demonstrating the proper way of loading and unloading the magazine of course. And in a properly secured area a firearm for the corresponding (coinsidence) magazine could be used for demonstrations to potential lawful customers if required.Then that way should the need arise that they may need to defend themselfs or others from what they believe to be a life threatening risk, they can quickly combine the two preiviously lawfull components and lawfully defend themselves or others. Maybe a lawyer or two should be consulted to establish the legalities of this first.

Just a thought.

[Lias]

If you havn't read it, Unintended Consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_Consequences) is a damned good book which basically outlines a fictional revolt by US gun owners against gun control laws and bullyboy tactics by the ATF etc.

If anyone wants a PDF copy just PM me, its only 4mb so easy to email.