The firearm thread

[TheDemonLord]

THE ISSUE HERE IS ,HE WAS NOT BORN WITH THIS HATE, HE WAS TAUGHT IT.

Except he wasn't Taught it....

[TheDemonLord]

Right, so I missed the point about home made bombs, considering you did not mention them, perhaps you missed making it? :laugh:

Well, for a start Explosives are already regulated in NZ. I don't know off hand what the laws specifically are for Home-Made Bombs are, but I'd hazard a guess that since a home-made bomb does not have a lawful purpose (as opposed to Trucks and Firearms) that they wouldn't be legal.

The point (which you still miss) is to compare 2 Items, legal to own and operate in a lawful manner, that can be used as part of a Terrorist attack to kill multiple people in a short space of time.

You tried to infer that Firearms caused more deaths in Terrorist attacks - to which the obvious rebuttal is to show that in recent times, Firearms aren't the common method used by Terrorists. You accused me of living in Fairyland, yet your rhetorical point actually disproves what you are trying to infer, so on that basis - just WHO is living in Fairyland?


The time period your examples spanned is 2016 through 2018, which were the more and less popular methods of terrorist attack over that time? I mean, with such a keen interest in reality, surely this should be important to you...

Suicide Bombs would be the highest, second would be general Bombs, then Trucks, then Knives, Then Firearms.

Although we could also say that Islam is the most popular Method...


My questions were to give context to your comparison re trucks/guns for terrorist use. Your evasion and misleading answer suggest you know the answer will not support your agenda, and shows you still cannot cope with an honest and open discussion. It is that which renders the rest of your post not worth replying to.

And yet, you reply...

I've given you the Comparison, you've tried to move the goalposts by including Explosives - You cannot bring yourself to admit that if the chain of logic asserted by those that have promoted the Ban is applied equally - then Trucks should be banned as well. The fact they are not shows that there is a bias against Firearms (and Firearm Owners).

[Graystone]

Suicide Bombs would be the highest, second would be general Bombs, then Trucks, then Knives, Then Firearms.

And do you have any facts to back up the implication that Trucks have killed more in terrorist attacks than Firearms over the 2016 through 2018 period?



I've given you the Comparison, you've tried to move the goalposts by including Explosives - You cannot bring yourself to admit that if the chain of logic asserted by those that have promoted the Ban is applied equally - then Trucks should be banned as well. The fact they are not shows that there is a bias against Firearms (and Firearm Owners).

You brought up bombs, how is that me moving the goalposts? And firearms are not banned. Have you completely lost the plot? As for your 'chain of logic' see above for a weak link you need to prove...

[husaberg]

And do you have any facts to back up the implication that Trucks have killed more in terrorist attacks than Firearms over the 2016 through 2018 period?
.
Why start using facts to back up his statements it could set a dangerous precedence for the others.
341829

[pritch]

Motor vehicles ranging from cars to heavy trucks have been used for terrorist attacks in: London, Stockholm, Barcelona, New Orleans, Berlin, New York, Charlottesville, and closer to home, in Melbourne.

That's not an exhaustive list, that's just the result of a quick search.

[TheDemonLord]

And do you have any facts to back up the implication that Trucks have killed more in terrorist attacks than Firearms over the 2016 through 2018 period?

Well, I listed the notable Truck attacks, I also listed that 87 is a bigger number than 51.

On that face value (unless you want to, you know, submit something of your own to counter it) shows Trucks to be the more deadly weapon.


You brought up bombs, how is that me moving the goalposts? And firearms are not banned. Have you completely lost the plot? As for your 'chain of logic' see above for a weak link you need to prove...

All Firearms haven't been banned, but an entire class of Firearms has been. A class that was legally owned, lawfully purchased and Vetted by the Police for ownership.

The goal-post move is to include Bombs in the Comparison. I brought them up on a factual basis, but I did not include them in the Comparison, you are trying to include them so as to commit a sleight of hand.

I'll simply repeat the point that you refuse to address: If we treated all things equally, Trucks would be Banned:

They have been used to kill people en masse by Terrorists, with a higher deathtoll than Firearms.
They kill more people annually in NZ, despite there being fewer trucks than Firearms.
Both Trucks and Firearms have a lawful reason for ownership and are necessary in our Society.

Just like Husa said "If some idiot on a Bike killed lots of people, we'd ban that too" - Except we have proof, solid and incontrovertible, that we don't. We only do this for Firearms.

And that, is a Double Standard.

[Graystone]

Well, I listed the notable Truck attacks, I also listed that 87 is a bigger number than 51.

On that face value (unless you want to, you know, submit something of your own to counter it) shows Trucks to be the more deadly weapon.



All Firearms haven't been banned, but an entire class of Firearms has been. A class that was legally owned, lawfully purchased and Vetted by the Police for ownership.

The goal-post move is to include Bombs in the Comparison. I brought them up on a factual basis, but I did not include them in the Comparison, you are trying to include them so as to commit a sleight of hand.

I'll simply repeat the point that you refuse to address: If we treated all things equally, Trucks would be Banned:

They have been used to kill people en masse by Terrorists, with a higher deathtoll than Firearms.
They kill more people annually in NZ, despite there being fewer trucks than Firearms.
Both Trucks and Firearms have a lawful reason for ownership and are necessary in our Society.

Just like Husa said "If some idiot on a Bike killed lots of people, we'd ban that too" - Except we have proof, solid and incontrovertible, that we don't. We only do this for Firearms.

And that, is a Double Standard.

And you consider that conclusive? Remember, the point is one you made, so the onus lies on you.

2016 Mosul Massacre, 300 deaths by firing squad. As callous as it may be to be playing some sort of top trumps with these horrific events, let's pay attention to reality...

Yup, which is yet another area where your 'chain of logic' falls over, all firearms have not been banned, yet you are blithering on about banning all trucks being the same?

[Pound]

I'll just add this article into the mix.......... Just to stir the pot even more.....:laugh:


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/112559564/the-homicide-report-gives-a-detailed-account-of-gun-violence-in-new-zealand

[pritch]

I'll just add this article into the mix.......... Just to stir the pot even more.....:laugh:


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/112559564/the-homicide-report-gives-a-detailed-account-of-gun-violence-in-new-zealand

That was interesting - and just a bit concerning. The proposed registry might be a huge waste of resources. We had one before but nobody could ever point to it having been used to solve a crime.

[jasonu]

I'll just add this article into the mix.......... Just to stir the pot even more.....:laugh:


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/112559564/the-homicide-report-gives-a-detailed-account-of-gun-violence-in-new-zealand

How dare you introduce cold hard facts that are not in line with the knee jerk rash policy makers agenda.

[Pound]

How dare you introduce cold hard facts that are not in line with the knee jerk rash policy makers agenda.



Mwhahaha...:bleh:

I'm just waiting for Husa to come along and twist this somehow.....:Police:


"It's just some journalists opinion"......... Or somthing along those lines............

[Katman]

Mwhahaha...:bleh:

I'm just waiting for Husa to come along and twist this somehow.....:Police:


"It's just some journalists opinion"......... Or somthing along those lines............

In 3....2....1.....

[TheDemonLord]

And you consider that conclusive? Remember, the point is one you made, so the onus lies on you.

It's more conclusive than anything you've brought up.

I've made the point, you just don't like what it means.


2016 Mosul Massacre, 300 deaths by firing squad. As callous as it may be to be playing some sort of top trumps with these horrific events, let's pay attention to reality...

Yeah, No.

If you think that is comparable, then you're being completely Dishonest. Try again.


Yup, which is yet another area where your 'chain of logic' falls over, all firearms have not been banned, yet you are blithering on about banning all trucks being the same?

If Only previously in the thread I had specified that I was referring to Trucks over 3.5 Tonne....


n fact in NZ, there's less Heavy trucks (over 3.5 Tonne) than there are Semi-Autos, yet the fatality rate for Trucks is nearly 9 times that of Firearms (2016 data - 75 Deaths for Trucks vs 9 Murders for Firearms).

[TheDemonLord]

I'll just add this article into the mix.......... Just to stir the pot even more.....:laugh:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/112559564/the-homicide-report-gives-a-detailed-account-of-gun-violence-in-new-zealand

Reading that, it would seem the new guns laws will do nothing to save lives.


GG-WP.

[jasonu]

Mwhahaha...:bleh:

I'm just waiting for Husa to come along and twist this somehow.....:Police:


"It's just some journalists opinion"......... Or somthing along those lines............

But but but national...

[jasonu]

Reading that, it would seem the new guns laws will do nothing to save lives.


GG-WP.

Er um no shit...
but the tooth monster will get some sort of prize or medal or even another Oprah mention for it.

[husaberg]

But but but national...

MPs all Supported the bill as did all the other MPs other than one from a party that cant poll 5%,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0o4Og8zE2c
He also forgot to vote first time around as he was to busy giving a "press conference".

So why a law change the majority of kiwis decided they wanted, needs to be changed to suit the wants of a tiny minority who want to play bang bang with a rifle, That the law changes made 30 years ago was meant to exclude anyway.
Or have you all just conveniently forgotten that.........Along with the 50 innocent people the gun owner slaughtered in the mater of minutes, or is it just living in the USA has made you hohum about a guy going on a rampage with a firearm.
Maybe you can tell me why the USA has so many mass slaughters with firearms compared to the UK. After all the NRA says its not the guns is there just a muchlarger % of muppetards in the usa.

[TheDemonLord]

Maybe you can tell me why the USA has so many mass slaughters with firearms compared to the UK. After all the NRA says its not the guns is there just a muchlarger % of muppetards in the usa.

And then you can tell me why Switzerland doesn't.

[jasonu]

Maybe you can tell me why the USA has so many mass slaughters with firearms compared to the UK. .

I didn't know it was a competition.

[husaberg]

I didn't know it was a competition.

Trust me the one actual thing the USA wins in is its own people killing each other with firearms
https://pics.me.me/were-going-to-win-so-much-youre-going-to-get-21491963.png

341845341846341847341848


At one point, Australia suffered from an even larger problem of mass shootings (on a per capita basis) than the US, but a massive effort to turn away from that gun culture after a particularly horrendous shooting in 1996 has drastically reduced the problem in Australia over the last twenty years. With only 20 percent of the murder rate of the US, half the robbery rate, and no active mass shootings in almost 20 years, Australia is a very potent example of what can be achieved if a country is willing to reduce the presence and availability of guns as well as the gun culture. John J. Donohue III has been one of the leading empirical researchers in the legal academy over the past 25 years.

130 studies conducted in 10 separate countries point out stricter gun control saves lives.
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientific-evidence-that-stricter-gun-control-works-saves-lives


Every country is unique, but Australia is more similar to the US than is, say, Japan or England. We have a frontier history and a strong gun culture. Each state and territory has its own gun laws, and in 1996 these varied widely between the jurisdictions. At that time Australia's firearm mortality rate per population was 2.6/100,000 – about one-quarter the US rate (pdf), according to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the US Center for Disease Control. Today the rate is under 1/100,000 – less than one-tenth the US rate (pdf). Those figures refer to all gun deaths – homicide, suicide and unintentional. If we focus on gun homicide rates, the US outstrips Australia 30-fold.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/14/america-mass-murder-australia-gun-control-saves-lives



Australia's mass shootings dropped to zero after gun reforms
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/23/health/australia-gun-law-reform-study/index.html



How Australia All But Ended Gun Violence
http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/

[aNZBloke]

I'll just add this article into the mix.......... Just to stir the pot even more.....:laugh:


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/112559564/the-homicide-report-gives-a-detailed-account-of-gun-violence-in-new-zealand

I do not understand why that cop who was told about a nutter at the gun club did nothing. He should be charged as an accomplice to murder.

The money for the buyback should be better spend on more oversight and better education of the cops and more feet on the ground rather than hiding behind a tree for catching a speeder on a straight road. Would save a lot more lives to get drunks and druggies from the road.

[Graystone]

It's more conclusive than anything you've brought up.

I've made the point, you just don't like what it means.



Yeah, No.

If you think that is comparable, then you're being completely Dishonest. Try again.


If Only previously in the thread I had specified that I was referring to Trucks over 3.5 Tonne....

I don't think firearms are comparable to trucks in the first place, that's why I'm pointing out the flaws in you making the comparison. If there is a reason why firearms being used by terrorists to murder 300 people shouldn't count when comparing terrorist's 'favored' means of killing, let me know where exactly your goalposts are. Spitting the dummy like this does you no good...

[Graystone]

I'll just add this article into the mix.......... Just to stir the pot even more.....:laugh:


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/112559564/the-homicide-report-gives-a-detailed-account-of-gun-violence-in-new-zealand

Is the goal to stop shooting incidents, or save lives? Measure what you want to improve...

[Pound]

Again, here is yet another example of the police being heavy handed and over the top........

Knee jerk reaction you think?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12230601

[TheDemonLord]

I don't think firearms are comparable to trucks in the first place,

I know.

That's entirely the point.

Thank you for proving it.


If there is a reason why firearms being used by terrorists to murder 300 people shouldn't count when comparing terrorist's 'favored' means of killing, let me know where exactly your goalposts are. Spitting the dummy like this does you no good...

Execution by Firing squad, regardless of how Barbaric and unjust is not a Terrorist attack.

The whole 'indiscriminate vs discriminate' thing.

Not to mention other factors - such as it being part of an ongoing civil war (or Insurgency) and primarily Directed towards enemy Combatants (Police and Army Personnel).

[TheDemonLord]

Is the goal to stop shooting incidents, or save lives? Measure what you want to improve...

The justification is to make NZ Safer - the data shows quite conclusively - that it will do no such thing.

[Pound]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/112562097/lets-start-building-a-gun-register-now

Now you see this sort of thing wont change anything, because these sorts of people do not abide by ANY gun laws in the first place...

[Graystone]

I know.

That's entirely the point.

Thank you for proving it.



Execution by Firing squad, regardless of how Barbaric and unjust is not a Terrorist attack.

The whole 'indiscriminate vs discriminate' thing.

Not to mention other factors - such as it being part of an ongoing civil war (or Insurgency) and primarily Directed towards enemy Combatants (Police and Army Personnel).

If you knew that, why did you make the comparison in the first place?

Yet it is listed as one by some sources. No matter though, unfortunately there are plenty of other instances, like the Orlando Nightclub shooting in which 49 were shot dead.

[Graystone]

The justification is to make NZ Safer - the data shows quite conclusively - that it will do no such thing.

It shows no such thing 'conclusively' at best it suggests the number of gun homicide instances will not be affected by making one class illegal. However, by not listing the lives lost in each, we couldn't see how many that class of gun kills, vs the others. And to me, a comparison of people's safety would cover the number of people hurt/killed by each, not just the incident count. Otherwise, you'd end up with silliness like bombs being far, far safer than trucks :laugh:

[TheDemonLord]

If you knew that, why did you make the comparison in the first place?

If you have to ask that, then you really have missed the point...

I'll spell it out for you:

You've confirmed you have an a priori bias against Firearms.

Now, I should clarify, it's absolutely fine that you have that Bias. Just be honest about it.


Yet it is listed as one by some sources. No matter though, unfortunately there are plenty of other instances, like the Orlando Nightclub shooting in which 49 were shot dead.

By Some sources?!?

If someone says it on the internet, anywhere, it must be true?!? What a stringent standard of Evidence you have there.

And bringing up Orlando - I've never said they didn't exist, just pointing out the rate is not commensurate with the perceived rate.

[TheDemonLord]

It shows no such thing 'conclusively' at best it suggests the number of gun homicide instances will not be affected by making one class illegal. However, by not listing the lives lost in each, we couldn't see how many that class of gun kills, vs the others. And to me, a comparison of people's safety would cover the number of people hurt/killed by each, not just the incident count. Otherwise, you'd end up with silliness like bombs being far, far safer than trucks :laugh:

Well, do the Maths - It's quite easy to do.

The point is - in NZ - to my knowledge there has been no Homicides committed with legally owned and registered Cat-E rifles in 30 years (which are now illegal). Murders committed by Lawfully owned A-Cat Semi Autos, even IF Christchurch is included, is also relatively small.

The justification for the Ban is that the Lawful ownership of these Firearms is a Threat to public Safety.

The data does not support that conclusion. The data shows that the biggest threat to public safety is unlawfully held Firearms.

[Graystone]

If you have to ask that, then you really have missed the point...

I'll spell it out for you:

You've confirmed you have an a priori bias against Firearms.

Now, I should clarify, it's absolutely fine that you have that Bias. Just be honest about it.



By Some sources?!?

If someone says it on the internet, anywhere, it must be true?!? What a stringent standard of Evidence you have there.

And bringing up Orlando - I've never said they didn't exist, just pointing out the rate is not commensurate with the perceived rate.

And I'd contend that once again, you failed to make it. It's amusing to watch you play slippery with all these inferences and never clearly making a point, just as it is obvious why you do so...

I do not have such a bias, nor have I confirmed one. People are allowed to disagree with you based on their interpretation of the facts; it doesn't mean they are biased.

You were pointing out that trucks were favored over firearms by terrorists, the facts show otherwise, are you changing the goalposts to some perceived rate bullshit now?

[Graystone]

Well, do the Maths - It's quite easy to do.

The point is - in NZ - to my knowledge there has been no Homicides committed with legally owned and registered Cat-E rifles in 30 years (which are now illegal). Murders committed by Lawfully owned A-Cat Semi Autos, even IF Christchurch is included, is also relatively small.

The justification for the Ban is that the Lawful ownership of these Firearms is a Threat to public Safety.

The data does not support that conclusion. The data shows that the biggest threat to public safety is unlawfully held Firearms.

Is that the justification? Do you have source for that? I had thought it was by removing them from circulation, they would become less of a threat to public safety, by lawful or unlawful owners.

[Pound]

The data does not support that conclusion. The data shows that the biggest threat to public safety is unlawfully held Firearms.


Which is exactly why the gun reform law change will do absolutely nothing.....:rolleyes:

[TheDemonLord]

And I'd contend that once again, you failed to make it. It's amusing to watch you play slippery with all these inferences and never clearly making a point, just as it is obvious why you do so...

No, you made it.

The admittance that you treat Firearms differently from another tool "in the first instance" was the point.


I do not have such a bias, nor have I confirmed one. People are allowed to disagree with you based on their interpretation of the facts; it doesn't mean they are biased.

Yes, you do.

This is not due to your disagreement of facts.


You were pointing out that trucks were favored over firearms by terrorists, the facts show otherwise, are you changing the goalposts to some perceived rate bullshit now?

I did, And the facts do support that Firearm usage in Terrorist attacks is quite small and rare, typically only used by 'lone-wolf' style of terrorists and infrequently - The point of the comparison to Trucks was to get you to admit your Bias, which you did and are hilariously trying to backtrack.

I'll repeat - I'm fine with you not liking Firearms. I'm fine with you holding the opinion that "Guns are bad because they are designed to kill people" - but be honest about it.

[TheDemonLord]

Is that the justification? Do you have source for that? I had thought it was by removing them from circulation, they would become less of a threat to public safety, by lawful or unlawful owners.

Well, it's the Justification you've just repeated whilst disputing that it's the Justification, so, how about you make up your mind and get back to me.

But we both know you'll backtrack out of it.

[Graystone]

No, you made it.

The admittance that you treat Firearms differently from another tool "in the first instance" was the point.



Yes, you do.

This is not due to your disagreement of facts.



I did, And the facts do support that Firearm usage in Terrorist attacks is quite small and rare, typically only used by 'lone-wolf' style of terrorists and infrequently - The point of the comparison to Trucks was to get you to admit your Bias, which you did and are hilariously trying to backtrack.

I'll repeat - I'm fine with you not liking Firearms. I'm fine with you holding the opinion that "Guns are bad because they are designed to kill people" - but be honest about it.


Well, it's the Justification you've just repeated whilst disputing that it's the Justification, so, how about you make up your mind and get back to me.

But we both know you'll backtrack out of it.

You've completely lost the plot, your blither has surpassed Katman's level of irrational and now sits alongside Masman's.

I'll reiterate my points clearly, since you are unable to make your own. Whether these debunk your 'points' I cannot say, perhaps if you have a rational counterpoint to offer, you might do so; but I shall not hold my breath.

Terrorists use firearms in more attacks, and kill more people with them than they do trucks. Thus it makes no sense to say if firearms are banned, trucks (class 2 and above) should be too, based on numbers or popularity of the weapon.

Not all firearms are banned, in fact the recent 'ban' could more accurately be described as a tightening of regulations, as (and correct me if I'm wrong) such 'banned' firearms (a small percentage of all firearms) can still be owned with an e-cat endorsement. So again, it makes very little sense to say trucks (class 2 and above) should be banned if the same logic was applied, if anything it support the 'ban' since Trucks already have multiple license classes and endorsements based on the vehicle's characteristics.

My interpretation of the justification for the ban, is by removing such firearms from circulation, they become harder to procure, for lawful or unlawful use. Thus it is illogical to say removing firearms from lawful owners will not have any affect on who owns them unlawfully. Obviously an assumption here is that the black market for firearms in NZ comes from the firearms once being purchased through lawful channels.

[aNZBloke]

You've completely lost the plot, your blither has surpassed Katman's level of irrational and now sits alongside Masman's.
.


You've completely lost the plot, your blither has surpassed Katman's level of irrational and now sits alongside Masman's......

Hmmm... Graystone, it seems to me that you are not grasping relativity here. Be honest, objective and not too proud to admit that there is another side to the coin and please don't be a last worder.

The statistics show that more people get killed by illegal owned firearms than by legally owned firearms. As such this whole buy-back is going to achieve exactly zilch since the criminals are not going to give up their firearms (as reported in the news)

This buy back is just throwing your and my tax money away with a nil result in respect of saving lives. It is done just because "it feels good" and gets votes from the anti-gun lobby.

The anti-gun lobby cannot seem to understand the hunters putting the firearms to excellent use in controlling pests in our forests. They have never seen a whole paddock suddenly come alive with thousands of rabbits eating a farmers' crop that you will need for food. They have not seen the devastation that goats can do in the forests. Uncontrolled pests will only result in astronomical food prices and you want to stop this control of pests.

The anti-gun lobby is driven by those who live in the city.

The reality is that the city dwellers are just miles apart in perception in regards to firearms than those who live in the countryside.

As I pointed out earlier - I rather see the money spend on this to improve our road system and/or compliance with road rules (I see drivers overtaking in a blind corner or over the double yellow lines) and/or our health system. Just ask yourself: how many people die each year by legally owned firearms and how many people get killed by road accidents? So where would the money be better spend? There is no bottomless pit of tax income! You want that the government wisely spends your tax money that you and I worked so hard for.

[husaberg]

Hmmm... Graystone, it seems to me that you are not grasping relativity here. Be honest, objective and not too proud to admit that there is another side to the coin and please don't be a last worder.

The statistics show that more people get killed by illegal owned firearms than by legally owned firearms. As such this whole buy-back is going to achieve exactly zilch since the criminals are not going to give up their firearms (as reported in the news)

This buy back is just throwing your and my tax money away with a nil result in respect of saving lives. It is done just because "it feels good" and gets votes from the anti-gun lobby.

The anti-gun lobby cannot seem to understand the hunters putting the firearms to excellent use in controlling pests in our forests. They have never seen a whole paddock suddenly come alive with thousands of rabbits eating a farmers' crop that you will need for food. They have not seen the devastation that goats can do in the forests. Uncontrolled pests will only result in astronomical food prices and you want to stop this control of pests.

The anti-gun lobby is driven by those who live in the city.

The reality is that the city dwellers are just miles apart in perception in regards to firearms than those who live in the countryside.

As I pointed out earlier - I rather see the money spend on this to improve our road system and/or compliance with road rules (I see drivers overtaking in a blind corner or over the double yellow lines) and/or our health system. Just ask yourself: how many people die each year by legally owned firearms and how many people get killed by road accidents? So where would the money be better spend? There is no bottomless pit of tax income! You want that the government wisely spends your tax money that you and I worked so hard for.

Epic "as you pointed out earlier" but dude you only have one post, and this is it, So if you said anything earlier it was on your other log in.:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
PS rabbits aren't eating crops , the areas with rabbit issues, are not cropping areas, It is the dryland extensive pastoral areas, that have Rabbit issues.
No one shoots rabbits with a AR15 unless they are an idiot.Nor does the statistics or the outcomes you suggest exist in anywhere but your mind.

PS since when has Tauraunga been a rural area.

[Graystone]

Hmmm... Graystone, it seems to me that you are not grasping relativity here. Be honest, objective and not too proud to admit that there is another side to the coin and please don't be a last worder.

The statistics show that more people get killed by illegal owned firearms than by legally owned firearms. As such this whole buy-back is going to achieve exactly zilch since the criminals are not going to give up their firearms (as reported in the news)

This buy back is just throwing your and my tax money away with a nil result in respect of saving lives. It is done just because "it feels good" and gets votes from the anti-gun lobby.

The anti-gun lobby cannot seem to understand the hunters putting the firearms to excellent use in controlling pests in our forests. They have never seen a whole paddock suddenly come alive with thousands of rabbits eating a farmers' crop that you will need for food. They have not seen the devastation that goats can do in the forests. Uncontrolled pests will only result in astronomical food prices and you want to stop this control of pests.

The anti-gun lobby is driven by those who live in the city.

The reality is that the city dwellers are just miles apart in perception in regards to firearms than those who live in the countryside.

As I pointed out earlier - I rather see the money spend on this to improve our road system and/or compliance with road rules (I see drivers overtaking in a blind corner or over the double yellow lines) and/or our health system. Just ask yourself: how many people die each year by legally owned firearms and how many people get killed by road accidents? So where would the money be better spend? There is no bottomless pit of tax income! You want that the government wisely spends your tax money that you and I worked so hard for.

Where do the illegally owned firearms come from?

While I live in the city now, I lived in the countryside for over a decade and am quite familiar with pest control, in my experience guns are far less effective than bait or even trapping. Nor do the proposed laws significantly reduce the access to guns effective in that purpose

In fact, I think it is you who should be honest, objective, and not too proud to admit there are more than two sides to this coin...

[Katman]

Epic "as you pointed out earlier" but dude you only have one post, and this is it, So if you said anything earlier it was on your other log in.:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

:facepalm:

There you go again - living up to the quote in my signature.

[husaberg]

:facepalm:

There you go again - living up to the quote in my signature.
I appear to be living in your head fulltime. As there you go again being the Number 1 husaberg fanboi.
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/186796-Desperately-seeking-husabergs-attention?p=1131129063#post1131129063
Don't worry stevo there wasn't enough narcissism or homosexual undertones to be your Alt log in.
But as you are trying to make yourself out as having a modicum of intelligence maybe you would point out where in the post of his zero previous posts where he siad he would rather the money be spent on roading.


Hmmm... Graystone, it seems to me that you are not grasping relativity here. Be honest, objective and not too proud to admit that there is another side to the coin and please don't be a last worder.

The statistics show that more people get killed by illegal owned firearms than by legally owned firearms. As such this whole buy-back is going to achieve exactly zilch since the criminals are not going to give up their firearms (as reported in the news)

This buy back is just throwing your and my tax money away with a nil result in respect of saving lives. It is done just because "it feels good" and gets votes from the anti-gun lobby.

The anti-gun lobby cannot seem to understand the hunters putting the firearms to excellent use in controlling pests in our forests. They have never seen a whole paddock suddenly come alive with thousands of rabbits eating a farmers' crop that you will need for food. They have not seen the devastation that goats can do in the forests. Uncontrolled pests will only result in astronomical food prices and you want to stop this control of pests.

The anti-gun lobby is driven by those who live in the city.

The reality is that the city dwellers are just miles apart in perception in regards to firearms than those who live in the countryside.

As I pointed out earlier - I rather see the money spend on this to improve our road system and/or compliance with road rules (I see drivers overtaking in a blind corner or over the double yellow lines) and/or our health system. Just ask yourself: how many people die each year by legally owned firearms and how many people get killed by road accidents? So where would the money be better spend? There is no bottomless pit of tax income! You want that the government wisely spends your tax money that you and I worked so hard for.

Whats even funnier is you have not expressed an opinion on the subject of the thread, anyone would think you are only following people around.

[Katman]

But as you are trying to make yourself out as having a modicum of intelligence maybe you would point out where in the post of his zero previous posts where he siad he would rather the money be spent on roading.

Did you miss this one?


I do not understand why that cop who was told about a nutter at the gun club did nothing. He should be charged as an accomplice to murder.

The money for the buyback should be better spend on more oversight and better education of the cops and more feet on the ground rather than hiding behind a tree for catching a speeder on a straight road. Would save a lot more lives to get drunks and druggies from the road.

[TheDemonLord]

Terrorists use firearms in more attacks, and kill more people with them than they do trucks. Thus it makes no sense to say if firearms are banned, trucks (class 2 and above) should be too, based on numbers or popularity of the weapon.

So, excluding countries that have either active conflicts (such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, Israel etc.)

I count approximately 15 Truck based Terrorist attacks in the last 10 years

I count 4 terrorist attacks using Firearms in the same time period.

The Death tolls are harder to calculate - as a lot of the shooting attacks also included Suicide Bombings.

But again - the point was to show (which you kindly did) that you treat Trucks differently from Firearms in the first place - you prejudice Firearms based on the intent of Creation, in a way you don't do for other objects that are (in NZ) demonstrably more dangerous (more fatalities per year per item).

And you still can't be honest about it.


Not all firearms are banned, in fact the recent 'ban' could more accurately be described as a tightening of regulations, as (and correct me if I'm wrong) such 'banned' firearms (a small percentage of all firearms) can still be owned with an e-cat endorsement.

You are wrong, E-Cat no longer exists. People that were highly vetted, had their Firearms Registered with the Police and NEVER, SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE E-CATEGORY SYSTEM COMMITTED A MURDER WITH THOSE FIREARMS have lost their ability to own - everything that the Police/public have asked for, the E-Cat holders did and they never committed any crime, so why are they being punished?

If the law change was simply re-defining all Semi-Autos as E-Cat, that would have been acceptable, but no, E-Cat has been removed.

And a Small Percentage? The Ban is conservatively estimated to impact around 400-600,000 Firearms of the estimated 1.5 Million in NZ hands.

It's a Ban.


My interpretation of the justification for the ban, is by removing such firearms from circulation, they become harder to procure, for lawful or unlawful use. Thus it is illogical to say removing firearms from lawful owners will not have any affect on who owns them unlawfully. Obviously an assumption here is that the black market for firearms in NZ comes from the firearms once being purchased through lawful channels.

Except the Criminals never had any issue acquiring Firearms illegally, so on what basis do you presume that post-ban they will have any trouble? As per previous posts - there is an active Black Market in Australia for Semi-Autos and they banned them over 20 years ago.

All this will do is punish law-abiding citizens.

[TheDemonLord]

Epic "as you pointed out earlier" but dude you only have one post, and this is it, So if you said anything earlier it was on your other log in.:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
PS rabbits aren't eating crops , the areas with rabbit issues, are not cropping areas, It is the dryland extensive pastoral areas, that have Rabbit issues.
No one shoots rabbits with a AR15 unless they are an idiot.Nor does the statistics or the outcomes you suggest exist in anywhere but your mind.

PS since when has Tauraunga been a rural area.

Posts made in Off Topic don't count towards your Post count....

Only posts made in the other part of the site.

People shoot Goats with ARs
People also use ARs with sub-calibre conversion kits to Shoot Rabbits.

[jasonu]

I appear to be living in your head fulltime. As there you go again being the Number 1 husaberg fanboi.
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/186796-Desperately-seeking-husabergs-attention?p=1131129063#post1131129063
Don't worry stevo there wasn't enough narcissism or homosexual undertones to be your Alt log in.
But as you are trying to make yourself out as having a modicum of intelligence maybe you would point out where in the post of his zero previous posts where he siad he would rather the money be spent on roading.



Whats even funnier is you have not expressed an opinion on the subject of the thread, anyone would think you are only following people around.

Fuckwit as usual.

[aNZBloke]

No one shoots rabbits with a AR15 unless they are an idiot.Nor does the statistics or the outcomes you suggest exist in anywhere but your mind.


As I understand is that .22 which can hold more than 10 rounds are also affected. And I did not say that rabbits were hunted with an AR15.

And what gives you the idea that I only ever lived in Tauranga? I moved here for retirement!

[pritch]

And what gives you the idea that I only ever lived in Tauranga? I moved here for retirement!

I've only visited Tauranga twice and both times the traffic was diabolical. Spending a hard earned retirement (or otherwise) sitting stationary stuck in traffic is not an appealing thought.

[Pound]

You are wrong, E-Cat no longer exists. People that were highly vetted, had their Firearms Registered with the Police and NEVER, SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE E-CATEGORY SYSTEM COMMITTED A MURDER WITH THOSE FIREARMS have lost their ability to own - everything that the Police/public have asked for, the E-Cat holders did and they never committed any crime, so why are they being punished?



This is exactly what I would define as a "Knee jerk reaction".......


Much like the lowering of the alcohol limit driving tolerance, this is only going to hurt the overwhelming majority of law abiding citizens, and will do absolutely nothing to solve, or even minimize the issue at hand.

[husaberg]

Did you miss this one?

Kind of Odd those words weren't there before then................
Hes still now only had three posts now
Yet posts like hes been here forever. If i was a conspiracy theorist like you my tin foil tingling

SO where is your position on the gun laws or are you just too scared to give it? Most suspected you were a taker.


As I understand is that .22 which can hold more than 10 rounds are also affected. And I did not say that rabbits were hunted with an AR15.

And what gives you the idea that I only ever lived in Tauranga? I moved here for retirement!
You talked a load of crap about stuff you clearly know little about. Are you sure you are not Katman?
There is about 10 people or less in NZ that need an ar15 or a 22 with a larger mag.

[Katman]

Kind of Odd those words weren't there before then................

They've been there since 19.02 on May 13th.

[TheDemonLord]

There is about 10 people or less in NZ that need an ar15 or a 22 with a larger mag.

And who are they?

How have you determined their need?

But let's cut the BS - you are talking out of your arse.

[pritch]

There is about 10 people or less in NZ that need an ar15 or a 22 with a larger mag.

Not so. Sheep farmers in rough(ish) country can have a serious goat problem. They aren't shooting for sport, they want to get as many of the goats as possible before they escape back into the bush. That takes a suitable calibre and a largish mag: SKS, Type 56, Ruger Mini 14, etc. All illegal now of course.

[jasonu]

There is about 10 people or less in NZ that need an ar15 or a 22 with a larger mag.

How do you know that? Do you know them?

[husaberg]

How do you know that? Do you know them?

Yes i do know a few of them they work for DOC here on the Coast.
They have a literal "flying" squad.

All the argument that will be made are rubbish same as the anti 1080 ones, For which Katspam has only recently jumped on the bandwagon declared himself to be a (non) expert.
All those same hunters who claim to need a non legal firerm were thr ones dead against using poison to get the noxious feral animals, yet now shooting with non legal firearms is the only way.............



Not so. Sheep farmers in rough(ish) country can have a serious goat problem. They aren't shooting for sport, they want to get as many of the goats as possible before they escape back into the bush. That takes a suitable calibre and a largish mag: SKS, Type 56, Ruger Mini 14, etc. All illegal now of course.

Not for properly licenced owners who have a Genuine need rather than a want.
The law has provisions for this.
99% of the farmers i know with feral goat issue Goats muster and sell them live, What about the ones you know. Hint they are worth nothing dead......




So where is your position on the gun laws or are you just too scared to give it? Most suspected you were a taker.


Katman no answer from you again what are you scared of It cant just be appearing to be hypocritical?
Its the 10 time i have asked you?

[jasonu]

Yes i do know a few of them they work for DOC here on the Coast.

But you said 10 people in the whole country. Where are the rest or are you pulling shit out of your behind as usual?

[husaberg]

But you said 10 people in the whole country. Where are the rest or are you pulling shit out of your behind as usual?

Do you know why i refered to them as the literal "FLYING SQUAD"
Do you know where most of the culls and most of the pest control is done from in NZ for DOC, hint you apparently do not.
WHat i find hillarious is all the reasons that you guys keep coming up with are utter horse dung that you know nothing about.
For instance TDL's AR10 was his toy it was never by his own admission used to kill any feral goats deer cattle or rabbits.
Yet know it was a essential tool for pest control. Its utterly hilarious
Juat as funny as Katman posting in this thread and refusing to answeer questions.
You are all urbanite who clearly know nothing about farming.
Almost as funny when katman who wouldn't know one end of a beast from the other posted about how all the rodeo bulls are tormented and tortured and sent immediately to the works after a rodeo.

[aNZBloke]

There is about 10 people or less in NZ that need an ar15 or a 22 with a larger mag.

You have never thought about getting caught out in the undergrowth with a wild board charging you and having only a bolt action rifle with no bullet up the spout. Because at that moment you wish you had that semi automatic that holds more than a few cartridges.

And this happened to a close friend of mine.

There are plenty of anecdotes of Vietnamese having been shot umpteen times and still charging the soldiers and it takes quite a lot to stop that boar.

FYI: You do not know what and where I hunted....

[husaberg]

You have never thought about getting caught out in the undergrowth with a wild board charging you and having only a bolt action rifle with no bullet up the spout. Because at that moment you wish you had that semi automatic that holds more than a few cartridges.

And this happened to a close friend of mine so it is not made up.

There are plenty of anecdotes of Vietnamese having been shot umpteen times and still charging the soldiers and it takes quite a lot to stop that boar.

FYI: You do not know what and where I hunted....

Cool story bro do you have more...Adding in the vietnam flashback and the scene for what becomes of the broken hearted was a nice touch it won me over.
Tell me again what your other alternative log in is?
You are up to 4 posts now and its like you have been here forever.........join date 13th May
I wonder who was sin binned around that time...............

[jasonu]

Do you know why i refered to them as the literal "FLYING SQUAD"
Do you know where most of the culls and most of the pest control is done from in NZ for DOC, hint you apparently do not.
WHat i find hillarious is all the reasons that you guys keep coming up with are utter horse dung that you know nothing about.
For instance TDL's AR10 was his toy it was never by his own admission used to kill any feral goats deer cattle or rabbits.
Yet know it was a essential tool for pest control. Its utterly hilarious
Juat as funny as Katman posting in this thread and refusing to answeer questions.
You are all urbanite who clearly know nothing about farming.
Almost as funny when katman who wouldn't know one end of a beast from the other posted about how all the rodeo bulls are tormented and tortured and sent immediately to the works after a rodeo.

So you don't know the 10 people and you are pulling shit out of thin air.

[TheDemonLord]

For instance TDL's AR10 was his toy it was never by his own admission used to kill any feral goats deer cattle or rabbits.
Yet know it was a essential tool for pest control. Its utterly hilarious

It was going to be used for Deer Hunting, Deer are a Pest.

I didn't finish building the Rifle, was going to be getting an aftermarket for-end, Harris Bi-pod and an after-market drop-in trigger. By which time I aimed (pun intended) to have my marksmanship up to the point where I'd feel confident in Hunting.

It was not a Toy - otherwise, why would I choose that over an AR-15? More expensive Ammo, Less part availability etc. I choose it because a .308 round is widely recognized as a suitable round for humanely hunting Deer.

But keep telling people lies.

[husaberg]

So you don't know the 10 people and you are pulling shit out of thin air.

Do i need to know all the names or the fact thats all that is needed even by feds ?


Efficiently controlling these pests in large numbers requires the use of semi-automatic firearms with large magazine capacity. Although not allowing the use of these specialised firearms by a select number of farmers, we were pleased that the bill was amended to allow their use on private property by professional pest control contractors.

Note Fed said some of the rules were disappointing in not allowing for farmer exceptions, not it was an impossible situations. Which is what all you people who are not farmers nor professional hunters not even likely keen hunters are now trying to make out.


Federated Farmers is concerned that even these amendments will disadvantage landowners who are faced with these pests in high numbers.
"Instead of doing the pest control themselves as part of their farming business, as many have done for decades, farmers will instead have to rely on contractors and all of the risks and costs that come with outsourcing an important task of this type,


Exemptions
The following categories of exempt persons will be able to apply for an endorsement and permit to possess prohibited items.
Exemption categories
A licensed dealer, or an employee or agent of a licensed dealer.
A bona fide collector of firearms.
A person to whom a prohibited item has special significance as an heirloom or memento.
A director or curator of a bona fide museum.
An approved employee or member of a broadcaster (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1989) or a bona fide theatre company, society, cinematic, television film production company, or video recording production company.
A person who is employed or engaged by the Department of Conservation and involved in operations for the purpose of controlling wild animals or animal pests. (In accordance with the Wildlife Act 1953, the Wild Animal Control 1977, the Conservation Act 1987, or the Biosecurity Act 1993)
A person who is the holder of a concession granted by the Minister of Conservation to undertake wild animal recovery operations (In accordance with the Wildlife Act 1953, the Wild Animal Control 1977, the Conservation Act 1987, or the Biosecurity Act 1993)
A person who is employed or engaged by a management agency as defined in section 100 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 and involved in operations for the purpose of controlling wild animals or animal pests in accordance with that Act.
A person whose sole business, or a substantial part of whose business, is providing services to control prescribed wild animals or animal pests, or a person employed or engaged by that person for that purpose. Prescribed animals are wild deer, chamois, tahr, wild pigs, wild goats, wallaby, feral rabbit, feral hare, and Canadian Geese.
Hint the law has changed but on your big boy pants and get on with life. Anyone who doesnt like the law we have in NZ can either form a political party or either move to or stay in the USA like you do Jason. Otherwise tough shit.

[aNZBloke]

It was going to be used for Deer Hunting, Deer are a Pest.

I choose it because a .308 round is widely recognized as a suitable round for humanely hunting Deer.


At least one of the choppers flying out from Opotiki into the Te Urewera or Raukumera Forest would be using the AR10 to shoot deer. A .223 would not do it. That's before they started live recovery with nets and before farming deer. There were so many deer that you would see them on the road when driving through the Waioeka Gorge.

[pritch]

There are plenty of anecdotes of Vietnamese having been shot umpteen times and still charging the soldiers

I have not heard those anecdotes, nor do I know what soldiers you refer to; definitely not Kiwis, they had SLRs.

[husaberg]

I have not heard those anecdotes, nor do I know what soldiers you refer to; definitely not Kiwis, they had SLRs.

Even the 161's
http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/asstd/nz-arty.jpg
but this one shows they were aquired by a few at least
https://vietnamwar.govt.nz/sites/default/files/images/no-front-line-cover.jpghttp://www.armymuseum.co.nz/newsletter/images/Vietnam50th.jpg

[Graystone]

So, excluding countries that have either active conflicts (such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, Israel etc.)

I count approximately 15 Truck based Terrorist attacks in the last 10 years

I count 4 terrorist attacks using Firearms in the same time period.

The Death tolls are harder to calculate - as a lot of the shooting attacks also included Suicide Bombings.

But again - the point was to show (which you kindly did) that you treat Trucks differently from Firearms in the first place - you prejudice Firearms based on the intent of Creation, in a way you don't do for other objects that are (in NZ) demonstrably more dangerous (more fatalities per year per item).

And you still can't be honest about it.



You are wrong, E-Cat no longer exists. People that were highly vetted, had their Firearms Registered with the Police and NEVER, SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE E-CATEGORY SYSTEM COMMITTED A MURDER WITH THOSE FIREARMS have lost their ability to own - everything that the Police/public have asked for, the E-Cat holders did and they never committed any crime, so why are they being punished?

If the law change was simply re-defining all Semi-Autos as E-Cat, that would have been acceptable, but no, E-Cat has been removed.

And a Small Percentage? The Ban is conservatively estimated to impact around 400-600,000 Firearms of the estimated 1.5 Million in NZ hands.

It's a Ban.



Except the Criminals never had any issue acquiring Firearms illegally, so on what basis do you presume that post-ban they will have any trouble? As per previous posts - there is an active Black Market in Australia for Semi-Autos and they banned them over 20 years ago.

All this will do is punish law-abiding citizens.

List them out, I can add at least 15 terrorist attacks to the 4 you found which used guns in the last ten years.

How would you not treat trucks different to firearms? Pretty hard to drive a revolver... There is no prejudice based on the idea of creation, I have simply evaluated the use/misuse of the tools.

I stand corrected, however I still see the ban as a good thing, one which does not impair the practicalities of firearms use, obviously it does impeded free choice, but I see this as justified, in the interests of public safety.

Do you have a source for the 400-600k firearms affected? I have not seen that figure before...

The basis is that of supply, less of a thing in circulation reduces supply. This law change will reduce the number of these firearms in circulation. Sure, it won't completely remove them from the black market, but driving the cost up, and availability down will make it harder for deranged fuckwits to obtain.

[pritch]

Even the 161's
http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/asstd/nz-arty.jpg

Or 105s? I doubt that was taken in Vietnam, those rifles wouldn't be much bloody use they've got no mags.

OK I checked and it supposedly was taken in Vietnam. There are a number of odd things in that picture I will enquire further.

[husaberg]

Or 105s? I doubt that was taken in Vietnam, those rifles wouldn't be much bloody use they've got no mags.
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-conflicts-periods/vietnam/nz-arty.htm
161 was the battery number i did find some other photos see previous post. the cover one they are removing the mags for the flight by the look of it.
It was meant to be taken there.
Dont know what the engineers had when they arrived. but i would like to think it was less unweildly than a SLR?

Here is a owen by the look of it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0-RfyRseg0

[pritch]

Your pics raise a number of questions, some of which I have referred on.

That original 161 pic was taken very eary in the piece, so early that I'm not sure they actually realise where they are. They seem to think they are still in Waiouru. Later similar photos definitely show the rifles with mags in place.

I'm now told the artillery people did actually have some heavy barrel SLRs. That is not an infantry weapon. Sure the gunners are not infantry but those weapons would have been oddball in Vietnam, I'd have thought they had M60s the same as everybody else.

The book cover: Those guys are SAS, most in that pic have M16s but there appears to be one SLR. The SAS SLRs were often "hotrodded", full auto option with 30 shot mags and some may have had the flash hider removed.

That other B&W pic: there are things I like and some that seem odd. The gunner and his number two would be expected to have several hundred rounds of linked belt ammo each, everybody else a 100 round belt, yet none do I see. Infantry SLRs had carrying handles and sling swivels removed, and again some had 30 round mags.

You seem to have a gift for finding oddball pics.

[TheDemonLord]

List them out, I can add at least 15 terrorist attacks to the 4 you found which used guns in the last ten years.

Christchurch, Charlie Hebdo, Paris Attacks, Mumbai Attacks.


How would you not treat trucks different to firearms? Pretty hard to drive a revolver... There is no prejudice based on the idea of creation, I have simply evaluated the use/misuse of the tools.

That depends on your a priori viewpoint - you talk of use/misuse, but in an NZ context, there are fewer trucks than firearms and more deaths due to trucks than Firearms - how does that fit into your evaluation?

You might argue that there is a public need for Trucks in a modern Society, fine - but in NZ there is a public need for private Pest Control - so when you remove all other factors that have a degree of parity between the 2 inanimate objects, you are left with the Stigma that a Firearm is a Weapon, designed to kill.

Which is why your statement that about you not considering them comparable in the first place was accurate and the entire point, but even now, you can't acknowledge your bias against Firearms.


I stand corrected, however I still see the ban as a good thing, one which does not impair the practicalities of firearms use, obviously it does impeded free choice, but I see this as justified, in the interests of public safety.

Of course you do, it's entirely in line with your ideological outlook...

You talk of public safety (so, at least you accept that was the stated reason for the ban, glad you agree), tell me - when no lawfully held E-Cat, Registered Firearms were used to commit a murder in nearly 30 years are banned - how does that improve public safety?

Or does it simply improve the feeling of public safety?


Do you have a source for the 400-600k firearms affected? I have not seen that figure before...

Various estimates by COLFO and David Tipple (Owner of Gun City) - however, that is an estimate for Semi-Autos only, not including all the repeating rifles with internal magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (that are now also illegal)

The quoted figure is from here: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111395846/gun-city-timaru-manager-questions-buy-back-option

Which is 600,000 semis, out of a 1.2 Million estimate firearms. So, not 'a small percentage'


The basis is that of supply, less of a thing in circulation reduces supply. This law change will reduce the number of these firearms in circulation. Sure, it won't completely remove them from the black market, but driving the cost up, and availability down will make it harder for deranged fuckwits to obtain.

How'd that work out for the Drug Trade?

[husaberg]

Your pics raise a number of questions, some of which I have referred on.

That original 161 pic was taken very eary in the piece, so early that I'm not sure they actually realise where they are. They seem to think they are still in Waiouru. Later similar photos definitely show the rifles with mags in place.

I'm now told the artillery people did actually have some heavy barrel SLRs. That is not an infantry weapon. Sure the gunners are not infantry but those weapons would have been oddball in Vietnaml, I'd have thought they had M60s the same as everybody else.

The book cover: Those guys are SAS, most in that pic have M16s but there appears to be one SLR. The SAS SLRs were often "hotrodded", full auto option with 30 shot mags and some may have had the flash hider removed.

That other B&W pic: there are things I like and some that seem odd. The gunner and his number two would be expected to have several hundred rounds of linked belt ammo each, everybody else a 100 round belt, yet none do I see. Infantry SLRs had carrying handles and sling swivels removed, and again some had 30 round mags.

You seem to have a gift for finding oddball pics.

You reckon that is an Owen in the video it has to be that or A F1? doesn't it?
We had owens? never knew that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Gun
Yet this list us as only having the stirling in that timeframe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_individual_weapons_of_the_New_Zealand_arme d_forces
The pics T i looked through a fair few to find them but the frst on was in the first few. i noticed the heavy on the bipod.

[Kickaha]

. The SAS SLRs were often "hotrodded", full auto option with 30 shot mags

I saw an interview with an Australian SAS member he said the full autos were shit, too hard to control when firing full auto

[TheDemonLord]

I saw an interview with an Australian SAS member he said the full autos were shit, too hard to control when firing full auto

Same with all the Battle Rifles - the G3, M14, FAL etc. - full auto in a Rifle Calibre being shoulder fired from a Rifle was impractical.

[pritch]

I saw an interview with an Australian SAS member he said the full autos were shit, too hard to control when firing full auto

I didn’t fire a hotrodded one but I did fire a heavy barrel one full auto from the kneeling position and he’s not wrong.

[aNZBloke]

I have not heard those anecdotes, nor do I know what soldiers you refer to; definitely not Kiwis, they had SLRs.


www.americanthinker.com/articles/2004/08/the_last_big_lie_of_vietnam_ki.html

vietnamwar.fandom.com/wiki/M1_carbine under combat use, notably in The Philippines

[jasonu]

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-conflicts-periods/vietnam/nz-arty.htm
161 was the battery number i did find some other photos see previous post. the cover one they are removing the mags for the flight by the look of it.
It was meant to be taken there.
Dont know what the engineers had when they arrived. but i would like to think it was less unweildly than a SLR?

Here is a owen by the look of it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0-RfyRseg0

So now you are an expert on the Vietnam war. Better add it to the list.

[Katman]

So now you are an expert on the Vietnam war. Better add it to the list.

But, but, but......

i think its a owens, do you think its a owens? im sure its a owens

i never new we had owens

[husaberg]

So now you are an expert on the Vietnam war. Better add it to the list.

I wouldn't unless you want to add it to the list of stuff you made up on KB.
Maybe for a laugh you should point out where i claimed to be an expert.
While it appears I know more about the law, farming, politics, pike river and other stuff than you and the majority of the cretins here, Lets get real that certainly doesn't require expert status.
That only requires a modicum of intelligence.
Shit, if expert status only requires you to know more than Katman, that only that you complete primary school and eat less than 20gm of lead paint a day, FFS
Maybe America would be better off if the Presidents had to obtain an above average IQ test. Not above American average mind you aim higher, for like tiny Mexican villagers with no schools av IQ.

[TheDemonLord]

But, but, but......

i think its a owens, do you think its a owens? im sure its a owens

i never new we had owens

Heh - Forgotten Weapons did a video on the Owen Submachine gun recently - I always thought it was a knock-off Sten, but turns out it's a very well put together Firearm, the dual-chamber design is actually pretty ingenious.

[TheDemonLord]

While it appears I know more about the law, farming, politics, pike river and other stuff than you and the majority of the cretins here,


You are forgetting you are talking to a guy that claims
to know more
about US laws than a US supreme court judge
More abut US security that the FBI.
More about what laws drafted than those who draft them.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

[roogazza]

www.americanthinker.com/articles/2004/08/the_last_big_lie_of_vietnam_ki.html

vietnamwar.fandom.com/wiki/M1_carbine under combat use, notably in The Philippines

cheers for the links. Interesting reading.

[jasonu]

I wouldn't unless you want to add it to the list of stuff you made up on KB.
Maybe for a laugh you should point out where i claimed to be an expert.
While it appears I know more about the law, farming, politics, pike river and other stuff than you and the majority of the cretins here, Lets get real that certainly doesn't require expert status.
That only requires a modicum of intelligence.
Shit, if expert status only requires you to know more than Katman, that only that you complete primary school and eat less than 20gm of lead paint a day, FFS
Maybe America would be better off if the Presidents had to obtain an above average IQ test. Not above American average mind you aim higher, for like tiny Mexican villagers with no schools av IQ.

If you are so smart and everyone else here is a cretin then why do you spend a significant amount of your days on here acting superior? Sounds like a waste of your valuable time aye.

[husaberg]

If you are so smart and everyone else here is a cretin then why do you spend a significant amount of your days on here acting superior? Sounds like a waste of your valuable time aye.

Do you know the difference between the words Majority and Everyone?
Because i do.
I said one, yet you just inferred i said another.
Which one is what i actually said Jason?
What i find funny is you are making a whole heap of statements along with the others here. Yet when challenged you (as well as the rest) have no proof to back them, Yet you all claim them to be factual.
Anything and everything, that shows you are clearly wrong, is dismissed as not being relevant, ignored or is dismissed as being some sort of conspiracy. Its laughable.
Now we also have zero post score users and loser nobodies suddenly appearing also adding the circle jerk opinion. Plus the biggest Muppet on KB, who refuses to even state an opinion, yet everyone knows as he hates guns, but hes just here to troll.
You have a few people out of a country of 4 million (of which you are not even a resident of) who don't like a new law. Tough shit. Get over it.

[pritch]

There are a number of odd things in that picture I will enquire further.

So I had 10 responses so far and a consensus - of sorts - has emerged. The lack of mags was questioned by most respondents as was the sling, the positioning of the guns was not how 161 did things, and the wearing of those shorts was thought odd too, they were not issue in NZ . The suggestion is that it's most likely that these are Brits or Australians in Malaya.

I guess we'll never know, but at least we can all be sure there's a lot odd about that pic.

[jasonu]

Do you know the difference between the words Majority and Everyone?
Because i do.
I said one, yet you just inferred i said another.
Which one is what i actually said Jason?
What i find funny is you are making a whole heap of statements along with the others here. Yet when challenged you (as well as the rest) have no proof to back them, Yet you all claim them to be factual.
Anything and everything, that shows you are clearly wrong, is dismissed as not being relevant, ignored or is dismissed as being some sort of conspiracy. Its laughable.
Now we also have zero post score users and loser nobodies suddenly appearing also adding the circle jerk opinion. Plus the biggest Muppet on KB, who refuses to even state an opinion, yet everyone knows as he hates guns, but hes just here to troll.
You have a few people out of a country of 4 million (of which you are not even a resident of) who don't like a new law. Tough shit. Get over it.

Again, if everyone else around here is a dimwit why do you spend so much time arguing with said dimwits?

[husaberg]

Again, if everyone else around here is a dimwit why do you spend so much time arguing with said dimwits?

Again you never really asked it the first time, as you made a statement which you claimed i made which clearly wasnt true, nor have you answered or countered my points.
Including why you constantly are trying to misrepresent what i say. if you argument is really so strong why do you need to make up crap and misrepresent what people say, Then make claims that are simply not true.
Hint that's why when i ask you to back up what you are claiming, you changed the subject.

[Katman]

.......why do you need to make up crap and misrepresent what people say......

Fucking irony overload.

:killingme

[husaberg]

Fucking irony overload.

:killingme

The irony is know are posting in this thread when you are to much of a coward to answer whether you agree with the ban or not.
Feel free to prove me right again
Because proving you are wrong never requires much effort

[Graystone]

Christchurch, Charlie Hebdo, Paris Attacks, Mumbai Attacks.



That depends on your a priori viewpoint - you talk of use/misuse, but in an NZ context, there are fewer trucks than firearms and more deaths due to trucks than Firearms - how does that fit into your evaluation?

You might argue that there is a public need for Trucks in a modern Society, fine - but in NZ there is a public need for private Pest Control - so when you remove all other factors that have a degree of parity between the 2 inanimate objects, you are left with the Stigma that a Firearm is a Weapon, designed to kill.

Which is why your statement that about you not considering them comparable in the first place was accurate and the entire point, but even now, you can't acknowledge your bias against Firearms.



Of course you do, it's entirely in line with your ideological outlook...

You talk of public safety (so, at least you accept that was the stated reason for the ban, glad you agree), tell me - when no lawfully held E-Cat, Registered Firearms were used to commit a murder in nearly 30 years are banned - how does that improve public safety?

Or does it simply improve the feeling of public safety?



Various estimates by COLFO and David Tipple (Owner of Gun City) - however, that is an estimate for Semi-Autos only, not including all the repeating rifles with internal magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (that are now also illegal)

The quoted figure is from here: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111395846/gun-city-timaru-manager-questions-buy-back-option

Which is 600,000 semis, out of a 1.2 Million estimate firearms. So, not 'a small percentage'



How'd that work out for the Drug Trade?

Orlando Nightclub, San Bernadino, Fort Hood, Charleston, Harvest Festival are five high profile ones, let me know if they fit your goalposts...

Deaths caused by truck misuse is very rarely malicious. They're also in use far longer, so the exposure is higher. Nor am I calling for all firearms to be banned, so private pest control is still possible, the circumstances in which semi-autos are 'required' for pest control are far far fewer than our need for goods transport (there is also an exemption for authorised pest control operators). As disappointing as it may be for you, the stigma simply isn't a factor for me.

How many E-cats made their way from lawful hands to unlawful ones, and were then used to commit a crime? How many lawfully owned guns were used to commit crimes? How many of the Christchurch Terrorist's guns were obtained legally?

Sounds like just an estimate from some bloke...

Are you comparing firearms with drugs? Things that are generally sought for personal pleasure, and often cause self harm and negative effects on society? Seems like a better comparison than trucks anyway! What you should ask, is how it worked for Australia.

[TheDemonLord]

Orlando Nightclub, San Bernadino, Fort Hood, Charleston, Harvest Festival are five high profile ones, let me know if they fit your goalposts...

Yes, Yes, No, Maybe, No.

Separating out Mass Shootings done be people who simply want to inflict death and destruction is different from people who do the same in the pursuit of a political goal (Terrorism).

I'm not sure if I consider classic Racism as a political Goal - hence the Maybe.


Deaths caused by truck misuse is very rarely malicious. They're also in use far longer, so the exposure is higher. Nor am I calling for all firearms to be banned, so private pest control is still possible, the circumstances in which semi-autos are 'required' for pest control are far far fewer than our need for goods transport (there is also an exemption for authorised pest control operators). As disappointing as it may be for you, the stigma simply isn't a factor for me.

But when it is Malicious - it's capable of killing more people in a similar time period - 87 vs 51. And that happens to be relevant. Firearms, in NZ, when used properly by Lawful owners are extremely safe and that's the disconnect that you are still unwilling to accept.

Depends on how you define need - We've got a lot of unique Flora and Fauna that would be extinct if not for Pest Control - which typically has been done by Private individuals at no cost to the Tax Payer - now this has been removed, I think you will find many unintended consequences occuring, a number of which you probably aren't going to like (more 1080 drops springs to mind). Not to mention that a number of Professional Pest controllers have been saying that the new laws may cause them to go out of Business.


How many E-cats made their way from lawful hands to unlawful ones,

Well, they are all Registered with the Police, so should be a pretty easy answer - but wait! The Police can't even answer that for the Firearms that were registered with them.... I would hazard a guess the answer is little to none.


and were then used to commit a crime?

Are you trying to imply that a Gun Register will do nothing to stop Crime?


How many lawfully owned guns were used to commit crimes?

Well, we know in 10 years - it was 7. That's 7 out of 250,000 people and about 1.2-1.5 Million Guns, in 10 years.


How many of the Christchurch Terrorist's guns were obtained legally?

All of them. He then used a loophole to illegally modify them to be an E-Cat rifle - A Loophole that I'd have supported being closed. How'd he get the Licence though? His Referees were 2 people that had only known him from an Online Forum.

Does anyone in their right mind think that is acceptable as a Character reference? Do you? If the answer is No, then ask this - Why was the licence granted in the first place. That's the whole point of a licensing system.


Sounds like just an estimate from some bloke...

Yeah. someone who works for the largest Firearm Dealer in the country - what would they know about Firearms and Firearm Sales....


Are you comparing firearms with drugs? Things that are generally sought for personal pleasure, and often cause self harm and negative effects on society? Seems like a better comparison than trucks anyway! What you should ask, is how it worked for Australia.

I'm comparing Illegal Firearms with Illegal Drugs.

Well, they've had 10 mass shootings (by the FBI's definition) since the Ban, Including one where over 100 rounds were fired and several using Firearms banned for nearly 25 Years, and the Melbourne Gang wars have had a several shootings recently...

You'll probably point to the oft-cited graph of 'Gun deaths' - but that includes Suicides, a Graph which was declining well before the Gun Ban.

All I'm going to say is they've had 2 buy backs (1996, 2003) and the estimates range from 80% of Semis would handed in to as low as 40%.

[aNZBloke]

One of the arguments is that there also will be less suicides. However a number do also suicide by car. Or just like in the past (mainly in the 30's and 40's during the depression) there were many housewives who slit their wrists with a safety razor blade. Or they opened the gas of the gas cook top or stuck their head in the gas oven. If someone wants to do suicide they'll find a way. As such this whole buy back will not achieve much in that respect. Plus for suicide one does not need an automatic.

[aNZBloke]

Well, they've had 10 mass shootings (by the FBI's definition) since the Ban, Including one where over 100 rounds were fired and several using Firearms banned for nearly 25 Years, and the Melbourne Gang wars have had a several shootings recently...

You'll probably point to the oft-cited graph of 'Gun deaths' - but that includes Suicides, a Graph which was declining well before the Gun Ban.

All I'm going to say is they've had 2 buy backs (1996, 2003) and the estimates range from 80% of Semis would handed in to as low as 40%.

And the farmers in OZ aren't happy with the ban because of the kangaroos.

[Graystone]

Yes, Yes, No, Maybe, No.

Separating out Mass Shootings done be people who simply want to inflict death and destruction is different from people who do the same in the pursuit of a political goal (Terrorism).

I'm not sure if I consider classic Racism as a political Goal - hence the Maybe.



But when it is Malicious - it's capable of killing more people in a similar time period - 87 vs 51. And that happens to be relevant. Firearms, in NZ, when used properly by Lawful owners are extremely safe and that's the disconnect that you are still unwilling to accept.

Depends on how you define need - We've got a lot of unique Flora and Fauna that would be extinct if not for Pest Control - which typically has been done by Private individuals at no cost to the Tax Payer - now this has been removed, I think you will find many unintended consequences occuring, a number of which you probably aren't going to like (more 1080 drops springs to mind). Not to mention that a number of Professional Pest controllers have been saying that the new laws may cause them to go out of Business.



Well, they are all Registered with the Police, so should be a pretty easy answer - but wait! The Police can't even answer that for the Firearms that were registered with them.... I would hazard a guess the answer is little to none.



Are you trying to imply that a Gun Register will do nothing to stop Crime?



Well, we know in 10 years - it was 7. That's 7 out of 250,000 people and about 1.2-1.5 Million Guns, in 10 years.



All of them. He then used a loophole to illegally modify them to be an E-Cat rifle - A Loophole that I'd have supported being closed. How'd he get the Licence though? His Referees were 2 people that had only known him from an Online Forum.

Does anyone in their right mind think that is acceptable as a Character reference? Do you? If the answer is No, then ask this - Why was the licence granted in the first place. That's the whole point of a licensing system.



Yeah. someone who works for the largest Firearm Dealer in the country - what would they know about Firearms and Firearm Sales....



I'm comparing Illegal Firearms with Illegal Drugs.

Well, they've had 10 mass shootings (by the FBI's definition) since the Ban, Including one where over 100 rounds were fired and several using Firearms banned for nearly 25 Years, and the Melbourne Gang wars have had a several shootings recently...

You'll probably point to the oft-cited graph of 'Gun deaths' - but that includes Suicides, a Graph which was declining well before the Gun Ban.

All I'm going to say is they've had 2 buy backs (1996, 2003) and the estimates range from 80% of Semis would handed in to as low as 40%.

Seems like semantics, the law change addresses both in equally measure. I've attached a list of incidents between 08 and 17, excluding the countries you listed, and including only ones where firearm was a weapon, and which resulted in fatalities; there are 18207 listed in the Global Terrorism Database, the export is limited to 1000, assuming 40% of even the export make it past your goalposts as above, it clearly dwarves the count of Truck incidents you have supplied; which you should probably list also, to ensure they too pass your goalposts...

Such violence in a single incident is a statistical anomaly for truck attacks, however there are many shooting with more than 50 killed by one perp, and many shootings with more than 100 killed by more than one perp.
Don't think flora is generally dealt to with a gun mate, and there is an exception to the ban for pest control purposes, and not all guns are banned so private pest control can continue.

Little to none? so they don't get stolen at all? I'd think a gun register would do fuck all to stop crime. So lawfully owned guns are used to commit crimes. And the law change would have prevented the Christchurch terrorist from obtaining the weapons he used through the channel he used. How can you possibly say this change will do nothing but penalise law abiding citizens after what you have just admitted? Clearly it would have at least penalised the perpetrator of the even that caused the law change, and through that potentially even limited the violence he committed.

And what if you remove the suicides from that gun death graph, then what would it show?

[pritch]

www.americanthinker.com/articles/2004/08/the_last_big_lie_of_vietnam_ki.html

vietnamwar.fandom.com/wiki/M1_carbine under combat use, notably in The Philippines

I'm at something of a loss to know why you posted those, they support my point. Most NZ infantry carried 7.62mm SLRs.

Interesting comment in the first link about the tumbling bullets. Ballistics involve considerable arithmetic, one formula is Greenhill's Equation which is used to calculate the rifling twist required to stabilise a bullet of a given length. If there is a mismatch the bullet will not stabilise which can result in the projectile tumbling in flight. Unlikely as it may seem, it may well be that the engineers at Colt just got a sum wrong. The error would have been corrected quickly but it didn't stop a lot of crap being written.

As bullet design changes so the twist of the 223 rifles has had to change. Apparently recent developments in bullet construction are causing yet another rifling rate of twist to be considered.

[aNZBloke]

I'm at something of a loss to know why you posted those, they support my point. Most NZ infantry carried 7.62mm SLRs.

....
Unlikely as it may seem, it may well be that the engineers at Colt just got a sum wrong. The error would have been corrected quickly but it didn't stop a lot of crap being written.



I made the remark that there is a valid reason for having a semi automatic, e.g. when hunting boars in the undergrowth. I may take more than one shot to stop a boar. Similarly to that at times it took more than one shot to stop a Vietnamese freedom fighter. The latter was questioned, hence these links.

Colt did not get it totally wrong, it was the change of explosive that fouled the mechanism causing it to jam. Change of ammo stopped the problem of jamming. The change of rifling is the questionable one. I had a M16 and I liked it, just did not like the handle but liked the ability to move the bolt manually. Later I had an AR10 and that worked fine from a helicopter, was not impressed with the M16 in that role.

[TheDemonLord]

Seems like semantics, the law change addresses both in equally measure. I've attached a list of incidents between 08 and 17, excluding the countries you listed, and including only ones where firearm was a weapon, and which resulted in fatalities; there are 18207 listed in the Global Terrorism Database, the export is limited to 1000, assuming 40% of even the export make it past your goalposts as above, it clearly dwarves the count of Truck incidents you have supplied; which you should probably list also, to ensure they too pass your goalposts...

What a lovely little Spreadsheet, and if the Meaning of 'GunCertain 1' is to be what I presume it to be, then that gives a total of:

14 Fatalities due to Firearms.

(when Countries with active Conflicts/Civil Wars are filitered out and GunCertain 1 is set to 1 {there's a value of 1 and 0, so presumably it's a binary where 1 is true and 0 is false})


Such violence in a single incident is a statistical anomaly for truck attacks, however there are many shooting with more than 50 killed by one perp, and many shootings with more than 100 killed by more than one perp.

With the Exception of America (which is a unique - for various reasons), there aren't that many mass shootings, even in countries that allow for the ownership of Semi or even Fully Automatic Weapons. They are as Statistically Anomalous as the Truck attacks are.


Don't think flora is generally dealt to with a gun mate, and there is an exception to the ban for pest control purposes, and not all guns are banned so private pest control can continue.

Are you sure? I'll give you a hint, most of the Pest Animals eat Flora. Remember when I said unintended Consequences...

As others have pointed out to you - the ability to see a herd of Wild goats, grab your personal AR (~30-60 minutes to go back, open your safe, load a mag travel back to the rough area they were in), crack off 5 rounds before they disappear into the Bush isn't the same as seeing the herd, calling the Pest Control who 'Yeah, Nah, Might be able to fit you in sometime next week' - by which time the Goats have long since fucked off and you are left footing a Bill, for nothing.

But what would Federated Farmers know.... And what would the professional Pest Controllers who are saying they will go out of business Know...


Little to none? so they don't get stolen at all? I'd think a gun register would do fuck all to stop crime.

E-Cat licence holders were subject to a higher level of Safe requirements and also required an additional Security Measure (such as restricted access to the location of the safe) - Point is, that system worked, so why get rid of it?

And based on your last statement - you'll be opposing the next round of Legislation I take it? Writing a Submission pointing out that a Register will do nothing except be a burden on the Tax Payer, the Police and the law-abiding Firearm owner whilst don't fuck all to stop crime, yes?


So lawfully owned guns are used to commit crimes. And the law change would have prevented the Christchurch terrorist from obtaining the weapons he used through the channel he used.

But won't stop the next terrorist from obtaining Weapons. Which is the problem. And you have still yet to address how he was granted the ability to obtain the Firearms in the first place - Do you think an Internet Forum persona is an Acceptable Character Reference?

If the Answer is No, then why are you blaming the Firearm, when the the first link in the chain is how that was allowed to pass for a Firearms Licence?


How can you possibly say this change will do nothing but penalise law abiding citizens after what you have just admitted?

Terrorists will always find a way. Criminals will always find a way. They are still finding Ways in Australia, in the UK - both of which have had Bans in place for over 2 Decades. When the Gangs announced on Public TV they wouldn't hand over their Firearms - what did the Police do?

The only person that will be penalised is the Law Abiding Citizen.


Clearly it would have at least penalised the perpetrator of the even that caused the law change, and through that potentially even limited the violence he committed.

By that logic, everyone should be kept in Isolation, only being allowed out with written permission - afterall that would have at least Penalised the Perpetrator - Right?

That would also limited the Violence he Committed - Right?

Do you want to live in that World? No? Then you have to acknowledge that Freedoms (knowing they will be abused to cause harm) are worth it. We limit the harm that some freedoms can do by licencing and vetting - I'll ask again - is someone from the Internet a valid referee for a Character Reference?


And what if you remove the suicides from that gun death graph, then what would it show?

A relatively flat graph with a slight downward trend that started to decline since about the mid 80's. Meaning that Australias Gun Laws have had:

No.
Discernible.
Effect.

Except for Increase in Pests, like Kangaroos, Wild Pigs etc. Figures indicating that just after the Semi-Auto ban, the Total Economic cost to Invasive Pests was about $2.3 Billion, in 2011 it was closer to $14 Billion.

Remember that 'unintended Consequences' point?

[Graystone]

What a lovely little Spreadsheet, and if the Meaning of 'GunCertain 1' is to be what I presume it to be, then that gives a total of:

14 Fatalities due to Firearms.

(when Countries with active Conflicts/Civil Wars are filitered out and GunCertain 1 is set to 1 {there's a value of 1 and 0, so presumably it's a binary where 1 is true and 0 is false})



With the Exception of America (which is a unique - for various reasons), there aren't that many mass shootings, even in countries that allow for the ownership of Semi or even Fully Automatic Weapons. They are as Statistically Anomalous as the Truck attacks are.



Are you sure? I'll give you a hint, most of the Pest Animals eat Flora. Remember when I said unintended Consequences...

As others have pointed out to you - the ability to see a herd of Wild goats, grab your personal AR (~30-60 minutes to go back, open your safe, load a mag travel back to the rough area they were in), crack off 5 rounds before they disappear into the Bush isn't the same as seeing the herd, calling the Pest Control who 'Yeah, Nah, Might be able to fit you in sometime next week' - by which time the Goats have long since fucked off and you are left footing a Bill, for nothing.

But what would Federated Farmers know.... And what would the professional Pest Controllers who are saying they will go out of business Know...



E-Cat licence holders were subject to a higher level of Safe requirements and also required an additional Security Measure (such as restricted access to the location of the safe) - Point is, that system worked, so why get rid of it?

And based on your last statement - you'll be opposing the next round of Legislation I take it? Writing a Submission pointing out that a Register will do nothing except be a burden on the Tax Payer, the Police and the law-abiding Firearm owner whilst don't fuck all to stop crime, yes?



But won't stop the next terrorist from obtaining Weapons. Which is the problem. And you have still yet to address how he was granted the ability to obtain the Firearms in the first place - Do you think an Internet Forum persona is an Acceptable Character Reference?

If the Answer is No, then why are you blaming the Firearm, when the the first link in the chain is how that was allowed to pass for a Firearms Licence?



Terrorists will always find a way. Criminals will always find a way. They are still finding Ways in Australia, in the UK - both of which have had Bans in place for over 2 Decades. When the Gangs announced on Public TV they wouldn't hand over their Firearms - what did the Police do?

The only person that will be penalised is the Law Abiding Citizen.



By that logic, everyone should be kept in Isolation, only being allowed out with written permission - afterall that would have at least Penalised the Perpetrator - Right?

That would also limited the Violence he Committed - Right?

Do you want to live in that World? No? Then you have to acknowledge that Freedoms (knowing they will be abused to cause harm) are worth it. We limit the harm that some freedoms can do by licencing and vetting - I'll ask again - is someone from the Internet a valid referee for a Character Reference?



A relatively flat graph with a slight downward trend that started to decline since about the mid 80's. Meaning that Australias Gun Laws have had:

No.
Discernible.
Effect.

Except for Increase in Pests, like Kangaroos, Wild Pigs etc. Figures indicating that just after the Semi-Auto ban, the Total Economic cost to Invasive Pests was about $2.3 Billion, in 2011 it was closer to $14 Billion.

Remember that 'unintended Consequences' point?

It's not what you presume it to be, even a cursory glance at the referenced incident could tell you that. That you would take a list of 1000 incidents, and find some excuse to reduce that down to 14 without even the most rudimentary checking (and ignored the other 95% of the list which did not fit into the export), just shows how incredibly biased you are on this issue.

They are not as anomalous as the truck attacks are, since there are far more of them; do you understand what an anomaly is?

Not the same, but also not a huge deal. Grab a bolt action instead. We clearly just have a subjective difference here, so I see no need to comment further on this point.

Did that system work? Were no E-Cat weapons stolen?

Nope, I've got better shit to do than submit on that.

How do you know? It will close off the easy channel to them, thus it will penalize those who are not law abiding.

How the fuck to you pull that logic from my statement? You're losing the plot again it would seem...

Care to share that graph with the suicides removed then? Or perhaps you are making shit up that you want to be true rather than checking...

[jasonu]

I wonder why these fellas haven't handed over their guns yet???
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12232207

[husaberg]

A survey done in 1988 which showed there were 50,00 big game hunters - 40,000 of them hunting deer -
but one third did not kill any animals, and most of the others killed fewer than three animals a year.

So you have 24,242 active deer hunters only in NZ out of 250,000 licenced gun owners
Altogether killing only on average 3 deer per year. yet some suggest they all need aemi autos. so 6% hunt deer. of those probably 80% would use bolt action rifles (my Guess)
of the rest targeting other animals there is only 10,000 hunters of big game.
of the 10,000s remaining hunters they kill on average 99,000 pigs or ten per year 60% hunt with dogs so normally slit the throat of the cornered pig.
These hunters kill the majority of pigs Yet We have some suggesting they all need semi autos.
Just for their safety though, everyone else's safety is less important than theirs:facepalm:

[jasonu]

A survey done in 1988 which showed there were 50,00 big game hunters - 40,000 of them hunting deer -
but one third did not kill any animals, and most of the others killed fewer than three animals a year.

So you have 24,242 active deer hunters only in NZ out of 250,000 licenced gun owners
Altogether killing only on average 3 deer per year. yet some suggest they all need aemi autos. so 6% hunt deer. of those probably 80% would use bolt action rifles (my Guess)
of the rest targeting other animals there is only 10,000 hunters of big game.
of the 10,000s remaining hunters they kill on average 99,000 pigs or ten per year 60% hunt with dogs so normally slit the throat of the cornered pig.
These hunters kill the majority of pigs Yet We have some suggesting they all need semi autos.
Just for their safety though, everyone else's safety is less important than theirs:facepalm:

So what's your point?

[husaberg]

A survey done in 1988 which showed there were 50,00 big game hunters - 40,000 of them hunting deer -
but one third did not kill any animals, and most of the others killed fewer than three animals a year.

So you have 24,242 active deer hunters only in NZ out of 250,000 licenced gun owners
Altogether killing only on average 3 deer per year. yet some suggest they all need aemi autos. so 6% hunt deer. of those probably 80% would use bolt action rifles (my Guess)
of the rest targeting other animals there is only 10,000 hunters of big game.
of the 10,000s remaining hunters they kill on average 99,000 pigs or ten per year 60% hunt with dogs so normally slit the throat of the cornered pig.
These hunters kill the majority of pigs Yet We have some suggesting they all need semi autos.
Just for their safety though, everyone else's safety is less important than theirs:facepalm:



So what's your point?
I would have thought that was obvious.
People that live in American and vote republican have low IQ's poor reading, reasoning and comprehension skills.

[jasonu]

I would have thought that was obvious.
People that live in American and vote republican have low IQ's poor reading, reasoning and comprehension skills.

Thanks to the Federal government Oregon (the state I live in) now has a several billion dollar cash excess which they will hand out to the Oregon tax payers in the form of a tax kicker. Trumps fault...
I'm going to use my refund to buy a few more guns.

[husaberg]

Thanks to the Federal government Oregon (the state I live in) now has a several billion dollar cash excess which they will hand out to the Oregon tax payers in the form of a tax kicker. Trumps fault...
I'm going to use my refund to buy a few more guns.

Cool we will just keep on having twice as many public holidays as Oregon. how many public holidays do you have a year in Oregon is it still 5 days.
Plus not being the place where they sentenced women to death for being witches.
A higher min wage
Lower unemployment
Free healthcare.
lower crime in NZ 28 times lower.
332 times lower murder rate in NZ
you are 75 times less likely for your wife or girlfriend sister or mother raped in NZ
there is also 100% less Americans in NZ.

[jasonu]

Cool we will just keep on having twice as many public holidays as Oregon. how many public holidays do you have a year in Oregon is it still 5 days.
Plus not being the place where they sentenced women to death for being witches.
A higher min wage
Lower unemployment
Free healthcare.
lower crime in NZ 28 times lower.
332 times lower murder rate in NZ
you are 75 times less likely for your wife or girlfriend sister or mother raped in NZ
there is also 100% less Americans in NZ.

Is that all you've got? You sound desperate.

[husaberg]

Is that all you've got? You sound desperate.


Most people would consider being 332 times more likely as significant, but who am i to say Americans don't want their loved ones being 75 times more likely to be raped.:whistle:
or 332 times more likely to be killed.
But for most kiwis the 100% less Americans is more than enough.
Ps your av tax rate is the same as kiwis but you get a shit load less for it.
Nor does Oregon laws make employers pay vacation leave at all let alone the 4 weeks everyone gets in NZ
Nor does it entitle someone to get paid time and a half for working a public holiday let alone getting a day off in leu plus 1.5 times.
Shit Oregon doesn't even rate in the top 20 states in the US let alone the top countries in the world for quality of life.
https://www.homesnacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/best-states-for-2019.png

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings

[jasonu]

Most people would consider being 332 times more likely as significant, but who am i to say Americans don't want their loved ones being 75 times more likely to be raped.:whistle:
or 332 times more likely to be killed.
But for most kiwis the 100% less Americans is more than enough.
Ps your av tax rate is the same as kiwis but you get a shit load less for it.
Nor does Oregon laws make employers pay vacation leave at all let alone the 4 weeks everyone gets in NZ
Nor does it entitle someone to get paid time and a half for working a public holiday let alone getting a day off in leu plus 1.5 times.
Shit Oregon doesn't even rate in the top 20 states in the US let alone the top countries in the world for quality of life.
https://www.homesnacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/best-states-for-2019.png

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings

Been there have you?

[husaberg]

Been there have you?

To all the countries in the world no, Have you been a Muslim, or a victim of gun violence, a black person, or any any minority, a women.
Have you ever needed to have an abortion as you were raped? i havent but i certainly would deny someone the optionn or suggest any group had lesser human rights.
Funny how You feel living in the USA qualifies you to have an opinion but not others.

I guess when you have nothing to counter the facts you have to resort to personal attacks.
Much like the NRA'a propaganda on how to distort the facts that you also use. (By shear co=incidence of course)
If the USA really was the land of the free and the home of the brave you might be able to take criticism and make the tough decisions rather than pandering to the religion and a cashed up gun an oil lobby.

[TheDemonLord]

It's not what you presume it to be, even a cursory glance at the referenced incident could tell you that. That you would take a list of 1000 incidents, and find some excuse to reduce that down to 14 without even the most rudimentary checking (and ignored the other 95% of the list which did not fit into the export), just shows how incredibly biased you are on this issue.

Then it seems you have a bit of explaining to do as to what your data means then - because 'GunCertain 1' would tend to indicate that the incident was Certain that a Gun was present with One of the attackers.


They are not as anomalous as the truck attacks are, since there are far more of them; do you understand what an anomaly is?

Is it something like one in 30 years? Is that about right?


Not the same, but also not a huge deal. Grab a bolt action instead. We clearly just have a subjective difference here, so I see no need to comment further on this point.

I agree we have a Subjective Difference here - that's kinda the issue. You have one view on it, where regardless of the outcome you don't experience a negative outcome and you are disregarding those who have a different view, those who do experience the Negative Outcome.

As for Grabbing a Bolt Action. You've got likely less than 100 Meters from the Herds starting location to where they become obscured - that's about 15 seconds worth of time - With a Semi-Auto in 5.56, that's 15 shots (Most of an Average Herd size), aimed on target comfortably. With a Bolt action (using the Mad Minute standard on an SMLE) - it's 3 shots.


Did that system work? Were no E-Cat weapons stolen?

No Murders were committed by Registered E-Cat rifles in 30 years that I could find.


Nope, I've got better shit to do than submit on that.

Clearly....


How do you know? It will close off the easy channel to them, thus it will penalize those who are not law abiding.

Step 1: Go to local Criminal Element
Step 2: Present large sums of Cash
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Firearm.

Care to point out the difficulty there?


How the fuck to you pull that logic from my statement? You're losing the plot again it would seem...

I'm taking the 'reduction of individual freedoms for the sake of reducing harm' to it's logical Extreme to show it's an untenable argument. I thought it was quite obvious....


Care to share that graph with the suicides removed then? Or perhaps you are making shit up that you want to be true rather than checking...

See the Blue line, with a gradual downward slope:

https://indaily.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Screen-Shot-2017-11-03-at-10.00.12-am.png

[Graystone]

Then it seems you have a bit of explaining to do as to what your data means then - because 'GunCertain 1' would tend to indicate that the incident was Certain that a Gun was present with One of the attackers.



Is it something like one in 30 years? Is that about right?



I agree we have a Subjective Difference here - that's kinda the issue. You have one view on it, where regardless of the outcome you don't experience a negative outcome and you are disregarding those who have a different view, those who do experience the Negative Outcome.

As for Grabbing a Bolt Action. You've got likely less than 100 Meters from the Herds starting location to where they become obscured - that's about 15 seconds worth of time - With a Semi-Auto in 5.56, that's 15 shots (Most of an Average Herd size), aimed on target comfortably. With a Bolt action (using the Mad Minute standard on an SMLE) - it's 3 shots.



No Murders were committed by Registered E-Cat rifles in 30 years that I could find.



Clearly....



Step 1: Go to local Criminal Element
Step 2: Present large sums of Cash
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Firearm.

Care to point out the difficulty there?



I'm taking the 'reduction of individual freedoms for the sake of reducing harm' to it's logical Extreme to show it's an untenable argument. I thought it was quite obvious....



See the Blue line, with a gradual downward slope:

https://indaily.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Screen-Shot-2017-11-03-at-10.00.12-am.png

Don't be such an idiot, firstly, it is GUNCERTAIN, not GunCertain, which is important, since it means Group Uncertain; ie, a flag to indicate that it is not certain that the group who claimed or was attributed to the attack, actually made it (a massive hint is that there are GUNCERTAIN columns for each listed perpetrator). This is why it is important to read things properly, rather than simply looking for what you want to see. Anyone with a pair of brain cells to rub together would understand that when presented with a database of 18 thousand gun related incidents causing death, it would be absurd to try say there were '14 fatalities due to firearms'.

It means different and abnormal, which can be on a scale; things that happen more often, are less abnormal / anomalous you see.

Which is not what I asked, were there none stolen?

Identifying criminal element, and finding large sums of cash, while not insurmountable, are more difficult than buying one legally. You argument would have more weight if you accepted the blindingly obvious instead of showing your bias time and time again by denying it.

Which is a logical fallacy, so thanks for proving my point.

Quite a drop from 96 to 02 it seems, the rate halved in about 8 years, nowhere else on the graph does that happen. Did anything of note happen around 1996?

[TheDemonLord]

Don't be such an idiot, firstly, it is GUNCERTAIN, not GunCertain, which is important, since it means Group Uncertain; ie, a flag to indicate that it is not certain that the group who claimed or was attributed to the attack, actually made it (a massive hint is that there are GUNCERTAIN columns for each listed perpetrator). This is why it is important to read things properly, rather than simply looking for what you want to see. Anyone with a pair of brain cells to rub together would understand that when presented with a database of 18 thousand gun related incidents causing death, it would be absurd to try say there were '14 fatalities due to firearms'.

Fair enough, that's why it's important to clarify things, Given the Context, it's not an unreasonable presumption, as for each perpetrator - well, that's whether or not each perpetrator was confirmed to have a Firearm - but, Clarification accepted: I'll re-look at the Spreadsheet.


It means different and abnormal, which can be on a scale; things that happen more often, are less abnormal / anomalous you see.

Like a single mass shooting in nearly 30 years - that would be Different and Abnormal yes?


Which is not what I asked, were there none stolen?

I know it's not what you asked - The NZ Police haven't published data to answer that Question. The important point is that they have not been used in Murders, in 30 years. That's the part you ignore. So clearly, that system worked and there was no reason for it to be removed.


Identifying criminal element, and finding large sums of cash, while not insurmountable, are more difficult than buying one legally. You argument would have more weight if you accepted the blindingly obvious instead of showing your bias time and time again by denying it.

You can Google gang Headquarters locations. They aren't exactly known for Subtlety, Subterfuge and Misdirection.
Let's assume the cost is double the current market rate - that's $3k for an AR-15, $6-7k for an AR-10, well within personal Loan limits, Even within Loan Shark limits (and if your intent is Mayhem, you aren't going to be worrying about Repayments)

Again - to someone hellbent on chaos, not exactly the huge hurdle you are making it out to be.

And we haven't even brought 3D printed receivers into the Mix yet.


Which is a logical fallacy, so thanks for proving my point.

It's Reductio ad Absurdum, which isn't inherently fallacious. Try again.


Quite a drop from 96 to 02 it seems, the rate halved in about 8 years, nowhere else on the graph does that happen. Did anything of note happen around 1996?

There's the same drop from about 1986-1994.

If you flatten out 1996 (ie removing the anomalous Port Arthur Massacre), then it shows a steady, downward trend that pre-dates the Gun Ban.

[Graystone]

Fair enough, that's why it's important to clarify things, Given the Context, it's not an unreasonable presumption, as for each perpetrator - well, that's whether or not each perpetrator was confirmed to have a Firearm - but, Clarification accepted: I'll re-look at the Spreadsheet.



Like a single mass shooting in nearly 30 years - that would be Different and Abnormal yes?



I know it's not what you asked - The NZ Police haven't published data to answer that Question. The important point is that they have not been used in Murders, in 30 years. That's the part you ignore. So clearly, that system worked and there was no reason for it to be removed.



You can Google gang Headquarters locations. They aren't exactly known for Subtlety, Subterfuge and Misdirection.
Let's assume the cost is double the current market rate - that's $3k for an AR-15, $6-7k for an AR-10, well within personal Loan limits, Even within Loan Shark limits (and if your intent is Mayhem, you aren't going to be worrying about Repayments)

Again - to someone hellbent on chaos, not exactly the huge hurdle you are making it out to be.

And we haven't even brought 3D printed receivers into the Mix yet.



It's Reductio ad Absurdum, which isn't inherently fallacious. Try again.



There's the same drop from about 1986-1994.

If you flatten out 1996 (ie removing the anomalous Port Arthur Massacre), then it shows a steady, downward trend that pre-dates the Gun Ban.

Also why it's important not to jump to unreasonable conclusions based on your bias...

Yes, it's abnormal for NZ, but not so much for the world. Your truck example has never happened in NZ, and is abnormal for the world. So you see how one of these things is more abnormal than the other?

What huge hurdle? I said it was not just law abiding citizens that would be penalised. As for googling gang headquarters and going there to ask to purchase black market weapons, are you off your meds?

86 to 94 is about 0.65 to 0.45, that isn't halving. Or are you expecting the same absolute drop rather than percentage? Because you know that not how trends work right?

[jasonu]

Good job the police are rounding up the guns from seemingly law abiding citizens...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12234369

[Swoop]

It appears that I was wrong when I made the comment of the confiscation buy-back costing 1 Billion dollars.

KPMG are using 2 Billion dollars as an internal costing figure at the moment. Perhaps they have factored in the hi-capacity pistol magazines which seem on the list for the "second trance" of confiscations.

[scumdog]

Yes, it's abnormal for NZ, but not so much for the world. Your truck example has never happened in NZ, and is abnormal for the world. So you see how one of these things is more abnormal than the other?


?

Ah, but a massacre of the magnitude of the Christchurch one had not happened prior to to this year - but it DID happen.

No guarantees a truck wont be used for the next massacre

[scumdog]

Colt did not get it totally wrong, it was the change of explosive that fouled the mechanism causing it to jam. Change of ammo stopped the problem of jamming. The change of rifling is the questionable one. I had a M16 and I liked it, just did not like the handle but liked the ability to move the bolt manually. Later I had an AR10 and that worked fine from a helicopter, was not impressed with the M16 in that role.

Yep, the type of propellant was the culprit - and was supplied as a result of a back-hand deal between a politician and a propellant manufacturer.

Said propellant was not to the specs required by the designer of the M16.

Who would have thought a politician could screw something up???

[pritch]

Yep, the type of propellant was the culprit - and was supplied as a result of a back-hand deal between a politician and a propellant manufacturer.


That accounts for the fouling problem but not for the tumbling bullet fiasco.

[Swoop]

So, the budgeted amount for the entire confiscation scheme is $150 million.

Really?

[scumdog]

So, the budgeted amount for the entire confiscation scheme is $150 million.

Really?

Well after paying for my guns what is the other 75 million going to be used for??:wings:

[eldog]

Well after paying for my guns what is the other 75 million going to be used for??:wings:

Administration, disposal, supervision of said disposal, bank and admin fees,consultants, accountants, lawyers, social workers, feel good meetings, several news letters saying how wonderful things are now, freight, secure storage etc. Then chuck on GST etc

then if this is so easy, why don’t we ban motorcycles next. Harley’s only worth $5 and a bag of chips right:shifty:

[caseye]

Administration, disposal, supervision of said disposal, bank and admin fees,consultants, accountants, lawyers, social workers, feel good meetings, several news letters saying how wonderful things are now, freight, secure storage etc. Then chuck on GST etc

then if this is so easy, why don’t we ban motorcycles next. Harley’s only worth $5 and a bag of chips right:shifty:

Hey He's back!@#$@! Nah, Ok, it just sounded like him.
Oh well. All we need is for one poor sap to accidentally run into a large gathering of like minded souls cause da brakes failed an it'll be curtains for thosr rolls can hardleys.Gubbermint will snap them up with pots of cash,cause their owners won't give up without a real fight.:Punk:

[Swoop]

Well after paying for my guns what is the other 75 million going to be used for??:wings:

Did you see the "depreciation on firearms" on tonights news?
It seems the paper shufflers rate firearms at "20% depreciation per year"... AND a lifetime of 10years per firearm! :rofl:

Fucking hilarious!

[jasonu]

Did you see the "depreciation on firearms" on tonights news?
It seems the paper shufflers rate firearms at "20% depreciation per year"... AND a lifetime of 10years per firearm! :rofl:

Fucking hilarious!

Yep that is a joke. A decent brand new firearm is worth a little less just used then holds its value as long as nothing bad happens to it.

[husaberg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqQn2ADZE1A

[jasonu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqQn2ADZE1A

Another failure bought to you by the NZ labour party

[husaberg]

Another failure bought to you by the NZ labour party

Yeah as we all know National forgets to ask permission or pay for their songs.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11936632
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/oct/25/eminem-wins-600000-after-new-zealand-political-party-breached-his-copyright

[jasonu]

But National...]

10 characters

[husaberg]

10 characters

Funny how when it comes down to it you always come up a little short.
Maybe you would appear smarter, if you were not actually clearly projecting your inadequacies onto others.
The NZ firearms law has changed it had overwhelming support from all the real political parties. Also the vast majority of voters grow up get over it.

[jasonu]

Funny how when it comes down to it you always come up a little short.
Maybe you would appear smarter, if you were not actually clearly projecting your inadequacies onto others.
The NZ firearms law has changed it had overwhelming support from all the real political parties. Also the vast majority of voters grow up get over it.

Fuck off.
10 characters

[husaberg]

Fuck off.
10 characters
https://www.picclickimg.com/d/l400/pict/112387992400_/Tiny-Donald-Trump-Hand-Stroke-your-cat-Dog.jpg
There you go again, coming up short yet again.
https://meme.xyz/uploads/posts/t/l-2187-stormy-daniels-releases-pic-of-her-performing-sexual-act-on-president-donald-trump.jpg
Maybe you should just stick to the NRA script.
Only problem is the NRA script doesn't cover the will of the majority of the people of NZ and Australia outlawing firearms that are not needed.
Or the Swiss doing the same despite the US gun lobby holding them up as a leading light.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zug_massacre
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48328867


In the case of the US the NRA despite massive spending is also failing.
60% of US voters want stricter Gun Control
75% say they want a 30 day waiting period upon purchasing a firearm
96% want universal background checks
77% of democrats and 48% republicans supporting a ban on assault riffles.
Only 30% of US voters own guns


Also you "rarely clever" gun lobby types here don't seem to appreciate is the more this law change costs, with regards to the buy back, the less likely to will ever be repealed,becuase this money would have been wasted so go ahead keep on claiming the cost are climbing ever higher . You are only helping the cause further.

[Pound]

Yet another article highlighting just how screwed up the current system is....

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/113162509/armed-police-seize-ar15-rifle-from-home-of-man-living-with-former-gang-member

[pritch]

Listening to the Minister of Police on the radio this morning, he mentioned that the figure proposed for the buy back scheme isn't all for buying back guns, IIRC he said sixty million is for administration of the scheme.

He explained that "business users" should have written off the cost of any firearms over five years. Presumably he considers they don't qualify for any additional payment for firearms they've had for that time.

The police are still working on how to calculate the value of privately owned firearms. He says he wants to be fair but he doesn't want to spend any extra money above their estimate.

Listening to him wasn't particularly reassuring.

[jasonu]

Yet another article highlighting just how screwed up the current system is....

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/113162509/armed-police-seize-ar15-rifle-from-home-of-man-living-with-former-gang-member

seized 6 .22 bullets. Great job NZ Fuzz...

[jasonu]

Listening to him wasn't particularly reassuring.

Sounds like a total fiasco run by fucking clueless morons.

[Swoop]

The police are still working on how to calculate the value of privately owned firearms. He says he wants to be fair but he doesn't want to spend any extra money above their estimate.

Listening to him wasn't particularly reassuring.

The only value that "should" be used, is the current resale value. They originally mentioned BetradeMe as a baseline reference, but auctions around the country will also give a good guide too (Carvell's, Antique Arms Assn, etc, etc).
It is becoming more obvious that they intend to try and do the confiscation on the cheap.

[jasonu]

The only value that "should" be used, is the current resale value. They originally mentioned BetradeMe as a baseline reference, but auctions around the country will also give a good guide too (Carvell's, Antique Arms Assn, etc, etc).
It is becoming more obvious that they intend to try and do the confiscation on the cheap.

Unless mistreated firearms don't loose much value from the new price. It's not like vehicles where a new better model shows up every couple of years. My Rock River Arms AR15 cost $950 new 8 years ago and resales now for around $800. It will hold that value for pretty much forever.

[Swoop]

The prices for confiscated firearms is being released tomorrow (according to Te News) and you will not get back what you paid for each firearm.
Not even retail price.

[jasonu]

The prices for confiscated firearms is being released tomorrow (according to Te News) and you will not get back what you paid for each firearm.
Not even retail price.


You''' be lucky to get 1/2 what you paid.
My guess is 1/3 retail.

[Pound]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/113628781/government-gun-buyback-scheme-funding-boosted-to-208m-with-acc-money

I wonder how many will simply not hand their guns in........

[husaberg]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/113628781/government-gun-buyback-scheme-funding-boosted-to-208m-with-acc-money

I wonder how many will simply not hand their guns in........

The ones that dont will be criminals.
Which is exactly what the gun lobby and other on here claimed ad nausea that they were not.........
So simply put, if they cant comply with the NZ firearms law.
Why exactly should they have firearms in the first place. How exactly are they any different than any other criminal.

[Katman]

The ones that dont will be criminals.
Which is exactly what the gun lobby and other on here claimed ad nausea that they were not.........
So simply put, if they cant comply with the NZ firearms law.
Why exactly should they have firearms in the first place. How exactly are they any different than any other criminal.

You have the reasoning skills of a 6 year old.

[austingtir]

You have the reasoning skills of a 6 year old.

Your being to kind.

[husaberg]

You have the reasoning skills of a 6 year old.

Go on then, maybe you can explain, how those that don't obey the law and hand in their now illegal firearms as the law clearly directs them to, are not criminals then?
It will be interesting seeing how you explain that one.
Especially seeing as you have declared yourself to be in possession of superior reasoning skills.
Unless of course your reasoning skill are actually less than what you ascribe as being a 6 year old's ability.

[Katman]

Go on then, maybe you can explain, how those that don't obey the law and hand in their now illegal firearms as the law clearly directs them to, are not criminals then?
It will be interesting seeing how you explain that one.
Especially seeing as you have declared yourself to be in possession of superior reasoning skills.
Unless of course your reasoning skill are actually less than what you ascribe as being a 6 year old's ability.

How is it any different to the powers that be deciding that too many people are being injured or dying on higher cc motorcycles and overnight demanding that people hand in any motorcycles that they own over 500 cc?

[husaberg]

How is it any different to the powers that be deciding that too many people are being injured or dying on higher cc motorcycles and overnight demanding that people hand in any motorcycles they own over 500 cc?

Sounds like the reasoning of a 5 year old ,answer the question or slink off back to the conspiracy threads.
Here is a hint, you dont get to pick and choose to follow what laws you consider just. Unless you are a criminal.

[Katman]

Sounds like the reasoning of a 5 year old ,answer the question or slink off back to the conspiracy threads.
Here is a hint, you dont get to pick and choose to follow what laws you consider just. Unless you are a criminal.

So you'd expect everyone to happily hand in their >500 cc motorcycles in the above scenario - and if they refused, you'd view them as criminals?

[husaberg]

The ones that dont will be criminals.
Which is exactly what the gun lobby and other on here claimed ad nausea that they were not.........
So simply put, if they cant comply with the NZ firearms law.
Why exactly should they have firearms in the first place. How exactly are they any different than any other criminal.


You have the reasoning skills of a 6 year old.


Go on then, maybe you can explain, how those that don't obey the law and hand in their now illegal firearms as the law clearly directs them to, are not criminals then?
It will be interesting seeing how you explain that one.
Especially seeing as you have declared yourself to be in possession of superior reasoning skills.
Unless of course your reasoning skill are actually less than what you ascribe as being a 6 year old's ability.


How is it any different to the powers that be deciding that too many people are being injured or dying on higher cc motorcycles and overnight demanding that people hand in any motorcycles that they own over 500 cc?


Sounds like the reasoning of a 5 year old ,answer the question or slink off back to the conspiracy threads.
Here is a hint, you dont get to pick and choose to follow what laws you consider just. Unless you are a criminal.


So you'd expect everyone to happily hand in their >500 cc motorcycles in the above scenario - and if they refused, you'd view them as criminals?

Answer the question as posed or go back to your little conspiracy circle jerk. Its like you, that simple.
The fact you cant simply answer it despite haveing multiple attempts suggests you cant rationalise your answer after-all, which is exactly what i suspected in the first place.

[Katman]

Why exactly should they have firearms in the first place.

Because 'in the first place' the firearms were legal when purchased.

[husaberg]

Because 'in the first place' the firearms were legal when purchased.

Answer the question or go away..........
Only a fool or a 5 year old thinks its not criminal to pick and choose what laws they choose to obey.

[pritch]

Your being to kind.

Does that mean something like, "You're being too kind"?

[Pound]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/113658248/leading-new-zealand-ammunition-seller-warns-of-revolution-over-governments-gun-buyback-scheme

Well I could already see this happening.....:Police:

[pritch]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/113658248/leading-new-zealand-ammunition-seller-warns-of-revolution-over-governments-gun-buyback-scheme

Well I could already see this happening.....:Police:

That guy is given to hyperbole. Violent revolution in Godzone? Nah apathy rules.

[Pound]

That guy is given to hyperbole. Violent revolution in Godzone? Nah apathy rules.

When asked by host Lisa Owen what he meant by "revolution", Clark said "Literally, what I just said. What have you got to lose? What other alternatives have you got in life?"



He is not doing gun owners any favors with that extreme reasoning.....

[Oakie]

The prices for confiscated firearms is being released tomorrow (according to Te News) and you will not get back what you paid for each firearm.
Not even retail price.


You''' be lucky to get 1/2 what you paid.
My guess is 1/3 retail.

Well I'm getting $420 back for the rifle I paid $76 dollars for in 1979. Oh, and $105 for each of the three magazines I have. $735 all up. But yeah ... I'd rather keep the rifle.

[jasonu]

Well I'm getting $420 back for the rifle I paid $76 dollars for in 1979. Oh, and $105 for each of the three magazines I have. $735 all up. But yeah ... I'd rather keep the rifle.

Haha now that is funny shit.

[Oakie]

The way I read it though it's not my semi automatic .22 that's illegal in itself. It's when I plug in a 15 shot magazine that it becomes illegal. If I hand in the 3 x 15 shot mags I have and then buy a 10 shot magazine then I'm all legal. You guys agree?

Actually quite tempted to hand it all in, take the money and then buy a cheap bolt action with a 5 shot mag.

[husaberg]

The way I read it though it's not my semi automatic .22 that's illegal in itself. It's when I plug in a 15 shot magazine that it becomes illegal. If I hand in the 3 x 15 shot mags I have and then buy a 10 shot magazine then I'm all legal. You guys agree?

Actually quite tempted to hand it all in, take the money and then buy a cheap bolt action with a 5 shot mag.

From what i understand because it is "capable of having" the lag cap mag fitted it is illegal as it currently sits

SCratch thatsorry no its legal
https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearms-and-safety/changes-firearms-law-prohibited-firearms/information-prohibited-firearms

ist of legal and prohibited firearms
Firearm type
Action
Prohibited firearm
.22 rimfire or smaller
Bolt
No - but note that a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is prohibited.
.22 rimfire or smaller
Lever
No - but note that a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is prohibited.
.22 rimfire or smaller

Semi-auto
No - if it has magazine holding 10 rounds or less.
Yes - if it has a magazine holding more than 10
if it was over 22 rimfire it wuld be illegal

[austingtir]

Well I'm getting $420 back for the rifle I paid $76 dollars for in 1979. Oh, and $105 for each of the three magazines I have. $735 all up. But yeah ... I'd rather keep the rifle.

Vote NEW CONSERVATIVE and you probably will get to keep your rifle in any configuration.

https://www.facebook.com/NewConservativeNZ/photos/a.177639248979087/2310514875691503/?type=3&theater

https://scontent.fakl8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/64977757_2310514882358169_7923525460602912768_n.jp g?_nc_cat=102&_nc_oc=AQnZU5QHbd4aU2njyHeGxl1rNMtdNBNbDLurE2UWGbm 5eTBOBY7ibHs9MoZY8sqDOg8&_nc_ht=scontent.fakl8-1.fna&oh=c4ddfa2b234d9b6c94e5d0f6512b36d7&oe=5DBCDD7C


Anybody that thinks this inept government is going to be able to get everyone to hand their guns in before they get booted out in 2020 is dreaming.


My suggestion to everyone if they do go ahead with it is to "sell" the gun to someone else (you dont have to provide proof for category A).

Or just put it in your gun safe and if the police ask tell them to come get it. No need to make it easy for them unless your going to get arrested.

This entire thing is nothing more than a gun grab to disarm the general populace. It will have zero effect on any future shootings because they are not doing a thing to fix the actual problems.

[husaberg]

To the people who think is good idea not to hand in their rifle

The police drill where a suspected is suspected to be armed is a raid prior to dawn with 10 -20 armed officers.
The two people on here who have suggested they will not hand back their now prohibited weapon and have suggested others do the same have had their names and address given to police.:msn-wink:
I am sure a political party will enjoy having their name associated with someone suggesting people brake the law.
It is also against site rules to encourage or solicit people to break the law

[austingtir]

To the people who think is good idea not to hand in their rifle

The police drill where a suspected is suspected to be armed is a raid prior to dawn with 10 -20 armed officers.
The two people on here who have suggested they will not hand back their now prohibited weapon and have suggested others do the same have had their names and address given to police.:msn-wink:
I am sure a political party will enjoy having their name associated with someone suggesting people brake the law.


There you go doxxing people again.

Are the mods going to boot this guy or not?


The police cant raid every gun owners property in NZ. They cant dig up every gun owners property looking for the guns.

Your not scaring anybody other than yourself.


BTW I dont have a gun or a gun license.





















































Or maybe I handed my gun license in and buried my gun. You'll never know.

[Katman]

The two people on here who have suggested they will not hand back their now prohibited weapon and have suggested others do the same have had their names and address given to police.

:killingme




No, seriously.......:killingme

[husaberg]

:killingme




No, seriously.......:killingme

I cant wait to you try and go through customs next time either:msn-wink:
https://www.aseanbriefing.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/rubber-gloves.png

[Katman]

I cant wait to you try and go through customs next time either:msn-wink:

I'll be going through customs in about 4 weeks time.

Let them know.

[husaberg]

I'll be going through customs in about 4 weeks time.

Let them know.

I dont need to............you probably enjoy it so much, you dob yourself in for the free prostate exam anyway
Do you even have a firearm to hand in or have you even shot a firearm in your life or had a licence. Or are you here just for the trolling like yokel.

[Katman]

From what i understand because it is "capable of having" the lag cap mag fitted it is illegal as it currently sits

SCratch thatsorry no its legal
https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearms-and-safety/changes-firearms-law-prohibited-firearms/information-prohibited-firearms

You really don't know shit from clay, do you?

[husaberg]

You really don't know shit from clay, do you?

Shit is what you talk. Clay is what people shoot with firearms.
You do a lot of one and none of the other..........
If we added up your IQ with Austngtir/Yokel times the result by two, then added a zero, it still wouldn't make triple digits.
But seeing as this is the firemerm thread please keep to topic.

[Swoop]

This entire thing is nothing more than a gun grab to disarm the general populace. It will have zero effect on any future shootings because they are not doing a thing to fix the actual problems.

An increasingly relevant point is the "gathering points" to hand in firearms. It has been indicated that there will be designated locations such like a racecourse, where people can take along their firearms and "hand them over" in the confiscation.

This drips of "propaganda opportunity" for the gubbinment, when there will be armed police escorting law-abiding citizens. Obviously there will then be all the photo-op's of firearms being thrown onto piles ready for the crusher.


Propaganda 101, perhaps...

[Laava]

This entire thing is nothing more than a gun grab to disarm the general populace. It will have zero effect on any future shootings because they are not doing a thing to fix the actual problems.
Totally wrong on two counts.
a, it is not a "gun grab", they are only banning MSSA,s. I do wish you would pay attention. And,
b, your claim it will have zero effect is laughably stupid as there will be "x" amount of the most common type of guns used in these terror style shootings removed from the population and therefore less available to the nutjobs who are going berserk.
Yes, there will still be nutjobs who are likely to go berserk. They will be voting New Conservative.

[jasonu]

The way I read it though it's not my semi automatic .22 that's illegal in itself. It's when I plug in a 15 shot magazine that it becomes illegal. If I hand in the 3 x 15 shot mags I have and then buy a 10 shot magazine then I'm all legal. You guys agree?

.

If that's all true then the NZ law makers should be shot with your gun.

[jasonu]

From what i understand]

But apparently you don't understand.

[jafagsx250]

If that's all true then the NZ law makers should be shot with your gun.Ah. Someone has not read the legislation.

It doesn't matter if you can buy magazines that have more than 10 rounds. As long as you do not possess any you are legal.

Any semi 22 is still legal. Even the Ar15 chambered in 22lr

[jasonu]

Ah. Someone has not read the legislation.

It doesn't matter if you can buy magazines that have more than 10 rounds. As long as you do not possess any you are legal.

Any semi 22 is still legal. Even the Ar15 chambered in 22lr

Yes know the rules.

[jafagsx250]

Yes know the rules.[emoji106]

[scumdog]

Totally wrong on two counts.
a, it is not a "gun grab", they are only banning MSSA,s. I do wish you would pay attention. And,
b, your claim it will have zero effect is laughably stupid as there will be "x" amount of the most common type of guns used in these terror style shootings removed from the population and therefore less available to the nutjobs who are going berserk.
Yes, there will still be nutjobs who are likely to go berserk. They will be voting New Conservative.

Utter Bullshit!

My brothers 15 shot pump action 22 is now illegal as is my 8 shot pump action 12 guage shotty.

[scumdog]

If that's all true then the NZ law makers should be shot with your gun.

Sadly it's true.

And you're also not allowed any parts of and AR, AK etc, not even the sights.

[scumdog]

The ones that dont will be criminals.
Which is exactly what the gun lobby and other on here claimed ad nausea that they were not.........
So simply put, if they cant comply with the NZ firearms law.
Why exactly should they have firearms in the first place. How exactly are they any different than any other criminal.


Emotional waffle especially that last line.

[husaberg]

Emotional waffle especially that last line.

Go on then scummy so do we get to pick and choose now which laws we follow and not be treated as a criminal.......

[scumdog]

Go on then scummy so do we get to pick and choose now which laws we follow and not be treated as a criminal.......


I dunno but you'reclaiming something that has yet to happen.

Come back after December.

[husaberg]

I dunno but you'reclaiming something that has yet to happen.

Come back after December.

The guns became prohibited the day the act was passed
I was pretty clear when i said those that don't hand theirs in. not those that havent

[scumdog]

The guns became prohibited the day the act was passed
I was pretty clear when i said those that don't hand theirs in. not those that havent



The way it read was along the lines of those who won't hand them in are already criminals...if not? my bad.

[husaberg]

The way it read was along the lines of those who won't hand them in are already criminals...if not? my bad.

Not my intention, The ones that dont hand in the firearms are the same as all the other criminals they claimed they were were actually different from.
From memory its something like 3 years n jail,
I cant remember what the guy that supplied the gun Haley Williams was killed with got (three years 4 months)

[pritch]

Interestingly I received an email today from the Police about the arrangements for handing in firearms. Not that I own anything affected by the changes. Nor do I recall ever giving them my email address which possibly raises an interesting question regarding the Privacy Act.

[Laava]

Utter Bullshit!

My brothers 15 shot pump action 22 is now illegal as is my 8 shot pump action 12 guage shotty.
Jeez, calm the farm there big fella!
So, you can legally modify the shotgun to only take 5 rounds. If you want to keep it, same as the .22 tube mags.
Re the pump action 22, I have 2 of these as well, my old one(1911) is a ten shot, but you can fit 12 in the tube(not recommended) and you can have one already cranked in. But the gun is descibed as a ten shot. The other one is similar. Is that also the case with your brothers?

[scumdog]

Jeez, calm the farm there big fella!
So, you can legally modify the shotgun to only take 5 rounds. If you want to keep it, same as the .22 tube mags.
Re the pump action 22, I have 2 of these as well, my old one(1911) is a ten shot, but you can fit 12 in the tube(not recommended) and you can have one already cranked in. But the gun is descibed as a ten shot. The other one is similar. Is that also the case with your brothers?


True and I know that but I resent having to alter my gun, even more so my brother with his 22 - have you ever seen how long it takes to reload those little suckers?

And the law wants to lumber them in the samecatagory of 'dangerousness' as an AR10....

[Laava]

True and I know that but I resent having to alter my gun, even more so my brother with his 22 - have you ever seen how long it takes to reload those little suckers?

And the law wants to lumber them in the samecatagory of 'dangerousness' as an AR10....
Funny, I thought you of all people would be supportive of the govt's removal of weapons as described. I had an SKS, russian one, a few years ago and although I did take it goat shooting, it was not the best weapon for that and pretty much nothing else that I needed.
And yes, very familiar with the old late night fumble of trying to load a tube mag of .22's in the dark! I can do std 7shot mags piece of piss while I am walking along spotlighting.

[scumdog]

Funny, I thought you of all people would be supportive of the govt's removal of weapons as described. I had an SKS, russian one, a few years ago and although I did take it goat shooting, it was not the best weapon for that and pretty much nothing else that I needed.
And yes, very familiar with the old late night fumble of trying to load a tube mag of .22's in the dark! I can do std 7shot mags piece of piss while I am walking along spotlighting.

Me support this idiot law?

Nah, only if I thought it would really stop the shootings, look how many have happened in Auckland since the March massacre.

Aramoana massacre resulted in a hurried flawed change to the law - and now this hurried (again) change in the law is hitting the wrong target.

Make all firearms capable of being catagory E classification into just that, catagory E (like it should have been from the start)

[Swoop]

Totally wrong on two counts.
a, it is not a "gun grab", they are only banning MSSA,s. I do wish you would pay attention.
Not true.
Lever-action firearms are being confiscated.
Pump-action rifles and also shotguns are being confiscated...


Make all firearms capable of being catagory E classification into just that, catagory E (like it should have been from the start)
It could be noted that firearms on a "register" (B, C, E) have not been used by their owner, in a crime. Just put conditions on the E cat endorsement so it becomes similar to B-cat's (shoots per year, club membership, etc).

[Oakie]

Interestingly I received an email today from the Police about the arrangements for handing in firearms. Not that I own anything affected by the changes. Nor do I recall ever giving them my email address which possibly raises an interesting question regarding the Privacy Act.

Email address is on the Firearms Licence application form and the renewal form. If you have a firearms licence, they'll have your address.

[Laava]

Email address is on the Firearms Licence application form and the renewal form. If you have a firearms licence, they'll have your address.
Just because it is on the form does not make it compulsory. I was asked for mine but refused to give it.

[pritch]

Not true.
Lever-action firearms are being confiscated.
Pump-action rifles and also shotguns are being confiscated

Lever action firearms? I didn?t see that but I guess if the mag holds more than ten rounds?

I do note that the summary of the new laws we received at the club lists semi auto 22s with mags holding more than five rounds as being banned. We?re assuming a brain fart at head office.

[frogfeaturesFZR]

Most lever actions hold more than 10 rounds
Especially if they?re chambered in a pistol cartridge, EG 357 mag, 44/40, 45LC, etc
Short cartridge means more fit in the mag.
I’d say 99% of 22 lever actions hold more than 10 rounds as well.

[jafagsx250]

Sadly it's true.

And you're also not allowed any parts of and AR, AK etc, not even the sights.Not quite. If they are on a prohibited firearm then they are prohibited.

If they are on a non prohibited firearm then they are fine.

The issue lies in that due to the flat receiver and the stock being in line with the bore you can not use the sights or scope mounts on other rifles due to parallax.

[Swoop]

... lists semi auto 22s with mags holding more than five rounds as being banned. We?re assuming a brain fart at head office.
Correct. 10rnds is still legal.



Also, good to see that The NZ Deerstalkers have finally woken up to this nonsense and have changed their opinion on the new laws.

[jasonu]

Lever action firearms? I didn?t see that but I guess if the mag holds more than ten rounds?

I do note that the summary of the new laws we received at the club lists semi auto 22s with mags holding more than five rounds as being banned. We?re assuming a brain fart at head office.

It'll be slingshots and bad language next.

[jasonu]

Also, good to see that The NZ Deerstalkers have finally woken up to this nonsense and have changed their opinion on the new laws.

Got a link to that?

[Pound]

Well it just keeps getting better.....:angry:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/113741556/jacinda-ardern-says-gun-buyback-scheme-to-bed-in-before-more-gun-law-reform

[RDJ]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...gun-law-reform.... yes, I smell panic.

Shafting mainstream citizens on price for guns and accessories, while ignoring the fact only a few hundred guns have been handed in countrywide; while keeping piling on with homilies from police to 'do the right thing' when the police are not at all clean-handed and are actually writing the gun-theft laws. That's a huge, unprecedented and irreversible jump from enforcing laws...

Then trying to keep hiding the woeful failures of Immigration and Police in inviting and vetting - thereby arming - this evil focker Tarrant, when Her Highness was actually involved in making vetting less safe before the atrocity.

Also, no timing given for payment after guns surrendered; generally in a consenting sale / sales by private individuals, one does not hand over the asset without a schedule of payment, hey Cinders? Basically, GunGrab is as much hyped and as little a success as Kiwibuild.

Last but not least - when even the NZDA have their Niemoller moment, it's possible the COL thieves are facing an increasingly united opposition at voter level while flailing about policy-wise. 200,000 gun owners - or even half that number - voting for Act or simply not voting for the useless COL will leave a mark on party majorities.

And, now can't buy the annoyed cits off by Kiwibuild success, cannabis and euthanasia; the Kiwibuild failure is abjectly pathetic and cannabis and euthanasia expectations are already baked. Plus the more the likes of Genter and Golly G and Shawful open their cakeholes to lie to and despise voters, the more voters feel lied to and despised... who'd have thunk it.

[Swoop]

Got a link to that?
NZ Guns magazine.



I note that the next round of bullshit lawmaking is going against specific calibres of rifles. Just to prove that politicians have no clue what they are on about.

[pritch]

I note that the next round of bullshit lawmaking is going against specific calibres of rifles. Just to prove that politicians have no clue what they are on about.

There was some objection to "military calibres".

That gets complicated, military calibres tend to be very popular as, pre the 22 centerfires and 7.62x39, they were good hunting cartridges. Calibres like 303, 30.06, 7.62x59R 7x57, 8x57, 6.5x55 and 7.62x51 (308) were all good deer hunting cartridges and have taken a lot of game. Most are still deservedly popular.

Who knows what the politicians who considered this were thinking?

[Swoop]

Who knows what the politicians who considered this were thinking?

A: Very little.
Common Sense has left the building on this fiasco.

[jasonu]

A: Very little.
Common Sense has left the building on this fiasco.

Yep it is a total knee jerk reaction performed by a bunch of total jerk offs.

[oldrider]

Have we got any air rifle experts on this forum? - :scratch:

[jasonu]

Have we got any air rifle experts on this forum? - :scratch:

Husaberk is an expert on pretty much everything known to man...

[pritch]

Have we got any air rifle experts on this forum? - :scratch:

This is a firearm forum. An expert might say that an air rifle is not a firearm, and he would be right.

Be brave, ask your question and see what happens.

[oldrider]

This is a firearm forum. An expert might say that an air rifle is not a firearm, and he would be right.

Be brave, ask your question and see what happens.

I have been brave and asked my question and you have answered = 10/10 so far. :lol:

Take a little ride back out to the poll and you will see that there is a column for "air rifles" - :msn-wink:

Her in doors is packing a poo with the local blackbird population and she wants to kill them all for fucking with her garden. - :shit:

After much discussion - the birds and I lost - so off we went and bought a slug gun. (177) Crosman "Slayer" no less. (big as she can handle)

I was commissioned to sight it in! (have experience with such activities - back in the day!) :whistle:

Set up a little range at around 15yds in the back yard - (all sheltered and safe etc) - could not for the life of me get a pattern going -(on the target) but spraying everywhere!

Made up a substantial little cradle went indoors in the shed - 6m range - still no real pattern - went and bought the best quality slugs I could find 16c each.

Improvement but still too wild to adjust the scope by.

Inspected the gun all over and found that the barrel reset was deforming the slug tails on closing.

Went back to the shop and asked if I could look at the other two same models - both had cleaner countersunk entries to the barrel (chamber?) breach.

Brought it back in to the shop and showed them - so they replaced the gun.

Every slug cuts the others at 6m and with only 1 adjustment cuts out the bulls-eye now consistently! - I have hung the targets on the fence with attention Blackbirds! :ar15:

If nobody has to die and her indoors is a happy little garden gnome again - I will be very satisfied with our purchase! - :wait: -(it has been fun!) :yes:

[pritch]

I have been brave and asked my question and you have answered = 10/10 so far. :lol:

Take a little ride back out to the poll and you will see that there is a column for "air rifles" - :msn-wink:

Her in doors is packing a poo with the local blackbird population and she wants to kill them all for fucking with her garden. - :shit:

After much discussion - the birds and I lost - so off we went and bought a slug gun. (177) Crosman "Slayer" no less. (big as she can handle)

I was commissioned to sight it in! (have experience with such activities - back in the day!) :whistle:

Set up a little range at around 15yds in the back yard - (all sheltered and safe etc) - could not for the life of me get a pattern going -(on the target) but spraying everywhere!

Made up a substantial little cradle went indoors in the shed - 6m range - still no real pattern - went and bought the best quality slugs I could find 16c each.

Improvement but still too wild to adjust the scope by.

Inspected the gun all over and found that the barrel reset was deforming the slug tails on closing.

Went back to the shop and asked if I could look at the other two same models - both had cleaner countersunk entries to the barrel (chamber?) breach.

Brought it back in to the shop and showed them - so they replaced the gun.

Every slug cuts the others at 6m and with only 1 adjustment cuts out the bulls-eye now consistently! - I have hung the targets on the fence with attention Blackbirds! :ar15:

If nobody has to die and her indoors is a happy little garden gnome again - I will be very satisfied with our purchase! - :wait: -(it has been fun!) :yes:

It's cool that you solved the problem. I was lusting after a seriously expensive air rifle but the company went bung and I haven't sorted a new lust object as yet.

[oldrider]

It's cool that you solved the problem. I was lusting after a seriously expensive air rifle but the company went bung and I haven't sorted a new lust object as yet.

Ahh - one shot one blackbird! - Supplier said that they accept that the gun is faulty just I described - replacement gun is performing OK!

Was worried about the old adage - "The older I get - the better I was syndrome" cutting in and so kept blaming myself! - :msn-wink:

Note that "I" am now the murderer of the blackbirds - how the fuck does that work? - :confused: - Women and their wily ways! :brick:

Am actually enjoying poxing about with gun things again. :lol:

[pritch]

A little bird was telling me last night that firearms owners have bad news coming. More firearms and some ammunition are going to be banned but he wouldn't be specific. The additions will, however, be challenged in court. I guess we should hold the outrage until we know the detail.

[Pound]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/114215888/governments-first-gun-buyback-event-under-way

The Tea & coffee making facilities were quite good too.....<_<

[austingtir]

https://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/a021928a8c.jpg

[scumdog]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/114215888/governments-first-gun-buyback-event-under-way

The Tea & coffee making facilities were quite good too.....<_<


I wonder how many were those 'evil black assault-type rifles' and how many were just 22s and shotguns with magazine that weren't legal - or just five-shot centre-fire semi autos like Woodmaster, Winchest Model100 etc??

[Swoop]

Back of a fag-packet calculation comes out at over a billion dollars for this sham.

Chch being the first of 250 confiscation events.

[husaberg]

Back of a fag-packet calculation comes out at over a billion dollars for this sham.

Chch being the first of 250 confiscation events.

We just had a 5.5 billion dollar budget surplus despite paying off some of the debt the last crowd racked up with with their 8 out of ine years of budget deficiets and massive off shore borrowing
The gun buy back is a also one off cost.
It was supported by every single political party that polls more than 1%
It is also supported by 80% of Kiwis.
You are not missing out on anything you need.
What civilian really needs a firearm that is capable of killing 50 humans in a few secconds

[austingtir]

We just had a 5.5 billion dollar budget surplus despite paying off some of the debt the last crowd racked up with with their 8 out of ine years of budget deficiets and massive off shore borrowing
The gun buy back is a also one off cost.
It was supported by every single political party that polls more than 1%
It is also supported by 80% of Kiwis.
You are not missing out on anything you need.
What civilian really needs a firearm that is capable of killing 50 humans in a few secconds

We dont need firearms to get rid of your ilk. We'll just copy pinochet and get a couple of helicopters instead once you twerps take all the guns. (Those new heli's the governments got might come in useful afterall)

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/191/011/17f.jpg

[sidecar bob]

We just had a 5.5 billion dollar budget surplus despite paying off some of the debt the last crowd racked up with with their 8 out of ine years of budget deficiets and massive off shore borrowing
The gun buy back is a also one off cost.
It was supported by every single political party that polls more than 1%
It is also supported by 80% of Kiwis.
You are not missing out on anything you need.
What civilian really needs a firearm that is capable of killing 50 humans in a few secconds

What you post is true.
Regardless, it's about what they budgeted & projected versus what the true cost will be.
If anyone ran a business like that they'd be on fair go every Monday night, if not in jail.
There seems to be far greater expectations of honesty & accuracy from a small suburban garage than the Govt.

[husaberg]

What you post is true.
Regardless, it's about what they budgeted & projected versus what the true cost will be.
If anyone ran a business like that they'd be on fair go every Monday night, if not in jail.
There seems to be far greater expectations of honesty & accuracy from a small suburban garage than the Govt.

Yip ,all true, but unfortunately you cant be sure what the bill will be for the buy back, as there is a critical lack of information.
also it has to many other unknown variables, we don't know how many guns there is, nor their condition, nor what type they are, let alone how many will be handed in.
I dont care what it costs as long as it is a one of and doesn't get diluted but future governments.
Also when you have someone borrowing 250 million dollars a day to pay the running costs of a country someone should be in jail not being given a knighthood. how many days is it for the cost of the gun buy back. less than a week.
their isn't enough scrutiny or checks and balances placed on our governments certainly a few would not get away with the decisions they make elsewhere.

[husaberg]

Financial success is closely connected to treating money, yours & that of others Like it has some kind of value & consequences.
Throwing it around willy nilly on whimsical whims won't get a country or individual anywhere, regardless of skivvy colour.
You are right again thats twice in 24 hours ,I hear your home town is looking for a a new MP soon, you should apply. The current guys a bit of a twat.:msn-wink:
But given the preference i would rather try and fix a problem rather than pretending it doesn't exist or spending millions on think tanks and consultants But then ignoring their advice.

[JimO]

We just had a 5.5 billion dollar budget surplus despite paying off some of the debt the last crowd racked up with with their 8 out of ine years of budget deficiets and massive off shore borrowing
The gun buy back is a also one off cost.
It was supported by every single political party that polls more than 1%
It is also supported by 80% of Kiwis.
You are not missing out on anything you need.
What civilian really needs a firearm that is capable of killing 50 humans in a few secconds 80% you sure about that?

[austingtir]

80% you sure about that?

No he just quotes newshub polls and fake polls all over the show.

As said in other threads its going to be funny to watch this idiot at the next election and at the end of this gun grab explain what happened.

[husaberg]

80% you sure about that?

Nah i just made it up.......colmar brunton and 10000 registered voters
the poll, conducted by 1 News Colmar Brunton, asked more than 10,000 Kiwis what they thought of the Government's move to change gun laws following the Christchurch mosque attacks

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/112091154/majority-of-kiwis-support-new-gun-laws-following-christchurch-attacks-poll-finds
Yes i am sure the poll showed
Sixty-one per cent thought the changes were about right, 19% thought it did not go far enough and 14% thought it went too far.
Five per cent didn't know, and 2% refused to answer.
The maximum sampling error is approximately ±3.1%-points at the 95 per cent confidence level.
The 14% who disagree collates strongly with doubling the number of Firearms licences in NZ ie 6.25% x2 ie gun owners plus the partner which equals 13%
Dont you think its rather telling that more people thought the law changes didn't go far enough than thought that it went too far........

[austingtir]

Nah i just made it up.......
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/112091154/majority-of-kiwis-support-new-gun-laws-following-christchurch-attacks-poll-finds
Yes i am sure the poll showed
Sixty-one per cent thought the changes were about right, 19% thought it did not go far enough and 14% thought it went too far.
Five per cent didn't know, and 2% refused to answer.
The maximum sampling error is approximately ±3.1%-points at the 95 per cent confidence level.
The 14% who disagree collates strongly with doubling the number of Firearms licences in NZ ie 6.25% x2 ie gun owners plus the partner which equals 13%
Dont you think its rather telling that more people thought the law changes didn't go far enough than thought that it went too far........



Oh a stuff poll.

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!:banana:


Yea 95% confidence level that they polled all their ragging liberal/ dimented lefty readers.


Fucking hilarious.

[pritch]

Oh a stuff poll.

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!:banana:


Yea 95% confidence level that they polled all their ragging liberal/ dimented lefty readers.


Fucking hilarious.

Are you sure you aren't Russian? Your England is seriously loose.

Do svitania

[husaberg]

Are you sure you aren't Russian? Your England is seriously loose.

Do svitania

It turns out he cant read English or tell the difference between Stuff reporting on a Colmar Brunton poll and actually creating a poll.
Maybe when he moved from Auckland to Rotorua he upped the amount of lead in his diet.
Hes seems to have reached a new level of ineptitude.

[scumdog]

Yip ,all true, but unfortunately you cant be sure what the bill will be for the buy back, as there is a critical lack of information.
also it has to many other unknown variables, we don't know how many guns there is, nor their condition, nor what type they are, let alone how many will be handed in.
I dont care what it costs as long as it is a one of and doesn't get diluted but future governments.
Also when you have someone borrowing 250 million dollars a day to pay the running costs of a country someone should be in jail not being given a knighthood. how many days is it for the cost of the gun buy back. less than a week.
their isn't enough scrutiny or checks and balances placed on our governments certainly a few would not get away with the decisions they make elsewhere.


So the Govt jump in without much thought but a lot of rash promises (and a few veiled threats) to fix a problem they created by their own ineptness and inexperience?

And use a wide sword for a narrow problem that shouldn't have been there.

And think they can succesfully run the country?

Dream on if you thing they can.:nono:

Oh and the cop bosses ain't too sharp or trustworthy in this pigs arse of an event.

[husaberg]

So the Govt jump in without much thought but a lot of rash promises (and a few veiled threats) to fix a problem they created by their own ineptness and inexperience?

And use a wide sword for a narrow problem that shouldn't have been there.

And think they can succesfully run the country?

Dream on if you thing they can.:nono:

Oh and the cop bosses ain't too sharp or trustworthy in this pigs arse of an event.

I think you will find it was decades of ineptitude and years of not listening to their own studies and committee and police. that lead to this.
In the last review of gun laws the minister only implemented about 2 out of 20 recommendations
but rememeber right up until this event the Gun lobby were calling our rules best practice and the best in the world, they refused all the changes even theones they proposed after the event.
the gun shops pushed the AR15 and AR10s and similar with loophole rules only months before the event the Gun city owner was taking the police to court so he could sell more ar15s.
80% of people back the changes, as do all the Mp's if you don't like it vote for the idiot who voted against it.

[Kickaha]

80% of people back the changes, as do all the Mp's if you don't like it vote for the idiot who voted against it.

Most of those people wouldn't have a clue, probably have had nothing to do with guns in their lifetime and just buy into the "guns bad" argument, you only have to look at the threads on facebook to see there's a huge amount of people with zero understanding

MP are going to vote for it to suck up to the public

[austingtir]

MP are going to vote for it to suck up to the public

And they will pay for it at the next election!!

Vote NEW CONSERVATIVE!!

[husaberg]

Most of those people wouldn't have a clue, probably have had nothing to do with guns in their lifetime and just buy into the "guns bad" argument, you only have to look at the threads on facebook to see there's a huge amount of people with zero understanding

MP are going to vote for it to suck up to the public
Well if the people dont know and the politicians don't know either, how smart was the gun lobby telling everyone just imediately prior to the killing of 50 people.
That our Gun laws were the best in the world and they resisted any change to them at all. Then suddenly they were not.
Those same MPs who you say are just sucking up to the public, never voted on the changes for the last 20 plus years.
If the Gun sellers hadn't have bent the rules and did everything in their power to circumvent the spirit of the laws brought in after Aramomoana perhaps we wouldnt be needing to have this discussion.
Most people consider banning assault riffles such as AR!5's a good idea when they have no practical use for 99% of their owners.
If you dont like the way democracy works start your own country where only people that agree with you can vote.
Simply put, you can piss an moan as much as you like at me but the reason the law was changes was a fuckwit with a gun licence and a legally purchased rifle and magiziness killed 50 Innocent people in the time it took for you to read this post

[austingtir]

Well if the people dont know and the politicians don't know either, how smart was the gun lobby telling everyone just imediately prior to the killing of 50 people.
That our Gun laws were the best in the world and they resisted any change to them at all.

Except for the fact that Jacinduh changed the laws in december 2018 that actually made it even easier for Tarrant to obtain the weapons he did...... All rather convenient.


And here we are 7 months later listening to you shill about what a great idea it all is.


Shills are gunna shill.

[Laava]

Except for the fact that Jacinduh changed the laws in december 2018 that actually made it even easier for Tarrant to obtain the weapons he did...... All rather convenient
Ooh, do you think she was involved?

[austingtir]

Ooh, do you think she was involved?


"Ardern was the chair of an executive committee which ushered through changes to arms regulations."

"I heard from a dealer who phoned up, he was told by local arms officers in Auckland that permits to procure restricted weapons like MSSAs and pistols...now aren't being dealt with by the local arms office - they all have to go to Wellington.

"That would have been unlawful before the change [in December] because it's specified in the Act that an application for a restricted weapon...has to be done at your local arms office."

Taylor said applying in person allowed police to assess someone.

"Quite often I had police officers saying 'your client came in to see me and he was aggro and...saying strange things and acting weirdly'.

"So you're actually missing out on that very vital step."


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111438784/changes-to-gun-law-overseen-by-jacinda-ardern-described-as-crazy


I think she was more than involved I think she has blood on her hands. But like most communists blood washes off easy to them.

[jasonu]

Oh a stuff poll.

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!:banana:


Yea 95% confidence level that they polled all their ragging liberal/ dimented lefty readers.

.


They're the only ones that will answer. Any self respecting right leaner will tell them to mind their own fucking business.

Yeah polls what a joke as shown in the last few years.

[jasonu]

Except for the fact that Jacinduh changed the laws in december 2018 that actually made it even easier for Tarrant to obtain the weapons he did...... All rather convenient.


And here we are 7 months later listening to you shill about what a great idea it all is.


Shills are gunna shill.

Did she? What happened?

[husaberg]

Ooh, do you think she was involved?
WHich she.........
Some are real quick to try and blame one lot without the other.


Police Minister Paula Bennett has put the public and front-line police officers in danger after rejecting recommendations to tighten firearm controls, the Police Association says.
Association president Chris Cahill said Bennett had rejected every meaningful recommendation put forward by the Law and Order Select Committee, and had "appeared to bow to the pressure of the gun lobby".
"The Minister's concern about over the top rules and restrictions on hunters and shooters ignores the reality that New Zealand is awash with firearms and the majority of them are stolen."
Bennett today responded to the Law and Order Select Committee report on illegal firearms, accepting only seven of 20 recommendations designed to stop criminals getting their hands on guns.


Bennett rejected most recommendations from the select committee's near year-long inquiry. Five of the committee's nine members are National MPs, and it is chaired by National MP Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi.
The committee inquiry had caused concern among some gun owners and widespread changes would have been a controversial issue in election year.
Rejected recommendations include requiring police to record serial numbers of all firearms upon renewal of licence or inspection, requiring a licence to possess ammunition, and making dealers keep records of ammunition sales.
Bennett also declined to act on the recommendation to investigate the creation of a category of restricted semi-automatic rifle and shotgun.


1. A firearms licence required to possess ammunition. Reject.
2. A dealer's licence required to sell ammunition. Reject.
3. Dealers required to keep records of ammunition sales. Reject.
4. Registration process for websites facilitating trading in firearms, parts, or ammunition. Partial rejection - not registration but clarify "mail order" process applies to online sales.
5. Permit to procure extended to cover all sales or transfers of firearms (i.e. include A-category firearms). Reject.
6. Investigate the creation of a category of restricted semi-automatic rifle and shotgun. Reject.
7. Implement firearm prohibition orders. Accept.
8. Codify the "fit and proper" criteria in the Arms Act. Reject.
9. Implement a stand-down period after licence revocation. Accept.
10. Clarify that gang members or prospects must not be considered "fit and proper" to possess firearms. Accept.
11. Require Police to record serial numbers of all firearms upon renewal of licence or inspection of premises. Reject.
12. Review the penalties in the Arms Act. Accept.
13. Treat dealer offending as aggravated at sentencing. Reject.
14. Determine appropriate security standards for A-category licences. Accept.
15. Secure storage confirmed before licence or endorsement received. Reject.
16. Allow Police to enter premises to inspect security of A-category firearms. Reject.
17. Failure to comply with storage regulations to result in mandatory revocation. Reject.
18. Clarify and publicise the extent of amnesty provisions in the Arms Act 1983. Accept.
19. Police publicise amnesty provisions. Reject.
20. Check that firearms brought in on visitors permit are exported or transferred legally. Accept.


then you have the Gun sellers


Firearm importers prepare for court battle with police over over semi-automatic rifles
A stoush over semi-automatic rifles may head to court after claims of a police clampdown.
Police have refused import applications for AR15 semi-automatic rifles and parts in recent weeks, leaving retailers frustrated and the firearms community concerned.
Gun City owner David Tipple confirmed he was preparing for court action. He is one of many claiming an unannounced shift in police policy, which police have denied.
The lightweight rifle is available for purchase with a standard rifle licence provided it has a magazine capacity no greater than seven bullets, and no free-standing pistol grip.
An AR15 with a free-standing pistol grip, or a larger magazine, is deemed a military style semi-automatic rifle (MSSA) and requires the more rigorously inspected "E-Cat" firearm licence.
Tipple's lawyer, Nicholas Taylor, said police refused the importation of AR15 rifles able to be purchased with a standard licence, arguing the rifles were "born as MSSAs".
Dealers elsewhere had received a similar notification from police, he said.
"You have a rifle that's coming from overseas, which doesn't actually have any of the features that define it as an MSSA, and the police have just decided not to apply the definition of that firearm – that is under the Arms Act – to it."
Firearm retailer Ken Rountree, owner of NZAR15, is also contemplating court action after having an import application denied.
"We submitted our permits as per what we'd done in the past ... we'll know more in the next few days exactly what game the police are playing."
Council of Licenced Firearms Owners (COLFO) chairman Paul Clark said the distinction between standard rifles and MSSAs was a "murky area" where frustrations were coming to a head.
"The Arms Act has always required an importer to obtain a permit to bring in 'parts' of firearms to New Zealand and a special reason is required to import MSSA parts ... where it is possible that the part could be either for a [standard rifle] or an [MSSA] police is required to seek further clarification about the intended use of the part."

[scumdog]

......' requiring a licence to possess ammunition,'

(Above from the previous post.)

You already needed a licence to possess ammo:thud:

And: 'but rememeber right up until this event the Gun lobby were calling our rules best practice and the best in the world, they refused all the changes even theones they proposed after the event.' - yet the Government itself weakened the existing procedure to obtain a FAL?

I've got no issue for a banning of MSSA type weapons but a five shot only Winchester Model 100 and it's ilk? - and bolt action 22s with a 15 shot tube mag? C'mon, THAT is OTT.

[husaberg]

......' requiring a licence to possess ammunition,'

(Above from the previous post.)

You already needed a licence to possess ammo:thud:

And: 'but rememeber right up until this event the Gun lobby were calling our rules best practice and the best in the world, they refused all the changes even theones they proposed after the event.' - yet the Government itself weakened the existing procedure to obtain a FAL?

I've got no issue for a banning of MSSA type weapons but a five shot only Winchester Model 100 and it's ilk? - and bolt action 22s with a 15 shot tube mag? C'mon, THAT is OTT.

Maybe you should actually read the Law and Order Select Committee report into issues relating to the illegal possession of firearms in New Zealand.

https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/SCR_72851/f06602dd80c8bcc69220182d246269b2427510b9

The two weapons you refer to are on the prohibited list as they both have magazines available to purchase that hold considerably more than what you state.
You could have them professionally modified so that they cant hold more than the legal amount of ammunition to comply.
But the reason the Ar15s were able to be purchased as a A class is exactly the reason why these guns are on the prohibited items now was they had small mags (and faux pistol grips) yetyou could just buy a large capacity mag

[austingtir]

^^So what??

Cindy has caused this boom for firearm sales by purchasing a couple of hundred million dollars worth of legal firearms from lawful NZers with taxpayer dollars.....Blame your dear leader.....SHE is fueling this industry


She's going to make Tipple the richest man in NZ before the years out!!
Here he is on the news tonight opening another store up. Just when you think the coalition couldnt fail any harder they go and break new records!!


Some of those .22 on his site are looking pretty tasty to me right now.

[onearmedbandit]

She's going to make Tipple the richest man in NZ before the years out!!
Here he is on the news tonight opening another store up. Just when you think the coalition couldnt fail any harder they go and break new records!!




Interesting point. I was just thinking before how I'd like to live in a country where the government actively supported a legitimate businessman operating a legitimate business. I guess they actually are, albeit passively.

As for the media, my distrust of thee knows no bounds.

[austingtir]

As for the media, my distrust of thee knows no bounds.

Did you see Hillary Barry licking Cindy's clit on seven sharp tonight? I swear we have just about reached peak retard.

[Laava]

I swear we have just about reached peak retard.

You are still striving then?

[scumdog]

Maybe you should actually read the Law and Order Select Committee report into issues relating to the illegal possession of firearms in New Zealand.

https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/SCR_72851/f06602dd80c8bcc69220182d246269b2427510b9

The two weapons you refer to are on the prohibited list as they both have magazines available to purchase that hold considerably more than what you state.
You could have them professionally modified so that they cant hold more than the legal amount of ammunition to comply.
But the reason the Ar15s were able to be purchased as a A class is exactly the reason why these guns are on the prohibited items now was they had small mags (and faux pistol grips) yetyou could just buy a large capacity mag


Do you know anyone who has extended the magazine on a tube mag 22?

Why would they bother when you can now legally have a ten shot semi auto with a detachable mag...easier to change the mag on that than to top up a tube magazine wouldn't you think?

The sporting BAR does not readily (if at all) lend itself to fitting a larger mag, the Winchester 100 MAY have larger mags available but in all my years I've yet to see one.

And as unlicensed people have been charged and convicted with unlawful possession of ammunition the law doesn't really need undated in that respect.

EDIT: Looked on interwebby thing and 8 or 10 shot mags available for Model 100, not common and you can't import them any more - plus hardly 'high capacity' like 30 round AK47 mag etc.

[husaberg]

Do you know anyone who has extended the magazine on a tube mag 22?

Why would they bother when you can now legally have a ten shot semi auto with a detachable mag...easier to change the mag on that than to top up a tube magazine wouldn't you think?

The sporting BAR does not readily (if at all) lend itself to fitting a larger mag, the Winchester 100 MAY have larger mags available but in all my years I've yet to see one.

And as unlicensed people have been charged and convicted with unlawful possession of ammunition the law doesn't really need undated in that respect.

the two weapons you mention were both deemed to not comply as one had a tube magazine that was larger, than the defined max, i said, it could be modified to make it comply (ie smaller)
The Winchester 100 has a detachable mag that can be fitted that was larger than the defined min . than the legal min so ity doesnt comply they have been available for probably 40 years. End of story.
As for the legal ruling i said go argue the law with the people that create it.

My Brother has the family Winchester 1910 they are on the list too, i have never seen a mag bigger than 4 or 5 either but they were likely available at some stage, its mute anyway as you cant buy ammo in 401 Winchester unless you are prepared to make it out of 7.62 Russian. but thats the way the cookie crumbles.
You could also haveeither Winchester professionally modified so it will not accept a detachable mag to comply.
Or you could apply for the appropriate licence to own them. or modify them for display use only.

with the Winchester 100 large mag mag you can according to a process showed on a website pretty simply modify a HK 30 and lager mag to fit

[Swoop]

Or you could apply for the appropriate licence to own them. or modify them for display use only.

1st: "Getting the appropriate licence to own them".

There are collectors out there with all the security and licences to correctly own any of these confiscated firearms BUT they are being actively prevented from doing so. I know personally of three chaps who have encountered this.
The labour government want them gone.


2nd: "Modify them for display" has not even been discussed. The UK permitted deactivation when they went through this, but nothing of the sort has been suggested so far here.

[pritch]

2nd: "Modify them for display" has not even been discussed. The UK permitted deactivation when they went through this, but nothing of the sort has been suggested so far here.

Since John Banks introduced his Arms Act following Aramoana "deactivated" hasn't really been an option. I'm aware of some rare exceptions, but not for private owners.

[husaberg]

Since John Banks introduced his Arms Act following Aramoana "deactivated" hasn't really been an option. I'm aware of some rare exceptions, but not for private owners.

It was covered earier on in a blurb somewhere it had to be not able to be made operational and had to be professionally certified as thus.

[scumdog]

the two weapons you mention were both deemed to not comply as one had a tube magazine that was larger, than the defined max, i said, it could be modified to make it comply (ie smaller)
The Winchester 100 has a detachable mag that can be fitted that was larger than the defined min . than the legal min so ity doesnt comply they have been available for probably 40 years. End of story.
As for the legal ruling i said go argue the law with the people that create it.

My Brother has the family Winchester 1910 they are on the list too, i have never seen a mag bigger than 4 or 5 either but they were likely available at some stage, its mute anyway as you cant buy ammo in 401 Winchester unless you are prepared to make it out of 7.62 Russian. but thats the way the cookie crumbles.
You could also haveeither Winchester professionally modified so it will not accept a detachable mag to comply.
Or you could apply for the appropriate licence to own them. or modify them for display use only.


with the Winchester 100 large mag mag you can according to a process showed on a website pretty simply modify a HK 30 and lager mag to fit

I doubt anybody considering mass murder would pick a Winchester Model 100 - too hard to get large magazines and lots of them.

At the end of the day the useless shit 'law makers' have effectively banned ANY self loading centrefire rifle, regardless of magazine capacity.

But they constantly waffle on about M15 this and MSSA that and conveniently fail to mention the Winchester 100 etc.

[husaberg]

I doubt anybody considering mass murder would pick a Winchester Model 100 - too hard to get large magazines and lots of them.

At the end of the day the useless shit 'law makers' have effectively banned ANY self loading centrefire rifle, regardless of magazine capacity.

But they constantly waffle on about M15 this and MSSA that and conveniently fail to mention the Winchester 100 etc.

Odd you have an issue with this yet you have never mentioned any problem with the people who brought in AR15 especially modified to get around a law that was meant to ban them. They expoiting a series of loopholes that the gun lobby fought hard to maintain.
If it wasnt for the greed of the Gun sellers in doing this its unlikely that we would be having this conversation.
I am well prepared to forfeit some rights so even if that means that now i can't own a gun that no one really needs, In order to attempt to make NZ a safer place.
Obviously you dont think the same, I can live with that, the world would be a boring place if we all agreed.

[jasonu]

I am well prepared to forfeit some rights .

Very foolish.

[jasonu]

What a bunch of morons.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12251945

[Katman]

Very foolish.

Did you expect anything different?

[husaberg]

Did you expect anything different?

Odd you have trolled on thread muliple times without having the the guts to state an opinion
Anyone would think you are sitting on the fence just because you like the feeling of the pickets..............
So go on hows about you state an opinion on the firearms laws or just troll elsewhere.