The firearm thread

[Katman]

Odd you have trolled on thread muliple times without having the the guts to state an opinion


If you want my opinion.......

While I don't have any interest in owning or using a firearm, I think the manner in which the gun laws have been changed is an absolute joke.

Only a pillock would believe they'll make the slightest difference in "making NZ a safer place".

[husaberg]

If you want my opinion.......

While I don't have any interest in owning or using a firearm, I think the manner in which the gun laws have been changed is an absolute joke.

Only a pillock would believe they'll make the slightest difference in "making NZ a safer place".

Pitiful
Go on did we ever need AR15's in NZ or not?
Did you support changing NZ gun laws or not?
If the gun laws make no difference you would support US style open slather rules then.......... After all "Only a pillock would believe changes to gun laws would make the slightest difference in "making NZ a safer place" Katmantm

[Katman]

Did you support changing NZ gun laws or not?


Comprehension's not your strong point, is it?

[husaberg]

Comprehension's not your strong point, is it?

Really, it would seem to be your wealkness, because in the real world you can still support changing the laws, even if you don't agree with how its been implemented.
But i guess thats not the case in the troll kingdom under the bridge.

Also If the gun laws make no difference you would support US style open slather rules the?

After all "Only a pillock would believe changes to gun laws would make the slightest difference in "making NZ a safer place" Katmantm

[scumdog]

If you want my opinion.......

While I don't have any interest in owning or using a firearm, I think the manner in which the gun laws have been changed is an absolute joke.

Only a pillock would believe they'll make the slightest difference in "making NZ a safer place".


i have to admit this is one of those times I agree with you as per this proposed gun registration - where has that ever prevented a person being shot?

And they already have the non A cat. guns already registered - only from what I hear hat registration is totally flawed. it's incomplete and inaccurate.

[scumdog]

Really, it would seem to be your wealkness, because in the real world you can still support changing the laws even if you dont agree with how its been implemented.
But i guess thats not the case in the troll kingdom under the bridge.

Also If the gun laws make no difference you would support US style open slather rules the?


I suspect Katman was referring to these newly installed laws, ergo there was no need to jump to the extreme of suggestion 'US style open slather rules' .

[Swoop]

I am well prepared to forfeit some rights...
Ahhh! Socialism in action.
The easily deluded are ... easily deluded.

What a bunch of morons.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12251945

Did you expect anything different?

[scumdog]

What a bunch of morons.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12251945


I bet there will be further 'oops' by these clowns!:facepalm:

[husaberg]

I suspect Katman was referring to these newly installed laws, ergo there was no need to jump to the extreme of suggestion 'US style open slather rules' .

Funny you should include the words suspect and Katman in the same sentence................:psst:
but seriously if katmans suggestion is to have any merit it also has to work in reverse
Thus if katmans assesment that changing the rules to be more restrictive saves no lives at all so it also must be true that making the rules more lax would also have no effect and not lead to the loss of lives.
So shit go open slather fully auto assault rifles for everyone, we could be safe just like murica................


Ahhh! Socialism in action.
The easily deluded are ... easily deluded.

Oh you mean just like all the 80% of voters who agreed with the action or thought it didn't go far enough or with all the MP in parliment right wing and left, that overwhelmingly supported it as well.

[Katman]

Thus if katmans assesment that changing the rules to be more restrictive saves no lives at all so it also must be true that making the rules more lax would also have no effect and not lead to the loss of lives.
So shit go open slather fully auto assault rifles for everyone, we could be safe just like murica................

And that is why you're viewed by so many here as a total utter moron.

[husaberg]

And that is why you're viewed by so many here as a total utter moron.

Oh no katman doesn't agree and has sand in his lady parts.
You view any one as a moron, that doesn't agree with your multiple and wacky conspiracy theories., (That and a potential sex partner of course.)

Maybe you would like to explain how banning the sale of the guns used, similar guns plus the recovery and removal from circulation of said guns, plus the more through vetting and licencing requirements of the individual, plus the tracing of all the guns and the elimination of thousands of firearms will not make NZ safer and afterwards?
Or is it just one of those "katman statements" you so often make with no corroborating evidence.
Especially given, these were also changes recommended afterwards by the gun lobby as well.
The issue the gun lobby has, is they feel it went to far.
especially considering its almost a direct parallel with a high correlation with more lax the gun laws are plus the more weapons in circulation a country has, To the more mass shootings a country has.
Bit shit i guess you know more than 130 studies in multiple different countries

A 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, published in Epidemiologic Reviews, found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence .
A review of the US evidence by RAND also linked some gun control measures, including background checks, to reduced injuries and deaths. A growing body of evidence, from Johns Hopkins researchers, also supports laws that require a license to buy and own guns.https://www.vox.com/2019/3/8/18254626/mass-shootings-gun-violence-laws-study


https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/n6_wscbpaeXOP9K3W00Q6dhjeMc=/0x0:755x913/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:755x913):format(webp):no_upscale ()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15945050/state_mass_shooting_rates.png
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/y6mDesL59Y8BdoBweqmSrbjunkQ=/0x0:1599x1270/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1599x1270):format(webp):no_upsca le()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8319829/gun_homicides_developed_countries.0.jpghttps://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/bSY6jbFCpADQBbNtwqKSBtiWPJI=/0x0:3840x2794/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:3840x2794):format(webp):no_upsca le()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10328765/GUN_SCATTERPLOT_2x.png

[pritch]

where has that ever prevented a person being shot?

And they already have the non A cat. guns already registered - only from what I hear that registration is totally flawed. it's incomplete and inaccurate.

Yeah, nobody can point to a crime ever being solved by gun registration. Having said that, the old system was paper based and strictly local. A new system will be computerised and national.

The problems arise when the real world intrudes, the world that politicians don't inhabit. Problems start when there's a flap on at the station and the boss wants manpower. So the conversation goes like this,
"What's he doing?"
"He's on the firearms registry."
"Get him off that and put him on this."

And so over time the work slips behind and becomes inaccurate. That's not theoretical that's actually how it worked before. That's also why the vetting officers are not police officers.

[Laava]

And that is why you're viewed by so many here as a total utter moron.
Trollololol! Oh the irony!

[jasonu]

I see the new NZ gun laws are working as predicted. Law abiding citizens hand over their formally legal weapons and the not so law abiding citizens run amok in South Auckland.
Only a total moron could have thought this would have worked.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12261593

[husaberg]

I see the new NZ gun laws are working as predicted. Law abiding citizens hand over their formally legal weapons and the not so law abiding citizens run amok in South Auckland.
Only a total moron could have thought this would have worked.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12261593

Yeah cause gun violence doesn't happen at a much higher rate in the USA with its lax gun laws now or before well duh.

Only the stats show The US have a 50 times higher firearms death rate.
In the US state of Louisiana, with 4.7 million people, 526 people died in a gun-related homicide in 2016.
Where as In New Zealand, also with 4.7 million people, just nine people died in a gun-related homicide in 2016.

Even the small east-coast US state of Delaware, with around 967,000 people, still had a higher number of gun-related homicides in 2016 than New Zealand, with 44 people killed.

So clearly NZ doesn't have the problem, The USA does though. but yeah don't let facts get in the way of what appears to be a delusion that people suffer from that makes them think the USA doesnt have a major gun violence problem.
342816

[sidecar bob]

Yeah cause gun violence doesn't happen at a much higher rate in the USA with its lax gun laws now or before well duh.

Only the stats show The US have a 50 times higher firearms death rate.
In the US state of Louisiana, with 4.7 million people, 526 people died in a gun-related homicide in 2016.
Where as In New Zealand, also with 4.7 million people, just nine people died in a gun-related homicide in 2016.
So clearly NZ doesn't have a problem, The USA does though. but yeah don't let facts get in the way of what appears to be a delusion that people suffer from that makes them think the USA doesnt have a major gun violence problem.

Whereas I would suggest that unless any country has zero gun related homicides then it has a gun problem.

[husaberg]

Whereas I would suggest that unless any country has zero gun related homicides then it has a gun problem.

Sloppy wording on my behalf the a should be a the.
So clearly NZ doesn't have the problem, The USA does though.


I see the new NZ gun laws are working as predicted. Law abiding citizens hand over their formally legal weapons and the not so law abiding citizens run amok in South Auckland.
Only a total moron could have thought this would have worked.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12261593

Yeah cause gun violence doesn't happen at a much higher rate in the USA with its lax gun laws now or before well duh.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Total_deaths_in_US_mass_shootings.png
Only the stats show The US have a 50 times higher firearms death rate.
In the US state of Louisiana, with 4.7 million people, 526 people died in a gun-related homicide in 2016.
Where as In New Zealand, also with 4.7 million people, just nine people died in a gun-related homicide in 2016.

Even the small east-coast US state of Delaware, with around 967,000 people, still had a higher number of gun-related homicides in 2016 than New Zealand, with 44 people killed.

So clearly NZ doesn't have the problem, The USA does though. but yeah don't let facts get in the way of what appears to be a delusion that people suffer from that makes them think the USA doesnt have a major gun violence problem.
342816

Only a complete moron would think all gun violence would stop immediately after a law change that isnt even fully implemented especially given that no one ever said it would eliminate all gun violence, but morons are now claiming look the law change is a failure as it didnt.:weird:

[sidecar bob]

The gun collection was held in Auckland several weeks ago.
Great result!

[husaberg]

The gun collection was held in Auckland several weeks ago.
Great result!

So what are you trying to suggest not changing the rules would have maent less gun deaths or are you just trolling... cause it was supported by the vast majority of NZ Also all the MPs other than Seymour. Who was so carried away with using his stance for publicity of his failing party, he forgot to vote.
You do realise not so long ago a guy went and legally brought semi auto rifles on a A class licence and then brought large mags and used them to go out to kill 50 inocent people in a few minutes, the law change was to minimize the chances of this being able to happen ever again, not eliminate all gun deaths or incidents, But dont let that get in the way of the story.

By the way
More than 400 now prohibited guns handed over at Auckland's first buy-back event........
plus 1343 parts and accessories.

An amnesty is in place until late December, and people are urged to hand in their firearms before then.
Police said 2143 people handed in 3275 firearms, and 7827 parts and accessories since the first collection event in Christchurch.

[jasonu]

So what are you trying to suggest not changing the rules would have maent less gun deaths or are you just trolling... cause it was supported by the vast majority of NZ Also all the MPs other than Seymour. Who was so carried away with using his stance for publicity of his failing party, he forgot to vote.
You do realise not so long ago a guy went and legally brought semi auto rifles on a A class licence and then brought large mags and used them to go out to kill 50 inocent people in a few minutes, the law change was to minimize the chances of this being able to happen ever again, not eliminate all gun deaths or incidents, But dont let that get in the way of the story.

By the way
More than 400 now prohibited guns handed over at Auckland's first buy-back event........
plus 1343 parts and accessories.

An amnesty is in place until late December, and people are urged to hand in their firearms before then.
Police said 2143 people handed in 3275 firearms, and 7827 parts and accessories since the first collection event in Christchurch.

How do you know they are all innocent? Do you personally know them all? Did the cops bother to round up the murray gangs and get them to hand over their sawn offs and .22's or is that all too difficult?

[husaberg]

How do you know they are all innocent? Do you personally know them all? Did the cops bother to round up the murray gangs and get them to hand over their sawn offs and .22's or is that all too difficult?

Really i will tell you what, you prove that any off the 50 men women and children that were only praying were doing a single thing that deserved to be shot then, you will have the right to call them anything other than innocent.
After that you can then explain why your own country has a 50 times higher rate of gun violence per capita when gun licence laws have nothing to do with gun violence.
As for the rest, get a life it wasn't a gang with no gun licence that did the killing of the 50, it was a person that was a licences gun owner. Someone that went through a much higher levl of vetting than any gun owner in the US does.
The fact you keep having to suggest stuff that has no relation to the subject to attempt to justify your own countries problems are anything other than an obvious consequences of stupidly lax gun laws.
Your own county is the epitome of stupidity when it comes to gun laws and politics and it seems people.

[sidecar bob]

The gun round up didn't work.
Pretty much anyone I know that knows someone with an illegal firearm that's worth having didn't hand it in, it simply dissapeared.

[husaberg]

The gun round up didn't work.
Pretty much anyone I know that knows someone with an illegal firearm that's worth having didn't hand it in, it simply dissapeared.
pretty much anyone you know that knows someone with an illegal firearm really ......................
There is still time left on the amnesty, when it runs out get your friend of friends friends that know criminal with illegal firearms to dob them in otherwise you are just contributing to the problem.
How do you expect the police to get the guns off criminals if people like you are protecting them.

[sidecar bob]

pretty much anyone you know that knows someone with an illegal firearm really ......................
There is still time left on the amnesty, when it runs out get your friend of friends friends that know criminal with illegal firearms to dob them in otherwise you are just contributing to the problem.
How do you expect the police to get the guns off criminals if people like you are protecting them.

I'm protecting them?, wow, go on. . .
What makes you think they're criminals?
You want to get in Jacinda's good books don't you? That's so cute.

[husaberg]

I'm protecting them?, wow, go on. . .
yes if you claim to know people with illegal firearm and are doing nothing about it, you are clearly protecting them from being caught if the illegal firearm.
In case you missed it people wit illegal firearms that dont comply with the law and hand them in by December are clearly criminals and will be treated as such when they are caught.

[sidecar bob]

yes if you claim to know people with illegal firearm and are doing nothing about it, you are clearly protecting them from being caught if the illegal firearm.

You're a funny fulla.;)
If Labour had said, "we're doing nothing about it, because that will just make those kind of firearms dissapeared & become valuable" you would have jumped on the bandwagon with that one too.
Don't let Jacinda's do all the thinking for you, have an opinion of your own sometimes too for a change mate.

[husaberg]

You're a funny fulla.;)
If Labour had said, "we're doing nothing about it, because that will just make those kind of firearms dissapeared & become valuable" you would have jumped on the bandwagon with that one too.
Don't let Jacinda's do all the thinking for you, have an opinion of your own sometimes too for a change mate.

I call BS your lot all tyhe politicians supported the law change as does 80% of NZ.
A15 were never ever needed in NZ nor were high cap mags, nor should they have been sold on a A class, end of story. its nothing to do with goverments its common sense.
If you are going to play the politician card If Paula Benefit had listened to the committee she chose and set up this shit would not even be needed now.
Nor would it be needed if the tories got it right after Aramoana.

[jasonu]

The fact you keep having to suggest stuff that has no relation to the subject to attempt to justify your own countries problems .

Pot kettle

[jasonu]

You're a funny fulla.;)
If Labour had said, "we're doing nothing about it, because that will just make those kind of firearms dissapeared & become valuable" you would have jumped on the bandwagon with that one too.
Don't let Jacinda's do all the thinking for you, have an opinion of your own sometimes too for a change mate.

Notice there isn't any 'but National' anymore.

[scumdog]

You do realise not so long ago a guy went and legally brought semi auto rifles on a A class licence and then brought large mags and used them to go out to kill 50 inocent people in a few minutes, the law change was to minimize the chances of this being able to happen ever again, not eliminate all gun deaths or incidents, But dont let that get in the way of the story.

By the way
More than 400 now prohibited guns handed over at Auckland's first buy-back event........
plus 1343 parts and accessories.

An amnesty is in place until late December, and people are urged to hand in their firearms before then.
Police said 2143 people handed in 3275 firearms, and 7827 parts and accessories since the first collection event in Christchurch.



So why are bolt action 22 rifles with a 12 shot tube mag being banned?

Or grandads 1905 35 Remington semi auto with non-detachable 4 shot mag also being banned?

The media waffle on about how good it is that MSSA weapons have been banned but tip-toe past the guns such as those above - maybe they dont look 'evil' enough? (whatever evil looks like....?)

And the non-knowing think 'banned guns' just means M15/AK47 type guns - unaware it includes the type I mentioned above.

[husaberg]

So why are bolt action 22 rifles with a 12 shot tube mag being banned?

Or grandads 1905 35 Remington semi auto with non-detachable 4 shot mag also being banned?

The media waffle on about how good it is that MSSA weapons have been banned but tip-toe past the guns such as those above - maybe they dont look 'evil' enough? (whatever evil looks like....?)

And the non-knowing think 'banned guns' just means M15/AK47 type guns - unaware it includes the type I mentioned above.

We have had this same discussion already i explained then why the the reasons have not changed since. Knock yourself out refuting what you couldn't before.


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.


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.


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.

[TheDemonLord]

So far, the total number of Firearms handed in is less than the total number of pre-existing E-Cat rifles.

Current figures put it at around 14,344 Firearms handed in for a cool $26 Million.

2 months into the Amnesty period, 4 months to go.

Assuming a linear rate of handing in - that's about 42,000 Firearms handed in - which will be just shy of $80 Million.

If we assume a last minute surge - and let's be exceedingly generous and propose that 100,000 firearms are handed in (Double + change current rates) - that brings the total up to about $190 Million.

Now, the kicker - the Lowest estimate for the number of now-prohibited Firearms (which curiously was the figure most widely circulated) is 250,000.

Let's do a little Maths:

At current hand-in rates - that is just 16% of firearms handed in. Assuming a surge - that's 40% of Firearms handed in.

Now, let's assume that both the 250,000 figure is accurate and 100% are handed in - that's a cost $475 Million - a tad more than it was going to cost (a costing which subsequent data from KPMG has show was based on nothing - the politicians pulled the $150 Million dollar figure from thin air).

However, what gets very interesting is if we don't use the lowest pre-amnesty buy-back estimate - we have a high estimate from Gun City of around 600,000 now Prohibited Firearms:

at current rates that's 7% of Firearms handed in. With a surge, it's about 15%. with a cost of nearly 1.5 Billion dollars if there is 100% compliance.

taking a midpoint estimate of 400,000 gives us 10% compliance for current rates and 25% compliance for a surge and a cost of around a Billion Dollars.

Remember that the Australian buy-back was 'so successful' that they had to run multiple buy-backs. The highest estimate for Compliance in Aus was 80%, with the lowest estimate at 40% - 40% which is an interesting number - considering the lowest initial estimate and a doubled rate of hand in.


Now, here is the question - Do you feel safer? Do you feel that it's money Well Spent?

At the end of the Buy Back, regardless of the totals handed in - Chris Cunthill and Weasel Nash will stand in front of the country and proclaim how much of a great success it all was, and when someone inevitably points out how it wasn't they will lie through their teeth - I'm guessing they will say they 'overestimated the number in circulation' or other such nonsense.

[husaberg]

So far, the total number of Firearms handed in is less than the total number of pre-existing E-Cat rifles.

Current figures put it at around 14,344 Firearms handed in for a cool $26 Million.

2 months into the Amnesty period, 4 months to go.

Assuming a linear rate of handing in - that's about 42,000 Firearms handed in - which will be just shy of $80 Million.

If we assume a last minute surge - and let's be exceedingly generous and propose that 100,000 firearms are handed in (Double + change current rates) - that brings the total up to about $190 Million.

Now, the kicker - the Lowest estimate for the number of now-prohibited Firearms (which curiously was the figure most widely circulated) is 250,000.

Let's do a little Maths:

At current hand-in rates - that is just 16% of firearms handed in. Assuming a surge - that's 40% of Firearms handed in.

Now, let's assume that both the 250,000 figure is accurate and 100% are handed in - that's a cost $475 Million - a tad more than it was going to cost (a costing which subsequent data from KPMG has show was based on nothing - the politicians pulled the $150 Million dollar figure from thin air).

However, what gets very interesting is if we don't use the lowest pre-amnesty buy-back estimate - we have a high estimate from Gun City of around 600,000 now Prohibited Firearms:

at current rates that's 7% of Firearms handed in. With a surge, it's about 15%. with a cost of nearly 1.5 Billion dollars if there is 100% compliance.

taking a midpoint estimate of 400,000 gives us 10% compliance for current rates and 25% compliance for a surge and a cost of around a Billion Dollars.

Remember that the Australian buy-back was 'so successful' that they had to run multiple buy-backs. The highest estimate for Compliance in Aus was 80%, with the lowest estimate at 40% - 40% which is an interesting number - considering the lowest initial estimate and a doubled rate of hand in.


Now, here is the question - Do you feel safer? Do you feel that it's money Well Spent?

At the end of the Buy Back, regardless of the totals handed in - Chris Cunthill and Weasel Nash will stand in front of the country and proclaim how much of a great success it all was, and when someone inevitably points out how it wasn't they will lie through their teeth - I'm guessing they will say they 'overestimated the number in circulation' or other such nonsense.

So of your own prohibited firearm the AR10 and or parts have they been handed in yet?

Also those that dont hand in their illegal firearms at the end of the amnesty.
Are you going to be satisfied when they are caught arrrested as being criminals that this is what they are.
or do you consider them not to be criminals and somehow the laws of NZ don't apply to them. That gun owner can somehow pick and choose what laws they follow without being considered criminals.

[TheDemonLord]

So of your own prohibited firearm the AR10 and or parts have they been handed in yet?

Ask me after the 20th of December.


Also those that dont hand in their illegal firearms at the end of the amnesty.
Are you going to be satisfied when they are caught arrrested as being criminals that this is what they are.

Depends - will they get the same treatment as other Criminal Protestors? Like not being arrested and being able to tell the Police to go away?


or do you consider them not to be criminals and somehow the laws of NZ don't apply to them. That gun owner can somehow pick and choose what laws they follow without being considered criminals.

I regard the Law change as Criminal or at least, unlawful.

Read into that what you will.


Edit: But here's the question: Do you feel Safer?

assume the best case scenario, from the Australian experience - that there's 20% illegal Semi-Autos retained in private ownership, by people who were disgruntled enough with the government to break the law. People who have been retrospectively made criminals. People who are armed.

Does that make you feel Safer?

[Banditbandit]

I see the new NZ gun laws are working as predicted. Law abiding citizens hand over their formally legal weapons and the not so law abiding citizens run amok in South Auckland.
Only a total moron could have thought this would have worked.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12261593

I have four guns - including one I will have to hand over. I was planning on selling it anyway - this will save me the hassle ..

I have used AK47s, AR10s and M16s (my preference is the AK ..) fun to cull goats with .. no other legitimate civilian purpose.

Of course the laws are aimed at "ordinary citizens" ..

In the country you live in how many of the people responsible for mass shootings were law abiding citizens BEFORE they picked up the guns and started shooting?

Columbine?
Santa Fe
Sandy Hook?
Any of the school mass shootings?

Las Vegas 2017?
Luby's shooting?


There's an endless list .. just how many of these people were "good citizens" before they opened fire? Most were ..

The focus on the criminals by by the anti-lobby is a false distraction.

In this country - when have you ever seen a criminal wave a gun around in public? When have you ever been threatened by a gun? Unless you are Scumdog, and a couple of other officers who are here, I suspect the answer is NEVER!

So what is your problem? Yes, crims have guns ... they usually kill each other ..

We have had FOUR mass shootings in Aotearoa/New Zealand (ignoring family crimes, such as the Raurimu shootings, the Bain killings etc.

There are:

Waikino School House, 1923. Local farmer John Christopher Higgins sought revenge over alleged persecution. Armed with guns and dynamite, Higgins walked into the local school house and started shooting ..

Kowhitirangi shootings, 19412. Stanley Graham killed police officers

Aramoana massacre, 1991. David Grey opened fire at Aramoana - killing 14.

The Chch shooter - 2019. An Australian killed 50 people in a Chch mosque.


All these men were 'good citizens' until the opened fire ...

The change in law will make it less likely that such mass shootings will occur .. because it reduces the number of the type of guns in our society that these people like to use ...

(It would be very stupid to think that reducing the number of guns in our society will stop gun violence)

So - who should you worry about having guns? Especially high-powered assault rifles .. The crims who most of you will never have encountered waving a gun around .. ????

Or the man up the road from you who is angry all the time? The man around the corner who seems a bit of a loner and you think is pretty creepy?

How about that angry teenager you swore at least week ??

These are the people that the gun laws are aimed at - because these are the people who will pick up guns and start shooting .. these "good citizens" you want to allow to have high-powered assault weapons.

[TheDemonLord]

I have four guns - including one I will have to hand over. I was planning on selling it anyway - this will save me the hassle ..

I have used AK47s, AR10s and M16s (my preference is the AK ..) fun to cull goats with .. no other legitimate civilian purpose.

Of course the laws are aimed at "ordinary citizens" ..

In the country you live in how many of the people responsible for mass shootings were law abiding citizens BEFORE they picked up the guns and started shooting?

Columbine?
Santa Fe
Sandy Hook?
Any of the school mass shootings?

Las Vegas 2017?
Luby's shooting?


There's an endless list .. just how many of these people were "good citizens" before they opened fire? Most were ..

The focus on the criminals by by the anti-lobby is a false distraction.

In this country - when have you ever seen a criminal wave a gun around in public? When have you ever been threatened by a gun? Unless you are Scumdog, and a couple of other officers who are here, I suspect the answer is NEVER!

So what is your problem? Yes, crims have guns ... they usually kill each other ..

We have had FOUR mass shootings in Aotearoa/New Zealand (ignoring family crimes, such as the Raurimu shootings, the Bain killings etc.

There are:

Waikino School House, 1923. Local farmer John Christopher Higgins sought revenge over alleged persecution. Armed with guns and dynamite, Higgins walked into the local school house and started shooting ..

Kowhitirangi shootings, 19412. Stanley Graham killed police officers

Aramoana massacre, 1991. David Grey opened fire at Aramoana - killing 14.

The Chch shooter - 2019. An Australian killed 50 people in a Chch mosque.


All these men were 'good citizens' until the opened fire ...

The change in law will make it less likely that such mass shootings will occur .. because it reduces the number of the type of guns in our society that these people like to use ...

(It would be very stupid to think that reducing the number of guns in our society will stop gun violence)

So - who should you worry about having guns? Especially high-powered assault rifles .. The crims who most of you will never have encountered waving a gun around .. ????

Or the man up the road from you who is angry all the time? The man around the corner who seems a bit of a loner and you think is pretty creepy?

How about that angry teenager you swore at least week ??

These are the people that the gun laws are aimed at - because these are the people who will pick up guns and start shooting .. these "good citizens" you want to allow to have high-powered assault weapons.

They were?


In January 1990, he threatened an assistant of the bookshop with what appeared to be a shotgun in a cardboard box,

The focus on Criminals is that they commit the overwhelming amount of Firearm Crime (98.4%).

The Chch Terrorist was not vetted properly by NZ Police (an online persona as a Character reference, what a Joke).

However, if it makes you happy - I do think there are additional oversights that could have been considered. But it is clear they were not. Certain people saw a Tragedy to be the excuse they needed to push through their own personal agenda.

Something that might interest you - 11 out of the 25 most Deadly mass shootings were done including a Rifle, 19 were done including a Handgun. The tale that the Semi-Auto rifle is the weapon of choice is not backed by the data, it is true there have been a number of high-profile incidents in recent memory, but Long Guns (as the Yanks like to refer to them as) make up a small percentage of Firearm Homocides.

[husaberg]

Ask me after the 20th of December.



Depends - will they get the same treatment as other Criminal Protestors? Like not being arrested and being able to tell the Police to go away?



I regard the Law change as Criminal or at least, unlawful.

Read into that what you will.


Edit: But here's the question: Do you feel Safer?

assume the best case scenario, from the Australian experience - that there's 20% illegal Semi-Autos retained in private ownership, by people who were disgruntled enough with the government to break the law. People who have been retrospectively made criminals. People who are armed.

Does that make you feel Safer?

The question was not to do with asking it in December it was a clear question of if you had already handed in your prohibited AR10 rifle and other prohibited parts. Now
Its a simple yes or No question.
But i will take it from our continued evasive responses that you somehow want to pick and choose what laws he follow or at least wants to puff out his chest and say you do, We have a name for that, its called an criminal.
Your opinion about what is lawful is treated with the same contempt as that when you declared yourself to know more about the US law than a US supreme court judge, or more about US Government internal security than the FBI.

Funny enough You went on and on going on how its the criminals that were the issue, now it seems you wish to encourage people to be criminals yet dont want or expect them to be treated as such.

[TheDemonLord]

The question was not to do with asking it in december it was a clear question of if you had already handed in your prohibited AR10 rifle and other prohibited parts.
But i will take it from our continued evasive responses that you somehow want to pick and choose what laws he follow or at least wants to puff out his chest and say you do, We have a name for that, its called an criminal.
You went on and on going on how its the criminals that were the issue, now it seems you wish to encourage people to be criminals not to be treated as such.

98.4% of Firearm Crime is done by prior Criminals - seems pretty conclusive as to which societal segment is the issue...

However, you miss the Point - currently the Labour government is picking and choosing how it applies the Law.

On the one hand, you have an entire group of people being made to pay a fine for a Crime that they had no part in committing. This is being done at Gunpoint (quite literally).

And then you have other protestors who are curiously aligned with some of the more radical elements within the Government, breaking the law and not only getting away with it, but having the power to tell the Police to stand down.

So, You tell me - how should we treat people?

If the Government wants a rigid and forceful interpretation of the law, Fine - there's entire groups that should be rounded up by Armed Police, well before any Firearm owner (based on prior history).
If the Government wants a loose and liberal interpretation of the law, Fine - Then they can't complain when people choose to 'protest' the new laws by engaging in civil disobedience and non-compliance.

What you cannot, however, do is to pick and choose favorites based on whether or not you happen to share ideological sympathies or connections with the groups in question.

Then there is the question as to whether a 24 hour submissions period, handled by a biased panel, with insufficient time for all submissions to be properly evaluated by a Government that had officials making prior statements showing that the outcome was predetermined constitutes a fair democratic process. The follow up being that if it is not, then the new law has no legitimacy.

[husaberg]

98.4% of Firearm Crime is done by prior Criminals - seems pretty conclusive as to which societal segment is the issue...

However, you miss the Point - currently the Labour government is picking and choosing how it applies the Law.

On the one hand, you have an entire group of people being made to pay a fine for a Crime that they had no part in committing. This is being done at Gunpoint (quite literally).

And then you have other protestors who are curiously aligned with some of the more radical elements within the Government, breaking the law and not only getting away with it, but having the power to tell the Police to stand down.

So, You tell me - how should we treat people?

If the Government wants a rigid and forceful interpretation of the law, Fine - there's entire groups that should be rounded up by Armed Police, well before any Firearm owner (based on prior history).
If the Government wants a loose and liberal interpretation of the law, Fine - Then they can't complain when people choose to 'protest' the new laws by engaging in civil disobedience and non-compliance.

What you cannot, however, do is to pick and choose favorites based on whether or not you happen to share ideological sympathies or connections with the groups in question.

Then there is the question as to whether a 24 hour submissions period, handled by a biased panel, with insufficient time for all submissions to be properly evaluated by a Government that had officials making prior statements showing that the outcome was predetermined constitutes a fair democratic process. The follow up being that if it is not, then the new law has no legitimacy.

Its a simple yes no answer you are avoiding
either you have handed in your AR10 and prohibited parts or you haven't.
The rest is your normal claims to know better and how how you should be treated like you are somehow special when in reality you are just another winging pom, Who if they donte like the NZ laws or dont wish to adhere to them should go back to the UK or do yourself a favour and move to the USA where the firearms laws might be more to your liking
The law is supported by all the parties except ACt and some fringe loonies.

[TheDemonLord]

Its a simple yes no answer you are avoiding
either you have handed in your AR10 and prohibited parts or you haven't.

I've given you the only answer you are going to get.


The rest is your normal claims to know better and how how you should be treated like you are somehow special when in reality you are just another winging pom, Who if they donte like the NZ laws or dont wish to adhere to them should go back to the UK or do yourself a favour and move to the USA where the firearms laws might be more to your liking
The law is supported by all the parties except ACt and some fringe loonies.

Ah... The 'Tolerant Left', in all it's Glory...

All in favour of Migrants, until they say something they don't like, then they tell people to go back to where they came from.
All opposed to the tyranny of Minorities, until it's a Minority that they don't like.
All opposed to Hate Speech and Offence, right up until it's directed against someone they don't like.
All in favor of the Rule of Law, unless it's a cause they happen to support.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give the Hypocri-Husa.

[husaberg]

I've given you the only answer you are going to get.



Ah... The 'Tolerant Left', in all it's Glory...

All in favour of Migrants, until they say something they don't like, then they tell people to go back to where they came from.
All opposed to the tyranny of Minorities, until it's a Minority that they don't like.
All opposed to Hate Speech and Offence, right up until it's directed against someone they don't like.
All in favor of the Rule of Law, unless it's a cause they happen to support.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give the Hypocri-Husa.

Lets see

You are to scared to give an answer to a simple question.
On whether you have turned in your prohibited weapon.
The rest is you making up crap,you are claiming to have some right to ignore the laws of the country you immigrated to.
We are not talking cultural differences here, we are talking breaking the law of NZ.
yet you expect me to answer all the silly nonsensical questions you put to me.
You then make up a series of things to accuse me of, which you have no supporting evidence, in order to change the subject.
You are simply projecting your own failings onto others and in an attempt to call them a hypocrite, that's classic Katmanisms.
I would have thought you have more substance, but obviously not.

[Katman]

Then you project your own failings onto others and call them a hypocrite, that's classic Katmanisms.


Fixated, much?

[husaberg]

Fixated, much?

4 minutes is not a record for you. pretty sure thats currently at 3 minutes But it does indicate you have a problem.................
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/186796-Desperately-seeking-husabergs-attention
Especially considering you are that enamored with me i appear in every single one of your posts.;)
And the length you go to to alter each and every one of my posts:laugh:

[Swoop]

So far, the total number of Firearms handed in is less than the total number of pre-existing E-Cat rifles.

At the end of the Buy Back, regardless of the totals handed in - Chris Cunthill and Weasel Nash will stand in front of the country and proclaim how much of a great success it all was, and when someone inevitably points out how it wasn't they will lie through their teeth - I'm guessing they will say they 'overestimated the number in circulation' or other such nonsense.
I'm hearing numbers around 300,000 and possibly an expected 200,000 handed in during the confiscation. Obviously the "authorities" will know the exact figures since THEY granted importation permits for everything entering the country...


I have used AK47s, AR10s and M16s (my preference is the AK ..) fun to cull goats with .. no other legitimate civilian purpose.
Apart from competitive shooting events.
Club, Regional and National competitions.
Culling purposes.
Collecting.
Historical reasons and significance.
Etc,
Etc.

[frogfeaturesFZR]

I found it ironic that the police commissioner described semi autos as ‘evil’, conveniently forgetting that those are the very firearms the police use.
Double standard, much ?

[TheDemonLord]

Lets see

You are to scared to give an answer to a simple question.
On whether you have turned in your prohibited weapon.

Scared? No. If I was 'Scared' as you put it, I'd have meticulously gone through and edited every post about it, removing any evidence or mention. I have not.

The simple fact is, you have no right to ask that question and I have no Obligation to answer it. The response you've received is that you can ask me after the 20th of December. Which, given the previous 2 statements is exceedingly generous on my part.


The rest is you making up crap,you are claiming to have some right to ignore the laws of the country you immigrated to.

All I've said is that the process by which the law was changed was clearly undemocratic, and as such I don't consider it to have any validity.

There are many laws throughout History that were broken as part of a Protest, and a good number of them I'll wager you even support the breaking of them - what you are clearly too immature to do, is to argue the Merits of the individual Law, the reason and method it was written and whether or not there are any higher principles that can apply to it.


We are not talking cultural differences here, we are talking breaking the law of NZ.

Oh, so if it's a Cultural Difference it's okay then?

Sweet! It's my Culture not to have my personal Property stolen under the threat of Force. Thanks to Husa, I'm now exempt from the new Law.

Cheers Bud.


yet you expect me to answer all the silly nonsensical questions you put to me.

I only asked one:

Do you feel Safer?

The clear point is that at current rates there will either by a very large supply of Firearms in private hands, held by people with a chip on their shoulder that YOU put there. Or there will be a massive Financial cost, orders of Magnitude larger what was promised.

A Financial cost that would have been better spent on things that what actually make NZ Safer.


You then make up a series of things to accuse me of, which you have no supporting evidence, in order to change the subject.

I've not changed the subject - you started hurling abuse and telling me to get out of your country - I'm pointing out that you've vociferously criticized others who (according to you) espouse the same statements.


You are simply projecting your own failings onto others and in an attempt to call them a hypocrite, that's classic Katmanisms.
I would have thought you have more substance, but obviously not.

Not at all, You've told a Migrant that if they don't like something they should leave. The Same statements you regularly attribute to the likes of Trump, Robinson etc. and when they say it, they are evil racist, xenophobes. So which is it?

Face it, you've caught yourself in your own Hatred.

Doubly funny when you claim to have substance, yet have curiously not attacked any of the figures or points I made - One might point out that it is you who lack substence, since you went straight for the Ad Hominem.

[TheDemonLord]

I found it ironic that the police commissioner described semi autos as ‘evil’, conveniently forgetting that those are the very firearms the police use.
Double standard, much ?

And loose.
And Negligently Discharge.
And get stolen.

It would be interesting to see a comparison between the number of breaches of the 7 Basic Firearm safety rules by Police vs the Public.

Given how small the Police force is (16,000), I wouldn't be surprised if statistically, they breached those rules more than Joe Public.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm hearing numbers around 300,000 and possibly an expected 200,000 handed in during the confiscation. Obviously the "authorities" will know the exact figures since THEY granted importation permits for everything entering the country...

I don't think the hand in numbers will be that high - talking to friends in Australia, that they were being paid above what they had paid for it incentivized people to comply, but even then - the best case estimate is 80% compliance - word on the grapevine is that the high-end stuff was retained and many of the beat-up SKS and Ruger .22s were traded in for a profit.

Even then though - 66% compliance, with 100,000 Firearms in the hands of people that have now been made Criminals by a retroactive law change - that doesn't make me feel safer.

Quite the opposite in fact.

[husaberg]

Scared? No. If I was 'Scared' as you put it, I'd have meticulously gone through and edited every post about it, removing any evidence or mention. I have not.

The simple fact is, you have no right to ask that question and I have no Obligation to answer it. The response you've received is that you can ask me after the 20th of December. Which, given the previous 2 statements is exceedingly generous on my part.



All I've said is that the process by which the law was changed was clearly undemocratic, and as such I don't consider it to have any validity.

There are many laws throughout History that were broken as part of a Protest, and a good number of them I'll wager you even support the breaking of them - what you are clearly too immature to do, is to argue the Merits of the individual Law, the reason and method it was written and whether or not there are any higher principles that can apply to it.



Oh, so if it's a Cultural Difference it's okay then?

Sweet! It's my Culture not to have my personal Property stolen under the threat of Force. Thanks to Husa, I'm now exempt from the new Law.

Cheers Bud.



I only asked one:

Do you feel Safer?

The clear point is that at current rates there will either by a very large supply of Firearms in private hands, held by people with a chip on their shoulder that YOU put there. Or there will be a massive Financial cost, orders of Magnitude larger what was promised.

A Financial cost that would have been better spent on things that what actually make NZ Safer.



I've not changed the subject - you started hurling abuse and telling me to get out of your country - I'm pointing out that you've vociferously criticized others who (according to you) espouse the same statements.



Not at all, You've told a Migrant that if they don't like something they should leave. The Same statements you regularly attribute to the likes of Trump, Robinson etc. and when they say it, they are evil racist, xenophobes. So which is it?

Face it, you've caught yourself in your own Hatred.

Doubly funny when you claim to have substance, yet have curiously not attacked any of the figures or points I made - One might point out that it is you who lack substence, since you went straight for the Ad Hominem.
I recall now why so many have you on ignore.
I will no longer converse with you if you refuse to answer what is a simple yes no question.
You dont like a law change well tough its what the law now is.
just because you dont like a law tough, move somewhere where you do like the laws or be prepared to face the consequences for not obeying the law along with the other criminals.

[austingtir]

I recall now why so many have you on ignore.
I will no longer converse with you if you refuse to answer what is a simple yes no question.
You dont like a law change well tough its what the law now is.
just because you dont like a law tough, move somewhere where you do like the laws or be prepared to face the consequences for not obeying the law along with the other criminals.


Laws can be changed.

Thats why all gun owner's with commons sense in NZ should be voting for New Conservative!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K59Z1_RPoBY

[TheDemonLord]

I recall now why so many have you on ignore.
I will no longer converse with you if you refuse to answer what is a simple yes no question.
You dont like a law change well tough its what the law now is.
just because you dont like a law tough, move somewhere where you do like the laws or be prepared to face the consequences for not obeying the law along with the other criminals.

So many?

At last count it was 3, and since you are replying, that would bring it down to 2.

Maths clearly not your strong suit....

I've answered all of your Questions - you've yet to answer mine:

Do you feel Safer?

And don't worry - since you are clearly such on such principled adherance to the Law, I shall remember this strict interpretation and apply to you in subsequent discussions, I don't think you will like the outcome....

[husaberg]

So many?

At last count it was 3, and since you are replying, that would bring it down to 2.

Maths clearly not your strong suit....

I've answered all of your Questions - you've yet to answer mine:

Do you feel Safer?

And don't worry - since you are clearly such on such principled adherance to the Law, I shall remember this strict interpretation and apply to you in subsequent discussions, I don't think you will like the outcome....

i have yet to answered yours, yet you have answered all of mine, what colour is thesky in your world, because you clearly haven't answered mine.
So where is the yes or no answer to if you have handed back your prohibited weapon and parts namely the AR10. Then a follow up question, if not do you intend to hand it back prior to the end of amnesty in December.
its not a trick question it not a hard question but you will not answer it.

SImply puti asked you a simple question first ,to which you consistently refuse to answer, yet conversely and hypocritically youeveryone expected to answer all your questions, that are nothing to do with either what they said. But are are just unrelated gish gallops designed to deflect attention from the original subject.

i recall that was the primary tactic of someone with deep seated psychological issues that used to beg random dudes to suck his cock when he was upset.
Unless you are prepared to answer whether you have handed back your prohibited weapon or not, you will be simply added back to ignore.

[Katman]

.....you will be simply added back to ignore.

:killingme

I doubt it.

[husaberg]

:killingme

I doubt it.

Your own doubts include the existence of the holocaust,
That there was gas chambers at Auschwitz.
That two planes hit and brought down the WTC,
That there is a cost effective alternative to 1080 for inaccessible areas of NZ.
That 4-5 month old calves get sent to the works after a Rodeo.
That big oil is stopping the take up of a geet engine that runs of coffee grounds
So i doubt you really are a reliable indicator of anything other than the gullibility of people called Steve who have a penchant for begging random dudes to perform oral sex on them and live in Taupo

[TheDemonLord]

i have yet to answered yours, yet you have answered all of mine, what colour is th esky in your world because you clearly haven't.
So where is the yes or no answer to if you have handed back your prohibited weapon and parts namely the AR10. Then a follow up question, if not do you intend to hand it back prior to the end of amnesty in December.
its not a trick question it not a hard question but you will not answer it.

I have, you can ask when it's appropriate to ask.
Not before.

Because you are desperately trying to paint me as a criminal, in order to poison the well and then use that justification to ignore the facts about the absolute failure that this law is and the undemocratic way it was introduced. We can presume you've gone down this route because you have at least the self-awareness to know that you have absolutely no rebuttal to the fact that even with grossly increased compliance rates, the Buy-Back is an Abyssmal failure and a massive waste of Money and will not in any way shape or form make NZ Safer.

In fact, by pissing off a large number of armed individuals, it is quite likely to have the opposite effect.

Until the 20th of December, regardless of what I say, I've committed no crime. So, the answer is: You can ask after the 20th of December.


SImply puti asked you a simple question first ,to which you consistently refuse to answer, yet conversely and hypocritically youeveryone expected to answer all your questions, that are nothing to do with either what they said. But are are just unrelated gish gallops designed to deflect attention from the original subject.

Actually, it was me that posed the Question first. In case your memory is failing:



Now, here is the question - Do you feel safer? Do you feel that it's money Well Spent?

Which you ignored, asked your own, then demand I answer (despite the fact I've given you an answer, it's just not one you like).

The fact you are going on this crusade, accusing me of the things you are currently doing is an exercise in your seething hatred of 'the other' and your own hypocrisy.


i recall that was the primary tactic of someone with deep seated psychological issues that used to beg random dudes to suck his cock when he was upset.
Unless you are prepared to answer whether you have handed back your prohibited weapon or not, you will be simply added back to ignore.

I've answered it 3 ways, I'll recount for you:

1: It's not a Question you have any right to ask.
2: It's not a Question I have any obligation to answer.
3: You may ask that Question after the 20th of December.

For a Bonus point - since you've clearly established that the first question asked must be the first question answered and subsequent questions can be ignored (and unfortunately for you, your own incompetence failed to notice that I asked first):

How's about you answer: Do you feel Safer?

[husaberg]

I have


Yet you very clearly have not. so back to ignore

[austingtir]

^^:violin::violin::violin:

[Katman]

Yet you very clearly have not. so back to ignore

I suspect the only person you're fooling is yourself.

[husaberg]

I suspect the only person you're fooling is yourself.
There you go again, the list of your previous suspects predominately consist of
The government (any unless its Russian)
The FBi
The CIA
the NTSB
the entire media (outside of Alex Jones)
Every known historian outside of David Irving (A well known fraudster who under oath admitted he lied)
every Scientist (who hasn't been discredited for publishing false data)
The FAA
Big oil
The New York fire department.
Every person whose last name ends in field or Stine, Bloom or berg
The New York police department
All the Drug companies. (Outside homeopathy)
THE WHO
The entire medical profession outside Wakefield (a well known fraud)
The Police
The entire judicial system.
A small Maltese puppy called Benjamin
Big anything.........(but as long as you add big first it makes it suspicious)
Various multiple shadowy organisations that don't seem to exist outside your own psychosis.

[Swoop]

And loose.
And Negligently Discharge.
And get stolen.

It would be interesting to see a comparison between the number of breaches of the 7 Basic Firearm safety rules by Police vs the Public.

Given how small the Police force is (16,000), I wouldn't be surprised if statistically, they breached those rules more than Joe Public.
I know of a negligent discharge inside a police station...
The rest of the proof is in the fact that so many ranges around the country refuse to allow them to use the facilities. The reason is because of the damage inflicted in the roof, walls and areas NOT meant to be fired into.
The military refuse access on many ranges because of this.



Even then though - 66% compliance, with 100,000 Firearms in the hands of people that have now been made Criminals by a retroactive law change - that doesn't make me feel safer.

Quite the opposite in fact.
A good quote today "The only thing being handed in, is democracy".

[husaberg]

A good quote today "The only thing being handed in, is democracy".

You might want to point out where the NZ bill of rights says everyone must have the right to have semiauto weapons and access to large mags on a A class licence.
Even the US constitution which spells it out gun ownership as being a right doesn't specify it has to be is a particular kind of Automatic or semi auto.
The world never ended after Legislation was passed in 1992 amended the 1983 Arms Act, placing restrictions on the sale of military-style semiautomatic (MSSA) rifles and introducing 10-year limits for firearm licenses.

[austingtir]

You might want to point out where the NZ bill of rights says everyone must have the right to have semiauto weapons and access to large mags on a A class licence.
Even the US constitution which spells it out gun ownership as being a right doesn't specify it has to be is a particular kind of Automatic or semi auto.
The world never ended after Legislation was passed in 1992 amended the 1983 Arms Act, placing restrictions on the sale of military-style semiautomatic (MSSA) rifles and introducing 10-year limits for firearm licenses.



You talk so much rubbish I think I might even go join a gun club.

[husaberg]

You talk so much rubbish I think I might even go join a gun club.

I would encourage you to spend as much time as possible being around any areas were firearms are discharged as often as possible.
I wouldnt limit yourself to just gun clubs though try the artillery Waiouru range at and any of the worlds war zones.

[TheDemonLord]

You might want to point out where the NZ bill of rights says everyone must have the right to have semiauto weapons and access to large mags on a A class licence.

Stop Lying.

No One, here or otherwise has EVER said that this was right or even A right.

No One, here or otherwise has argued for this position.

In fact, many people (before the god-awful law change) suggested that the right approach would be to re-classify high-capacity Magazines that could be fitted to any Semi-Auto as requiring an E-Cat license to purchase.

[Katman]

Stop Lying.

No One, here or otherwise has EVER said that this was right or even A right.

No One, here or otherwise has argued for this position.

I thought you'd be used to him by now.

[Swoop]

You might want to point out where the NZ bill of rights says everyone must have the right to...
A robust democratic law-making process.
Not this shambles.

[husaberg]

A robust democratic law-making process.
Not this shambles.

so all the NZ voters (that bothered to vote in NZ) elect 120 MP's from multiple parties, Then 119 out of 120 of those same elected MPs, vote for a law that, 80% of kiwis totally support, you then claim that's not democratic............:lol:

[husaberg]

I thought you'd be used to him by now.

the only thing you have contributed to this thread is further proof you are petty narcissistic troll.
None of your posts have even been about the subject.

[scumdog]

A robust democratic law-making process.
Not this shambles.


It surely is, the wheels are getting wobbly I noticed, the whole thing has cracks but the Government is moving goal posts to compensate.

[scumdog]

You might want to point out where the NZ bill of rights says everyone must have the right to have semiauto weapons and access to large mags on a A class licence.
.
The world never ended after Legislation was passed in 1992 amended the 1983 Arms Act, placing restrictions on the sale of military-style semiautomatic (MSSA) rifles and introducing 10-year limits for firearm licenses.


I bet you can't find where anybody made a claim as per your first sentence?

And had the Arms Act update been done PROPERLY (instead of yet another knee-jerk reaction) and the vetting process done PROPERLY the Christchurch massacre would have been unlikely to occur.

Now the Government is scared that somebody will repeat the massacre using a fixed magazine four shot rifle....

[husaberg]

I bet you can't find where anybody made a claim as per your first sentence?

And had the Arms Act update been done PROPERLY (instead of yet another knee-jerk reaction) and the vetting process done PROPERLY the Christchurch massacre would have been unlikely to occur.

Now the Government is scared that somebody will repeat the massacre using a fixed magazine four shot rifle....

I don't need to, it was in reply to the claim that democracy was being stolen, when it simply was not, As NZ has no democratic right to own or use a semi auto, The process of making them probhited was entirely democratic, and it was overwhelmingly supported by the majority of Kiwis.
If you are going to get all precious about my statement ,how about you provide some evidence for your claim in your last sentence.
AS for the vetting and arms update how come so many on this thread have claimed the gun laws will have no effect at all on reducing the incidence of mass slaughter with what basically were assault weapons.
the gun lobby was saying our laws were the best in the world prior to this event.

[TheDemonLord]

I don't need to, it was in reply to the claim that democracy was being stolen, when it simply was not, As NZ has no democratic right to own or use a semi auto, The process of making them probhited was entirely democratic, and it was overwhelmingly supported by the majority of Kiwis.
If you are going to get all precious about my statement ,how about you provide some evidence for your claim in your last sentence.
AS for the vetting and arms update how come so many on this thread have claimed the gun laws will have no effect at all on reducing the incidence of mass slaughter with what basically were assault weapons.
the gun lobby was saying our laws were the best in the world prior to this event.

The laws were mostly fine, the application of the Laws were not.

Again, a Character reference from an Internet Forum. I'd not vouch for ANYONE on this forum that I had not (in the very least) met face-to-face.

What if I told you, that I recently moved house?

And what if I told you that when I submitted my address change to the Police, instead of coming round and inspecting the Security at my new premises (like they are meant to) they just sent me an email, which (and I'm paraphrasing here) was this:

Police: "Please tell us you aren't breaking the law"
Me: "I'm not breaking the Law"
Police: "WELL THAT'S GOOD THEN, NOTHING MORE TO SEE/DO HERE, LETS UPDATE OUR RECORDS"

Now, I should add - that despite Husa's attempts, I'm not breaking the law, the Safe is bolted to the Stud of the house inside a secured room. The problem is, the Police have only my word for that - they are not doing their job properly (just like with the Chch shooter) and they are not using the existing law to action the appropriate checks and balances.

This is after the Chch shooting where one would think the Police would be rather keen to do everything by the book.


As for the last point - Did Mass shooting/Acts of Terrorism stop in the UK after 1987? what about after 1996? If the answer is 'No' - then there's your proof that the laws won't make any difference. In fact, the vindictive, undemocratic and divisive nature of the laws will probably give rise to the next domestic terrorist.

[pritch]

The Guardian newspaper recently published a podcast discussing antique firearms and "ghost" ammunition. Seemingly gangs in Britain are using antique guns and non-commercially loaded ammunition to get around firearms restrictions. The British definition of "antique" seems quite relaxed as the article mentioned WW2 era pistols. Ammunition for the majority of those is still available and widely used.

The paper engaged the services of an expert to assist with the podcast. It seems though that the main asset he brought to the interview was an American accent. Actual expertise was in short supply.

To learn about "ghost bullets", a colourful journalistic phrase, detectives visited a known local reloader who sometimes onsells to dealers. They showed him a variety of ammunition and he advised them as to what it was and how it would have been created. At one point he examined a round and identified it as one that he had loaded. Nothing was said, the discussion continued and eventually the detectives left.

Later they returned with a warrant for his arrest. He was tried and sentenced to twenty years jail. He appealed but the appeal failed.

The reloader didn't even try and conceal the fact that he had created the round, he was quite open about it as he was entitled to be. He did not sell ammunition to any gang member, he supplied it to a dealer who onsold it. I can't help but feel that, on the evidence presented in the podcast, a major injustice has been done.

The British justice system is on a parlous state currently following years of massive budget cuts and restrictions to legal aid etc. Reading general warnings about the failure of the sytem is one thing. An apparent travesty such as this is another entirely.


https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2019/aug/16/antique-firearms-gangs-guns-and-untraceable-ghost-bullets-podcast

[Swoop]

so all the NZ voters (that bothered to vote in NZ) elect 120 MP's from multiple parties, Then 119 out of 120 of those same elected MPs, vote for a law that, 80% of kiwis totally support, you then claim that's not democratic............:lol:

My MP is meant to represent my opinion in Parliament, not to make up whatever he/she "feels" is their opinion on any random day. Democracy has died in NZ. RIP democracy.

[husaberg]

My MP is meant to represent my opinion in Parliament, not to make up whatever he/she "feels" is their opinion on any random day. Democracy has died in NZ. RIP democracy.

Forgive me thats' a child like response, An MP is meant to represent the majority of those that voted for them, your views are the minority, don't let a narrow echo chamber view you get in this thread or a firearms forum fool you into thinking your view is the majority because its clearly not. 80% of kiwis think what has been done is a good idea or even conversely doesn't go far enough.
Accept it, deal with it and move on.
Those that don't comply are clearly not the people we want having firearms so they will be treated as such.

[TheDemonLord]

Forgive me thats' a child like response, An MP is meant to represent the majority of those that voted for them, your views are the minority, don't let a narrow echo chamber view you get in this thread or a firearms forum fool you into thinking your view is the majority because its clearly not. 80% of kiwis think what has been done is a good idea or even conversely doesn't go far enough.
Accept it, deal with it and move on.
Those that don't comply are clearly not the people we want having firearms so they will be treated as such.

Something to point out (which Husa will ignore)

There were ~13,000 submissions made in the 24 hour period.

Yet, there were ~15,000 signatures on the Petition to have a proper submission period.

If Husaberg wants to play the 'Will of the People' card - then he must answer why 15,000 people were ignored and only a percentage of 13,000 to were listened to.

Does that sound like any form of Democracy?

[scumdog]

The Guardian newspaper recently published a podcast discussing antique firearms and "ghost" ammunition. Seemingly gangs in Britain are using antique guns and non-commercially loaded ammunition to get around firearms restrictions. The British definition of "antique" seems quite relaxed as the article mentioned WW2 era pistols. Ammunition for the majority of those is still available and widely used.

The paper engaged the services of an expert to assist with the podcast. It seems though that the main asset he brought to the interview was an American accent. Actual expertise was in short supply.

To learn about "ghost bullets", a colourful journalistic phrase, detectives visited a known local reloader who sometimes onsells to dealers. They showed him a variety of ammunition and he advised them as to what it was and how it would have been created. At one point he examined a round and identified it as one that he had loaded. Nothing was said, the discussion continued and eventually the detectives left.

Later they returned with a warrant for his arrest. He was tried and sentenced to twenty years jail. He appealed but the appeal failed.

The reloader didn't even try and conceal the fact that he had created the round, he was quite open about it as he was entitled to be. He did not sell ammunition to any gang member, he supplied it to a dealer who onsold it. I can't help but feel that, on the evidence presented in the podcast, a major injustice has been done.

The British justice system is on a parlous state currently following years of massive budget cuts and restrictions to legal aid etc. Reading general warnings about the failure of the sytem is one thing. An apparent travesty such as this is another entirely.


https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2019/aug/16/antique-firearms-gangs-guns-and-untraceable-ghost-bullets-podcast





Welcome to what NZ will be like in this regard...:buggerd::bs:

[Swoop]

80% of kiwis think what has been done...
Which, using your "statistics" would represent a miscarriage of representation of the electorate.
... oddly that fits right in with the liarbour government modus operandi.

[husaberg]

My MP is meant to represent my opinion in Parliament, not to make up whatever he/she "feels" is their opinion on any random day. Democracy has died in NZ. RIP democracy.


Forgive me thats' a child like response, An MP is meant to represent the majority of those that voted for them, your views are the minority, don't let a narrow echo chamber view you get in this thread or a firearms forum fool you into thinking your view is the majority because its clearly not. 80% of kiwis think what has been done is a good idea or even conversely doesn't go far enough.
Accept it, deal with it and move on.
Those that don't comply are clearly not the people we want having firearms so they will be treated as such.


Which, using your "statistics" would represent a miscarriage of representation of the electorate.
... oddly that fits right in with the liarbour government modus operandi.

80% of kiwis wanting the law changed is a little bit over and beyond a majority.
you first claimed it wasnt democracy as it wasn't what you wanted. but what you didnt consider 20% is not anything more than a minority.
As for blaming it on the current government
Funny how you just keep on conveniently not noticing that national MP's voted the same way, as did greens and NZ first.
Now were you going on and on when the law was changed after aromona by national, who f-ed it up.
were you going on about the deaath of democacy when the full big maged pistol gripped assult riffles werefirst banned?
the law has changed, get over it.

[TheDemonLord]

And now Lowers (that can be used on legal Firearms) are now Illegal.

This is not about Safety, this is about trying to ban all firearms by stealth.

[jasonu]

And now Lowers (that can be used on legal Firearms) are now Illegal.

This is not about Safety, this is about trying to ban all firearms by stealth.

Where did you hear this?

[Laava]

And now Lowers (that can be used on legal Firearms) are now Illegal.

This is not about Safety, this is about trying to ban all firearms by stealth.

So what do you mean by lowers and to what firearms are they applicable? I have never heard that term before although I have owned a few and varied guns.

[TheDemonLord]

Where did you hear this?

The Police have now ruled AR-15 lowers illegal, even though they can be put onto .22 uppers, with the centrefire uppers surrendered.

The Circus continues.

[jasonu]

The Police have now ruled AR-15 lowers illegal, even though they can be put onto .22 uppers, with the centrefire uppers surrendered.

The Circus continues.

Circus is right.
Didn't know the police could deem something legal, illegal or otherwise. Making laws isn't in their brief, right?

[TheDemonLord]

Circus is right.
Didn't know the police could deem something legal, illegal or otherwise. Making laws isn't in their brief, right?

Well, they've got a long and well established tradition in NZ of ignoring the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary - remember when they tried to redefine what constituted a Pistol Grip?

[Swoop]

Now were you going on and on when the law was changed after aromona by national, who f-ed it up.
Yes, I did.
John Banks is a fuckwit, who enacted his personal bias and lack of knowledge.
Exactly like what Liarbour have done.

Their inept "ban black guns" is now making lever-action cowboy rifles illegal.:facepalm:

[husaberg]

Yes, I did.
John Banks is a fuckwit, who enacted his personal bias and lack of knowledge.
Exactly like what Liarbour have done.

Their inept "ban black guns" is now making lever-action cowboy rifles illegal.:facepalm:

Really exactly like, where is the loophole in the new law that allows people to legally buy and keep AR15's and suchlike and large Mags on a A class licence.
there is a about 5 people on KB moaning about the law change, yet you act like the whole country is up in arms about it.

[Katman]

there is a about 5 people on KB moaning about the law change, yet you act like the whole country is up in arms about it.

And yet there's probably only about 6 people regularly contributing to this thread.

You seem to be the only one wholeheartedly supporting the law change.

[husaberg]

And yet there's probably only about 6 people regularly contributing to this thread.

You seem to be the only one wholeheartedly supporting the law change.

Or maybe you just are not smart enough to notice that almost everyone else cant see the point arguing with bozos. As they drag you down to their level.
But feel free to refute the 80% support of the law change with some actual evidence. You do know what actual evidence is don't you?:psst:

[ellipsis]

...when are the fuckwits wanting me to turn in my pointy sticks...I have far more than 10 of the very dangerous things...?...if I took a few to the West Coast would I be labeled a 'terrorist'...interesting times...I wouldn't want to shove one up anyone's arse in particular...

[pritch]

Their inept "ban black guns" is now making lever-action cowboy rifles illegal.:facepalm:

Not arguing just interested, what are you basing that on? My understanding is that if the magazine holds 10 rounds or less it's not affected.

[jasonu]

almost everyone else cant see the point arguing with bozos. :

Fucking gold coming from you!!!

[BuzzardNZ]

Fucking gold coming from you!!!

LOL, too true! :laugh::laugh:

[TheDemonLord]

Or maybe you just are not smart enough to notice that almost everyone else cant see the point arguing with bozos. As they drag you down to their level.
But feel free to refute the 80% support of the law change with some actual evidence. You do know what actual evidence is don't you?:psst:

From the above, we can conclude that Husaberg wholly supports Genocide, so long as the Majority of people support the Law changes that allow it.

[scumdog]

Not arguing just interested, what are you basing that on? My understanding is that if the magazine holds 10 rounds or less it's not affected.


NOT if it's a centre-fire - ALL centre-fire semi auto rifles are banned - even if they can only hold three rounds in a fixed magazine,- there's some really effed up logic in the 'rules' being made. (And they move the goalpost regularly.
:blink:

A 22 that holds ten rounds is OK, that includes bolt-actions, pump action ect. More than ten rounds? - it's banned.:nono:


Semi auto and pump action shotguns can hold up to five in the mage and still be legal - as long as the magazine is not removable (?):weird:

[pritch]

NOT if it's a centre-fire - ALL centre-fire semi auto rifles are banned - even if they can only hold three rounds in a fixed magazine,- there's some really effed up logic in the 'rules' being made. (And they move the goalpost regularly.
:blink:

A 22 that holds ten rounds is OK, that includes bolt-actions, pump action ect. More than ten rounds? - it's banned.:nono:


Semi auto and pump action shotguns can hold up to five in the mage and still be legal - as long as the magazine is not removable (?):weird:

The statement I queried specifically mentioned lever action cowboy rifles. Unless the magazine capacity exceeds 10 I don't see a problem. So I was wondering to what he was referring.

[scumdog]

The statement I queried specifically mentioned lever action cowboy rifles. Unless the magazine capacity exceeds 10 I don't see a problem. So I was wondering to what he was referring.

Gotcha.

Hamm, from my observations the Western Action ones do hold more than ten - but hey, I might be wrong!

[Laava]

Gotcha.

Hamm, from my observations the Western Action ones do hold more than ten - but hey, I might be wrong!

Shhh, don't tell the police! They might grab 'em!

[pritch]

Gotcha.

Hamm, from my observations the Western Action ones do hold more than ten - but hey, I might be wrong!

Curiosity got the better of me. Rossi seem to max out magazine capacity at 10. Marlin the same. Winchester are all over the place depending on caliber, but there was a 357 holds 13. I guess anyone who has one of those is shit outa luck. That model is relatively expensive though, so they may not be all that common here.

We don’t have to think too hard to come up with of a couple of possible complications. The advice we were given was not to overthink it, and to stay within the specified ten rounds.

[husaberg]

Yes, I did.
John Banks is a fuckwit, who enacted his personal bias and lack of knowledge.
Exactly like what Liarbour have done.

Their inept "ban black guns" is now making lever-action cowboy rifles illegal.:facepalm:



Not arguing just interested, what are you basing that on? My understanding is that if the magazine holds 10 rounds or less it's not affected.



Shhh, don't tell the police! They might grab 'em!

Gotcha.

Hamm, from my observations the Western Action ones do hold more than ten - but hey, I might be wrong!

Pretty sure the police can read the law
Centre fire Lever Prohibited No - but note that a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is prohibited.
https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearms-and-safety/changes-firearms-law-prohibited-firearms



Magazines for other firearms (excluding pistols) that are:
Detachable magazines bigger than 10 rounds that are capable of holding 0.22 calibre or lower rimfire cartridges
Detachable magazines bigger than 10 rounds that are capable of being used with a semi-automatic or fully automatic firearm
Other magazines, detachable or not, that are capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
others are

Prohibited magazines are:
Shotgun magazines (whether detachable or not) capable of holding more than 5 rounds.

[Laava]

Pretty sure the police can read the law
Centre fire Lever Prohibited No - but note that a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is prohibited.
https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearms-and-safety/changes-firearms-law-prohibited-firearms

So is that a firearm that is sold as a pump action .22 10 shot, for example, or Is that same gun, that actually can take 12 with one in the breech, going to be physically inspected by firearms officers and subsequently banned?
Asking for a friend...

[TheDemonLord]

Pretty sure the police can read the law
Centre fire Lever Prohibited No - but note that a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is prohibited.
https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearms-and-safety/changes-firearms-law-prohibited-firearms

And since there is no distinction between an internal and detachable Magqazine.

Centre Fire Lever action Firearms holding more than 10 rounds are Prohibited, just like everyone has said.

(this is the part were you admit that you are both wrong and ignorant)

[jasonu]

(this is the part were you admit that you are both wrong and ignorant)

Never gonna happen

[husaberg]

Never gonna happen
............................


Not one of those is support for trump.

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=331922&d=1500865799

[Swoop]

Not arguing just interested, what are you basing that on? My understanding is that if the magazine holds 10 rounds or less it's not affected.
It was in the info released by COLFO.
Whether or not the gubbinment intent was to actually involve a far greater amount of firearm types other than the Black (frothing at the mouth, media-frenzy inducing types) of firearms, is uncertain. I'm suspecting a deliberate approach.

ALL centre-fire semi auto rifles are banned
......................
Semi auto and pump action shotguns can hold up to five in the mage and still be legal...
Bit of a contradiction really.

Not all self-loaders are banned and even the ecilop "fact" sheet is incorrect and shows they haven't read the Act.

[pritch]

So is that a firearm that is sold as a pump action .22 10 shot, for example, or Is that same gun, that actually can take 12 with one in the breech, going to be physically inspected by firearms officers and subsequently banned?
Asking for a friend...

I don't quite understand how you get to 12. Any 10 shot mag rifle will hold 11 with one up the spout. The advice from police locally was that the regulations refer to magazine capacity.

Obviously there are some firearms will take more than one type of cartridge, eg 357/38 or 22LR/22 short. These may then potentially hold a greater number of rounds than the mandated 10. The advice was that it is the original specification that counts, but that it would be unwise to be caught with more than 10 rounds in a magazine.

For my money anybody stupid enough to bring themselves to the attention of police while in possession of a rifle with more than 10 rounds in the mag is too stupid to have the firearm anyway.

[TheDemonLord]

To add to the above, specifically when people have asked about Shotguns taking cut-down shells that would increase the capacity over the limit - that the word from the Police is (again, acting as the Judiciary...) that the intent of the law is to limit capacity to no more than X number of rounds and any circumventing of that will get you into trouble.


Just more proof Positive of how well thought out the new laws weren't....

[TheDemonLord]

As more proof to how retarded the new laws are:

Semi-Autos are now harder to own than....










Full-Autos!

As an Example - a Full Auto M16, owned under a C-Cat licence is fine, but the magazines now requires a P Endorsement. Police have stated that owners of a C-Cat licence will not be automatically granted a P Endorsement.

However, if you remove the Auto-Sear from your Full-auto, it becomes a Prohibited Firearm and requires a separate P Endorsement.

[Laava]

I don't quite understand how you get to 12. Any 10 shot mag rifle will hold 11 with one up the spout. The advice from police locally was that the regulations refer to magazine capacity.

Obviously there are some firearms will take more than one type of cartridge, eg 357/38 or 22LR/22 short. These may then potentially hold a greater number of rounds than the mandated 10. The advice was that it is the original specification that counts, but that it would be unwise to be caught with more than 10 rounds in a magazine.

For my money anybody stupid enough to bring themselves to the attention of police while in possession of a rifle with more than 10 rounds in the mag is too stupid to have the firearm anyway.

Yeah so this "friend" of mine has a .22lr pump action with a tube mag that is sold and described as a ten shot. You can put 12 in it and one up the spout. So, my roundabout question was, do the cops expect to be removing these rifles from circulation or do they not know about this particular model or do they not care or will they want to physically inspect themselves to ascertain mag capacity? Obviously my "friend" has no idea that it can in fact hold 13 shots. Or would not even care but when the firearms register comes into effect, is it likely to become an issue?

[Swoop]

To add to the above, specifically when people have asked about Shotguns taking cut-down shells that would increase the capacity over the limit...
Totally immaterial as the legislation states "chamber length".
IF the shotty has an XYZ sized chamber, then that is what it is measured with when considering the magazine capacity.

[TheDemonLord]

Totally immaterial as the legislation states "chamber length".
IF the shotty has an XYZ sized chamber, then that is what it is measured with when considering the magazine capacity.

Indeed, however the Police have made official statements that doing so would be considered breaching the legislation.

[pritch]

Yeah so this "friend" of mine has a .22lr pump action with a tube mag that is sold and described as a ten shot. You can put 12 in it and one up the spout. So, my roundabout question was, do the cops expect to be removing these rifles from circulation or do they not know about this particular model or do they not care or will they want to physically inspect themselves to ascertain mag capacity? Obviously my "friend" has no idea that it can in fact hold 13 shots. Or would not even care but when the firearms register comes into effect, is it likely to become an issue?

OK I didn't see that coming. We were told that the specification was what counted, be it written on the gun or in the ad blurb but I don't think they were considering this situuation. In the immortal words of Harry Callahan though your 'friend' just has to ask himself one question, does he feel lucky?

The safe option would be hand it in and buy a new one that's problem free.

[Laava]

OK I didn't see that coming. We were told that the specification was what counted, be it written on the gun or in the ad blurb but I don't think they were considering this situuation. In the immortal words of Harry Callahan though your 'friend' just has to ask himself one question, does he feel lucky?

The safe option would be hand it in and buy a new one that's problem free.
Definitely a grey area, but given that it is a .22 and very old, it is probably not likely to be an issue. In fact it is almost an antique by todays stds...

[caseye]

Definitely a grey area, but given that it is a .22 and very old, it is probably not likely to be an issue. In fact it is almost an antique by todays stds...

What it is (Antique or not)is not the point.
It WILL be confiscated if you were silly enough to take it in and ask. Thats the point!:no::no::no:

[scumdog]

Yeah so this "friend" of mine has a .22lr pump action with a tube mag that is sold and described as a ten shot. You can put 12 in it and one up the spout. So, my roundabout question was, do the cops expect to be removing these rifles from circulation or do they not know about this particular model or do they not care or will they want to physically inspect themselves to ascertain mag capacity? Obviously my "friend" has no idea that it can in fact hold 13 shots. Or would not even care but when the firearms register comes into effect, is it likely to become an issue?

Saw a guy take an semi-auto 22 in to the 'buy back' and walk back out with it when the cop there checked and it only held 10 cartridges, I can only guess the owner thought it was illegal somehow?

[scumdog]

It was in the info released by COLFO.
Whether or not the gubbinment intent was to actually involve a far greater amount of firearm types other than the Black (frothing at the mouth, media-frenzy inducing types) of firearms, is uncertain. I'm suspecting a deliberate approach.

Bit of a contradiction really.

Not all self-loaders are banned and even the ecilop "fact" sheet is incorrect and shows they haven't read the Act.

What self-loader centrefire rifle isn't banned?

To my understanding all are - including an ancient four shot with a fixed magazine model I know of.

[husaberg]

What self-loader centrefire rifle isn't banned?

To my understanding all are - including an ancient four shot with a fixed magazine model I know of.

thats the third time you have tried to muddy the waters with that one
That one is on the last as it can take a larger mag than 4 shots.



So why are bolt action 22 rifles with a 12 shot tube mag being banned?

Or grandads 1905 35 Remington semi auto with non-detachable 4 shot mag also being banned?

The media waffle on about how good it is that MSSA weapons have been banned but tip-toe past the guns such as those above - maybe they dont look 'evil' enough? (whatever evil looks like....?)

And the non-knowing think 'banned guns' just means M15/AK47 type guns - unaware it includes the type I mentioned above.

We have had this same discussion already i explained then why the the reasons have not changed since. Knock yourself out refuting what you couldn't before.


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.


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.


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.

[scumdog]

thats the third time you have tried to muddy the waters with that one
That one is on the last as it can take a larger mag than 4 shots.




We have had this same discussion already i explained then why the the reasons have not changed since. Knock yourself out refuting what you couldn't before.


But the one that can't??

[husaberg]

But the one that can't??


I pointed out you keep trying to misrepresent the same scenario when you know why its prohibited "whether" you agree with the law is irrelevant.
The reasoning is its capable. Exactly the same as the AR15 used to kill those 50 or so individuals. Whilst at the time the AR15 with the altered pistol grip and small mag were a Class legal with the original small mag, it was a simple mater to put in larger mags.

[Laava]

Saw a guy take an semi-auto 22 in to the 'buy back' and walk back out with it when the cop there checked and it only held 10 cartridges, I can only guess the owner thought it was illegal somehow?
So do they actually load it up to make sure it can only have 10 in the mag, or just go by make and model?

[jasonu]

So do they actually load it up to make sure it can only have 10 in the mag, or just go by make and model?

My guess is the average NZ Fuzz member doesn't even know how to load a gun...

[pritch]

So do they actually load it up to make sure it can only have 10 in the mag, or just go by make and model?

We were told it’s the specification which aligns with your ‘make and model’. If the cops were starting to load rounds into a firearm I for one would not be hanging around.

[Laava]

We were told it’s the specification which aligns with your ‘make and model’. If the cops were starting to load rounds into a firearm I for one would not be hanging around.
Haha, you're not in america here mate!

[Swoop]

What self-loader centrefire rifle isn't banned?

To my understanding all are - including an ancient four shot with a fixed magazine model I know of.
Read the legislation and it defines several criteria which must be met. If it has a fixed magazine that holds 5rnds or less, it is "ok".
There has been plenty of bits of paper with your company's letterhead all over them, but that is their opinion and not what anyone would get charged with. The Act is paramount.


So do they actually load it up to make sure it can only have 10 in the mag, or just go by make and model?
They cannot go by a simple "make and model" since they have allowed firearms to be modified to comply with the new regs.
A few shooting friends have had their firearms modified to comply.




A couple of anecdotes of recent times...

There is one shooter in the North Island who has had a $165,000 payout already.

Plod is now txt'ing owners and saying "there are NO queues at xyz confiscation event being held in your area" since the initial fiasco of people waiting for 6-8hrs!

[jasonu]

Read the legislation...... fiasco !

Sounds about right

[husaberg]

Sounds about right

Yeah the USA is clearly so bettttttterererer

studies indicate that the rate at which public mass shootings occur has tripled since 2011. Between 1982 and 2011, a mass shooting occurred roughly once every 200 days. However, between 2011 and 2014, that rate has accelerated greatly with at least one mass shooting occurring every 64 days in the United States.[28]

In recent years, the number of public mass shootings has increased substantially

[jasonu]

Yeah the USA is clearly so bettttttterererer

So does that make the NZ legislation OK or just slightly less shit than another countries rules?

[husaberg]

So does that make the NZ legislation OK or just slightly less shit than another countries rules?

Well do you think the USA having some of the worlds most lax gun laws and also the worst records for mass shootings is a co-incidence?
We all know that Australia had a massive decrease in mass shooting after their firearm reforms. I don't believe that was a co-incidence.
Nor do i believe the fact the USA has so many is not related to their extremely lax firearm laws.
NZ now has some of the strongest firearm laws so i will let history be the judge. If it makes a difference.

[Danger Mouse]

Read the legislation and it defines several criteria which must be met. If it has a fixed magazine that holds 5rnds or less, it is "ok".
There has been plenty of bits of paper with your company's letterhead all over them, but that is their opinion and not what anyone would get charged with. The Act is paramount.


They cannot go by a simple "make and model" since they have allowed firearms to be modified to comply with the new regs.
A few shooting friends have had their firearms modified to comply.




A couple of anecdotes of recent times...

There is one shooter in the North Island who has had a $165,000 payout already.

Plod is now txt'ing owners and saying "there are NO queues at xyz confiscation event being held in your area" since the initial fiasco of people waiting for 6-8hrs!


That's not quite right. Shat you describe only applies to shotguns. All semi automatic center fire rifles are now illegal

[Danger Mouse]

Well do you think the USA having some of the worlds most lax gun laws and also the worst records for mass shootings is a co-incidence?
We all know that Australia had a massive decrease in mass shooting after their firearm reforms. I don't believe that was a co-incidence.
Nor do i believe the fact the USA has so many is not related to their extremely lax firearm laws.
NZ now has some of the strongest firearm laws so i will let history be the judge. If it makes a difference.

You can't make generalizations of the us like that due to each state having it's own laws.

But you will find that the states with more relaxed firearms legislation have less firearms crime.

[husaberg]

You can't make generalizations of the us like that due to each state having it's own laws.

But you will find that the states with more relaxed firearms legislation have less firearms crime.
Yes i can as i have facts to back it up

the USA overall has some of the laxest gun laws in the developed world the highest rate of gun ownership it also has the highest rates of mass murders, these are facts.

but The United States of America is the only place you can get a gun at a Walmart. In fact, only 13 states require a background check. Guns can be advertised online and they can cost as little as US$100, making it the cheapest place to buy guns in the world. Even AR-15s can cost less than an iPhone. The estimated number of guns per capita is around 1.13. This means there are more guns than there are people. Even one of Iowa’s legislative bodies has passed a bill to allow children to handle handguns.
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2018/02/chart1.jpg

The United States’s gun homicide rate is 25 times higher than other high-income countries, according to a recent study
343021
https://fee.org/media/32881/cnn_mass_shootingsjpg.jpg


There are more mass shootings in states with weaker gun laws, according to a new study published in The BMJ, a medical journal, on Wednesday.

The study, from researchers at Columbia, New York University, Boston University, and the University of Pennsylvania, analyzed states’ mass shooting rates, the permissiveness of their firearm laws, and levels of gun ownership from 1998 to 2015. It then tested each of these to see if there was a link.

The result: Where there are more guns, there are more mass shootings. And where gun laws are weaker, there are more mass shootings.
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/n6_wscbpaeXOP9K3W00Q6dhjeMc=/0x0:755x913/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:755x913):format(webp):no_upscale ()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15945050/state_mass_shooting_rates.png



“A 10 unit increase in the permissiveness of state gun laws was associated with an approximately 9 percent higher rate of mass shootings after adjusting for key factors,” the researchers concluded. “A 10 percent increase in gun ownership was associated with an approximately 35 percent higher rate of mass shootings after adjusting for key factors.”

The researchers found that the difference between states with weaker laws and states with stronger laws is increasing, noting that there’s “a growing divergence in recent years as rates of mass shootings in restrictive states have decreased and those in permissive states have increased.”
If you have facts , you will have no problems producing them to back up your claims.

[Danger Mouse]

Yes i can as i have facts to back it up

the USA overall has some of the laxest gun laws in the developed world the highest rate of gun ownership it also has the highest rates of mass murders, these are facts.

but The United States of America is the only place you can get a gun at a Walmart. In fact, only 13 states require a background check. Guns can be advertised online and they can cost as little as US$100, making it the cheapest place to buy guns in the world. Even AR-15s can cost less than an iPhone. The estimated number of guns per capita is around 1.13. This means there are more guns than there are people. Even one of Iowa’s legislative bodies has passed a bill to allow children to handle handguns.
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2018/02/chart1.jpg

343021
https://fee.org/media/32881/cnn_mass_shootingsjpg.jpg


https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/n6_wscbpaeXOP9K3W00Q6dhjeMc=/0x0:755x913/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:755x913):format(webp):no_upscale ()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15945050/state_mass_shooting_rates.png



If you have facts , you will have no problems producing them to back up your claims.


Actually you dont under correlation or causation and have been quite happy to misrepresent things suit your own position. Do I'll just add you to my block list.

Bye.

[husaberg]

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?

How do I go about modifying my firearm from being prohibited to non-prohibited?

Some firearms with non-detachable tubular magazines are able to be modified (to permanently reduce the magazine capacity so that the firearm is no longer a prohibited firearm), including:

Semi-automatic firearms capable of firing only 0.22 calibre or lower rimfire cartridges, with a non-detachable magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds
Semi-automatic shotguns with a non-detachable tubular magazine capable of holding more than five cartridges
A pump-action shotgun with a non-detachable tubular magazine capable of holding more than five cartridges.
Owners of some bolt or lever-action firearms may not realise that, while firearms with those actions are not prohibited, the non-detachable magazine may be because of the number of rounds it holds. These include:

Shotguns with a non-detachable tubular magazine capable of holding more than five cartridges
Other firearms with non-detachable tubular magazines capable of holding more than 10 cartridges.
A process for how modifications can be carried out - and a list of approved gunsmiths to do the modifications - will be published on the Police website soon. Until then, please continue to keep your firearms safe. We recommend you read the full Regulations on the Police website.

Those people who elect to modify their eligible firearms can seek payment up to a maximum of $300 for the cost of the modification. This payment will be made to the approved gunsmith who carries out the modification.
https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearms-and-safety/changes-firearms-law-prohibited-firearms/firearms-changes-faqs

Are AR type lower receivers prohibited? (new)

Yes, AR type lower receivers are prohibited under the Act. These substantive AR type parts can be used interchangeably and are capable of forming a prohibited firearm with a centre-fire upper receiver. Any modification of a prohibited firearm by replacing the upper receiver is not permanent and is therefore not consistent with the intent of the legislation.

An AR type lower receiver on its own does not yet appear on the Buy-Back price list (04 Sept 2019 edition) and they have not, to date, been accepted as part of the buyback.. At the point they are listed, Police will put the pricing on our website and we encourage all owners of AR type lower receivers to then hand them over as part of the buyback process and receive compensation


Prohibited firearms cannot be used without an endorsement and permit.

Is a two cartridge magazine extender on the end of a three shot fixed tubular magazine still lawful for a semi-automatic or a pump action shotgun?

Yes, provided the magazine(s) cannot hold a total of more than five cartridges (commensurate with the firearm’s chamber size).

Can I use a semi-automatic shotgun with a tubular magazine capacity of five 3 ½" cartridges in light of the fact it could hold six 2 ¾" cartridges?

The magazine capacity is measured commensurate with the firearm’s chamber size. If the firearm is chambered for 3 ½ inch cartridges and is capable of holding no more than five of those cartridges, then it is not a prohibited firearm and can still be used with a standard firearms licence.

Would it be illegal to put six 2 ¾" cartridges into the above firearm?

You should use cartridges that the shotgun is chambered for. The intent of the changes to the Act is to restrict shotguns to five cartridges.

Would it be illegal to put five 2 ¾" cartridges into the above firearm in light of the fact it could hold another cartridge?

That is within the intent of the Act.

Can parts and accessories used with newly prohibited semi-automatic shotguns be removed from that gun and used with legal semi-automatic shotguns?

Not if the part is a prohibited part.

Can I use a pump-action shotgun?

Provided is not a pump action shotgun that:

Is capable of being used with a detachable magazine; or
Has a non-detachable tubular magazine capable of holding more than 5 rounds.

[husaberg]

Actually you dont under correlation or causation and have been quite happy to misrepresent things suit your own position. Do I'll just add you to my block list.

Bye.

Fine, although ignoring the fact you were clearly wrong, will not make you right though now, will it.
You made a real tit of yourself claiming something, i posted was not able to be proven, when it was, even then in only a few seconds
Unless of course you believe all those researchers made it all up.:msn-wink:

[jasonu]

You can't make generalizations of the us like that due to each state having it's own laws.

But you will find that the states with more relaxed firearms legislation have less firearms crime.



Cue multiple posts with 10 or more cut and pastes that could have come from anywhere.....

Please don't encourage him.

[husaberg]

Cue multiple posts with 10 or more cut and pastes that could have come from anywhere.....

Please don't encourage him.

Do you realize the souces are marked, Of course what would the researchers from the university of Alabama, Columbia university, Boston University, and the University of Pennsylvania know compared to your hunch's and lack of cognitive abilities.

[Katman]

Of course what would the researchers from the university of Alabama, Columbia university, Boston University, and the University of Pennsylvania know compared to your hunchs and lack of cognitive abilities.

What about the researchers from the University of Alaska Fairbanks?

[husaberg]

What about the researchers from the University of Alaska Fairbanks?

What about them.........
do you know what the population is of Fairbanks Alaska is.....its 32 thousand only slightly bigger than the cesspit you live in, They carry handguns there as a rule to shoot bear and wolves
maybe we should see what the university policy is on firearms

Board of Regents’ Policy 02.09.020 - Possession of Weapons, provides that “…possession or carrying of firearms in buildings or parts of buildings owned or controlled by the university, on developed university land adjacent to university buildings, or at university sporting, entertainment or educational events, is a violation of regents’ policy and may result in administrative sanctions.”

If you have a study post it or go away and stop being such a sad old troll.

ps maybe you should learn how to quote properly egg.


For a laugh lets full up Alaska's stats
Death by gun: Top 20 states with highest rates.

1. Alaska
Death by firearm per 100,000 population: 19.8
No permit required for purchase of a firearm.
In Alaska, suicide was the leading cause of gun deaths, with it being the main factor in more than 80% of all firearm deaths. John Roman, senior fellow at the Urban Institute, an economic and social policy think tank told USA Today that states with the highest rates of suicide also usually had the strongest culture of gun ownership. "There are many more suicides in places where it's easy to get a gun," he said.

lets see what other research is out there
Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.
Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)
Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.
Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92:1988-1993
Across states, more guns = more homicide
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten-year period (1988-1997).
After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.
Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.


Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearms and violence death in the United States. In: Webster DW, Vernick JS, eds. Reducing Gun Violence in America. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.
A summary of the evidence on guns and violent death
This book chapter summarizes the scientific literature on the relationship between gun prevalence (levels of household gun ownership) and suicide, homicide and unintentional firearm death and concludes that where there are higher levels of gun ownership, there are more gun suicides and more total suicides, more gun homicides and more total homicides, and more accidental gun deaths.
This is the first chapter in the book and provides and up-to-date and readable summary of the literature on the relationship between guns and death. It also adds to the literature by using the National Violent Death Reporting System data to show where (home or away) the shootings occurred. Suicides for all age groups and homicides for children and aging adults most often occurred in their own home.


Swedler DI, Simmons MM, Dominici F, Hemenway D. Firearm prevalence and homicides of law enforcement officers in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2015; 105:2042-48.
More guns = more homicides of police
This article examines homicide rates of Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) from 1996 to 2010. Differences in rates of homicides of LEOs across states are best explained not by differences in crime, but by differences in household gun ownership. In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states.

As a breakthrough analysis by UC Berkeley’s Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins in the 1990s found, it’s not even that the US has more crime than other developed countries. This chart, based on data from Jeffrey Swanson at Duke University, shows that the US is not an outlier when it comes to overall crime: Instead, the US appears to have more lethal violence — and that’s driven in large part by the prevalence of guns.
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/x4ISN9xtJxLLIoWTiC8PEAnZxR8=/0x0:1920x1080/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1920x1080):format(webp):no_upsca le()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10325617/HOMICIDE_GUN_US.jpg

Epidemiologic Evidence to Guide the Understanding and Prevention of Gun Violence
Daniel W. Webster, Magdalena Cerdá, Garen J. Wintemute, Philip J. Cook
Epidemiologic Reviews, Volume 38, Issue 1, 1 January 2016, Pages 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxv018
Abstract
Gunfire from assaults, suicides, and unintentional shootings exacts an enormous burden on public health globally. The epidemiologic reviews in this special issue enhance our understanding of various forms of gun violence, inform interventions, and help chart directions for future research. The available science, however, is limited to answer many important questions necessary for mounting successful efforts to reduce gun violence. Certain data are lacking, and there are numerous analytical challenges to deriving unbiased estimates of policy impacts. Significant investments in research over the long term are warranted to answer questions central to successful prevention of gun violence.

What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?
Julian Santaella-Tenorio, Magdalena Cerdá, Andrés Villaveces, Sandro Galea Author Notes
We restricted our search to studies published from 1950 to 2014. Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths.
In a comprehensive review of firearm-control legislation worldwide, we identified a range of studies examining the association between firearm-related laws and firearm deaths. Three general observations emerge from this analysis: 1) The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries; 2) some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths; 3) challenges in ecological design and the execution of studies limit the confidence in study findings and the conclusions that can be derived from them.

[Katman]

What about them.........

Well you seem to place a large degree of credence in the work of researchers if they have a university accreditation.

So does that include the work done by researchers at UAF for their study of the collapse of WTC 7?

[husaberg]

Well you seem to place a large degree of credence in the work of researchers if they have a university accreditation.

So does that include the work done by researchers at UAF for their study of the collapse of WTC 7?
I place credence in research that is scientific, repeatable, peer reviewed research, that is presented by suitably qualified people, without preconceived notions or agendas or obvious conflicts of interest.
If you have something ,Maybe you should post it in the thread for 911 nutjobs theories.
Then people can judge it on its merits, i suspect you still do not have the skills needed to differentiate between conjecture and real research
As this is all you have previously displayed by your attempts to present information.

#Hint your continued presentation of Andrew Wakefeild's discredited study, a well known fraud.
Or David Irving when he admisted under oath he had made up parts and not included others
Or your previous presentation of the Leuchter report. Which was a fraudulent misuse and misrepresentation made by unqualified people that were being paid to conclude a certain outcome so they could be paid to present it at a trial.
A person who also falsely presented himself as an engineer.

[Katman]

If you have something...

Have you not read the study?

[scumdog]

Cahill claims only 10% of prohibited firearms have been handed in so far (Wow that 'buy back' HAS been a success..pfft!) but also claims 'we dont know how many are out there' -WTF, how does he know only 10% have been handed in if he doesn't know how many are out there?????:weird:

[jasonu]

I place credence in research that is scientific, repeatable, peer reviewed research, that is presented by suitably qualified people, without preconceived notions or agendas or obvious conflicts of interest.
If you have something ,Maybe you should post it in the thread for 911 nutjobs theories.


So generally speaking if you disagree with a particular piece of research you categorize it a nutjob theory.

[husaberg]

So generally speaking if you disagree with a particular piece of research you categorize it a nutjob theory.

No that's very clearly not what i said at all. If you cant quote the entire post, troll somewhere else.
I even gave examples of the stuff he previously presented that was what was nutjob junk research
Do you not agree what he presented with the examples i gave were nutjob theories?


#Hint your continued presentation of Andrew Wakefeild's discredited study, a well known fraud.
Or David Irving when he admisted under oath he had made up parts and not included others
Or your previous presentation of the Leuchter report. Which was a fraudulent misuse and misrepresentation made by unqualified people that were being paid to conclude a certain outcome so they could be paid to present it at a trial.
A person who also falsely presented himself as an engineer.

Ps i notice you dont refute the research i posted that clearly shows the correlation between lax gun laws and firearm deaths and mass homocide with firearms.

Well you seem to place a large degree of credence in the work of researchers if they have a university accreditation.
So does that include the work done by researchers at UAF for their study of the collapse of WTC 7?

Have you not read the study?

did the study conclude they used they use firearms to bring down the tower or do not realise this is a firearms thread?
One to which you have contributed nothing to but narcissistic trollin.

[pritch]

how does he know only 10% have been handed in if he doesn't know how many are out there?

Don't bring logic into this. We're running this scheme on knee jerks and emotion. :whistle:

[Danger Mouse]

Cahill claims only 10% of prohibited firearms have been handed in so far (Wow that 'buy back' HAS been a success..pfft!) but also claims 'we dont know how many are out there' -WTF, how does he know only 10% have been handed in if he doesn't know how many are out there?????:weird:

Yesh, he has been lying for ages and its been proven.

Also, they DO have an idea of numbers, police issued all the import permits so . . .

[husaberg]

Yesh, he has been lying for ages and its been proven.

Also, they DO have an idea of numbers, police issued all the import permits so . . .

It was proven a few days ago you don't know what you are talking about, did you forget that..............
Maybe you should tell us all exactly how many prohibited firearms there is in NZ.
You should also list of those lies "you claim have been proven" so everyone can judge for themselves.

maybe also you might like to explain your connection wih this poster....................

About Delerium
What bike do you ride:
2015 f800gt

[TheDemonLord]

It was proven a few days ago you don't know what you are talking about, did you forget that..............
Maybe you should tell us all exactly how many prohibited firearms there is in NZ.
You should also list of those lies "you claim have been proven" so everyone can judge for themselves.

maybe also you might like to explain your connection wih this poster....................

Actually, he is 100% correct - every complete firearm or Action of a Firearm (which for a Semi-Auto was the Upper and Lower receiver) required an import permit - which was issued by the Police.

Since there is no domestic manufacturing of any scale of Semi-Auto Recievers, we can conclude that every legal Semi-Auto firearm in the country required a Permit to be issued for importation, which is held on record.

Something both the Government and the Media have been very quiet on - mainly because is puts a rather large hold in the 'Muh Register' argument.

In fact, David Seymour brought this up - with an OIA request - 125,000 permits for now prohibited Firearms were issued in the last 5 years.

That number happens to be quite interesting, because the lowest reputable estimate for the number of now prohibited Firearms is 250,000 (A number that was not used for the costing by KPMG, they used a percentage, which was wildly low, funny how it's now being used by Cahill, how interesting), whereas the highest reputable estimate for the number of Prohibited Firearms (from Gun City) is 660,000. We've had the same import laws for the last 30 years - so assume 100,000 permits every 5 years for 30 years (which is not unreasonable given the OIA figures) - that gives 600,000 firearms in the last 30 years.

However, the buyback is 50% complete and less than 10% of the lowest credible estimate have been handed in. That should be a clue as to how much of a failure the new laws are.

[Swoop]

That's not quite right. Shat you describe only applies to shotguns. All semi automatic center fire rifles are now illegal
It appears that the legislation has been changed since when it came out. Then it stated self-loaders were OK as long as a fixed mag and 5rnds or less.


As for "approved gunsmiths" being able to alter a firearm so that it can comply, there hasn't been any people listed as such. Not that quite a bit is actually happening already.

[scumdog]

Actually, he is 100% correct - every complete firearm or Action of a Firearm (which for a Semi-Auto was the Upper and Lower receiver) required an import permit - which was issued by the Police.

Since there is no domestic manufacturing of any scale of Semi-Auto Recievers, we can conclude that every legal Semi-Auto firearm in the country required a Permit to be issued for importation, which is held on record.

Something both the Government and the Media have been very quiet on - mainly because is puts a rather large hold in the 'Muh Register' argument.

In fact, David Seymour brought this up - with an OIA request - 125,000 permits for now prohibited Firearms were issued in the last 5 years.

That number happens to be quite interesting, because the lowest reputable estimate for the number of now prohibited Firearms is 250,000 (A number that was not used for the costing by KPMG, they used a percentage, which was wildly low, funny how it's now being used by Cahill, how interesting), whereas the highest reputable estimate for the number of Prohibited Firearms (from Gun City) is 660,000. We've had the same import laws for the last 30 years - so assume 100,000 permits every 5 years for 30 years (which is not unreasonable given the OIA figures) - that gives 600,000 firearms in the last 30 years.

However, the buyback is 50% complete and less than 10% of the lowest credible estimate have been handed in. That should be a clue as to how much of a failure the new laws are.


Ohh yes indeedy, it's a right flustercluck.


Now getting people who have already surrendered their 'forbidden' guns weeks getting reminders that as an E category licence holder they have to hand their E category firearms in -that certainly smacks of disorganisation and total lack of awareness of the number of outstanding 'forbidden' weapons.:confused::shit::doh:

[pritch]

Ohh yes indeedy, it's a right flustercluck.


Now getting people who have already surrendered their 'forbidden' guns weeks getting reminders that as an E category licence holder they have to hand their E category firearms in -that certainly smacks of disorganisation and total lack of awareness of the number of outstanding 'forbidden' weapons.:confused::shit::doh:

It's not exactly evidence of a clusterfuck but...

I received an email from the Police, basically it was reminding me that I can no longer have prohibited firearms on my C licence.

Subsequently I had a phonecall asking if I had received the email and asking a similar question. I replied that I currently have no prohibited firearms.

Thing is I'd have thought she could have looked up my licence details in the computer. That should have informed her that while I do have a C licence, and have had for decades, I've never actually had anything on it.

[TheDemonLord]

It's not exactly evidence of a clusterfuck but...

I received an email from the Police, basically it was reminding me that I can no longer have prohibited firearms on my C licence.

Subsequently I had a phonecall asking if I had received the email and asking a similar question. I replied that I currently have no prohibited firearms.

Thing is I'd have thought she could have looked up my licence details in the computer. That should have informed her that while I do have a C licence, and have had for decades, I've never actually had anything on it.

But a Register will fix that...

[jasonu]

It's not exactly evidence of a clusterfuck but...

I received an email from the Police, basically it was reminding me that I can no longer have prohibited firearms on my C licence.

Subsequently I had a phonecall asking if I had received the email and asking a similar question. I replied that I currently have no prohibited firearms.

Thing is I'd have thought she could have looked up my licence details in the computer. That should have informed her that while I do have a C licence, and have had for decades, I've never actually had anything on it.

They would do better spending their time chasing up gang weapons.

[Swoop]

But a Register will fix that...

Tui advert, right there!

[husaberg]

It's not exactly evidence of a clusterfuck but...

I received an email from the Police, basically it was reminding me that I can no longer have prohibited firearms on my C licence.

Subsequently I had a phonecall asking if I had received the email and asking a similar question. I replied that I currently have no prohibited firearms.

Thing is I'd have thought she could have looked up my licence details in the computer. That should have informed her that while I do have a C licence, and have had for decades, I've never actually had anything on it.

So are you saying they shouldn't contact firearms licence holders to confirm details.
It also removes the possibility that they could later claim not to know firearms law etc.

[scumdog]

So are you saying they shouldn't contact firearms licence holders to confirm details.
It also removes the possibility that they could later claim not to know firearms law etc.


But they don't want you to contact THEM to confirm you actually got the message?

So far all I've got one generic paper letter and one e-mail to remind me of what guns are prohibited...

[husaberg]

But they don't want you to contact THEM to confirm you actually got the message?

So far all I've got one generic paper letter and one e-mail to remind me of what guns are prohibited...
But they clearly have contacted Pritch, Have you considered they might not have got around to you yet.
TBH its Odd that they have to go through all this to get an honest law abiding NZ firearm owner to comply with the law:weird:
but the firearm lobby does always say its the firearm owners fault rather than the firearm.:innocent:

[Danger Mouse]

It's not exactly evidence of a clusterfuck but...

I received an email from the Police, basically it was reminding me that I can no longer have prohibited firearms on my C licence.

Subsequently I had a phonecall asking if I had received the email and asking a similar question. I replied that I currently have no prohibited firearms.

Thing is I'd have thought she could have looked up my licence details in the computer. That should have informed her that while I do have a C licence, and have had for decades, I've never actually had anything on it.



Yep, given that c cat and e cat are already registered, they should know the answer. They should also know what you have handed in.

Not a great demonstration that their cries for full registration will be anything other than useless.

[Danger Mouse]

Cue multiple posts with 10 or more cut and pastes that could have come from anywhere.....

Please don't encourage him.


Oh dont worry he's being a vindictive child and red repping his way down my post list.

Sad that he has nothing better do do.

[pritch]

So are you saying they shouldn't contact firearms licence holders to confirm details.
It also removes the possibility that they could later claim not to know firearms law etc.

They could simply check my licence. They visit my house every couple of years or so and I haven't bought anything in years so they know exactly what I've got. Or should.

[jasonu]

They could simply check my licence. They visit my house every couple of years or so and I haven't bought anything in years so they know exactly what I've got. Or should.

and bugging you about what they already should know does exactly nothing to make anyone any safer.

[Danger Mouse]

Oh dont worry he's being a vindictive child and red repping his way down my post list.

Sad that he has nothing better do do.

Aaaaand the douche bag is still going it. Hahaha. Time to get life and get away from your screen husaberg

[Swoop]

Interesting to note that originally there were FOUR options presented by the police, to the Liarbour government. They favoured E-cat remaining, as it was a regulated and registered process - and the owners were well vetted citizens.
Numpy Nash instigated the current clusterfuck.

[TheDemonLord]

Interesting to note that originally there were FOUR options presented by the police, to the Liarbour government. They favoured E-cat remaining, as it was a regulated and registered process - and the owners were well vetted citizens.
Numpy Nash instigated the current clusterfuck.

Sauce?

As that would restore a small modicum of respect for the Police.

Not much, but some.

[jasonu]

Stupid cunt.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12270442

[sidecar bob]

"..........

[jasonu]

"..........

hahahahha fucking classic thanks for the laugh!!!!!

[TheDemonLord]

It seems clear that the way to reduce the number of accidental shootings is to remove Firearms from the Police....

Negligent discharges inside a Police station, Banned from Public and Army ranges due to not following safety rules and now shooting themselves (literally) in the ass.

Rule 1: Treat every firearm as loaded.
Rule 2: Always point firearms in a safe direction.

Seems the NZ Police need a refresher....

[scumdog]

Interesting to note that originally there were FOUR options presented by the police, to the Liarbour government. They favoured E-cat remaining, as it was a regulated and registered process - and the owners were well vetted citizens.
Numpy Nash instigated the current clusterfuck.


The only thing the moron could instigate IS a clusterfuck!

[husaberg]

The only thing the moron could instigate IS a clusterfuck!

Yeah clearly not a patch on your academic credentials or experience in management:sick:



[Born in Napier and educated at Napier Boys' High School, Nash holds master's degrees in Law, Forestry Science and Management from the University of Canterbury. Before moving back to his home town of Napier, he was the Director of Strategic Development at Auckland University of Technology.

or his predecessors record

Paula Bennett moved to Auckland,where she worked in a rest home, first as a kitchenhand and then as a nurse aide. She began studying social work at the Albany campus of Massey University in 1994. She became the welfare officer of the Massey University at Albany Students' Association, then, in 1996, the president, which she said gave her a taste for politics. She discontinued the social work component of her course of study, leaving simply social policy, and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts.<_<

But why let reality get in the way of a great right wing i want my bang bang rant

[jasonu]

But National...


Edited for clarity.

[husaberg]

Edited for clarity.

Really its not as if you are making hypocritical posts blaming the current government about much needed firearm reform when it was all the parties in nz that voted for it now is it. (bar a pisssant one mp party)
I am very sorry that reality doesn't effect your own views, on NZ politics or Firearm reforms.

What is utterly hilarious is you having the audacity to be actually criticising the laws of other countries about gun violence, when your own countries laws reign over some of the worst statistics for gun violence in the world.
Your own country is the epitome of absurdity and stupidity when it comes to firearm laws.

So take the "But labours" which is all you ever contribute and pack em em back up your keyster where they belong (along with your extra cheese.)

If you want to debate the relative merits of Paula Bennefitt's education and qualification or experience in manaagemrnt vs Stuart Nash feel free to do so. It should be fun.
But we both know you are all mouth and no trousers.

[TheDemonLord]

Really its not as if you are making hypocritical posts blaming the current government about much needed firearm reform when it was all the parties in nz that voted for it now is it. (bar a pisssant one mp party)
I am very sorry that reality doesn't effect your own views, on NZ politics or Firearm reforms.

What is utterly hilarious is you having the audacity to be actually criticising the laws of other countries about gun violence, when your own countries laws reign over some of the worst statistics for gun violence in the world.
Your own country is the epitome of absurdity and stupidity when it comes to firearm laws.

So take the "But labours" which is all you ever contribute and pack em em back up your keyster where they belong (along with your extra cheese.)

If you want to debate the relative merits of Paula Bennefitt's education and qualification or experience in manaagemrnt vs Stuart Nash feel free to do so. It should be fun.
But we both know you are all mouth and no trousers.

However, if the Police did their Job, like the previous law directed them to, the Fucker would never have gotten his Licence.

That's a rather key bit of info you keep omitting.

Apart from that and so re-classifying of Magazines to E-Cat, that was about the extent of it.

[onearmedbandit]

However, if the Police did their Job, like the previous law directed them to, the Fucker would never have gotten his Licence.

That's a rather key bit of info you keep omitting.

Apart from that and so re-classifying of Magazines to E-Cat, that was about the extent of it.

Exactly this. The police fucked up in their vetting process. Now all responsible gun owners pay for their error. Yup sounds fair to me.

[Laava]

Exactly this. The police fucked up in their vetting process. Now all responsible gun owners pay for their error. Yup sounds fair to me.
But that is not the reason the firearms restrictions are happening. It is not because the cops slipped up on the vetting process, it is because of the massacre.

[TheDemonLord]

But that is not the reason the firearms restrictions are happening. It is not because the cops slipped up on the vetting process, it is because of the massacre.

Why did the Massacre happen?

Because the Cops let someone have a licence who could not provide valid References.

No Licence = No Massacre.

The Massacre is being used by certain people to push Agendas that they can only do with the backing of a Tragedy.

Cunts.

[Laava]

Don't be fucking obtuse, the reason the massacre happened is because some fuckwit wigged out and used his guns to express his feelings. If you think this can be blamed on the cops you must be fucking stupid. We all know the cops could have vetted this guy properly and he MAY not have ended up with a license but he could probably have obtained the same guns illegally anyhow, had he pursued it. And there is every chance he would have.

[TheDemonLord]

but he could probably have obtained the same guns illegally anyhow, had he pursued it. And there is every chance he would have.

Thank you for proving the point that the new Laws won't stop the next person hell bent on destruction.




Also, I feel it necessary to point out - this wasn't someone who as you say 'wigged out and let his guns do the talking' - No, he specifically came here with the intent to obtain a licence under false pretences, commit a massacre, get our left-wing government to issue knee-jerk Firearms legislation, with the hopes that this would cause similar legislation to be tried in the US, sparking a full on Civil War.

[Katman]

No, he specifically came here with the intent to obtain a licence under false pretences, commit a massacre, get our left-wing government to issue knee-jerk Firearms legislation, with the hopes that this would cause similar legislation to be tried in the US, sparking a full on Civil War.

That sounds like a full on conspiracy theory to me.

(But I agree, that the agenda of those planning to create a One World Government includes getting guns out of the hands of the general populace).

[jasonu]

Really its not as if you are making hypocritical posts blaming the current government about much needed firearm reform when it was all the parties in nz that voted for it now is it. (bar a pisssant one mp party)
I am very sorry that reality doesn't effect your own views, on NZ politics or Firearm reforms.

What is utterly hilarious is you having the audacity to be actually criticising the laws of other countries about gun violence, when your own countries laws reign over some of the worst statistics for gun violence in the world.
Your own country is the epitome of absurdity and stupidity when it comes to firearm laws.

So take the "But labours" which is all you ever contribute and pack em em back up your keyster where they belong (along with your extra cheese.)

If you want to debate the relative merits of Paula Bennefitt's education and qualification or experience in manaagemrnt vs Stuart Nash feel free to do so. It should be fun.
But we both know you are all mouth and no trousers.

if that Nash cunt was so flash how come he has made a huge pigs ear of pretty much everything he has touched since he's been in office?

And you're the one who started wanking on about Paula Bennett. I really couldn't give a fuck.

[jasonu]

Why did the Massacre happen?

Because the Cops let someone have a licence who could not provide valid References.

No Licence = No Massacre.

The Massacre is being used by certain people to push Agendas that they can only do with the backing of a Tragedy.

Cunts.

He would have got his hands on a gun weather the cops fucked up or not.

[onearmedbandit]

Thank you for proving the point that the new Laws won't stop the next person hell bent on destruction.




Also, I feel it necessary to point out - this wasn't someone who as you say 'wigged out and let his guns do the talking' - No, he specifically came here with the intent to obtain a licence under false pretences, commit a massacre, get our left-wing government to issue knee-jerk Firearms legislation, with the hopes that this would cause similar legislation to be tried in the US, sparking a full on Civil War.

Pity the government decided to make the possession of a certain combination of words illegal. I saw his manifesto the day of the attack and yup he made that point pretty clear.

[onearmedbandit]

He would have got his hands on a gun weather the cops fucked up or not.

Quite possibly. Although in NZ there is a world of difference in walking into a store to purchase a gun compared to getting one on the black market. Not impossible but a shit ton harder.

[jasonu]

Quite possibly. Although in NZ there is a world of difference in walking into a store to purchase a gun compared to getting one on the black market. Not impossible but a shit ton harder.

Agreed but a motivated individual will get it done.

[TheDemonLord]

That sounds like a full on conspiracy theory to me.

(But I agree, that the agenda of those planning to create a One World Government includes getting guns out of the hands of the general populace).

Not at all, it's what he outright stated in his Manifesto. I would post a citation, but y'know...

Although it appears OneArmedBandit also still retains a copy in the one place they can't censor and has confirmed it to be so.

[TheDemonLord]

He would have got his hands on a gun weather the cops fucked up or not.

I'm not so sure, part of his reason for coming here was specifically to abuse our existing Firearm Law - to force a change, if he couldn't get a licence legally, I don't think he would have carried out his actions, or at least, not in the same manner.

However, I do agree with the sentiment, He'd have probably walked into a Police Station or Borrowed a Cop Car or just waited in the Loos at Parliament....

[Katman]

Not at all, it's what he outright stated in his Manifesto. I would post a citation, but y'know...

My apologies - I never got to read it.

[Laava]

Thank you for proving the point that the new Laws won't stop the next person hell bent on destruction..
That's always been a given.
The new Laws are there to remove as many of these guns as possible to mitigate the next fuckwit that wigs out. How do you not understand that?

[Katman]

That's always been a given.
The new Laws are there to remove as many of these guns as possible to mitigate the next fuckwit that wigs out. How do you not understand that?

So if it's a given that the new laws won't stop the next person 'hell bent on destruction', how do you figure that the laws have made us any safer?

It's not the people who are 'hell bent on destruction' that have handed their guns in.

[jasonu]

That's always been a given.
The new Laws are there to remove as many of these guns as possible to mitigate the next fuckwit that wigs out. How do you not understand that?

The gangs still seam to have plenty of guns.

[Laava]

The gangs still seam to have plenty of guns.
No shit Sherlock! But now there will be less available for them to steal.
Are you starting to get the picture now?

[Laava]

So if it's a given that the new laws won't stop the next person 'hell bent on destruction', how do you figure that the laws have made us any safer?

It's not the people who are 'hell bent on destruction' that have handed their guns in.
The new Laws are there to remove as many of these guns as possible to mitigate the next fuckwit that wigs out. How do you not understand that?

[Katman]

The new Laws are there to remove as many of these guns as possible to mitigate the next fuckwit that wigs out. How do you not understand that?

Like I said, it's not the next fuckwit that's likely to 'wig out' that has handed in his guns.

How do you not understand that?

[Laava]

Like I said, it's not the next fuckwit that's likely to 'wig out' that has handed in his guns.

How do you not understand that?
I absolutely understand that. That was not my point.
So what's your solution then? What do you think the government should do?
And I know that you won't have an answer for either of my questions.
In the meantime, the govt has made a step forward. It might not be popular, which is not very important, it won't stop the next fuckwit on a rampage, it has a lot of grey areas, but it is something.

[Katman]

I absolutely understand that. That was not my point.


I don't think even you know what your point is.

If it's only honest people who hand in their guns how is that going to stop the next fuckwit who 'wigs out' from using a gun that they didn't hand in?

[Katman]

What do you think the government should do?

For a start, they should insist that the police do a proper job when handing out firearms licenses.

[Laava]

I don't think even you know what your point is.

If it's only honest people who hand in their guns how is that going to stop the next fuckwit who 'wigs out' from using a gun that they didn't hand in?
My point was that is is not the fault of the police that Tarrant shot the mosques up.
Then my second point was that the less MSSA's there are in circulation, the less likely they are going to get used for similar.
Is that clear to you now? I never said it would stop people like Tarrant, it is just a step in the right direction.

[Katman]

I never said it would stop people like Tarrant

So it's hardly made the place any safer, has it?

[Laava]

For a start, they should insist that the police do a proper job when handing out firearms licenses.
Of course they should. But we don't live in a perfect world and people always slip through the net don't they? Not making excuses for anyone but that is the case.

[Laava]

So it's hardly made the place any safer, has it?
Ok, so seeing as you are struggling with the concept of less guns and more licensing control, making a difference, you would probably be of the mindset that more MSSA's and more lax licensing control, conversely, would also not lead to more mass shooting scenarios?

[husaberg]

if that Nash cunt was so flash how come he has made a huge pigs ear of pretty much everything he has touched since he's been in office?

And you're the one who started wanking on about Paula Bennett. I really couldn't give a fuck.

I pointed out nash is far more qualified than his predecessor which was Paula bennet.
If you want to argue that on the merits of their qualifications or their experience go for it, but we both know you are as i said all mouth no trousers.
Its been proven time an time again that you dont have a decent grasp what actually is happening in NZ or even what the public's opinion is.
Hence how you argue will poll results claiming you know better if you dont agree with the result.

[TheDemonLord]

That's always been a given.
The new Laws are there to remove as many of these guns as possible to mitigate the next fuckwit that wigs out. How do you not understand that?

No, it removes the Firearms from honest people who were never a threat prior and never going to be a Threat.

Anyone who had ideas about doing something like the Terrorist - they aren't handing them in.
Anyone who feels rejected and alienated by society by the actions of this government and decides to take action - they aren't handing them in.
Judging by the Numbers so far, 90% of the Firearm owners who don't think it's right to be forced to pay a fine for a Crime they didn't commit - they aren't handing them in either.

As you yourself have clearly and definitively stated - it's not going to stop a determined person, so the Law is not going to achieve it's stated goal.

All it does is punish Law Abiding citizens for the Crime of following the Law.

And that last statement is not hyperbole, the Police are doing exactly that.

[TheDemonLord]

Ok, so seeing as you are struggling with the concept of less guns and more licensing control, making a difference, you would probably be of the mindset that more MSSA's and more lax licensing control, conversely, would also not lead to more mass shooting scenarios?

It's a balancing act, and please stop using the term MSSA, since it is ALL centre-fire Semi-Autos that have been banned, not just MSSAs.

It's not the number of Firearms in Circulation that is the issue. The issue is who has them and how are they stored.

You can have a population (such as NZ) with a relatively high rate of Firearm ownership and a very low rate of Firearm crime - this is because in general, the people that have Firearms are responsible Law Abiding people.

The problem with what happened here, it's not a 'Police Slip up', I would never ever EVER take a character reference for an individual, from someone who only knew them from an Internet Forum.

I doubt many would here either, unless they had met the other person in person on multiple occasions. I wouldn't do this for a Job Interview, much less for something where there was a higher level of Vetting required (like, I dunno, Owning a Firearms Licence...).

This isn't a marginal call where they didn't err on the side of Caution, this is a massive failing of basic common sense - the Arms Office - when the Terrorist couldn't produce a Character reference should have declined the application. End of. But instead, thanks to cuts made by a Certain Socialist PM, they just waived it through.

Or perhaps to put it another way:

We Firearm owners don't mind proper licencing control, we don't mind being interviewed, having our backgrounds checked, having our Spouses interviewed, having our Safes inspected etc. We want to be properly vetted, both to make sure to the wider NZ Public that those who have Licences are fit and proper but also to make sure that our Fellow Firearm owners are Fit and Proper (and not going to do something stupid, resulting in our freedoms being revoked).

What happened here however was that the NZ Police failed (and continue to fail) to do the bare minimum that is required of them, within the bounds of the previous legislation. As a result, we (the Firearm owners, who did nothing wrong) get punished.

[TheDemonLord]

My apologies - I never got to read it.

Hairy Muff,

If I was to put on my Tinfoil hat, I'd point to changes made by the Administration of the Arms act by Comrade Jacinda, I'd point to statements attributed to her that the only way to get a Firearm law change would be to have something like Port Arthur happen, I'd point to the fact that they Censured the Manifesto and I'd point to the fact that in the Manifesto, he's not the extreme right-wing fascist that he's been made out to be, he's got a disturbing amount of commonality with the far Left (such as praising China, describing himself as an Eco-Fascist) and the fact that he played them like a Fiddle, knowing exactly what their response would be and how to get them to do what he wanted - that suggests he is intimately familiar with the far-left mindset.

But I digress.

[Laava]

We Firearm owners don't mind proper licencing control, we don't mind being interviewed, having our backgrounds checked, having our Spouses interviewed, having our Safes inspected etc. We want to be properly vetted, both to make sure to the wider NZ Public that those who have Licences are fit and proper but also to make sure that our Fellow Firearm owners are Fit and Proper (and not going to do something stupid, resulting in our freedoms being revoked

Thanks for the big condescending sermon. We firearm owners hate that kind of thing. You carry on like you're the only one who knows what is going on, well there is no mystery, we all know and understand what is being required to be handed in and why. I have probably been hunting and shooting a lot longer than you as well but didn't feel a need to shove that down your throat. Get over yourself.

[TheDemonLord]

Thanks for the big condescending sermon. We firearm owners hate that kind of thing. You carry on like you're the only one who knows what is going on, well there is no mystery, we all know and understand what is being required to be handed in and why. I have probably been hunting and shooting a lot longer than you as well but didn't feel a need to shove that down your throat. Get over yourself.

And what is the Why?

Because you've proved it's not Public Safety, by your own statements (and by the Terrorists own statements as well). In fact, he stated as much his reasons for doing what he did, Something that unless you read what he wrote, you have only the out-of-context snippets posted by a Media with an Agenda to go on.

I can assure you, as can others, that there is a lot more to what he did than the narrative that's being trotted out.

Furthermore ,It's not like there isn't a long history of Socialists enacting strict Firearm control after dubious circumstances.

But I'll make you a deal - If you pay me the difference that I'll be out of pocket, then I'll stop with the condescending Sermons.

Put Your Money where your Mouth is...

[jasonu]

I never said it would stop people like Tarrant,

But that was the whole point of the ban and now you say it won't work so it is in fact pointless.

[Laava]

But that was the whole point of the ban and now you say it won't work so it is in fact pointless.
All you ever do is snipe at people I've noticed. Like a fucking child.

[Laava]

And what is the Why?

Because you've proved it's not Public Safety, by your own statements (and by the Terrorists own statements as well). In fact, he stated as much his reasons for doing what he did, Something that unless you read what he wrote, you have only the out-of-context snippets posted by a Media with an Agenda to go on.

I can assure you, as can others, that there is a lot more to what he did than the narrative that's being trotted out.

Furthermore ,It's not like there isn't a long history of Socialists enacting strict Firearm control after dubious circumstances.

But I'll make you a deal - If you pay me the difference that I'll be out of pocket, then I'll stop with the condescending Sermons.

Put Your Money where your Mouth is...

Bla bla bla, Wales, you bore for it.

[jasonu]

All you ever do is snipe at people I've noticed. Like a fucking child.

No snipe just a reply to what you posted.

However I do enjoy poking shit at husaberg.

[Katman]

Like a fucking child.

Oh, the fucking irony.

[TheDemonLord]

Bla bla bla, Wales, you bore for it.

I thought as much...

One rule for Thee, but not for me.

[husaberg]

No snipe just a reply to what you posted.

However I do enjoy poking shit at husaberg.

Cool, i enjoy pointing out your hypocrisy and general lack of a coherent or intelligent thought processes. As well as your naivety ;)

[jasonu]

Cool, i enjoy pointing out your hypocrisy and general lack of a coherent or intelligent thought processes. As well as your naivety ;)

and others enjoy your belligerent stupidity and ignorance.

All in good fun of course.

[husaberg]

and others enjoy your belligerent stupidity and ignorance.

All in good fun of course.

Really, so do you consider yourself to be smarter than me then? Interesting, because If you are such a fine actor why hasn't the academy reconsidered you yet with an award?
Hint, Inferring someone is stupid in a sentence where you start with a coalesce is pretty ironic.

[pritch]

t's a bugger getting old but at least there are some interesting stories to contemplate when there's nothing on TV. A recent news headline brought this one to mind. It's not my story, but I do know some of those involved, and I've heard it more than once so hope I can do it justice.

About three quarters of the way through the last century a New Zealand shooting team attended the world championship in their discipline for the first time. It happened that the event was to be held in France. It seems that the French attached considerable significance to the first attendance by a New Zealand team. The team were met at the airport by important looking men in suits and blazers, speeches were made, none of which our guys understood, but they got the red carpet treatment. No Customs, no Immigration, no Agriculture, nothing. Welcome to France!

Not being seasoned international travellers at that point, nothing struck them as particularly unusual.

Some time later, the championship over, the team were leaving France to do some tourist stuff in Italy. A world championship gold medal among their baggage. In due course they arrived at an alpine border post between France and Italy. The French soldier looked into the back of the van and noticed a rather obvious pile of gun cases.
“Guns?”
“Yeah”
“Papers?”
“No Papers”
“Must have papers”

Excitement ensued, and in short order our heroes were sitting in a cell on a French/Italian mountain contemplating their predicament.

Time passed. I have no idea how much time passed but eventually Glynn asked, “Laurie have you still got the letter that guy gave you at the airport?"
Laurie replied in the affirmative.
“Show it to them.”

So the lads called out and the guard came to see what the fuss was about whereupon Laurie handed him the letter. The guard read the letter, his eyes went big and he ran away soon to reappear with the officer and others. The cell door was opened and the lads were hurredly pushed out to their van. The soldiers couldn't get rid of them fast enough.

I don't know the exact wording of the letter, never having seen it, and anyway it was in French. The general gist though was along the lines, “To whom it may concern, please render every possible assistance...”
The letter was signed, Jaques Chirac, Mayor of Paris.

Now the Mayor of Paris is a big deal in France, politically it's a suitable launch pad for a tilt at President. A Lieutenant at a border post would really wreck his career by pissing off the Mayor of Paris.

The news of Jaques Chirac's recent passing at 86 should have revived the memories of those involved, even more than it did mine.

[Katman]

Hint, Inferring someone is stupid in a sentence where you start with a coalesce is pretty ironic.

Or do you mean starting a sentence with a 'conjunction'?

:facepalm:

[husaberg]

Or do you mean starting a sentence with a 'conjunction'?

:facepalm:

They mean the same thing. :facepalm::facepalm:
only the correct term for you should have been "conjunctive"
Which is why i said a coalesce.
Whereas any idiot with a B2 in English has heard the term "conjunctive"
They also should know you can start a sentence with a "conjunctive" as long as its a adverb.

[Katman]

They mean the same thing. :facepalm::facepalm:
only the correct term for you should have been "conjunctive"
Which is why i said a coalesce.

Really?

Coalesce is a verb while conjunction is a noun - so they clearly don't mean the same thing.

[husaberg]

Really?

Coalesce is a verb while conjunction is a noun - so they clearly don't mean the same thing.

Well it turns out you are indeede correct for once.


Definition of coalesce
intransitive verb

1: to grow together
The edges of the wound coalesced.
2a: to unite into a whole : FUSE
separate townships have coalesced into a single, sprawling colony
— Donald Gould
b: to unite for a common end : join forces
people with different points of view coalesce into opposing factions
— I. L. Horowitz
3: to arise from the combination of distinct elements
an organized and a popular resistance immediately coalesced
— C. C. Menges

Take the time to bask in the glory of it all it as its the first time in about 10 years you have been right
But then again i am am big enough to admit when i am wrong, otherwise we would be having the reverse of this conversation week after week.

[Katman]

Well it turns out you are indeede correct for once.


Take the time to bask in the glory of it all it as its the first time in about 10 years you have been right
But then again i am am big enough to admit when i am wrong, otherwise we would be having the reverse of this conversation week after week.

:killingme

[husaberg]

:killingme

Need i remind you, that only about a week ago you claimed a report was Full independent and transparent.
When it was clearly proven to be none of these three things.
You then instead of putting you hand up and being a man and admitting you were wrong sought to attempt to redefine the meaning of the words.:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
Or the time you claimed farmers send 100kg plus rodeo calves to the works when the works don't accept cattle this size.
Or that time you claimed there was numerous alternatives to 1080 on the vast inaccessible areas of NZ and then couldn't name one.
Or that time you posted a engine (the Geet)that was a well known fraud that was supposed to run on coffee or water and you refused to admit it was a made up piece of shit.
Or that time you claimed there were no gas chambers at in German concentration camps when even the two convicted fraudsters you quoted as being proof admitted there were.
Or that time you kept claiming ad nausea the WTC buildings fell at free-fall speed when the clearly did not
Or that time you claimed they collapsed into their own footprints when they clearly did not.
Or that time when you quoted a police as saying something he clearly did not, about United Airlines Flight 93
Or that time you claimed a an engine was found to be a distance away from the crash site when it was less than a third of that distance.
Or that time you claiming passports were never found intact after a high speed impact like 911 when they commonly are.




But you know no one here expects you not to be hypocritical.

[jasonu]

Really, so do you consider yourself to be smarter than me then? Interesting, because If you are such a fine actor why hasn't the academy reconsidered you yet with an award?
Hint, Inferring someone is stupid in a sentence where you start with a coalesce is pretty ironic.

Inferring should not have a capital I....

[husaberg]

Inferring should not have a capital I....
In the place you just posted it it should.
Your reply to my post should contain proof of your claims, rather than evidence of your continued ignorance.
But yeah go for it, further avoid backing up your claims at every opportunity.
Ps that's the best comeback you have....... after two days.

[Katman]

Ps that's the best comeback you have....... after two days.

Perhaps it's the only comeback you deserve.

[Laava]

Lol, this girl rminded me of Greta, only with no real cause.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/400015/pm-jacinda-ardern-responds-to-13-year-old-girl-s-plea-over-ar-15-rifle-ban

[TheDemonLord]

Lol, this girl rminded me of Greta, only with no real cause.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/400015/pm-jacinda-ardern-responds-to-13-year-old-girl-s-plea-over-ar-15-rifle-ban

Isn't it funny - that the Child of an Actor, gets up in front of an Audience and tells them exactly what they want to hear - and is somehow brave and virtuous.

Yet, a Competition shooter writes to the PM and tells them exactly what they don't want to hear - and is somehow misinformed about Competition Shooting.

It's almost like certain groups are picking and choosing who they listen to based solely on whether or not it's what they want to hear....

[austingtir]

Lol, this girl rminded me of Greta, only with no real cause.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/400015/pm-jacinda-ardern-responds-to-13-year-old-girl-s-plea-over-ar-15-rifle-ban

Thankfully not everyone is dumb enough to buy her communist bulldust:


https://www.facebook.com/turboandstance/videos/2410144265974437/?t=2


Otherwise we'll all be driving around in electric lada's if these halfwits get their way.

[Laava]

Isn't it funny - that the Child of an Actor, gets up in front of an Audience and tells them exactly what they want to hear - and is somehow brave and virtuous.

Yet, a Competition shooter writes to the PM and tells them exactly what they don't want to hear - and is somehow misinformed about Competition Shooting.

It's almost like certain groups are picking and choosing who they listen to based solely on whether or not it's what they want to hear....
I posted that because the tone was remarkably similar. The context however is poles apart. One is whinging about climate change which is a very real thing which will affect us all sooner or later and the other child is whining about losing a plaything.

[austingtir]

I posted that because the tone was remarkably similar. The context however is poles apart. One is whinging about climate change which is a very real thing which will affect us all sooner or later and the other child is whining about losing a plaything.

Prove its a real thing. They keep saying the sea level has raised. Still looks in the same place at all the beaches I goto for the last 40 + years.


Fact is this whole climate change malarky is nothing more than communist propaganda and of course the gullible ones like yourself and a handful of others on here buy this shit hook line and sinker.


Going to be embarrassing for you lot when you realize you've been had?

[sidecar bob]

We were in a fuckin ice age a few thousand years ago, it's still warming up.

[austingtir]

We were in a fuckin ice age a few thousand years ago, it's still warming up.

Of course but what these people are claiming is we will all be dead or at some unchangeable crossroad where we will all be killed off by climate change in 12 years.

Its complete bullshit. End of story.

Once we are gone he planet will sort itself out just fine anyway.

[Katman]

Of course but what these people are claiming is we will all be dead or at some unchangeable crossroad where we will all be killed off by climate change in 12 years.

Its complete bullshit. End of story.

Once we are gone he planet will sort itself out just fine anyway.

So we're all going to be gone one day - just not in 12 years?

[sidecar bob]

So we're all going to be gone one day - just not in 12 years?

We've been over this before.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

[Katman]

We've been over this before.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

All it takes is lots more guesses.

It's much like lotto.

[sidecar bob]

All it takes is lots more guesses.

It's much like lotto.

I don't waste time on lotto, nor predicting the end of the world.
A guy I worked with around '87 was adamant that the world would end in 2012, still waiting.
I see he's a funeral director now, hoping to cash in I guess.

[austingtir]

We've been over this before.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events


further proof wikipedia is full of shit....

I dont see the "cult of climate change" in that list. Should be around 2030 or so according to Greta and co.

[scumdog]

I posted that because the tone was remarkably similar. The context however is poles apart. One is whinging about climate change which is a very real thing which will affect us all sooner or later and the other child is whining about losing a plaything.


I've noticed a cooling of the climate already thanks to that whining hysterical puppet of the establishment, thank goodness!:rolleyes:

[scumdog]

Prove its a real thing. They keep saying the sea level has raised. Still looks in the same place at all the beaches I goto for the last 40 + years.


Fact is this whole climate change malarky is nothing more than communist propaganda and of course the gullible ones like yourself and a handful of others on here buy this shit hook line and sinker.


Going to be embarrassing for you lot when you realize you've been had?


To a certain extent it's the Emperors new Clothes scenario of the 21st Century..

[husaberg]

To a certain extent it's the Emperors new Clothes scenario of the 21st Century..

So you would be able o explain why the curent CO2 levels are the highest they have ever been for over 800 thousand years then?
bearing in mind the last ice age was over 7000 years ago the paterns are very similar right up until the 1950's?

https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/x203_co2-graph-061219.jpg.pagespeed.ic.rOeD5D3zi_.webp

[scumdog]

So you would be able o explain why the curent CO2 levels are the highest they have ever been for over 800 thousand years then?
bearing in mind the last ice age was over 7000 years ago the paterns are very similar right up until the 1950's?

https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/x203_co2-graph-061219.jpg.pagespeed.ic.rOeD5D3zi_.webp



Assuming you believe it - what are you going to do about it? - park up your motorbike?

Me? I'll just keep using fossil fuel to enjoy myself!!

[husaberg]

Assuming you believe it - what are you going to do about it? - park up your motorbike?

Me? I'll just keep using fossil fuel to enjoy myself!!

But if you know its a scam and posted about it being so, surely you will be able to refute the CO2 evidence then?
Unless of course, it turns out you are not so sure about climate change facts, as you made out you were.
You should be prepared to be able to back up your own statements with some actual evidence. especially given i could so easily present simple evidence that refutes your own posted assumption.


I've noticed a cooling of the climate already thanks to that whining hysterical puppet of the establishment, thank goodness!:rolleyes:


To a certain extent it's the Emperors new Clothes scenario of the 21st Century..

[TheDemonLord]

I posted that because the tone was remarkably similar. The context however is poles apart. One is knowledgeable about her field and the other child is a whining plaything of the Radical Left-wing.

Fixed for Accuracy.

[austingtir]

But if you know its a scam and posted about it being so, surely you will be able to refute the CO2 evidence then?
Unless of course, it turns out you are not so sure about climate change facts, as you made out you were.
You should be prepared to be able to back up your own statements with some actual evidence. especially given i could so easily present simple evidence that refutes your own posted assumption.


My tomatoes are growing great!! I might even park my catless v8 right next to them and pipe that shit straight into my greenhouse....

If c02 is so bad why do we have greenhouses with c02 generators?

https://www.naturalnews.com/040890_greenhouses_carbon_dioxide_generators_plant _growth.html


https://dslv9ilpbe7p1.cloudfront.net/Ce_N5ly6a0ec5iOaEIzv7w_store_banner_image.jpeg

[Laava]

Fixed for Accuracy.

So it's the radical left wing now who are opposed to gun control? I wish you cunts would make your fucking minds up!

[TheDemonLord]

So it's the radical left wing now who are opposed to gun control? I wish you cunts would make your fucking minds up!

You need to wipe the Bullshit from your Glasses, it's hampering your ability to read.

[Laava]

You need to wipe the Bullshit from your Glasses, it's hampering your ability to read.

Yeah, well it was your bullshit I was reading so what does that tell you genius?😁

[TheDemonLord]

Yeah, well it was your bullshit I was reading so what does that tell you genius?😁

Was it? Or is this the processing of your ideological lens that turns pointed critique into Bullshit?

Either way, the problem is all you.

[Laava]

Was it? Or is this the processing of your ideological lens that turns pointed critique into Bullshit?

Either way, the problem is all you.
What the fuck are you on about now? Constantly twisting peoples words into a big TDL wankfest of words. Slipperyer than an eel in a bucket of snot.

[TheDemonLord]

What the fuck are you on about now? Constantly twisting peoples words into a big TDL wankfest of words. Slipperyer than an eel in a bucket of snot.

The only one twisting any words, is you.

If I was to say the Sky is Blue, you'd manage to re-interpret that as to mean something else. And for that, I can't help you.