Gun Poll

[Skyryder]

Would you carry a handgun if the law allowed. What would you prefer?

[slofox]

No.....cause if I did I would probably shoot someone one day...:2guns:....probably a cager when I was out riding......can see it now.....bastard cuts me off....rev shit out of machine, come screaming up beside, yank out gun BOOM BOOM through the window..:ar15:...driver dead, car swerves into me and I get mashed to bits under the wheels.........nah, better off without the gun.....

[Swoop]

Waddaya mean "if"?
Your question is waaaay too open...

It does, and I do.

[SpankMe]

Only if I was also allowed to defend my property with lethal force. :2guns:

[short-circuit]

Just call me MacGyver

[BMWST?]

i have(had) a theory.If motorcyclists could carry guns,and where allowed to use them in the typical car vs bike incident,the frequency of said accidents and the accomanying "i didnt see him" would diminish overnight.
The problem with guns is that any misuse results in (ussually) permanent outcomes....

[Magua]

I'm thankful the law does not permit such a thing. Proliferation =/= safety.

[The Pastor]

i so would.

[Dave Lobster]

tsk.. pressed the button too many times.

[Dave Lobster]

In a previous job, I have carried a (concealed) pistol. As a law abiding person, I never felt the urge to shoot anyone with it.
I've had a big knife under the seat of my car for the last twenty years. I've never felt the need to get out and stab anyone.

Currently, criminals carry handguns. I can't see a problem with lawabiding types doing it for self defence. Especially if shooting taggers became legal at the same time.

[short-circuit]

You only have to look at the level of intelligence/caliber (excuse the pun) of respondents who would like to arm themselves to understand why, as Magua says, proliferation does not equate to safety.

[slofox]

Currently, criminals carry handguns. I can't see a problem with lawabiding types doing it for self defence.

Just like in the good ole US of A huh...........?

[Dave Lobster]

Just like in the good ole US of A huh...........?

Fuck no..

Let me rephrase then.. Law abiding bright people. That should stop SPAMs having them.:cool:

[pritch]

A handgun is the most difficult firearm of all to use effectively and safely. The short sight radius predisposes the bullets to wide dispersion. As in, they are likely to hit anything except what was actually aimed at... Forget the rubbish you saw in the westerns.

The competence level of our Police with handguns is only marginal at best and they at least get (limited) training.

The thought of civilians wandering about with handguns would worry the Hell outa me. Imagine a group of pistoleeros with all of the misplaced confidence and inflated egos of the mormon few. How's that for scary?

[Dave Lobster]

The thought of civilians wandering about with handguns would worry the Hell outa me. Imagine a group of pistoleeros with all of the misplaced confidence and inflated egos of the mormon few. How's that for scary?

If they're that ineffective, surely you've nothing to fear?


A handgun is the most difficult firearm of all to use effectively and safely. The short sight radius predisposes the bullets to wide dispersion. As in, they are likely to hit anything except what was actually aimed at... Forget the rubbish you saw in the westerns.


Nonsense. My SIG was a very effective piece of kit. I hit everything I aimed at with it.

[MisterD]

Nah. I'd settle for "the system" backing me up if I deal to some arse-wipe with my shilelagh...

[rainman]

No, I'm a grown-up.

[pritch]

If they're that ineffective, surely you've nothing to fear?


A strange thing for someone who professes to understand handguns to write.
Misdirected bullets always worry me.




Nonsense. My SIG was a very effective piece of kit. I hit everything I aimed at with it.

Alas, I can't claim to have hit everything I was aiming at, nor could anybody else I know including the nation's best. I guess it depends on what you were aiming at?

[Dave Lobster]

Alas, I can't claim to have hit everything I was aiming at, nor could anybody else I know including the nation's best. I guess it depends on what you were aiming at?

I never had to shoot at many 'things'. Everyone I've aimed at, and was in a position to shoot, I did. Other than that.. just range 'practice' every week.


Misdirected bullets always worry me.

This wouldn't really be a problem for lawabiding citizens, would it?

Just the 'drive by' type members of society..

[MadDuck]

Only if I was also allowed to defend my property with lethal force. :2guns:

Ok off topic here....so if you dont have a gun licence and feel your property and personal safety is at risk.

How do you think the law woud handle if you happended to have a BB gun?

[MadDuck]

Nah. I'd settle for "the system" backing me up if I deal to some arse-wipe with my shilelagh...

HA! If you dial 111 at the moment you get put on hold :whistle:

[Slyer]

We need a mafia that all ride bikes and fucks up anyone who gets in their way. :D
People would start seeing bikes then.

[MisterD]

HA! If you dial 111 at the moment you get put on hold :whistle:

Sweet, I'd only be dialing for an ambumalance for them anyway...

[DEATH_INC.]

You only have to look at the level of intelligence/caliber (excuse the pun) of respondents who would like to arm themselves to understand why, as Magua says, proliferation does not equate to safety.
Are you saying just because I want to carry a gun that I'm not intelligent?
Perhaps I just like guns....

[scumdog]

The thought of civilians wandering about with handguns would worry the Hell outa me. Imagine a group of pistoleeros with all of the misplaced confidence and inflated egos of the mormon few. How's that for scary?

It would scare me into leaving the country if that was the calibre of person permitted to carry handguns..:crazy:

[MadDuck]

Are you saying just because I want to carry a gun that I'm not intelligent?

:jerry: what silly boy ever suggested you were not?

[short-circuit]

Are you saying just because I want to carry a gun that I'm not intelligent?
Perhaps I just like guns....

Maybe you're not unintelligent - maybe you are: Psychotic? Immature? Compensating for a lack of something? A child? Paranoid? American?

Tell us all why you'd like to carry a gun around.

[Shadows]

If it was legal and every other bastard was carrying handguns... I'd have a couple of Uzis.

Don't take a knife to a gunfight and all that.

[Dargor]

Yes, and what would i prefer, :) ^^ a steyr aug please.

[wickle]

AK47 for me please!

[Timber020]

In the states a couple times when mates were heading into new york where they didnt have a permit to carry they would ask me to take there sidearm home.
Another time a mate got me to pick up a package from the local sporting goods store. Goods in question was an MP5 (lovely weopon) which I had to fit into my rucksack along with spare mags and ammo. It stuck out everywhere as it had a full stock and because I couldnt find my other workmates I had to walk home, only to be given a long and nervours ride home by a LEO.

Im quite comfortable around guns, been around them my whole life. I think on your own propetry line you should be able to use lethal force to defend your family. Everyone should own a trenchgun. But having a concealed weopon makes people act and think different, and often its a certain personality of person that likes to carry, and thats not a good thing.


Me, No thanks, im not scared enough of the world yet, Ive been in far more situations where guns would have made a situation into a slaughter rather than just an ugly moment in time.

[Big Dave]

Absolutely not.
I am so glad we are not like the States.
What was the 'right to bear arms' a few centuries ago has become the right for Bubba to have an arsenal suitable for a small army in his cupboard.

[sAsLEX]

But having a concealed weopon makes people act and think different.



ummm no it doesn't. The weapon is concealed, for use when required, not as a little masculine badge that criminals would use it as, having it out on show to prove how tough they are.

[Big Dave]

http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/120208/new_362441521.shtml

[Shadows]

ummm no it doesn't. The weapon is concealed, for use when required, not as a little masculine badge that criminals would use it as, having it out on show to prove how tough they are.

Concealed or not, it doesn't matter. It is the fact one is armed that makes all the difference. It gives one the confidence to get into situations where the use of deadly force may end up being necessary, when ordinarily that person would never get himself into that situation in the first place.

[jrandom]

It is the fact one is armed that makes all the difference. It gives one the confidence to get into situations where the use of deadly force may end up being necessary, when ordinarily that person would never get himself into that situation in the first place.

Your basic argument there is the same one used by people who don't want motorcyclists to get advanced rider training because it makes them 'over-confident'.

[jrandom]

You only have to look at the level of intelligence/caliber (excuse the pun) of respondents who would like to arm themselves...

You're too kind.


A handgun is the most difficult firearm of all to use effectively and safely. The short sight radius predisposes the bullets to wide dispersion. As in, they are likely to hit anything except what was actually aimed at...

What he said.


The thought of civilians wandering about with handguns would worry the Hell outa me. Imagine a group of pistoleeros with all of the misplaced confidence and inflated egos of the mormon few. How's that for scary?

I concur.

We have good legal pistol-ownership restrictions at the moment, though. I'd be in favour of keeping those restrictions, and rather than getting specific about gun ownership, just amending the law to allow the carrying of legally-owned weapons for self-defence.

[Indiana_Jones]

I'm thankful the law does not permit such a thing. Proliferation =/= safety.

Homo.

-Indy

[scumdog]

AK47 for me please!

You, Dagor and shadows have obviously not had to hump around an ungainly lump of firearm while doing day to day chores and living....or you would not be choosing THOSE weapons.

[portokiwi]

:2guns: M4 and M9 and I am happy. :2guns:

[short-circuit]

You're too kind.

Please don't chop my statements in half and don't flatter yourself. What I said was (and as this thread has expanded I think this is becoming more and more apparent):

You only have to look at the level of intelligence/caliber (excuse the pun) of respondents who would like to arm themselves to understand why, as Magua says, proliferation does not equate to safety.

No offence but...people wanting to walk around with guns down their pants or sleep with them under their pillow either need their heads tested or need to grow up.

People's rights to bare arms (U.S) or defend their property? What about children's rights not to blow their faces off or student's rights to go to school without being gunned down.

[short-circuit]

Homo.

-Indy

Are you old enough to be on the internet by yourself?

[Usarka]

You only have to look at the level of intelligence/caliber (excuse the pun) of respondents who would like to arm themselves to understand why, as Magua says, proliferation does not equate to safety.
........

People's rights to bare arms (U.S) or defend their property?

bear

people in glass houses and all that..... :killingme

[short-circuit]

bear

people in glass houses and all that..... :killingme

No, no you misunderstand. That was another cleverly disguised pun. Honest.

[jrandom]

What I said was...

You are familiar with the fact that arguments ad hominem are fallacious, right?

Anyhow, this is an ancient, well-worn topic.

What I think many people fail to do is distinguish between the topics of weapons proliferation and the right to arm oneself for the purpose of self-defence.

A right to armed self-defence (which NZ does not currently have in any realistic sense) does not have to imply that everyone can go buy a pistol on a whim.

Right now, a shopkeeper can (in theory) be prosecuted for possession of an offensive weapon if they keep a crowbar behind the counter, and someone committing otherwise mild transgressions against the law (20kph over the speed limit, or a tinny of cannabis in their wallet) can be hammered much harder if the Police find, say, a folding utility knife in their car's glovebox.

I'd advocate the following:

1. Arming oneself for the purpose of self-defence should be legal.

2. NZ's firearms laws, including those relating to pistol ownership, should stay as they are, with minor changes to storage and handling requirements to permit point 3:

3. 'Concealed carry' should remain illegal, as should open carry, leaving legal self-defence with firearms restricted to applications of the 'castle' doctrine.

Clear as mud?

[short-circuit]

In that case either your argument now is misguided, disingenuous or both, or you misunderstood both the thread title and the subject of the poll:

"Would you carry a handgun if the law allowed you to”

[Brett]

If they were available to the general public for personal protection, I would own one. Wouldn't carry it everywhere, but it would certainly be carried when I felt I needed it, and more importantly, my wife works at Middlemore hospital and often works late into the night, I would really want her to learn to shoot a pistol or revolver and carry it on her...they have quite a few assualts on staff including rape over the course of the year (in the carparking lot...sometimes even in broad daylight.

I would either carry a .357magnum revolver or something like a sig p228. Spend a day playing with a Ruger KP (28????) last christmas as well as a .357 revolver, and I found both to be very accurate over about 20m. I would feel very confident about hitting what I want to hit over that sort of distance.

That and a well trained guard dog (we live in semi rural Auckland) as we have a large number of break and enters out here...

[Skyryder]

The question was handguns, nothing else. For those that have answered yes to the poll and posted a preference for something else (ak47etc) all I can say is thank god we do not have the right to carry firearms as you do not seem to understand the question.

Incidentally the poll was more in a response to the H & K poster and the mag loaded incorrectly.
Still an interesting result to date.

For the record I'm in the no camp but if I did this is what I would carry.


Sorta county co-oridinated:woohoo:

Skyryder

[jrandom]

In that case...

Yes, I'm heading off at a tangent, that's correct. But I don't really see the need to artifically restrict the discussion.

As you'll see from the poll, if CCW was legal in NZ, I'd carry. But, given the choice, I'd go for a more nuanced legal position.

Given your lack of argument against it, I take it you don't actually disagree with what I said?

[jrandom]

I would either carry a .357magnum revolver...

Six For Sure! (tm)

Good man.

[short-circuit]

Yes, I'm heading off at a tangent, that's correct. But I don't really see the need to artifically restrict the discussion.

As you'll see from the poll, if CCW was legal in NZ, I'd carry. But, given the choice, I'd go for a more nuanced legal position.

Given your lack of argument against it, I take it you don't actually disagree with what I said?


No I don't agree - I believe the argument for carrying on the basis of self defence including using deadly force to defend from intruders (castle doctrine) is a very slippery slope.

As for defending property rights. Shouldn't shop owners and farmers guarding against theft simply be insured rather than acting like vigilantes?

What about when the lines are blurred - e.g. the farmer (pissed off that someone is nicking his stock) uses "castle doctrine" (since his business is also his home) as a defence for trying to kill a person who he believes to be responsible for stealing animals?


My main argument against is real simple: guns are dangerous in the wrong hands (which might constitute 90% of any given population). This may not necessarily on the basis of a lack of skill or aptitude either. If gun laws are relaxed – more pillocks have access.

Christ, some of the respondents to this thread I wouldn't trust with a box of matches let alone a gun.

[jrandom]

As for defending property rights. Shouldn't shop owners and farmers guarding against theft simply be insured rather than acting like vigilantes?

What about when the lines are blurred - e.g. the farmer (pissed off that someone is nicking his stock) uses "castle doctrine" (since his business is also his home) as a defence for trying to kill a person who he believes to be responsible for stealing animals?

It should go without saying that people who lack the intelligence and self-control to exercise appropriate judgment with lethal weapons should be swiftly dealt to. Shooting someone who's running away with stolen property, for example, isn't justifiable in any of the current 'castle doctrine' jurisdictions.


My main argument again though would be simply that guns are dangerous in the wrong hands (which might constitute 90% of any given population).

And the point I'm trying to bring out is that we already have a pretty good system for controlling that. The Police do a decent job of vetting firearms licence applicants and, most particularly, anyone who wants to join a pistol club, etc.

I think it'd be the height of foolishness to relax our current restrictions on legal gun ownership. They work pretty well, all things considered.


If gun laws are relaxed – more pillocks have access.

Once again. Not what I'd argue for.

The current demographics of firearms licence holders are pretty good. No reason to change that. In fact, if self-defence under the castle doctrine (you'll recall I'm not overly keen on CCW) became a valid reason for owning a firearm, I'd expect more resources to be used and attention paid to the suitability of FL holders.

:yes:

[short-circuit]

It should go without saying that people who lack the intelligence and self-control to exercise appropriate judgment with lethal weapons should be swiftly dealt to. Shooting someone who's running away with stolen property, for example, isn't justifiable in any of the current 'castle doctrine' jurisdictions.



And the point I'm trying to bring out is that we already have a pretty good system for controlling that. The Police do a decent job of vetting firearms licence applicants and, most particularly, anyone who wants to join a pistol club, etc.

I think it'd be the height of foolishness to relax our current restrictions on legal gun ownership. They work pretty well, all things considered.



Once again. Not what I'd argue for.

The current demographics of firearms licence holders are pretty good. No reason to change that. In fact, if self-defence under the castle doctrine (you'll recall I'm not overly keen on CCW) became a valid reason for owning a firearm, I'd expect more resources to be used and attention paid to the suitability of FL holders.

:yes:


Ok, that clarifies things, so did you just misunderstand the poll?

[jrandom]

Ok, that clarifies things, so did you just misunderstand the poll?

Not at all. I just thought that the discussion should be extended beyond the simple question of carry / no carry. It's silly to restrict oneself to debating the merits of extreme positions.

I don't think NZ would benefit from a pistol in the pants of every second person on the street. (Although, faced with a fait accompli in that regard, I'd feel compelled to go forth armed rather than unarmed, hence my 'yes' vote in the poll.)

But I do think that we would benefit from adjusting the legal position on self-defence and the use of weapons, without any associated easier access to or concomitant proliferation of firearms.

[short-circuit]

But I do think that we would benefit from adjusting the legal position on self-defence and the use of weapons, without any associated easier access to or concomitant proliferation of firearms.

As I said earlier that is a slippery slope

[jrandom]

As I said earlier that is a slippery slope

Nobody's forced to slide down it. The legal position can be made clear at any point along the continuum.

I would suggest that if you consider yourself to be in favour of the precise status quo, you might want to look deeper into its ramifications. There are a number of illogicalities in the law as it stands on the topic of self-defence.

[Usarka]

I find it odd that so many people would not carry a gun if the law allowed.

Too many nutters with guns around to be going out unarmed IMHO.

[short-circuit]

Nobody's forced to slide down it. The legal position can be made clear at any point along the continuum.

I would suggest that if you consider yourself to be in favour of the precise status quo, you might want to look deeper into its ramifications. There are a number of illogicalities in the law as it stands on the topic of self-defence.

There are illogicalities, loopholes and contradictions in many areas of law at any given time. Becoming more liberal or prohibitive along the continuum just creates different illogicalities.

In what way are you presently restricted in terms of firearm ownership or use?

[jrandom]

There are illogicalities, loopholes and contradictions in many areas of law at any given time.

That's a specious argument against fixing them, however.


In what way are you presently restricted in terms of firearm ownership or use?

Have a read of the Arms Code (http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/arms-code.pdf); all the relevant info's within.

[short-circuit]

I find it odd that so many people would not carry a gun if the law allowed.

Too many nutters with guns around to be going out unarmed IMHO.


Like whom exactly?


And even if this were the case, are you suggesting the answer is in increasing the amount of nutters going around with guns?

Have you not heard of a little place called the united states?

[short-circuit]

That's a specious argument against fixing them, however.



Have a read of the Arms Code (http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/arms-code.pdf); all the relevant info's within.

1. I'm not sure they need "fixed".

2. Just answer the question - What is it you can't you do now and you feel you should be able to?

[Usarka]

Like whom exactly?


And even if this were the case, are you suggesting the answer is in increasing the amount of nutters going around with guns?

Have you not heard of a little place called the united states?

Not sure which part of my post you are asking of whom so I'll skip that one.....

You cannot assume ones stance on gun control from a simple yes vote on this poll.

I would be the first to protest against a law allowing this to happen. But if it were reality then I'd do all I could to mitigate the resulting risks to myself. If there weren't a critical mass of people willing to carry weapons the law wouldn't have passed in the first place.

[short-circuit]

Not sure which part of my post you are asking of whom so I'll skip that one.....

You cannot assume ones stance on gun control from a simple yes vote on this poll.

I would be the first to protest against a law allowing this to happen. But if it were reality then I'd do all I could to mitigate the resulting risks to myself. If there weren't a critical mass of people willing to carry weapons the law wouldn't have passed in the first place.

What's with the hypotheticals? You would either carry round a handgun if the law allowed you to or you wouldn't. Otherwise you're discussing a separate issue in which case you're involving yourself in the wrong thread

[Usarka]

What's with the hypotheticals? You either want to carry round a handgun or you don't. Otherwise you're discussing a separate issue in which case you're involving yourself in the wrong thread

Huh? We live in NZ where it is illegal to carry firearms so the poll itself is hypothetical.

The question was, quote " Would you carry a handgun if the law allowed you too"

And my answer is YES.

Doesn't mean I want to, hence why I live in NZ and not the USA.

[short-circuit]

Huh? We live in NZ where it is illegal to carry firearms so the poll itself is hypothetical.

The question was, quote " Would you carry a handgun if the law allowed you too"

And my answer is YES.

Doesn't mean I want to, hence why I live in NZ and not the USA.


I take your point. And I agree, Fatt Max should have eaten her baby

[carver]

half of you n00bs couldn't shoot for shit anyways, especially with high cal stuff.

[portokiwi]

Carver...... Carver.... Carver, Why do you talk such crap. You dont know half of the people here and I am sure that if you were the target they would improve their aim:2guns: just to have you for practice

[davereid]

Have you not heard of a little place called the united states?

With regard to gun laws, the U.S. should really be treated as 52 countries, as some states have very restrictive gun laws, while others have very liberal laws.

But, talking averages the U.S. is a much safer country than N.Z.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims

Crime Statistics Total crime victims (most recent) by country
Showing latest available data.

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Australia: 30.1%
#2 New Zealand: 29.4%
#3 United Kingdom: 26.4%
#4 Netherlands: 25.2%
#5 Sweden: 24.7%
#6 Italy: 24.6%
#7 Canada: 23.8%
#8 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 23.2%
#9 Malta: 23.1%
#10 Denmark: 23%
#11 Poland: 22.7%
#12 France: 21.4%
#13 Belgium: 21.4%
#14 Slovenia: 21.2%
#15 United States: 21.1%
#16 Finland: 19.1%
#17 Austria: 18.8%
#18 Switzerland: 18.2%
#19 Portugal: 15.5%
#20 Japan: 15.2%

[carver]

Carver...... Carver.... Carver, Why do you talk such crap. You dont know half of the people here and I am sure that if you were the target they would improve their aim:2guns: just to have you for practice

cause i used to shoot handguns alot, i know what its like to start, especially trying to combat the bodies natural reflexes.

[davereid]

Rapes by Country

#1 New Zealand: 1.3%
#2 Austria: 1.2%
#3 Finland: 1.1%
#4 Sweden: 1.1%
#5 Australia: 1%
#6 United Kingdom: 0.9%
#7 Netherlands: 0.8%
#8 Canada: 0.8%
#9 Slovenia: 0.8%
#10 France: 0.7%
#11 Italy: 0.6%
#12 Switzerland: 0.6%
#13 Denmark: 0.4%
#14 United States: 0.4%
#15 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 0.3%
#16 Belgium: 0.3%
#17 Poland: 0.2%
#18 Portugal: 0.2%
#19 Japan: 0.1%
#20 Malta: 0.1%

[davereid]

Assault victims
Showing latest available data. Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 3%
#2 United Kingdom: 2.8%
#3 Australia: 2.4%
#4 New Zealand: 2.4%
#5 Canada: 2.3%
#6 Finland: 2.1%
#7 Denmark: 1.4%
#8 France: 1.4%
#9 Belgium: 1.2%
#10 United States: 1.2%
#11 Sweden: 1.2%
#12 Slovenia: 1.1%
#13 Malta: 1.1%
#14 Poland: 1.1%
#15 Netherlands: 1%
#16 Switzerland: 1%
#17 Austria: 0.8%
#18 Portugal: 0.4%
#19 Italy: 0.2%
#20 Japan: 0.1%
Weighted average: 1.4%



DEFINITION: People victimized by assault (as a % of the total population).

[portokiwi]

:lol::lol::lol: So that makes you the person that everyone should go to for safety lessons:lol::lol::lol:

[davereid]

Burglaries (per capita) (most recent) by country
Showing latest available data.
Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Australia: 21.7454 per 1,000 people
#2 Dominica: 18.7892 per 1,000 people
#3 Denmark: 18.3299 per 1,000 people
#4 Estonia: 17.4576 per 1,000 people
#5 Finland: 16.7697 per 1,000 people
#6 New Zealand: 16.2763 per 1,000 people
#7 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
#8 Poland: 9.46071 per 1,000 people
#9 Canada: 8.94425 per 1,000 people
#10 South Africa: 8.89764 per 1,000 people
#11 Montserrat: 8.24323 per 1,000 people
#12 Iceland: 8.11156 per 1,000 people
#13 Switzerland: 8.06303 per 1,000 people
#14 Slovenia: 7.93734 per 1,000 people
#15 Czech Republic: 7.24841 per 1,000 people
#16 Hungary: 7.15849 per 1,000 people
#17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people
#18 France: 6.11634 per 1,000 people
#19 Ireland: 5.73755 per 1,000 people
#20 Netherlands: 5.55531 per 1,000 people
#21 Bulgaria: 5.29597 per 1,000 people
#22 Slovakia: 4.6984 per 1,000 people
#23 Zimbabwe: 4.54568 per 1,000 people
#24 Portugal: 4.47927 per 1,000 people
#25 Latvia: 4.31048 per 1,000 people
#26 Belarus: 3.13718 per 1,000 people
#27 Seychelles: 2.79598 per 1,000 people
#28 Lithuania: 2.55852 per 1,000 people
#29 Japan: 2.3269 per 1,000 people
#30 Uruguay: 1.63554 per 1,000 people
#31 Greece: 1.49035 per 1,000 people
#32 Chile: 1.44328 per 1,000 people
#33 Malaysia: 1.37407 per 1,000 people
#34 Mexico: 1.31521 per 1,000 people
#35 Hong Kong: 1.30004 per 1,000 people
#36 Mauritius: 1.28676 per 1,000 people
#37 Norway: 1.15328 per 1,000 people
#38 Romania: 0.954859 per 1,000 people
#39 Moldova: 0.894276 per 1,000 people
#40 Jamaica: 0.886696 per 1,000 people
#41 Zambia: 0.876043 per 1,000 people
#42 Tunisia: 0.762283 per 1,000 people
#43 Sri Lanka: 0.631248 per 1,000 people
#44 Spain: 0.591359 per 1,000 people
#45 Papua New Guinea: 0.472137 per 1,000 people
#46 Georgia: 0.403036 per 1,000 people
#47 Qatar: 0.347604 per 1,000 people
#48 Colombia: 0.31138 per 1,000 people
#49 Thailand: 0.205995 per 1,000 people
#50 India: 0.103027 per 1,000 people
#51 Korea, South: 0.0622315 per 1,000 people
#52 Armenia: 0.0308414 per 1,000 people
#53 Yemen: 0.00530709 per 1,000 people
#54 Saudi Arabia: 0.000416383 per 1,000 people
Weighted average: 5.1 per 1,000 peo

[davereid]

Car thefts (per capita) (most recent) by countryRank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Australia: 6.92354 per 1,000 people
#2 Denmark: 5.92839 per 1,000 people
#3 United Kingdom: 5.6054 per 1,000 people
#4 New Zealand: 5.45031 per 1,000 people
#5 Norway: 5.08143 per 1,000 people
#6 France: 4.9713 per 1,000 people
#7 Canada: 4.88547 per 1,000 people
#8 Italy: 4.19755 per 1,000 people
#9 United States: 3.8795 per 1,000 people
#10 Ireland: 3.69796 per 1,000 people
#11 Spain: 3.33616 per 1,000 people
#12 Finland: 3.13823 per 1,000 people
#13 Portugal: 2.50123 per 1,000 people
#14 Japan: 2.43012 per 1,000 people
#15 Netherlands: 2.33559 per 1,000 people
#16 Malaysia: 2.33286 per 1,000 people
#17 Czech Republic: 2.3278 per 1,000 people
#18 South Africa: 2.25426 per 1,000 people
#19 Poland: 1.76518 per 1,000 people
#20 Estonia: 1.74194 per 1,000 people
#21 Bulgaria: 1.51423 per 1,000 people
#22 Mexico: 1.49526 per 1,000 people
#23 Lithuania: 1.44148 per 1,000 people
#24 Iceland: 1.30419 per 1,000 people
#25 Switzerland: 1.24836 per 1,000 people
#26 Uruguay: 1.19672 per 1,000 people
#27 Slovakia: 1.11821 per 1,000 people
#28 Dominica: 1.04304 per 1,000 people
#29 Germany: 1.00767 per 1,000 people
#30 Hungary: 1.0017 per 1,000 people
#31 Greece: 0.795463 per 1,000 people
#32 Colombia: 0.771407 per 1,000 people
#33 Slovenia: 0.702138 per 1,000 people
#34 Costa Rica: 0.597361 per 1,000 people
#35 Hong Kong: 0.406436 per 1,000 people
#36 Turkey: 0.214668 per 1,000 people
#37 Saudi Arabia: 0.210955 per 1,000 people
#38 Romania: 0.203583 per 1,000 people
#39 Russia: 0.182025 per 1,000 people
#40 Moldova: 0.174411 per 1,000 people
#41 Belarus: 0.166019 per 1,000 people
#42 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.148166 per 1,000 people
#43 Papua New Guinea: 0.137601 per 1,000 people
#44 Indonesia: 0.1201 per 1,000 people
#45 Tunisia: 0.116725 per 1,000 people
#46 Zimbabwe: 0.110353 per 1,000 people
#47 Jamaica: 0.0942982 per 1,000 people
#48 Zambia: 0.070325 per 1,000 people
#49 Ukraine: 0.0673234 per 1,000 people
#50 Georgia: 0.0521702 per 1,000 people
#51 Thailand: 0.0510392 per 1,000 people
#52 Yemen: 0.0396102 per 1,000 people
#53 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0316751 per 1,000 people
#54 Qatar: 0.028967 per 1,000 people
#55 Azerbaijan: 0.0135238 per 1,000 people
Weighted average: 1.7 per 1,000 people

[Usarka]

Crime Statistics Total crime victims (most recent) by country
#2 New Zealand: 29.4%

Rapes by Country
#1 New Zealand: 1.3%

Assault victims
#4 New Zealand: 2.4%


Burglaries (per capita) (most recent) by country
#6 New Zealand: 16.2763 per 1,000 people



Remember, we don't know how lucky we are :whistle:

[portokiwi]

Assault victims
Showing latest available data. Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 3%
#2 United Kingdom: 2.8%
#3 Australia: 2.4%
#4 New Zealand: 2.4%
#5 Canada: 2.3%
#6 Finland: 2.1%
#7 Denmark: 1.4%
#8 France: 1.4%
#9 Belgium: 1.2%
#10 United States: 1.2%
#11 Sweden: 1.2%
#12 Slovenia: 1.1%
#13 Malta: 1.1%
#14 Poland: 1.1%
#15 Netherlands: 1%
#16 Switzerland: 1%
#17 Austria: 0.8%
#18 Portugal: 0.4%
#19 Italy: 0.2%
#20 Japan: 0.1%
Weighted average: 1.4%



DEFINITION: People victimized by assault (as a % of the total population).

Portugal is a country that every police man carries a side arm. They allways have. even the prison guards carry a sidearm.
The public dont and I dont think ever will. The crime rate there is getting higher due to the hevey influx of ukinians and black south africans comming in now they have the open boarders in the EU.

[davereid]

Heres the only page where the USA looks worse than us..

Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by countryRank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
#10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people
#11 Slovakia: 0.021543 per 1,000 people
#12 Czech Republic: 0.0207988 per 1,000 people
#13 Estonia: 0.0157539 per 1,000 people
#14 Latvia: 0.0131004 per 1,000 people
#15 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0127139 per 1,000 people
#16 Bulgaria: 0.00845638 per 1,000 people
#17 Portugal: 0.00795003 per 1,000 people
#18 Slovenia: 0.00596718 per 1,000 people
#19 Switzerland: 0.00534117 per 1,000 people
#20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
#21 Germany: 0.00465844 per 1,000 people
#22 Moldova: 0.00448934 per 1,000 people
#23 Hungary: 0.00439692 per 1,000 people
#24 Poland: 0.0043052 per 1,000 people
#25 Ukraine: 0.00368109 per 1,000 people
#26 Ireland: 0.00298805 per 1,000 people
#27 Australia: 0.00293678 per 1,000 people
#28 Denmark: 0.00257732 per 1,000 people
#29 Spain: 0.0024045 per 1,000 people
#30 Azerbaijan: 0.00227503 per 1,000 people
#31 New Zealand: 0.00173482 per 1,000 people
#32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
Weighted average: 0.1 per 1,000 people

However, if you look at the USA state-by-state, you will find that the 21 US states with liberal gun control laws have a firearm murder rate LOWER than NZs.* The states with more restrictive laws have higher rates, and the really high rates that twist the US stats are all.. err highly controlled, and full of gangs.

ie... bad people are very implicated in crime... guns are not.

(*I'm digging up the stats to back this up.. a day or two may be required.. I have it somewhere, but I need bookmarks in my bookmarks..)

[SARGE]

Heres the only page where the USA looks worse than us..

Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by countryRank

(*I'm digging up the stats to back this up.. a day or two may be required.. I have it somewhere, but I need bookmarks in my bookmarks..)

how about overall murder rates between the USA and NZ?..

[carver]

:lol::lol::lol: So that makes you the person that everyone should go to for safety lessons:lol::lol::lol:

no, go to a gun club, i learnt from ex Olympic shooters

[Toaster]

I prefer the weapon in my pants.

[portokiwi]

what callaber do they use????
what wpns have you been trained on. Sorry but I am very interested to know.

[davereid]

how about overall murder rates between the USA and NZ?..

Yep.. Murder rate higher in US too... my intention is to demonstrate that two things are happening here :

1. - NZ is not the safe Utopia that we like to think it is ..
2. - That crime is caused by criminals - there are plenty of places where firearms are common and crime is not.

I'm not disputing that there are plenty of guns, and plenty of murders in Columbia !

[Big Dave]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qfhRMsgCZzU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qfhRMsgCZzU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Swoop]

That crime is caused by criminals - there are plenty of places where firearms are common and crime is not.
The states that have concealed carry laws have seen a downward trend. Strange that.
A crim having to think about "risk".

Good to see that the poms don't have that issue.

[portokiwi]

:jerry: You have to admit it a very close poll:jerry:

[Big Dave]

ie... bad people are very implicated in crime... guns are not.

Yeah - I heard they have started using sarcasm. Enzo Piranha style.

.027 V .001

so doing the sums in my head that would make approximately

USA - 7,000.
NZ - 4.

Happy to stand correxted - 250 mil v 4 mil assumed.

I see why they use percentages.

[SARGE]

Yep.. Murder rate higher in US too... my intention is to demonstrate that two things are happening here :

1. - NZ is not the safe Utopia that we like to think it is ..
2. - That crime is caused by criminals - there are plenty of places where firearms are common and crime is not.

I'm not disputing that there are plenty of guns, and plenty of murders in Columbia !

i assume we are comparing first world nations though..

[BMWST?]

its all nice in theory....if it was legal for licensed gun users to carry or conceal or have pistols,then it will instantly mean there will be a lot more pistols available to the non licened,criminal elemnt...instant escalation of "deadly force",wether you were the intended target or not.

[davereid]

its all nice in theory....if it was legal for licensed gun users to carry or conceal or have pistols,then it will instantly mean there will be a lot more pistols available to the non licened,criminal elemnt...instant escalation of "deadly force",wether you were the intended target or not.

I'm not sure that is true.. a quick look at the papers shows criminals seem to have reasonably free access to firearms, including handguns, but mostly the cut-down shotgun or rifle.

In spite of the fact they have no (legal) access to guns at all, criminals appear to show up in our bottle stores, dairys, and on the street with firearms all the time.

Are you able to show that our gun control laws have reduced the number of guns available to our criminals ?

[scumdog]

Are you able to show that our gun control laws have reduced the number of guns available to our criminals ?

No, hell they even buy them from gun collectors.....

But it's the same story, the criminals ALWAYS have access to guns, legal or not. (Just look at the UK gun laws and penalties and look at the criminal fire-arm usage in the UK).

[scumdog]

However, if you look at the USA state-by-state, you will find that the 21 US states with liberal gun control laws have a firearm murder rate LOWER than NZs.* The states with more restrictive laws have higher rates, and the really high rates that twist the US stats are all.. err highly controlled, and full of gangs.

ie... bad people are very implicated in crime... guns are not.

(*I'm digging up the stats to back this up.. a day or two may be required.. I have it somewhere, but I need bookmarks in my bookmarks..)

Thank you for showing that - facts like this are frequently buried by those with an anti-gun axe to grind..

[Big Dave]

Thank you for showing that - facts like this are frequently buried by those with an anti-gun axe to grind..

Axes are weapons too - particular ground ones.

Here's my only concern.
Solid upstanding citizen gets hand gun.
No dramas.
Falls victim to glass pipe or mental illness or any other wig out and suddenly Mr Solid is pointing it at you instead of waving a cricket bat.

You know a lot better than me - tell me it doesn't happen? Is worth the risk and that systemising it won't increase the frequency.

[scumdog]

Axes are weapons too - particular ground ones.

Here's my only concern.
Solid upstanding citizen gets hand gun.
No dramas.
Falls victim to glass pipe or mental illness or any other wig out and suddenly Mr Solid is pointing it at you instead of waving a cricket bat.

You know a lot better than me - tell me it doesn't happen? Is worth the risk and that systemising it won't increase the frequency.

Nah, NZ is pretty balanced when it comes to gun laws - Aussie could learn a lot from it!!!

But seriously, it IS a fair system here, make the laws tougher and the balance of ownership will swing towards the crims...

[jrandom]

I'm not sure they need "fixed".

That could be because you're unaware of the issues. I'm guessing you didn't follow Greg Carvell's case last year?

Greg, a gun shop owner in Penrose, shot (once) a machete-wielding robber looking for firearms, stopping him. Robber came out OK in the end, but obviously wasn't able to proceed with his plan at the time. Robber got put away for several years.

Greg wasn't charged in relation to the shooting; it was obviously justified.

He was, however, charged with "possessing a firearm without lawful, proper or sufficient purpose", because he had one handy enough to load and fire in good enough time to stop an armed robber, instead of having everything locked away.

So... the law says that the shooting was justified, but the facilitation of it by appropriate storage of a weapon was not.

A paradox that nearly destroyed Mr Carvell's life and livelihood as he waited for months and months for a result.

Fortunately, he was acquitted.

But it would be good to spare other gun shop owners (and other law-abiding citizens in similar situations) from such ludicrous inconvenience.


What is it you can't you do now and you feel you should be able to?

Well, when we say 'can't', obviously that's 'can't, without breaking any laws'. So...

I can't keep a firearm at home in a condition and location that makes it useful for defence against armed intruders.

I can't carry a set of brass knuckles if I have to spend time in an area where I know I'd be likely to be attacked by pissed darkies looking for trouble.

My partner, all 50kg of her, can't carry a can of capsaicin spray to use if she's mugged or otherwise accosted by a male twice her size.

Catch my drift?

I want all of the above to be legal.

[Indiana_Jones]

Are you old enough to be on the internet by yourself?

daddy?! :confused:

-Indy

[Big Dave]

daddy?! :confused:

-Indy

Who's your daddy?

[Skyryder]

Well I see the poll has swung back in favour of the no's

Any one running a book on this.

Skyryder

[Brett]

Carver...... Carver.... Carver, Why do you talk such crap. You dont know half of the people here and I am sure that if you were the target they would improve their aim:2guns: just to have you for practice

If there is one thing I am sure of...as good as carver is at shooting off with the mouth...he is probably equally good with a firearm, if not better...just assuming here though...

[AD345]

Heres the only page where the USA looks worse than us..

Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by countryRank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
#10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people
#11 Slovakia: 0.021543 per 1,000 people
#12 Czech Republic: 0.0207988 per 1,000 people
#13 Estonia: 0.0157539 per 1,000 people
#14 Latvia: 0.0131004 per 1,000 people
#15 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0127139 per 1,000 people
#16 Bulgaria: 0.00845638 per 1,000 people
#17 Portugal: 0.00795003 per 1,000 people
#18 Slovenia: 0.00596718 per 1,000 people
#19 Switzerland: 0.00534117 per 1,000 people
#20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
#21 Germany: 0.00465844 per 1,000 people
#22 Moldova: 0.00448934 per 1,000 people
#23 Hungary: 0.00439692 per 1,000 people
#24 Poland: 0.0043052 per 1,000 people
#25 Ukraine: 0.00368109 per 1,000 people
#26 Ireland: 0.00298805 per 1,000 people
#27 Australia: 0.00293678 per 1,000 people
#28 Denmark: 0.00257732 per 1,000 people
#29 Spain: 0.0024045 per 1,000 people
#30 Azerbaijan: 0.00227503 per 1,000 people
#31 New Zealand: 0.00173482 per 1,000 people
#32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
Weighted average: 0.1 per 1,000 people

However, if you look at the USA state-by-state, you will find that the 21 US states with liberal gun control laws have a firearm murder rate LOWER than NZs.* The states with more restrictive laws have higher rates, and the really high rates that twist the US stats are all.. err highly controlled, and full of gangs.

ie... bad people are very implicated in crime... guns are not.

(*I'm digging up the stats to back this up.. a day or two may be required.. I have it somewhere, but I need bookmarks in my bookmarks..)

How about instead of murders you just do death by firearms?


hmm?

[Shadows]

You, Dagor and shadows have obviously not had to hump around an ungainly lump of firearm while doing day to day chores and living....or you would not be choosing THOSE weapons.

Uzi machine pistol mate. If every other bugger was going to be walking around with handguns then that would be my choice.

I've bush bashed enough miles with my fully wooded .303 Longbranch to know I certainly wouldn't want to be carrying a rifle around everywhere I went.

[Shadows]

Your basic argument there is the same one used by people who don't want motorcyclists to get advanced rider training because it makes them 'over-confident'.

Your point being?

Same basic argument for two completely different scenarios. That doesn't mean if it is right for the one it is automatically right for the other. I wasn't talking about riding fucking motorcycles.

[davereid]

NZ Murder Rate from 1996 to 2006:
Lowest year 2.4 per 100,000
Highest 4.0 per 100,000
(Rate varies as a small increase or decrease in the actual number of murders is reflected as a high per/100,000 rate due to small sample size)


US States which have a similar murder rate to NZ per capita.

State Murder Rate Permit required to purchase a gun ?
N.H. 1 No
S.D. 1.2 No
N.D. 1.3 No
Hawaii 1.6 Yes
Maine 1.7 No
Wyo. 1.7 No
Iowa 1.8 Yes
Mont. 1.8 No
Utah 1.8 No
Vt. 1.9 No
Ore. 2.3 No
Minn. 2.4 Yes
Idaho 2.5 No
R.I. 2.6 No
Nebr. 2.8 Yes
Mass. 2.9 Yes
Wash. 3 No
Wis. 3 No
Conn. 3.1 Yes
Colo. 3.3 No
Ky. 4 No

In all of the above states it is legal to carry an unconcealed weapon without a permit.
In all of the above states it is legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, or
a permit is readily available to persons without a criminal record.

Sources :
NZ Murder rates from Sensible Sentencing Trust
US Murder Rates from Infoplease.com
US Gunlaws from state-by-state googling

Oops.. chart is state.. murder rate .. permit required to purchase a gun.. the formatting falls over on KB

[Big Dave]

Nah, NZ is pretty balanced


Sorry my bad - I should have asked 'What's the frequency, Keneth?'

[dailydave21]

:2guns:

You should check out the gun poll site here too. http://www.thegunpoll.com

This site has 5 questions about whether you have guns and when you're done you can group and sort all of the results in a really cool way. definately worth cehcking out

[AD345]

How about instead of murders you just do death by firearms?


hmm?

I don't normally quote myself but I was interested to know the answer.

In 2004/2005 (last set of available comparable figures) the rate of death by firearm per 100,000 was:

United States - 10.25

New Zealand - 1.97

(Sources: Center for Disease Control.
AN ANALYSIS OF TRENDS IN FIREARM CASUALTIES IN
NEW ZEALAND
Chaz Forsyth and Clayton Weatherston)

Guns are NOT a crime or public safety issue

Guns are a lethality issue

They actually do kill people

[davereid]

I don't normally quote myself but I was interested to know the answer.

In 2004/2005 (last set of available comparable figures) the rate of death by firearm per 100,000 was:

United States - 10.25

New Zealand - 1.97

(Sources: Center for Disease Control.
AN ANALYSIS OF TRENDS IN FIREARM CASUALTIES IN
NEW ZEALAND
Chaz Forsyth and Clayton Weatherston)

Guns are NOT a crime or public safety issue

Guns are a lethality issue

They actually do kill people


Absolutely they do - thats how they give the small, the female, the elderly and the weak equality against the young, the strong the violent and the criminal.

The fact that they are used in suicide is regretable, as is the fact that accidents occur.

Of course people also kill themselves deliberately and have accidents in cars, motorcycles, swimming pools, with lengths of rope and fixing the toaster.

None of which means we should ban toasters.

Irrelevant data at best, a deliberate corruption of the facts at worst.

[AD345]

"There are none so blind as though who will not see"

I bet we are BOTH thinking that..LOL

I'm not trying to convert ya - and you sure as hell won't change my opinion about gun control - but the debate is fun.

Those facts are not corrupted - they are just facts.

If you round the US rate down to 10 per 100,000 and the NZ rate up to 2 per 100,000 - you are still 500 (!!!) times MORE likely to die from a firearm if you are a US citizen than if you are an NZ citizen.

Sounds like our current laws are pretty good to me.

[davereid]

If you round the US rate down to 10 per 100,000 and the NZ rate up to 2 per 100,000 - you are still 500 (!!!) times MORE likely to die from a firearm if you are a US citizen than if you are an NZ citizen.


Well, 5 times anyway...

[AD345]

Well, 5 times anyway...

yeah - my bad, got confused between 5 times and 500%

:argh:

[Timber020]

Screw the statistics, I have a friend who is a police statistician and they just have to tune things to make the results read a or b, black or white. The gun debate is just two huge industries leaning on each other like punch drunk boxers while people pour money into the fight from both sides. Neither fighter wants to win or loose because they get paid for just appear to be in the fight.


The laws in NZ for the most part are a good balance. I do think guns should be registered to owners and people should have more solid footing for defending there own property using force, but from what I have seen, we do alright (between the US and Aus's failed systems)
Having a gun in your house to defend yourself is one thing, thinking that somehow anything is going to be better by carrying them around on your person is just massive dillusion. I have done it due to friends having to go places and leaving me there gun to take home. (one time I ended up carrying an mp5 for hours, fn crazy) Guns change the way you think when you have one on you like that, and the guys who really want to carry them are generally the last type of guys you would want carrying them.

If you think a guns going to make you feel safer as you go about your life, just stay in bed, obviously the world is to big and scary for your intestinal fortitude. Better stop riding your bike because your a target without bullbars, after all if everyone drove a kenworth we would all be safer........right?

[MisterD]

Just a question for the firearm afficianados: Realistically, how far are we away from a firearm that is unable to be fired by anyone other than it's owner?

I think I've seen prototype examples of guns that must be aimed away from a smart key carried by the owner, so can't be used against them...what else is there? Some kind of biometric thing?

If this were possible, would or should it change anything?

[davereid]

Realistically, how far are we away from a firearm that is unable to be fired by anyone other than it's owner?

Smith & Wesson had a gun years ago called the "magna key".

If you werent wearing the correct magna ring, it would not fire.

I've just googled it but can't find it.

It was very unpopular as it was perceived as making the gun less reliable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My gun cabinet is secured with a "Presco" proximity tag system.

It can't be opened without the tag, so unauthorised people can't get access.

But I can open the safe just like a cupboard - if my tag is near enough, the safe unlocks itself, relocking if I move away.

The tags are quite small - like a small card or dog tag, and only need to be near the reader to work.

[Swoop]

I do think guns should be registered to owners
Much like the Canadian firearms registry system?
A bloated, multi-billion dollar way of wasting taxpayer money without solving a single crime?

[Skyryder]

Just a question for the firearm afficianados: Realistically, how far are we away from a firearm that is unable to be fired by anyone other than it's owner?

I think I've seen prototype examples of guns that must be aimed away from a smart key carried by the owner, so can't be used against them...what else is there? Some kind of biometric thing?

If this were possible, would or should it change anything?

There's a system that requires the handgun to recognise a signal from a chip worn by the owner before the fire will will discharge. Came across this a few days back but can not find it at the moment. Have no idea of range etc.

There are also some proto types with an electronic primer. There has been some experimaentation with sniper rifles with these electronic primers as there is less vibration without a fireing pin.

Skyryder


Skyyrder

[scumdog]

Much like the Canadian firearms registry system?
A bloated, multi-billion dollar way of wasting taxpayer money without solving a single crime?

True.

last I heard it was $800,000,000 overbudget with a 35%+- compliance rate, -figures likely to change.

And the cost is sky-rocketing.

[sAsLEX]

Rivers kill people. Lets ban rivers.




ps I had a happy day in the hunting store buying my christmas presents.

[sAsLEX]

There's a system that requires the handgun to recognise a signal from a chip worn by the owner before the fire will will discharge. Came across this a few days back but can not find it at the moment. Have no idea of range etc.

There are also some proto types with an electronic primer. There has been some experimaentation with sniper rifles with these electronic primers as there is less vibration without a fireing pin.

Skyryder


Skyyrder

SAw that a few years ago. Designed for Police. Wear a insignificant looking ring on the firing hand....... wouldn't take to smart a criminal to take a ring though...... but that is an oxymoron in the general sense.


I work with some electrically operated ordnance. But mine is big, there is portability and duration issues with rifles with electronic firing pulses.