The firearm thread

[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/a...ectid=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/s...ergs-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

[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 ?