Gunshop employee charged

**Bend-it** · 14th November 2006, 14:58

Originally Posted by Fish

If B-class pistol licence holders were allowed, say, to store a ready-to-shoot pistol using one of a list of pre-approved quick-access pistol safes in a location inspected and approved by an arms officer, that could be a pretty good starting point, and would mean that anyone without a criminal record could arm themselves at home after several months of training and supervision.

Note that no change would be necessary to the law in relation to self-defense to enable that.

Yes, that's a possible scenario... quite hard, but theoretically feasible.

No change in self defence laws, just a change to storage ones... yup...

**Dai** · 14th November 2006, 15:01

Originally Posted by Jim2

In regard to violent crime in NZ, that statistics don't support the view that it is getting worse.

"Homicides rate high in the public's concern about violent crime, but such crimes made up less than 0.4 percent of all violent crimes recorded between 1994 and 2000. The low numbers of homicide offences recorded make it impossible to identify any trends in the offence rates for any types of homicide over the period. Between 1994 and 2000, the number of recorded murders ranged from 40 to 66 per year, attempted murders (31 to 61), manslaughters (8 to 23), infanticide (0 to 2), abortion-related offences (1 to 6) and aiding suicide and pact (0 to 7)"
http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-...lent-crime.htm

If you regard your inability to create a fact based argument that people need to conceal loaded weapons in their home and my response to that as a personal attack then you need to think about where your argument is coming from.

From my perspective your argument is based in an entirely emotional realm.

If NZ had compulsory military service for men and women and that included firearms training, I'd have no issue with your proposal. NZ doesn't, and I can think of no more hideous society where people arm themselves with weapons they don't understand, or appreciate, or most of all respect.

Surely you are now preaching against the accepted norm.

The police themselves have purchased the latest Bushmaster assult rifles,800 of them, they are pushing for their general acceptance of Tazers, they have pepper sprays and Glock sidearms.

Why?

Because violent crime is increasing and they must defend themselves and us. Which is basically how they sold these items to the public.

Nothing to do with big boys toys.

"...arm themselves with weapons they don't understand, or appreciate, or most of all respect."

In the past 3 years there have been 11 incidents where police officers have injured themselves with firearms whilst training. They dont get enough proper training with these weapons to be proficient

**jrandom** · 14th November 2006, 15:05

Originally Posted by Dai

In the past 3 years there have been 11 incidents where police officers have injured themselves with firearms whilst training. They dont get enough proper training with these weapons to be proficient

If they had to go through what civilians have to do to get a B class licence, we wouldn't have that problem.

Got any details on the 'incidents'? What's your source? I'd be interested to hear more.

Also, I don't see an unarguable increase in violent crime as a necessary prerequisite to arming police officers. The question of armed vs. unarmed officers should be (and, I think, has been) examined on its own merits.

**The_Dover** · 14th November 2006, 15:09

Korma? that proves you're a fuckin blouse.

**jrandom** · 14th November 2006, 15:15

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

The Arms Office (the police "branch" who issue the trading and personal licences) would not prosecute in a charge of this nature, they only issue or revoke licences.

Good to see that the licence has been confirmed and the business will be safe.

You know, I think that the only people who have a problem with this situation are the numbnuts who haven't figured out that Greg C isn't being charged in relation to the shooting.

Political, bah humbug. Who really thinks any cop in his right mind would ignore an obvious violation of gun storage rules if he ran into it in the normal course of duty? That's just not the way things work.

The media have a lot to answer for with their rabble-rousing "GREG CARVELL CHARGED OMG WTF!!!!" bullshit.

**Ixion** · 14th November 2006, 15:19

Originally Posted by Fish

I am playing Devil's advocate to a certain extent.

Bring me your 'bearing arms in self-defence' petition and I may well sign it.

Of course, if there is, in fact, no petition, and all you're doing is dribbling ranty libertarian bollocks on the Interweb, I guess we'll be waiting a while for the revolution...

I am no libertarian. Entirely the reverse. But I can remember when bank tellers all had a loaded revolver under the counter (and in the manager's top drawer). A few were fired. Noone ever dreamed of charging the bank officers with anything. And bank robbers took note.

And country shop keepers and publicans usually had a shotgun ready to hand . Loaded. With rock salt if they were of kindly mein. (Maybe they still do).

So I would say it is not a matter of revolution, but of the public resisting , by outcry, the erosion of ancient liberties.

Certainly the common law recognised , and recognises still , a right to self defence. And I would plead that such an ancient and well expressed right can only be extinguished by specific statute , not by a species of mouse-nibbling assaults by the police, Crown, or judicial dicta.

Sir Edward Coke

And yet in some cases a man may not only use force and arms, but assemble company also. As any may assemble his friends and neighbors, to keep his house against those that come to rob, or kill him, or to offer him violence in it, and is by construction excepted out of this Act; and Sheriff, etc., ought not to deal with him upon this Act; for a man's house is his Castle, and a person's own house is his ultimate refuge; for where shall a man be safe, if it be not in his house. And in this sense it truly said, and the laws permit the taking up of arms against armed persons."

Sir Michael Foster

The right of self defence in these cases is founded in the law of nature, and is not, nor can be, superseded by any law of society. For before societies were formed, (one may conceive of such a state of things though it is difficult to fix the period when civil societies were formed,) I say before societies were formed for mutual defence and preservation, the right of self defence resided in individuals; it could not reside elsewhere, and since in cases of necessity, individuals incorporated into society cannot resort for protection to the law of the society, that law with great propriety and strict justice considereth them, as still, in that instance, under the protection of the law of nature.

And Blackstone

But the felf-defence, which we are now fpeaking of, is that whereby a man may protect himfelf from an affault, or the like, in the courfe of a fudden brawl or quarrel, by killing him who affaults him. And this is what the law expreffes by the word chance-medley, or (as fome rather chufe to write it) chaud-medley; the former of which in it's etymology fignifies a cafual affray, the latter an affray in the heat of blood or paffion: both of them of pretty much the fame import; but the former is in common fpeech too often erronceoufly applied to any manner of homicide by mifadventure; whereas it appears by the ftatute 24 Hen. VIII. c. 5. and our antient books ^l, that it is properly applied to fuch killing, as happens in felf-defence upon a fudden reencounter ^m. This right of natural defence does not imply a right of attacking: for, inftead of attacking one another for injuries paft or impending, men need only have recourfe to the proper tribunals of juftice. They cannot therefore legally exercife this right of preventive defence, but in fudden and violent cafes; when certain and immediate fuffering would be the confequence of waiting for the affiftance of the law. Wherefore, to excufe homicide by the plea of felf-defence, it muft appear that the flayer had no other poffible means of efcaping from his affailant.

**Clivoris** · 14th November 2006, 15:30

Anyone who trys to affault me will get a sucking big bafhing.

**jrandom** · 14th November 2006, 15:31

Originally Posted by Ixion

not a matter of revolution, but of the public resisting , by outcry, the erosion of ancient liberties.

Good stuff. That's more like what I expected!

I agree with it, too. Let's try and identify a way of sensibly tweaking the law to allow citizens to bear arms for worthy purposes, while keeping criminals as impotent as possible. If we can add a bit of education for the masses in as well, all the better.

As I pointed out earlier, a modification to the statutes relating to firearms storage would restore our ability to easily exercise our right of self-defense. What say you to that?

**Bend-it** · 14th November 2006, 15:36

Yes, not just right though... ability to self-defence as well... There's no (not in this case anyway) issue with the right.

Something in that online petition?

**James Deuce** · 14th November 2006, 15:37

Originally Posted by Ixion

I am no libertarian. Entirely the reverse. But I can remember when bank tellers all had a loaded revolver under the counter (and in the manager's top drawer). A few were fired. Noone ever dreamed of charging the bank officers with anything. And bank robbers took note.

And country shop keepers and publicans usually had a shotgun ready to hand . Loaded. With rock salt if they were of kindly mein. (Maybe they still do).

And all of them mostly experienced weapons users, and probably having been under fire themselves at some point in service of their country.

There are a diminishing number of Kiwis with range time or hunting experience under their belt, let alone military level training in handling and care of firearms.

Enabling the inexperienced, or the utterly without experience, to fire off rounds as they see fit will not reduce violent crime in this country.

**ManDownUnder** · 14th November 2006, 15:42

Originally Posted by Fish

Good stuff. That's more like what I expected!

I agree with it, too. Let's try and identify a way of sensibly tweaking the law to allow citizens to bear arms for worthy purposes, while keeping criminals as impotent as possible. If we can add a bit of education for the masses in as well, all the better.

As I pointed out earlier, a modification to the statutes relating to firearms storage would restore our ability to easily exercise our right of self-defense. What say you to that?

Flawless mate...

**jrandom** · 14th November 2006, 15:43

Originally Posted by Jim2

Enabling the inexperienced, or the utterly without experience, to fire off rounds as they see fit will not reduce violent crime in this country.

See my previous ideas. Are you with me?

That's three signatures for my petition so far...

Good thing John Key's my MP, eh?

[Edit: He's MDU's, too. No accounting for taste...]

**James Deuce** · 14th November 2006, 15:44

Originally Posted by Bend-it

Here:

Lies, lies and damn statistics... Can be twisted to say anything. Statistics don't come into it. If one person is victimised by a wonky law, then that's one person too many.

Fine, if there are worries about firearm safety, then my question is: Is there a way to maintain their safety, and still NOT be a victim? Which is basically the question I posed before.

You're just a little bit over sensitive there chap.

The statistics are gathered from Police and Courts records. They aren't twisted.

It is the norm to expect to get through life in NZ without experiencing violent crime directed at you personally.

The FACT remains, you are more likely to be mortally injured in NZ by your motorcycle than you are by a violent offender.

The recent school bus accidents that generated a hue and cry for seatbelts to be fitted to buses is an example of the kind of hysteria that can be generated very easily by over representing a particular incident throughout the media.

The calls to arm the Police are generated by incidents involving a minute sample of the population, who are recidivist offenders of one sort and another. The accepted norm as Dai puts it has been created by a consistent barrage of reporting violent crime above all others.

The most common form of crime in NZ remains crimes of dishonesty.

**Bend-it** · 14th November 2006, 15:46

Originally Posted by Jim2

Enabling the inexperienced, or the utterly without experience, to fire off rounds as they see fit will not reduce violent crime in this country.

In which case the solution then would be better training... or send people off to war! There's no shortage of them!

**jrandom** · 14th November 2006, 15:46

Originally Posted by Jim2

The recent school bus accidents that generated a hue and cry for seatbelts to be fitted to buses is an example of the kind of hysteria that can be generated very easily by over representing a particular incident throughout the media.

Well, you know, I've always thought that not putting seatbelts in buses was a bit weird...

Originally Posted by Jim2

The most common form of crime in NZ remains crimes of dishonesty.

Nudge nudge. Want to buy a car nav GPS, bro?