# Hunting > Firearm Safety >  HDPA does indeed lie about firearms

## Danger Mouse

The Big Read: The police files on TV3's gun buy - National - NZ Herald News

Should have been charged.

----------


## veitnamcam

I agree but HDPA is just another mindnumingly boring stupid presenter being used as a puppet.

This man is the one who needs prosecuting .

Greg O'Connor, the retiring president of the Police Association, the police union, said his discovery of the "loophole" was a "eureka" moment.

"I was telling everybody who would listen this was a loophole." He raised it on Mediaworks' Radio Live. At the point Story's gun stunt emerged, he says he was aware other media were also preparing to publish on the "loophole".

"I thought the story was strong enough without going to purchase one," said O'Connor.

While he labels the mail order issue a threat, the Police Association's submission to Parliament's inquiry into illegal possession of firearms makes no mention of it.​

- NZ Herald

There never was a loophole just a police state idealist trying to work up the population by pulling the strings on his "puppets"

----------


## mjgriffiths

I've discovered when I hit the gas my Landie can go faster than the speed limit (downhill with a good breeze).  Discovering this loophole in traffic laws was a "eureka" moment!

----------


## Danger Mouse

Have the police inadvertently created a new defence of 'no sinister intent'?

----------


## veitnamcam

> Have the police inadvertently created a new defence of 'no sinister intent'?


Probably.

----------


## Beavis

Seeing this info come to light makes the whole situation seem that much more rotten. Reaks of an orchestrated political hatchet job to stir up fear.

----------


## Rushy

My personal view is that there ought to have been a Police prosecution and a court case against all the muppets involved all the way up the line at TV3 as well as Greg O'Connor.  There was definitely a case to be answered and that there was not highlights a double standard.

----------


## Steve123

What I find amusing (in a creepy way) is that pretty much after HDPA got in the shit, Hubby ( 30 yrs senior to the wee wh*&e) starts writing a column for the Herald that sounds worthy of a North Korean Dear Leader propaganda award.

----------


## Kscott

> Have the police inadvertently created a new defence of 'no sinister intent'?


Funnier things have happened. Remember the Waihopai trio got off burglary and wilfull damage by using the defence of "the greater good", which related to the belief that because of the activity of Waihopai, they themselves could damage the place to prevent human suffering.

----------


## Jexla

> Funnier things have happened. Remember the Waihopai trio got off burglary and wilfull damage by using the defence of "the greater good", which related to the belief that because of the activity of Waihopai, they themselves could damage the place to prevent human suffering.


That's kinda funny.

Isn't it ironic that it's the police who set up the mail order form system and Greg O'Connor is the pres of their union and he's on the radio yelling about how the system the police themselves made is inadequate?

HA

----------


## systolic

> That's kinda funny.
> 
> Isn't it ironic that it's the police who set up the mail order form system and Greg O'Connor is the pres of their union and he's on the radio yelling about how the system the police themselves made is inadequate?
> 
> HA


What's ironic about a union president having a go at the bosses about their policies or procedures.

I'm sure the police union members pay their subs for their union to do exactly that.

Perhaps you need to do some research about what a union is and does. 

Police Union is not the same as Police Force.

----------


## Savage1

> That's kinda funny.
> 
> Isn't it ironic that it's the police who set up the mail order form system and Greg O'Connor is the pres of their union and he's on the radio yelling about how the system the police themselves made is inadequate?
> 
> HA


You clearly have no understanding of what the Police Association is and their relationship to the NZ Police.

----------


## Maca49

He is touted as your frontman more the pity

----------


## Jexla

> What's ironic about a union president having a go at the bosses about their policies or procedures.
> 
> I'm sure the police union members pay their subs for their union to do exactly that.
> 
> Perhaps you need to do some research about what a union is and does. 
> 
> Police Union is not the same as Police Force.





> You clearly have no understanding of what the Police Association is and their relationship to the NZ Police.


Yes, yes gents.

I understand, but my point is that he is publicly making the police as a whole look bad rather than going through the process not via the MSM.

----------


## Chilli_Dog

> You clearly have no understanding of what the Police Association is and their relationship to the NZ Police.


The media doesnt really help here, Greg is quite often refereed to as a top cop etc instead of a union leader.

----------


## Maca49

17 years with no prob and then someone in the police decided to let any Tom,Dick or Harry have the form, therefore creating the perceived "problem!"

----------


## Tahr

We knock Occonor, but he has been a good advocate for the PA and that's his job. The members have supported him. We use some quite ugly and personal language about him simply on the basis of not agreeing with what he says - but he's not a bad man .

----------


## GravelBen

I don't know if undermining public respect for the people you represent is really being a good advocate? Just another agenda-pushing wannabe politician in my books.

----------


## Tahr

> I don't know if undermining public respect for the people you represent is really being a good advocate? Just another agenda-pushing wannabe politician in my books.


We represent a very minor part of the "public". I dont think that he or in fact the Association care too much about who we respect.
And of course he is pushing an agenda. That's the essence of what unions do.

----------


## GravelBen

> And of course he is pushing an agenda. That's the essence of what unions do.


Maybe I should have made that clearer - I get the impression he's pushing his own personal agenda regardless of whether or not it actually reprents the people in his union.

----------


## Maca49

A person that wants to arm the police and remove those privileges from the public, has to be a worry?

----------


## GravelBen

> A person that wants to arm the police and remove those privileges from the public, has to be a worry?


Maybe having been a cop for so long (and apparently a political desk cop insulated from the public for a lot of that) has given him a particularly bad case of a 'them and us' mentality, thinking anyone who isn't a cop is a criminal - a bit like the way some schoolteachers who have never been outside the education system treat everybody who isn't a teacher like a child.

In fact, has he ever done anything else? Article about him stepping down from the union says he is in his 50s and has been a cop for over 37 years.

----------


## Tahr

You guys keep attacking him personally as an individual. Even linking what he says on behalf of the association with dubious facts about his career and experience. That's just shit. He represents an association which represents its members views. Instead of personalising everything, wouldnt it be better to debate the actual policies and ideas he is promoting? 
Personal assassination gives me the shits.

----------


## Sasquatch

> wouldnt it be better to debate the actual policies and ideas he is promoting?


Actual policies & ideas you say? I think you are completely ignorant to the fact that this man has used insidious scare-mongering tactics to throw of the general public on firearm use in NZ. _Especially_ for us law-abiding citizens! He has been quoted for saying that the law abiding FAL holders may have to lose some of their "rights" to mitigate all those illegal guns here in NZ.. His ideas are nothing but woeful, nonfactual wild assumptions which are far from being anything *good*




> Personal assassination gives me the shits.


And trying to destroy the very essence of what makes this country unique and stand out from the rest _really really_ gives me the shits. We have one of the best licencing systems in the world. And this *good advocate* as you say is slowly but surely feeding misinformation to a vast majority of people about laws & "loopholes" involving firearms.

----------


## res

> You guys keep attacking him personally as an individual. Even linking what he says on behalf of the association with dubious facts about his career and experience. That's just shit. He represents an association which represents its members views. Instead of personalising everything, wouldnt it be better to debate the actual policies and ideas he is promoting? 
> Personal assassination gives me the shits.


As many of us think he steeped over the line and illegally added in reporters braking the law(something I doubt many cops would support-even if they agree with his end goal) you have to expect some ill will to be expressed towards the man. 

Personally I think the guy is scum and drags down the image of front line police-and they are people I very highly respect

----------


## systolic

> A person that wants to arm the police and remove those privileges from the public, has to be a worry?


It's good that he wants the cops armed. I'd like to see them armed, like they are in in almost every other country in the world.

----------


## res

> It's good that he wants the cops armed. I'd like to see them armed, like they are in in almost every other country in the world.


Given the shit situations cops are at high risk  of walking into I can understand the call to arm them. And if arming them is ever done there better be a huge increase in police budget to go with it for the extra training etc.

----------


## Tahr

> Actual policies & ideas you say? I think you are completely ignorant to the fact that this man has used insidious scare-mongering tactics to throw of the general public on firearm use in NZ. _Especially_ for us law-abiding citizens! He has been quoted for saying that the law abiding FAL holders may have to lose some of their "rights" to mitigate all those illegal guns here in NZ.. His ideas are nothing but woeful, nonfactual wild assumptions which are far from being anything *good*
> 
> 
> 
> And trying to destroy the very essence of what makes this country unique and stand out from the rest _really really_ gives me the shits. We have one of the best licencing systems in the world. And this *good advocate* as you say is slowly but surely feeding misinformation to a vast majority of people about laws & "loopholes" involving firearms.


I'm not ignorant of the fact that some of us shooters and hunters are so subjective that we are beyond being reasonable, nor that we select data and information to support  our own bias in the same way that the Assotiation does.

----------


## Maca49

> It's good that he wants the cops armed. I'd like to see them armed, like they are in in almost every other country in the world.


What's the point? A better way than giving a lot of non licenced, poorly trained police officers the right to carry, would be to let them have the teeth to do their job properly now. Imagine the self harm if you armed them! It's bad enough now and many police want nothing to do with firearms. Just because the REST of the world is armed doesn't mean we HAVE to follow :Sick:

----------


## GravelBen

> You guys keep attacking him personally as an individual. Even linking what he says on behalf of the association with dubious facts about his career and experience. That's just shit. He represents an association which represents its members views. Instead of personalising everything, wouldnt it be better to debate the actual policies and ideas he is promoting?


My comments above were not attacking him as a person, just speculating as to possible reasons why his ideas seem so detached from reality to many of us.

His policies and ideas have been debated here many times over, why bother doing it again? I don't think I ever did get a good answer about why the official police statistics about reductions in firearm crime contradict what he claims 'on behalf of police officers'.

The current and former police officers I know personally don't seem to agree with his views and policies that supposedly represent their interests.

----------


## systolic

> What's the point? A better way than giving a lot of non licenced, poorly trained police officers the right to carry, would be to let them have the teeth to do their job properly now. Imagine the self harm if you armed them! It's bad enough now and many police want nothing to do with firearms. Just because the REST of the world is armed doesn't mean we HAVE to follow


Non licenced? What does that have to do with anything? I didn't think cops needed a licence for doing cop stuff at work. 
The army don't need licences either. 

While googling Greg O'Conner I found some results of a survey done recently that showed 72% of cops in NZ wanted to carry firearms full time. So there must be plenty who want them when they need them, but not carry full time so the 'many' that want 'nothing to do with firearms' as you claim, can't be that many. 

I think most squad cars carry guns already now. The only difference would be cops having them on their hips so they can use them immediately if needed, instead of having them in the boot of the car too far away to be of use if surprised by an armed felon.

----------


## Jexla

> I'm not ignorant of the fact that some of us shooters and hunters are so subjective that we are beyond being reasonable, nor that we select data and information to support  our own bias in the same way that the Assotiation does.


Unfortunately you need to fight fire with fire or you get burnt.




> While googling Greg O'Conner I found some results of a survey done recently that showed 72% of cops in NZ wanted to carry firearms full time. So there must be plenty who want them when they need them, but not carry full time so the 'many' that want 'nothing to do with firearms' as you claim, can't be that many.



NZ's firearm homicide rate drops - National - NZ Herald News


Did your google result bring you to this article where O'Conner is quoted saying things such as these:

"Police Association president Greg O'Connor, who advocates arming police officers, said the decline in firearm homicides showed New Zealand had well-balanced gun licensing.

"Particularly in New Zealand, you can go hunting and do your bit for ecology, because you're mostly hunting pests anyway," Mr O'Connor said.

"I would be very disappointed if as a result of the actions of criminals in New Zealand, there was an encroachment against lawful gun-owning people." "

----------


## GravelBen

> The only difference would be cops having them on their hips so they can use them immediately if needed, instead of having them in the boot of the car too far away to be of use if surprised by an armed felon.


Or so they can be taken off them by criminals who surprise them with a smack to back of the head, or so they can overreact to a stressful situation and shoot someone when it could have been de-escalated without violence... situations just as likely as your example.

----------


## Maca49

Doesn't make sense a enforcement officer doesn't need a firearms licence when us mere mortals do?. The army is a little different when fighting wars and killing people is the objective.

----------


## systolic

> Unfortunately you need to fight fire with fire or you get burnt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NZ's firearm homicide rate drops - National - NZ Herald News
> 
> 
> Did your google result bring you to this article where O'Conner is quoted saying things such as these:
> ...


What has a _homicide_ rate got to do with cops wanting or needing guns?

None of the cops in Whangarei who got shot at a few weeks ago were killed so, because there was no homicide, they didn't need to be armed?
Gunman still on the run after firing shot at police, stealing police car in Northland | Stuff.co.nz

The cops in New Plymouth had to run back to their squad car to get guns after they were shot at in 2013. 
https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/...tim-broken-man

In 2015 two cops in Waikato got shot at with a shotgun while in hot pursuit of a car. But they didn’t die so that’s all right then. I don’t know what the fuss is about. 
https://www.policeassn.org.nz/newsro...s-october-2015

This cop was shot three times, but is still alive so he obviously had no use for a gun. 
Charges laid following policeman's shooting | Stuff.co.nz

No shots fired here, so clearly no need for guns?
Man on the run after pointing gun at police in Manurewa - National - NZ Herald News

If the number of people _killed_ by falling pine trees was getting _less_, but the number of forestry workers getting _injured_ by trees was getting _more_, does that mean the problem is getting better or worse?

Edited to add that cop in Turangi who might not have been cut up with a machete after stopping a car and being attacked if he had a gun on his hip.

----------


## Chilli_Dog

There is obviously some (probably reasonably high up) in the Police that do agree with Greg, 

There is suddenly a big push for a register, while it would appear that the Police have been building one for some time with the vetting officers and now mail order forms.
Greg has come out wanting 50cals to become a restricted weapon because they will go through a vest and now restrictions are being put on import permits.

Im sure there are other coincidences as well.

----------


## systolic

> Or so they can be taken off them by criminals who surprise them with a smack to back of the head, or so they can overreact to a stressful situation and shoot someone when it could have been de-escalated without violence... situations just as likely as your example.


How many cops in NZ have had their guns taken off them now?

(Not counting that guy at Aramoana who was already dead when his pistol was taken.)

Who got shot when the situation "could have been de-escalated without violence"?

----------


## systolic

> There is obviously some (probably reasonably high up) in the Police that do agree with Greg, 
> 
> There is suddenly a big push for a register, while it would appear that the Police have been building one for some time with the vetting officers and now mail order forms.
> Greg has come out wanting 50cals to become a restricted weapon because they will go through a vest and now restrictions are being put on import permits.
> 
> Im sure there are other coincidences as well.


There must be more than some cops who agree with him if they keep voting him in as union president.

----------


## Kscott

Let's not forget :
Concern at lack of police gun training | Radio New Zealand News

Police themselves are concerned at the lack of sufficient live fire training for themselves. Throwing a Glock on every hip won't be the magical solution some people are expecting, as shit heads will still be shitheads (as seen in numerous Police 10-7 and other reality cop shows).

----------


## Steve123

> There must be more than some cops who agree with him if they keep voting him in as union president.


Does anyone else want the job?

----------


## Ryan

> Let's not forget :
> Concern at lack of police gun training | Radio New Zealand News
> 
> Police themselves are concerned at the lack of sufficient live fire training for themselves. Throwing a Glock on every hip won't be the magical solution some people are expecting, as shit heads will still be shitheads (as seen in numerous Police 10-7 and other reality cop shows).


Which in itself ties in with:

Budget 2016: Virtually Another Frozen Police Budget | Scoop News

----------


## Tahr

> Does anyone else want the job?


5 people are standing for the election of a new President for the Association.

It's interesting and informative to go into the Police Association web site for a browse. There is a story about Oconnors back ground which is interesting and nothing like the attempts that have been made to portray it on here.

Have a look for a broader perspective.

----------


## res

> Doesn't make sense a enforcement officer doesn't need a firearms licence when us mere mortals do?. The army is a little different when fighting wars and killing people is the objective.


To be fair, a fal like what most forum members have would make no difference to how well a cop acts with a gun.the difference in use and mindset is just to large,  sure it's not the same as the army either. 
For both the police and military proper training is needed-if the tick I. There training box is called a license does it really change anything? 

If joe blow like you and I could Cary in public for protection then there would be a case for the licance story be the same

Problem is that govt budgets don't seem to have room to fund the training-lets not forget that it's not just the ammo it's the extra bodies to cover the down time caused by proper training. Unless the $ is there I'm anti arming the police, if the $ was there I'm open to it as I know I would want it if I was doing the job and I struggle with the idea of expecting someone to do something on my behalf with less tools/training than I feel I would want to to the task.

----------


## Jexla

> How many cops in NZ have had their guns taken off them now?
> 
> (Not counting that guy at Aramoana who was already dead when his pistol was taken.)
> 
> Who got shot when the situation "could have been de-escalated without violence"?


How many cops have had a gun holstered on them for every job they attend?
How many times have they had a scuffle with someone whilst they had a gun holstered?

All you're saying is that the current system works.




> What has a _homicide_ rate got to do with cops wanting or needing guns?
> 
> None of the cops in Whangarei who got shot at a few weeks ago were killed so, because there was no homicide, they didn't need to be armed?
> Gunman still on the run after firing shot at police, stealing police car in Northland | Stuff.co.nz
> 
> The cops in New Plymouth had to run back to their squad car to get guns after they were shot at in 2013. 
> https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/...tim-broken-man
> 
> In 2015 two cops in Waikato got shot at with a shotgun while in hot pursuit of a car. But they didn’t die so that’s all right then. I don’t know what the fuss is about. 
> ...


I think you will find that your buddy O'Connor said this, so why are you asking me? 
Remember he speaks on behalf of all the police officers you have talked about in your post, they voted for him.

----------


## Ryan

> How many cops have had a gun holstered on them for every job they attend?


Any specifically tasked to work at international airports.

----------


## GravelBen

> It's interesting and informative to go into the Police Association web site for a browse. There is a story about Oconnors back ground which is interesting and nothing like the attempts that have been made to portray it on here.
> 
> Have a look for a broader perspective.


Got a link to that story? I already went to their website to learn about his background and all I found was that he has been a cop for 37 years.

----------


## Jexla

> Any specifically tasked to work at international airports.


Extremely relevant to the discussion, thank you Ryan.

----------


## Chilli_Dog

> Got a link to that story? I already went to their website to learn about his background and all I found was that he has been a cop for 37 years.


I had a look too, maybe hes talking about a story in here
Police News September 2016 | Police Association

----------


## Danger Mouse

> There is obviously some (probably reasonably high up) in the Police that do agree with Greg, 
> 
> There is suddenly a big push for a register, while it would appear that the Police have been building one for some time with the vetting officers and now mail order forms.
> Greg has come out wanting 50cals to become a restricted weapon because they will go through a vest and now restrictions are being put on import permits.
> 
> Im sure there are other coincidences as well.


which is retarded, military issue body armour will only stop up to 7.62x39. Lots of stuff goes through it. Oconner says what suits suits him without a logical train of thought sometimes. .

----------


## Danger Mouse

> To be fair, a fal like what most forum members have would make no difference to how well a cop acts with a gun.the difference in use and mindset is just to large,  sure it's not the same as the army either. 
> For both the police and military proper training is needed-if the tick I. There training box is called a license does it really change anything? 
> 
> If joe blow like you and I could Cary in public for protection then there would be a case for the licance story be the same
> 
> Problem is that govt budgets don't seem to have room to fund the training-lets not forget that it's not just the ammo it's the extra bodies to cover the down time caused by proper training. Unless the $ is there I'm anti arming the police, if the $ was there I'm open to it as I know I would want it if I was doing the job and I struggle with the idea of expecting someone to do something on my behalf with less tools/training than I feel I would want to to the task.


exactly this. Im anti full time arming of the police because they dont have the required level of training. It looks like they wont have the budget to carry out that training either, train the trainers. ammo, wear on firearms/maintenance, down time of officers while doing that training.

shooting is a perishable skill, hence why the military combat trades are constantly having weapons with them on exercise, be it tactical or not. Currently an NZ pistol license holder, doing the mandatory 12 shoots a year minimum, is more highly trained than an average officer.

----------


## Maca49

> How many cops in NZ have had their guns taken off them now?
> 
> (Not counting that guy at Aramoana who was already dead when his pistol was taken.)
> 
> Who got shot when the situation "could have been de-escalated without violence"?


Feilding golf course? Waitara?

----------


## Maca49

> To be fair, a fal like what most forum members have would make no difference to how well a cop acts with a gun.the difference in use and mindset is just to large,  sure it's not the same as the army either. 
> For both the police and military proper training is needed-if the tick I. There training box is called a license does it really change anything? 
> 
> If joe blow like you and I could Cary in public for protection then there would be a case for the licance story be the same
> 
> Problem is that govt budgets don't seem to have room to fund the training-lets not forget that it's not just the ammo it's the extra bodies to cover the down time caused by proper training. Unless the $ is there I'm anti arming the police, if the $ was there I'm open to it as I know I would want it if I was doing the job and I struggle with the idea of expecting someone to do something on my behalf with less tools/training than I feel I would want to to the task.


Agreed!

----------


## Maca49

> exactly this. Im anti full time arming of the police because they dont have the required level of training. It looks like they wont have the budget to carry out that training either, train the trainers. ammo, wear on firearms/maintenance, down time of officers while doing that training.
> 
> shooting is a perishable skill, hence why the military combat trades are constantly having weapons with them on exercise, be it tactical or not. Currently an NZ pistol license holder, doing the mandatory 12 shoots a year minimum, is more highly trained than an average officer.


We used to have an annual competition between the AOS, Army and the local pistol club, always finished Club first, the AOS and Army fighting it out the rest, was good because the Army brought boxes of ammo and nice things to shoot, both semi and auto, AOS brought some hot 357 and revolvers to bowl it down the range, guess that doesnt happen anymore :O O:

----------


## Kscott

> Currently an NZ pistol license holder, doing the mandatory 12 shoots a year minimum, is more highly trained than an average officer.


Attendance does not make for skill. 

Otherwise no-one would ever get DQ'd in a comp, being so highly skilled with their firearm and all  :Wink:

----------


## systolic

> Attendance does not make for skill. 
> 
> Otherwise no-one would ever get DQ'd in a comp, being so highly skilled with their firearm and all


Exactly. Didn't some top pistol shooter shoot themselves in the leg recently?

One of the clubs around Auckland or Northland?

----------


## Jexla

> Exactly. Didn't some top pistol shooter shoot themselves in the leg recently?
> 
> One of the clubs around Auckland or Northland?


You not up to continuing the discussion?

----------


## GravelBen

> I had a look too, maybe hes talking about a story in here
> Police News September 2016 | Police Association


Unless I missed something it does confirm that he's been in the police force since he was a teenager without doing anything else (unless you count a couple of holidays), so I'm not sure what Tahr was suggesting was dubious or non-factual about me asking if that was the case before.

----------


## Savage1

> How many cops have had a gun holstered on them for every job they attend?
> How many times have they had a scuffle with someone whilst they had a gun holstered?
> 
> All you're saying is that the current system works.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you will find that your buddy O'Connor said this, so why are you asking me? 
> Remember he speaks on behalf of all the police officers you have talked about in your post, they voted for him.


The current system works?! So cops getting shot and shot at and having their cars stolen is acceptable?! What a stupid thing to say, easily said from an armchair though. 

 I personally know the cops that were shot at in Whangarei, they don't agree that they were in an acceptable situation, neither do their partners and children.

I've also spent entire shifts armed and have been in scuffles whilst wearing a firearm.

----------


## Maca49

I agree with you Savage, nobody should be harmed doing their job, I don't think carrying pissy pistols is the answer, as I don't believe having a MSSA rifle is the right choice for an officer, I'd be issuing shotguns, that's just my opinion. But this PC world has shackled the police to a point where they cannot do their job, before arming, give you back some Mana, scum is scum and should be treated as such, 
Start there and stop the pussy footing, back up with judges and laws with a back bone and it may just improve all round. I take my hat off to you, I don't know how you can control yourself.

----------


## systolic

> I agree with you Savage, nobody should be harmed doing their job, I don't think carrying pissy pistols is the answer, as I don't believe having a MSSA rifle is the right choice for an officer, I'd be issuing shotguns, that's just my opinion. But this PC world has shackled the police to a point where they cannot do their job, before arming, give you back some Mana, scum is scum and should be treated as such, 
> Start there and stop the pussy footing, back up with judges and laws with a back bone and it may just improve all round. I take my hat off to you, I don't know how you can control yourself.


Shotguns? For cops? In this country?

Are you on drugs?

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> Shotguns? For cops? In this country?
> 
> Are you on drugs?


It would be the way forward, with the choice of lethal & non lethal solutions

----------


## Steve123

> Shotguns? For cops? In this country?
> 
> Are you on drugs?


It's the perfect choice for the average cop, They don't have enough range time to be proficient with high velocity weapons.Most of the time they use weapons in built up area's. When the supposedly highly trained AOS blows away innocent courier drivers it's amazing that they even consider AR15's for the rank and file.

----------


## Maca49

If the police need firearms it is deadly force they should be using, shotguns would be far more effective, without long range stray projectile flying everywhere as was the case in Hamilton. A twelve gauge barrel is pretty hard to run away from!

----------


## Maca49

> Shotguns? For cops? In this country?
> 
> Are you on drugs?


Obviously my drugs keep me sane! Yours???

----------


## Steve123

> If the police need firearms it is deadly force they should be using, shotguns would be far more effective, without long range stray projectile flying everywhere as was the case in Hamilton. A twelve gauge barrel is pretty hard to run away from!


A twelve gauge also has the advantage of making the scumbag look down a fucking big hole. Maybe make the dumb cnuts think for the first time in their lives.

----------


## systolic

> If the police need firearms it is deadly force they should be using, shotguns would be far more effective, without long range stray projectile flying everywhere as was the case in Hamilton. A twelve gauge barrel is pretty hard to run away from!


Long range stray projectiles flying everywhere? That's the reason shotguns are bad news.

My Rem 870 with a improved cylinder choke won't keep all pellets from a OO buckshot load on a NRA D1 target much past 17m or so. Then one or two start missing the target, simply because of spread.

What happens when one of those nine pellets, fired by a cop, misses the felon and hits a bystander? What happens if the bad guy is 40m away, well outside the effective range of a shotgun?

How would some of those tiny WPCs handle the recoil from a shotgun? 

I watched a three gun match at the Rotorua range once. It was interesting to see a number of shooters mix up their ammo to the point some got disqualified.

How would an undertrained cop be expected to get OO buckshot and bean bag rounds loaded in the right order? 

Your idea is laughable.

----------


## res

Didn't the Americans find shotguns to cause more collateral damage than rifles?

----------


## GravelBen

> I've also spent entire shifts armed and have been in scuffles whilst wearing a firearm.


I was told a story by one cop about losing his in a scuffle. IIRC he was called out to a domestic at a known gang house, went onto the property armed 'for insurance' but got blindsided by a couple of guys as soon as the door opened. Got a bit of a beating, surrounded in the front yard. After being roughed up he was retreating to the car and realised the holster was empty, dreading having to report losing it but as he was leaving one of the older wiser blokes from the house quietly walked up and handed it back to him.

He reckoned he was lucky that one of the calmer heads ended up with it, but also that things probably would have gone far worse for him if he'd managed to draw it.

I have to say it was very interesting being party to a conversation between a few current and ex cops about their hairy moments on the job. Got the impression they used to have a lot of fun practicing shooting in the past before management decided they were spending too much on ammunition.

----------


## Rushy

I put it to the floor that Savage1 should be armed to the teeth with Pistol, AR15 and semi auto shotgun when he patrols through the Tikipunga Tavern car park.  All those in favour?

----------


## Tahr

My wife's son is a Policeman in Brisbane. He's a constable so he's active most of the time. In 4 years he hasn't drawn his pistol a single time, and his  Taser only 3 times. Has never fired his Taser.
He says though that he wouldn't want to step onto the street without his pistol. They have live firing and pistol drills 4 times a year. The standard issue is a Glock and 2 mags and 30 rounds of ammo.

He seems quite knowledgable about the Glock, it's short comings and how to use.

Just thought people might find that interesting.

----------


## Maca49

> Didn't the Americans find shotguns to cause more collateral damage than rifles?


Tighten the friggen choke!!! You have choices, solids, buck, smaller shot, Rock salt, flechers?, small arrows, hurt real bad, rubber projectiles, and if you must Black Powder for effect!!

----------


## Jexla

> The current system works?! So cops getting shot and shot at and having their cars stolen is acceptable?! What a stupid thing to say, easily said from an armchair though. 
> 
>  I personally know the cops that were shot at in Whangarei, they don't agree that they were in an acceptable situation, neither do their partners and children.
> 
> I've also spent entire shifts armed and have been in scuffles whilst wearing a firearm.


I agree that the situation is not acceptable, that's why he's off to jail.
I think you will find that any criminal action towards police or the public is unacceptable.
Do you really believe that the current system does not work and cannot work better with a few tweaks and that routine arming of police is the end all solution?

Also curious, did you vote for O'Connor?

----------


## Maca49

> My wife's son is a Policeman in Brisbane. He's a constable so he's active most of the time. In 4 years he hasn't drawn his pistol a single time, and his  Taser only 3 times. Has never fired his Taser.
> He says though that he wouldn't want to step onto the street without his pistol. They have live firing and pistol drills 4 times a year. The standard issue is a Glock and 2 mags and 30 rounds of ammo.
> 
> He seems quite knowledgable about the Glock, it's short comings and how to use.
> 
> Just thought people might find that interesting.


4 practice shoots a year would mean you could take you chances and run!! :Grin:

----------


## res

> 4 practice shoots a year would mean you could take you chances and run!!


I'm inclined to agree with this

----------


## Beavis

One thing I've always wondered, for my owm amusement, is how "personal" is a Police man's rifle?  As in, is a New Zealand Police officer "issued" a rifle that becomes their responsibility, or are they drawn from a collective pool when required? Do individual officers sight in their rifle or is it done by an armourer? Is an officer allowed to disassemble a rifle for maintance or remedial of a serious malfunction or is it sent to an armourer? I presume that being armed with a pistol, they would be taught to pitch the rifle in the event of something like a bolt over ride or a blown primer locking the gun up.

----------


## Savage1

> I agree that the situation is not acceptable, that's why he's off to jail.
> I think you will find that any criminal action towards police or the public is unacceptable.
> Do you really believe that the current system does not work and cannot work better with a few tweaks and that routine arming of police is the end all solution?
> 
> Also curious, did you vote for O'Connor?


If you think the situation is not ok then why did you say that those outlined incidents were showing that the current system is working?

 And what are the tweaks that would've helped in the mentioned situations? I'm all ears for new ideas. 

I work with the current system, unlike you, and no I don't think it's working and police are being put at unessacary risk.

----------


## Koshogi

> One thing I've always wondered, for my owm amusement, is how "personal" is a Police man's rifle?  As in, is a New Zealand Police officer "issued" a rifle that becomes their responsibility, or are they drawn from a collective pool when required? Do individual officers sight in their rifle or is it done by an armourer? Is an officer allowed to disassemble a rifle for maintance or remedial of a serious malfunction or is it sent to an armourer? I presume that being armed with a pistol, they would be taught to pitch the rifle in the event of something like a bolt over ride or a blown primer locking the gun up.


I'd be surprised if most Police officers even knew what a bolt overide is.

----------


## Savage1

> I'd be surprised if most Police officers even knew what a bolt overide is.


I had to youtube it, how common are they?

----------


## Maca49

Ask a policeman? :Thumbsup:

----------


## Beavis

> I had to youtube it, how common are they?


Not often at all but it isn't something you want to happen when you really need the rifle. It can be cleared by using the base of the cartridge in the gas vent cut out to rack the bolt.

----------


## Kscott

> I'd be surprised if most Police officers even knew what a bolt overide is.


I wonder how many Police officers know how to clear a blocked fuel line in their cars.

----------


## Jexla

> If you think the situation is not ok then why did you say that those outlined incidents were showing that the current system is working?
> 
>  And what are the tweaks that would've helped in the mentioned situations? I'm all ears for new ideas. 
> 
> I work with the current system, unlike you, and no I don't think it's working and police are being put at unessacary risk.


Honestly I'm not entirely sure, but I am sure others will have some great ideas.
I think our biggest issue is the criminalization of weed.
Look at the last bunch of times police have been shot at and a large portion of them have been weed related search warrants.
No one should be shot over a god damn plant.
I feel inclined to suggest being armed for drug related search warrants, but I fear people may unnecessarily be shot.
It really is a tricky thing to answer, there's no perfect way unless it was decriminalized.
As for the guy shooting at the cops after the car chase, I don't have an answer to it either.
But I don't feel that being armed 100% of the time is the answer either unfortunately.

----------


## Maca49

> Honestly I'm not entirely sure, but I am sure others will have some great ideas.
> I think our biggest issue is the criminalization of weed.
> Look at the last bunch of times police have been shot at and a large portion of them have been weed related search warrants.
> No one should be shot over a god damn plant.
> I feel inclined to suggest being armed for drug related search warrants, but I fear people may unnecessarily be shot.
> It really is a tricky thing to answer, there's no perfect way unless it was decriminalized.
> As for the guy shooting at the cops after the car chase, I don't have an answer to it either.
> But I don't feel that being armed 100% of the time is the answer either unfortunately.


Decriminalize cannabis and theyll be spending all day looking for kids that are not at school :Thumbsup:

----------


## res

> Decriminalize cannabis and theyll be spending all day looking for kids that are not at school


Kids already have easy access to to the stuff and the cops aren't doing this. Places that have decriminalized the stuff haven't found it to negatively affect attendance etc-in fact places that have opened up legal ways to buy it(different thing to decriminalizing) have found it makes it harder for young people to get it as it becomes like beer etc. 

Removing the income from crims, increasing the average age of first use, removing the most likely source of exposure to harder drug, removing a barrier to seeking treatment for those with issues, increased tax take.  All these things sound like good outcomes to me, not saying I think pot is good at all but that the prohibition model has failed. 

I have been told that one of the things standing in the way of law change is the lack of practical tests to show if people are currently high v were high last night. Having had to fire several people for drug use I can see the importance of the distinction

----------


## Jexla

> Kids already have easy access to to the stuff and the cops aren't doing this. Places that have decriminalized the stuff haven't found it to negatively affect attendance etc-in fact places that have opened up legal ways to buy it(different thing to decriminalizing) have found it makes it harder for young people to get it as it becomes like beer etc. 
> 
> Removing the income from crims, increasing the average age of first use, removing the most likely source of exposure to harder drug, removing a barrier to seeking treatment for those with issues, increased tax take.  All these things sound like good outcomes to me, not saying I think pot is good at all but that the prohibition model has failed. 
> 
> I have been told that one of the things standing in the way of law change is the lack of practical tests to show if people are currently high v were high last night. Having had to fire several people for drug use I can see the importance of the distinction


The ozzy police have a tongue swab method that is able to differentiate that they use in order to charge people with drug driving.

Seriously think about how many police have been shot at due to them busting someone's weed grow op, so many examples.

----------


## systolic

Legalise weed? How much extra are we going to have to pay in benefits for all the extra dope smokers who can't work because they're too unmotivated to get out of bed in the morning and then, because it's legal claim, a sickness benefit fore not being able to work?

What about all the extra costs for mental health services for those, usually younger people, who fuck up their brains smoking weed? 

Stoned drivers kill and main enough people now. Do you think the number would reduce if it was legal to smoke?

Filthy druggies should be forced into rehab programs on offshore islands for a minimum of a six month program.

Beneficiaries should be drug tested regularly and any illegal drugs found in their system should result in the benefits being cancelled.    

Drug convictions should result in automatic and immediate lose of any firearms licence held.

----------


## GravelBen

> increasing the average age of first use


They said lowering the drinking age was going to do that, and they were as obviously wrong about that one too  :Wtfsmilie:

----------


## systolic

> I have been told that one of the things standing in the way of law change is the lack of practical tests to show if people are currently high v were high last night. Having had to fire several people for drug use I can see the importance of the distinction


Why should it matter if they are currently high or were high last night?

Using drugs is still illegal either way.

It's like saying "I fucked a 9 year girl last night, but I'm not fucking her now, so that's okay".

----------


## Ryan



----------


## Beavis

> Legalise weed? How much extra are we going to have to pay in benefits for all the extra dope smokers who can't work because they're too unmotivated to get out of bed in the morning and then, because it's legal claim, a sickness benefit fore not being able to work?
> 
> What about all the extra costs for mental health services for those, usually younger people, who fuck up their brains smoking weed? 
> 
> Stoned drivers kill and main enough people now. Do you think the number would reduce if it was legal to smoke?
> 
> Filthy druggies should be forced into rehab programs on offshore islands for a minimum of a six month program.
> 
> Beneficiaries should be drug tested regularly and any illegal drugs found in their system should result in the benefits being cancelled.    
> ...


Sweet so when are we gonna ban alcoholic beverages?

----------


## keneff

> A person that wants to arm the police and remove those privileges from the public, has to be a worry?


He's a worry all right. Another right wing redneck reactionary grabbing as much media attention as possible to promote his ambition to become a politician. So he wants to become a "representative of the people" in some electorate. Christ help us all. If he thinks he's representing me he's dead wrong. "And of course he is pushing an agenda. That's the essence of what unions do." Unions push an agenda in accordance with the voting of the membership. O'Connor is pushing his own agenda. He's a quorum of one. He's also not very bright, I think. I'm not saying he's a dumb cnut, but he's close to it. And he's certainly got a few of the media talking heads fooled.

----------


## Tahr

> He's a worry all right. Another right wing redneck reactionary grabbing as much media attention as possible to promote his ambition to become a politician. So he wants to become a "representative of the people" in some electorate. Christ help us all. If he thinks he's representing me he's dead wrong. "And of course he is pushing an agenda. That's the essence of what unions do." Unions push an agenda in accordance with the voting of the membership. O'Connor is pushing his own agenda. He's a quorum of one. He's also not very bright, I think. I'm not saying he's a dumb cnut, but he's close to it. And he's certainly got a few of the media talking heads fooled.


You obviously have little understanding of how the Police Association are structured or how their democratic processes work.

https://www.policeassn.org.nz/

----------


## systolic

> He's a worry all right. Another right wing redneck reactionary grabbing as much media attention as possible to promote his ambition to become a politician. So he wants to become a "representative of the people" in some electorate. Christ help us all. If he thinks he's representing me he's dead wrong. "And of course he is pushing an agenda. That's the essence of what unions do." Unions push an agenda in accordance with the voting of the membership. O'Connor is pushing his own agenda. He's a quorum of one. He's also not very bright, I think. I'm not saying he's a dumb cnut, but he's close to it. And he's certainly got a few of the media talking heads fooled.


A union president described at being a "right wing redneck reactionary"?

All the union officials I've ever been involved with have been the very opposite of right wing.

Are you sure you're not confusing 'red neck' with the 'red flag'? They sung that at the last union meeting I went to. 

The people's flag is deepest red
It shrouded oft our martyred dead
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold
Their hearts' blood dyed to every fold

Then raise the scarlet standard high
Beneath it's folds we'll live and die
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
We'll keep the red flag flying here

----------


## nzfubz

> Why should it matter if they are currently high or were high last night?
> 
> Using drugs is still illegal either way.
> 
> It's like saying "I fucked a 9 year girl last night, but I'm not fucking her now, so that's okay".


That is quite possibly the most retarded statement I have ever read on these forums and there has been a few. Just sit back read it then read it again, love to hear you stance on medicinal marijuana usage? Ever broke the speed limit? If you have better turn yourself in.

----------


## keneff

> .
> 
> What happens when one of those nine pellets, fired by a cop, misses the felon and hits a bystander? What happens if the bad guy is 40m away, well outside the effective range of a shotgun?
> 
> Your idea is laughable.


Well they're shooting bystanders with bushmasters anyway, at a shitload less than 40 metres (Northwestern Motorway) so what the fuck are you on about, systolic? If you're trying to say the cops give a fuck about bystanders, I haven't yet seen much evidence of it. They crash chase cars into civilians, shoot bystanders and I think "training", for a lot of them consists of too much Hawaii 50. Your bias is obvious, but that's okay - we're all entitled to have an opinion - it's just tidier if at least it has some logic.I arrived in Melbourne in 1981 and approached a cop on the corner of Flinders and Swanston Sts and asked for directions to a suburb. He put his hand on his revolver and said "Buy a fukn map". We know that being a fuckwit and an arsehole is way up there in the Victoria Police job description, lbut I was a bit disppointed by his crap attitude.  It comes down to the attitude instilled at the police colleges and in the stations. There was a female member of the dog club I was secretary of, who went off to become a WPC. She was acually instructed that nobody was a friend unless they were a police officer. Her whole attitude had changed from being a warm, friendly enthusiastic young woman to being a total cnut. And she always had her piece in her handbag, even at club days, because she was instructed that even when she was off-duty, she was never off duty. And she used to brag about all this shit. I have a cousin in London. He and his wife are both cops, and a really nice couple of people. They both said they'd hate to be armed fulltime, but also hated not to be, because there was no knowing when some radical arsehole might go apeshit with a knife or a gun. I have sympathy for both sides of the argument and like most in this forum can see the pros and the cons. But unlike O'Connor and systolic, I think the police are adequately armed for most situations as is. Okay, if some shit-for-brains comes charging out of the bushes swinging an axe or something, you're in deep poo, but you'd still be in the same amount even with a Glock on your belt. And chances are, said Glock would end up in the very wrong hands. And Savage, kudos to you that you kept possession of your weapon in "scuffles" - but what if you hadn't? Wonder what your position would be now on the subject? Are you able to be objective enough to consider that? This whole argument has just about been done to death. O'Connor is starting to sound like a spluttering lunatic - or a stuck record, and he and his pet so-called "journalists" would be boring if they weren't so fucking dangerous to our freedoms and rights and privileges. By the way, @kotuku once wrote a very well-informed post on the subject of firearms ownership in dear old confused NZ. My stand is that we haven't yet degenerated quite as much as the USA or frigging Aussie, and haven't yet reached a point where we need our police force to carry sidearms at all times. But arm them and see how long it takes for them to have to start using them. And see how long it takes for at least some of them to start becoming as arrogant and pig-igorant as that prick of a Victorian cop I mentioned. Today's rant over.

----------


## Steve123

> A union president described at being a "right wing redneck reactionary"?
> 
> All the union officials I've ever been involved with have been the very opposite of right wing.
> 
> Are you sure you're not confusing 'red neck' with the 'red flag'? They sung that at the last union meeting I went to. 
> 
> The people's flag is deepest red
> It shrouded oft our martyred dead
> And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold
> ...


Goddamn Commie hahahahahaha

----------


## Jexla

> Legalise weed? How much extra are we going to have to pay in benefits for all the extra dope smokers who can't work because they're too unmotivated to get out of bed in the morning and then, because it's legal claim, a sickness benefit fore not being able to work?
> 
> What about all the extra costs for mental health services for those, usually younger people, who fuck up their brains smoking weed? 
> 
> Stoned drivers kill and main enough people now. Do you think the number would reduce if it was legal to smoke?
> 
> Filthy druggies should be forced into rehab programs on offshore islands for a minimum of a six month program.
> 
> Beneficiaries should be drug tested regularly and any illegal drugs found in their system should result in the benefits being cancelled.    
> ...





> Why should it matter if they are currently high or were high last night?
> 
> Using drugs is still illegal either way.
> 
> It's like saying "I fucked a 9 year girl last night, but I'm not fucking her now, so that's okay".


Wow, you're special.

----------


## Maca49

> Legalise weed? How much extra are we going to have to pay in benefits for all the extra dope smokers who can't work because they're too unmotivated to get out of bed in the morning and then, because it's legal claim, a sickness benefit fore not being able to work?
> 
> What about all the extra costs for mental health services for those, usually younger people, who fuck up their brains smoking weed? 
> 
> Stoned drivers kill and main enough people now. Do you think the number would reduce if it was legal to smoke?
> 
> Filthy druggies should be forced into rehab programs on offshore islands for a minimum of a six month program.
> 
> Beneficiaries should be drug tested regularly and any illegal drugs found in their system should result in the benefits being cancelled.    
> ...


Well there ya go WE have something we agree 100% on!!! I've been to Amsterdam and put up with the stone poms in the streets! It's discussing. Even the Dutch are cleaning up :Cool:

----------


## Maca49

> That is quite possibly the most retarded statement I have ever read on these forums and there has been a few. Just sit back read it then read it again, love to hear you stance on medicinal marijuana usage? Ever broke the speed limit? If you have better turn yourself in.


Excuses me thinks?

----------


## systolic

> Well they're shooting bystanders with bushmasters anyway, at a shitload less than 40 metres (Northwestern Motorway) so what the fuck are you on about, systolic? If you're trying to say the cops give a fuck about bystanders, I haven't yet seen much evidence of it. They crash chase cars into civilians, shoot bystanders and I think "training", for a lot of them consists of too much Hawaii 50. Your bias is obvious, but that's okay - we're all entitled to have an opinion - it's just tidier if at least it has some logic.I arrived in Melbourne in 1981 and approached a cop on the corner of Flinders and Swanston Sts and asked for directions to a suburb. He put his hand on his revolver and said "Buy a fukn map". We know that being a fuckwit and an arsehole is way up there in the Victoria Police job description, lbut I was a bit disppointed by his crap attitude.  It comes down to the attitude instilled at the police colleges and in the stations. There was a female member of the dog club I was secretary of, who went off to become a WPC. She was acually instructed that nobody was a friend unless they were a police officer. Her whole attitude had changed from being a warm, friendly enthusiastic young woman to being a total cnut. And she always had her piece in her handbag, even at club days, because she was instructed that even when she was off-duty, she was never off duty. And she used to brag about all this shit. I have a cousin in London. He and his wife are both cops, and a really nice couple of people. They both said they'd hate to be armed fulltime, but also hated not to be, because there was no knowing when some radical arsehole might go apeshit with a knife or a gun. I have sympathy for both sides of the argument and like most in this forum can see the pros and the cons. But unlike O'Connor and systolic, I think the police are adequately armed for most situations as is. Okay, if some shit-for-brains comes charging out of the bushes swinging an axe or something, you're in deep poo, but you'd still be in the same amount even with a Glock on your belt. And chances are, said Glock would end up in the very wrong hands. And Savage, kudos to you that you kept possession of your weapon in "scuffles" - but what if you hadn't? Wonder what your position would be now on the subject? Are you able to be objective enough to consider that? This whole argument has just about been done to death. O'Connor is starting to sound like a spluttering lunatic - or a stuck record, and he and his pet so-called "journalists" would be boring if they weren't so fucking dangerous to our freedoms and rights and privileges. By the way, @kotuku once wrote a very well-informed post on the subject of firearms ownership in dear old confused NZ. My stand is that we haven't yet degenerated quite as much as the USA or frigging Aussie, and haven't yet reached a point where we need our police force to carry sidearms at all times. But arm them and see how long it takes for them to have to start using them. And see how long it takes for at least some of them to start becoming as arrogant and pig-igorant as that prick of a Victorian cop I mentioned. Today's rant over.


Too long. Didn't read.

----------


## Jexla

> Too long. Didn't read.


Sums it up.

----------


## res

> Legalise weed? How much extra are we going to have to pay in benefits for all the extra dope smokers who can't work because they're too unmotivated to get out of bed in the morning and then, because it's legal claim, a sickness benefit fore not being able to work?
> 
> What about all the extra costs for mental health services for those, usually younger people, who fuck up their brains smoking weed? 
> 
> Stoned drivers kill and main enough people now. Do you think the number would reduce if it was legal to smoke?
> 
> Filthy druggies should be forced into rehab programs on offshore islands for a minimum of a six month program.
> 
> Beneficiaries should be drug tested regularly and any illegal drugs found in their system should result in the benefits being cancelled.    
> ...


1- no extra for benifits because the unmotovated ones are already smoking pot and on them-even sickness benifits for drug adiction.

2-why would there be extra costs? people are already doing the drugs? lets fund the care better but taxing the drugs

4- I doubt it would reduce unless a test like the one Jexla mentons was intraduced at drink driving stops. I doubt there would be an increase as well.

4- rehab programs sound like a fantastic idea, for all drugs-even legit ones, but forcing people into them has a very low sucsess rate. lets get some extra funding from taxing the drugs.

5-I want to agree with you on this,I really do as if I have to pass drug tests to work then I dont like those who live on the tax I pay geting to do what ever they want,BUT cuting bennifits off often leads to crime and therefore a higher cost to the country. very open to other ways of dealing with drug taking bludgers

6- dont any convictions already lead to loss of licences? if not,why not?

----------


## res

> They said lowering the drinking age was going to do that, and they were as obviously wrong about that one too



I should explain this better.

right now everyone buys pot from crims, most crims sell to anyone regardless of age. make it a legit product and it becomes sold by reglulatd companies who mostly obay laws like miname age of buyer. this would make it harder for younger people to get than it curently is.

----------


## res

> Why should it matter if they are currently high or were high last night?
> 
> Using drugs is still illegal either way.
> 
> It's like saying "I fucked a 9 year girl last night, but I'm not fucking her now, so that's okay".


reading comprehenshion matters, im talking about if pot became legal then the ability to tell would be important. as it curently stands I have just fired people for failing the test, couldent do that if it was a legit thing for them to have done as long as they wernt under the influance at work

----------


## res

for the record I think pot is bad, but prohabishion is not working and I care more about harm minamisation than punishing people who would rather a joint that a beer-esp when beer and the like is hardly harmless

----------


## Savage1

> Well they're shooting bystanders with bushmasters anyway, at a shitload less than 40 metres (Northwestern Motorway) so what the fuck are you on about, systolic? If you're trying to say the cops give a fuck about bystanders, I haven't yet seen much evidence of it. They crash chase cars into civilians, shoot bystanders and I think "training", for a lot of them consists of too much Hawaii 50. Your bias is obvious, but that's okay - we're all entitled to have an opinion - it's just tidier if at least it has some logic.I arrived in Melbourne in 1981 and approached a cop on the corner of Flinders and Swanston Sts and asked for directions to a suburb. He put his hand on his revolver and said "Buy a fukn map". We know that being a fuckwit and an arsehole is way up there in the Victoria Police job description, lbut I was a bit disppointed by his crap attitude.  It comes down to the attitude instilled at the police colleges and in the stations. There was a female member of the dog club I was secretary of, who went off to become a WPC. She was acually instructed that nobody was a friend unless they were a police officer. Her whole attitude had changed from being a warm, friendly enthusiastic young woman to being a total cnut. And she always had her piece in her handbag, even at club days, because she was instructed that even when she was off-duty, she was never off duty. And she used to brag about all this shit. I have a cousin in London. He and his wife are both cops, and a really nice couple of people. They both said they'd hate to be armed fulltime, but also hated not to be, because there was no knowing when some radical arsehole might go apeshit with a knife or a gun. I have sympathy for both sides of the argument and like most in this forum can see the pros and the cons. But unlike O'Connor and systolic, I think the police are adequately armed for most situations as is. Okay, if some shit-for-brains comes charging out of the bushes swinging an axe or something, you're in deep poo, but you'd still be in the same amount even with a Glock on your belt. And chances are, said Glock would end up in the very wrong hands. And Savage, kudos to you that you kept possession of your weapon in "scuffles" - but what if you hadn't? Wonder what your position would be now on the subject? Are you able to be objective enough to consider that? This whole argument has just about been done to death. O'Connor is starting to sound like a spluttering lunatic - or a stuck record, and he and his pet so-called "journalists" would be boring if they weren't so fucking dangerous to our freedoms and rights and privileges. By the way, @kotuku once wrote a very well-informed post on the subject of firearms ownership in dear old confused NZ. My stand is that we haven't yet degenerated quite as much as the USA or frigging Aussie, and haven't yet reached a point where we need our police force to carry sidearms at all times. But arm them and see how long it takes for them to have to start using them. And see how long it takes for at least some of them to start becoming as arrogant and pig-igorant as that prick of a Victorian cop I mentioned. Today's rant over.


1) Stop using plural, one bystander was shot and killed by one member of the Police with one bushmaster (one copped some fragments but wasn't directly shot). Don't get me wrong, it was a monumental fuk up. You don't like all FAL holders being labeled by the actions of one bad egg so how about extending the same logic to the Police.
2) To say there is no evidence to show cops have no care for bystanders is BS and actually borderline offensive, why do you think they join the job? Would they really risk their own safety if they don't care about bystanders? 
3) I'm pretty sure you have no idea what Police training consists of, there is zero 'Hawaii 50'. If you disagree then quote some examples or find some way of backing up your stupid claims.
4) We're all entitled to our own opinions, however if our opinions are poorly based then expect them to be challenged and/or dismissed. I suggest you apply some logic to some of your own biased comments.
5) Sorry about you experiences with the Australian Police, however I believe the NZ Police doesn't have that kind of attitude as a widespread problem, there is the odd idiot but in my experience they are reasonably far between and strongly disliked by other Police Officers.
6) I fully understand and agree with your friends from London.
7) I understand Systolics point of view and agree with some of it, I can't be bothered going back and reading them in detail.
8) Adequately armed for most situations doesn't cut it, which was shown by all of the cops that have had their cars stolen at gunpoint, been shot at, being shot, attacked with machetes etc. I don't like the idea of people in armchairs telling me when I should or shouldn't carry a gun when they aren't the ones going into the same situations and putting themselves at risk.
9) In the Police you pick your scuffles, and you only pick ones you are going to win. Weapon retention isn't hard. Cops having their own TASERs, pepperspray used against them is almost unheard of.
10) Sorry for the numbering
11) I think it should be the individual choice of the officer, providing they have been shown to be competent in handling the firearm and their decision making has been tested under pressure.

----------


## keneff

> Too long. Didn't read.


Don't care if you didn't read. Probably a bit tricky with one eye anyway. And in reply to your comment about unions - I've been a union delegate, my father was president of a union and my grandfather was on the executive of several unions and a delegate to the Trades Council and a communist. I grew up with it all. And of all the union meetings I've been to I have not once heard anyone singing the Red Banner.A union president is not necessarily a communist. As for O'Connor, you seem to hold him in high regard, and that's your right and fine by me, if it matters. But I don't like him or anything he professes to stand for, and that's my right, and I don't care whether it matters to you or not. As our beloved leader, John Key says, I'm comfortable with that. But I don't tell you how you should think and you certainly aren't going to tell me how I shoudl think. So it looks like we'll just have to accept that we are different people with differing views and agree to disagree. Take care out there.

----------


## Tahr

> Don't care if you didn't read. Probably a bit tricky with one eye anyway. And in reply to your comment about unions - I've been a union delegate, my father was president of a union and my grandfather was on the executive of several unions and a delegate to the Trades Council and a communist. I grew up with it all. And of all the union meetings I've been to I have not once heard anyone singing the Red Banner.A union president is not necessarily a communist. As for O'Connor, you seem to hold him in high regard, and that's your right and fine by me, if it matters. But I don't like him or anything he professes to stand for, and that's my right, and I don't care whether it matters to you or not. As our beloved leader, John Key says, I'm comfortable with that. But I don't tell you how you should think and you certainly aren't going to tell me how I shoudl think. So it looks like we'll just have to accept that we are different people with differing views and agree to disagree. Take care out there.


That's an interesting and rich back ground. 
It's always interesting to know what sort of background informs people's views and opinions. I came from the other side of the table, but have become more liberal as I've got older.

----------


## 308

Keneff, if you want people to read anything you say please try using paragraphs

Otherwise, rant at will

----------


## Reindeer

Well I have read all pages in this thread and it seems after page 5 it was hijacked and became a pissing contest among a few individuals.

Over and out.

----------


## keneff

[QUOTE=Tahr;518475]That's an interesting and rich back ground. 
It's always interesting to know what sort of background informs people's views and opinions. I came from the other side of the table, but have become more liberal as I've got older.[/QUOTE
Thanks for your comments, Tahr. It's funny though we're from different sides of the table, and I find I've become LESS liberal as I've aged - not quite a redneck yet, but getting there, Unions have contributed hugely to societal improvements, but have become fairly gummy tigers, which in some ways is good and in others, not so great. I can remember as a child, sitting on my grandparents' table with adults sitting around talking over a beer, no doubt conspiring to overthrow some government. My grandfather did time in Mt Eden for printing and distributing "seditious literature". My grandmother was his typist. They, along with my parents were deeply involved in the '51 lockout of the Aucklnd Watersiders, along with Jock Barnes. Not sure whether it was before or after the lockout, but they had a big falling-out with Jock, I think over doctrine. Jim Knox and Bill Andersen were close family friends. Rob Muldoon detested my father and my grandfather, and nobody in the family feels diminished by that. They're all dead now, anyway, so it doesn't matter any more. I was born in Freeman's Bay, which was the heart of working class Auckland until the government tore it down to destroy the unity and cohesion that used to exist. Auckland has always been an "immigrant city" and the dispersion of the hard-core unionists combined with the ethnic diversity and differing needs and interests all combined to make it easier for the government to control a fairly free-thinking, liberal and stubborn populace that lost its leadership. And so the "social experiment" trundled on. I still have some memories of those days. Nobody was ever alone in trouble in those days. people helped each other, supported each other. And it was mainly the unions that made it happen. The support networking was incredible, compared to today. Now, you're lucky if you get to know your next-door neighbour. Then, all of us kids were in and out of each other's homes, and the parents always knew where everyone was.I remember the ice man delivering ice for the "icebox.No fridges, then The coal man lived a couple of doors down the street.  Both big, strong, tough men. No pedophile would have survived. It's said it takes a village to raise a child. That was Freeman's Bay in those days'. I miss it.

----------


## GravelBen

> I should explain this better.
> 
> right now everyone buys pot from crims, most crims sell to anyone regardless of age. make it a legit product and it becomes sold by reglulatd companies who mostly obay laws like miname age of buyer. this would make it harder for younger people to get than it curently is.


I understand the reasoning and can see where you're coming from, but I disagree - I think we'd just see the same situation we do with alcohol where those old enough to buy it supply it to their younger friends (who share it with friends younger again, and so on).

It is very similar to the argument some people made when lowering the drinking age that making alcohol legal for 18-21 year olds would cause them to drink in safer legitimate environments and avoid some of the riskier associated behaviour. Of course it just moved the riskier drinking-associated behaviour to the next age group down, who probably found it much easier to get 18 year olds to supply them than 21 year olds.

It is a tricky one though, because as you say there is the issue of taxing legal sales vs illegal etc, and the question of whether legalising will increase use and make the harm done more widespread. What I've read of the results so far in the states seems to suggest that it has little effect on the relatively rich occasional users who were largely responsible for pushing legalisation through, but a significant increase in addiction and poverty rates among the urban poor.

Even more off topic than normal now!  :ORLY:

----------


## Ryan

> Well I have read all pages in this thread and it seems after page 5 it was hijacked and became a pissing contest among a few individuals.
> 
> Over and out.


And then proceeds to start a new thread:

http://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co.n...14/#post518527

Are a you_ trying_ to be a windup merchant?

----------


## Reindeer

Not at all

This thread along with any other that jexla ans systolic,and others, get involved with tend to stray far from the point and become contests of who has the biggest cock.
sorry but this sort of shit is best left for the pub.
I do respect the fact that people have strong opinions about issues but i feel keeping to at least the point (context) of the thread in question is important.

----------


## res

Threads go of topic, a nature of the Internet. 

As long as things stay polite(and more polite than this one has would be nice) then what's the harm? 
The exchange of ideas and viewpoints benefits us all, and forums are well forums. 

You say it should be kept to the pub, personally I don't get what the difference is-personally I know everyone I have engaged with in this thread other than gravelben and he is someone who's posts I read with interest on any subject

----------


## timattalon

> 1) Stop using plural, one bystander was shot and killed by one member of the Police with one bushmaster (one copped some fragments but wasn't directly shot). Don't get me wrong, it was a monumental fuk up. You don't like all FAL holders being labeled by the actions of one bad egg so how about extending the same logic to the Police.
> 2) To say there is no evidence to show cops have no care for bystanders is BS and actually borderline offensive, why do you think they join the job? Would they really risk their own safety if they don't care about bystanders? 
> 3) I'm pretty sure you have no idea what Police training consists of, there is zero 'Hawaii 50'. If you disagree then quote some examples or find some way of backing up your stupid claims.
> 4) We're all entitled to our own opinions, however if our opinions are poorly based then expect them to be challenged and/or dismissed. I suggest you apply some logic to some of your own biased comments.
> 5) Sorry about you experiences with the Australian Police, however I believe the NZ Police doesn't have that kind of attitude as a widespread problem, there is the odd idiot but in my experience they are reasonably far between and strongly disliked by other Police Officers.
> 6) I fully understand and agree with your friends from London.
> 7) I understand Systolics point of view and agree with some of it, I can't be bothered going back and reading them in detail.
> 8) Adequately armed for most situations doesn't cut it, which was shown by all of the cops that have had their cars stolen at gunpoint, been shot at, being shot, attacked with machetes etc. I don't like the idea of people in armchairs telling me when I should or shouldn't carry a gun when they aren't the ones going into the same situations and putting themselves at risk.
> 9) In the Police you pick your scuffles, and you only pick ones you are going to win. Weapon retention isn't hard. Cops having their own TASERs, pepperspray used against them is almost unheard of.
> ...


I know a few police personnel, and I feel better knowing people such as these are out there doing a difficult task. I appreciate this. As for the above points, out of the 11, I agree with 8 of them, and the remaining three I do not know enough about to form a legitimate opinion. I dont agree with most of the people I work with that much, so I believe that this says a lot about the calibre of our police here in NZ. 

As for people being "5 oh" on our policy's, I will use an example that someone alluded to in the media and its foreseeable consequences. 

After a police chase the other day a member of the public said " _Its too dangerous for police to chase criminals past schools. They need to call it off as it is too dangerous...._"  If, that was to happen, will the result be safer school areas? Hell NO!!! It says loud and clear to every crim that you will get away if you speed past a school, and next thing every crim will INTENTIONALLY speed past a school knowing the cops wont follow. I pray that no one gets hurt, but I am also of the belief that chases should NOT be called off. If they get caught when they run, then the stupid ones will still run, but the remainder will not as they know it will only make things worse.....Some will get hurt in the process, as some always will, but in the long run, less will chance to flee if the consequences include THEIR death or injury....

----------


## Ricochet

There were a few needless, antagonistic comments but by and large an interesting read really and some good points. Also some horrific ones, but oh well, you can't have freedom without disagreement I spose.

----------


## Ricochet

> 8) Adequately armed for most situations doesn't cut it, which was shown by all of the cops that have had their cars stolen at gunpoint, been shot at, being shot, attacked with machetes etc. I don't like the idea of people in armchairs telling me when I should or shouldn't carry a gun when they aren't the ones going into the same situations and putting themselves at risk.


We're the people supplying your gun and the power to decide if you kill someone with it or not.

I think that gives us the right to discuss the pros & cons.

----------


## timattalon

> We're the people supplying your gun and the power to decide if you kill someone with it or not.
> 
> I think that gives us the right to discuss the pros & cons.


Discussing pro's and con's, is fine, but analysing and critiquing what they "could have" done when you are not there at the time when they make these decisions is far less so. We trust the govt to train these people to be able to be able to make these decisions under pressure and in situations we would never ourselves to intentionally become involved in so for us to second guess what they decide after analysing the situation as they are trained to do is akin to a child giving parenting advice to their parents. At the end of the day, that cop is out there doing a job that* no one* should ever have to do, so personally, I dont think people who do not have the full story and all the information can come up with an acceptable critique...And the only people who really know all the details are the ones who were there making those decisions at the time.

----------


## systolic

> We're the people supplying your gun and the power to decide if you kill someone with it or not.
> 
> I think that gives us the right to discuss the pros & cons.


I thought the cops got their power from the Crown? Not the government of the day and certainly not the great unwashed "I pay your wages, you work for me" public.

----------


## Sidney

Explain to me what the Crown is...

And after you have done that... kindly explain to me how your distorted idea of service and responsibility should be given any sort of power and authority...

----------


## Koshogi

> I thought the cops got their power from the Crown? Not the government of the day and certainly not the great unwashed "I pay your wages, you work for me" public.


Wow,  you can feel the contempt for the public through the bandwidth. 

Way to perpetuate the "Police vs public" problems. 

Attitudes like yours is a great argument  why Police should not be permitted to carry firearms on a regular basis. Power has already corrupted your mind.

----------


## Sidney

> Discussing pro's and con's, is fine, but analysing and critiquing what they "could have" done when you are not there at the time when they make these decisions is far less so. We trust the govt to train these people to be able to be able to make these decisions under pressure and in situations we would never ourselves to intentionally become involved in so for us to second guess what they decide after analysing the situation as they are trained to do is akin to a child giving parenting advice to their parents. At the end of the day, that cop is out there doing a job that* no one* should ever have to do, so personally, I dont think people who do not have the full story and all the information can come up with an acceptable critique...And the only people who really know all the details are the ones who were there making those decisions at the time.


Except that our law requires exactly that.... everybody is subject to the law and you don't get a free pass because you know better...

In terms of scrutiny... after the fact is the only way to do it...  and it has to be robust because I believe that anyone in authority is naturally inclined to take advantage if not held accountable...

----------


## 308

You may be interested to know that, in a recently published book called something like The Architecture of Crime, the author noted that in Los Angeles the police helicopter was not allowed to follow in the line of the airport approach path. The author said that police chases changed shape as a result - the crims would lead the cops in the direction of the area under the flightpath and try to lose them there knowing that they wouldn't be tracked by the chopper

People respond to incentives


QUOTE=timattalon;518548]I know a few police personnel, and I feel better knowing people such as these are out there doing a difficult task. I appreciate this. As for the above points, out of the 11, I agree with 8 of them, and the remaining three I do not know enough about to form a legitimate opinion. I dont agree with most of the people I work with that much, so I believe that this says a lot about the calibre of our police here in NZ. 

As for people being "5 oh" on our policy's, I will use an example that someone alluded to in the media and its foreseeable consequences. 

After a police chase the other day a member of the public said " _Its too dangerous for police to chase criminals past schools. They need to call it off as it is too dangerous...._"  If, that was to happen, will the result be safer school areas? Hell NO!!! It says loud and clear to every crim that you will get away if you speed past a school, and next thing every crim will INTENTIONALLY speed past a school knowing the cops wont follow. I pray that no one gets hurt, but I am also of the belief that chases should NOT be called off. If they get caught when they run, then the stupid ones will still run, but the remainder will not as they know it will only make things worse.....Some will get hurt in the process, as some always will, but in the long run, less will chance to flee if the consequences include THEIR death or injury....[/QUOTE]

----------


## Gapped axe

I feel that 95% of cops are there because they have a genuine belief that they are there to help others, and do this to the best of their ability. Sometime their job training works and sometimes their other or emotional training takes over. Case . I ask my son when you come to a MVA (motor vehicle accident) what do you do? His reply dad I'm a Volly fire fighter first I get in and try and save lives. This is exactly the same background as my daughter (initial police training now) who helped me in a Hely winch rescue on Tuesday. These people 95% should be able to decide when and where they will wear and if need be use there tools of their trade as it were.
 The other 5% are there for job security or ego's . It is not up to us armchair experts to decide how our police should protect themselves and others when that moment comes. The Police will always be up to scrutiny from the public and I take my hat off to them, NZ Police do a fantastic job in this country and are worthy of your support. Step into their shoes sometimes. My 2c's

----------


## Tahr

> We're the people supplying your gun and the power to decide if you kill someone with it or not.
> 
> I think that gives us the right to discuss the pros & cons.


You are not implying though that the Police don't actually pay taxes themselves, can't participate in democracy and shouldn't make decisions about their own safety are you?

----------


## keneff

> 1) Stop using plural, one bystander was shot and killed by one member of the Police with one bushmaster (one copped some fragments but wasn't directly shot). Don't get me wrong, it was a monumental fuk up. You don't like all FAL holders being labeled by the actions of one bad egg so how about extending the same logic to the Police.
> 2) To say there is no evidence to show cops have no care for bystanders is BS and actually borderline offensive, why do you think they join the job? Would they really risk their own safety if they don't care about bystanders? 
> 3) I'm pretty sure you have no idea what Police training consists of, there is zero 'Hawaii 50'. If you disagree then quote some examples or find some way of backing up your stupid claims.
> 4) We're all entitled to our own opinions, however if our opinions are poorly based then expect them to be challenged and/or dismissed. I suggest you apply some logic to some of your own biased comments.
> 5) Sorry about you experiences with the Australian Police, however I believe the NZ Police doesn't have that kind of attitude as a widespread problem, there is the odd idiot but in my experience they are reasonably far between and strongly disliked by other Police Officers.
> 6) I fully understand and agree with your friends from London.
> 7) I understand Systolics point of view and agree with some of it, I can't be bothered going back and reading them in detail.
> 8) Adequately armed for most situations doesn't cut it, which was shown by all of the cops that have had their cars stolen at gunpoint, been shot at, being shot, attacked with machetes etc. I don't like the idea of people in armchairs telling me when I should or shouldn't carry a gun when they aren't the ones going into the same situations and putting themselves at risk.
> 9) In the Police you pick your scuffles, and you only pick ones you are going to win. Weapon retention isn't hard. Cops having their own TASERs, pepperspray used against them is almost unheard of.
> ...


Savage1, you are correct, and you have my (sincere) apology. I was generalising and that is almost always wrong and comes from lazy thinking. Again, sorry. But I haven't spent  lot of my life in an armchair and have seen plenty of what you folk have to deal with. I've also been helped by police a couple of times and been grateful for that. But police aren't immune to being arseholes, just because they're police, and I have seen some arsehole cops in action, too.  I think the biggest problem is this "them and us" mindset, and that goes both ways, too. 
With that sense of separation between police and the populace who pay for their protection and other services the problems will not be solved by arming police fulltime while obviously working on disarming everyone else. There should be no "us & them."  It's supposed to be just us - apart from "them" who really do need to be in a cage.
 I was caught up in the anti-apartheit stuff in 81 and saw the way police brutalised their fellow citizens, and "copped" a bit of it myself. Every one in this country has the right to an opinion, even me, but some of what systolic has written in this thread proves that the "us & them" standpoint is not going to be an easy fix. He is obviousy more into punishment than protection, arresting rather than assisting. And his sick example of "fucking a 9-year -old girl" compared to someone smoking a joint, is way out of line. 
He typifies so much that is wrong between police and their fellow citizens. I've had my car stolen, and everything in it swiped and had no response apart ffrom having it towed and stored - at MY - despite telling them specifically that I didn't want it towed and was available to pick it up if it was found. The whole attitude seemed to be, "well fuck you, we'll do what we want."
 Had my house burgled and never even saw  a fingerprint lkit appear, let alone a cop carrying one. And you wonder why so many people have no respect for their police force? Yeah , yeah, "budget, blah blah." In the last 3 years before I retired I didn't get a budget increase either. Costs went up, pay didn't. Tough shit chit at your local church.  Handle it. Anyway, I've said what I wanted to say, including apologising to you for MY attitude. But don't expect me to support your wish to be armed fulltime, not when you've got weapons in your vehicle anyway. We don't see a friendly, caring cop; those days are gone. All we see is a collective blue uniform not doing its job. Or doing it badly.

----------


## systolic

> Wow,  you can feel the contempt for the public through the bandwidth. 
> 
> Way to perpetuate the "Police vs public" problems. 
> 
> Attitudes like yours is a great argument  why Police should not be permitted to carry firearms on a regular basis. Power has already corrupted your mind.


Why should cops not carry guns because of my attitude? 

My flat is almost 40 metres from the nearest high voltage power lines, so I'm not sure how the power would corrupt my mind. 

Although I did kick one of the labourers off the site for smoking dope at lunchtime a few months ago (the project manager caught him sparking up outside the bakery up the road). That made me feel powerful. The labourer was pretty useless anyway.

----------


## Ricochet

> You are not implying though that the Police don't actually pay taxes themselves, can't participate in democracy and shouldn't make decisions about their own safety are you?


No.

----------


## Ricochet

> I thought the cops got their power from the Crown? Not the government of the day and certainly not the great unwashed "I pay your wages, you work for me" public.


I said "I think we have the right to discuss the pros & cons". That's worlds away from "I pay your wages, you work for me".

You unnecessarily escalated the shit out of my statement.

----------


## 308

> I feel that 95% of cops are there because they have a genuine belief that they are there to help others, and do this to the best of their ability. Sometime their job training works and sometimes their other or emotional training takes over. Case . I ask my son when you come to a MVA (motor vehicle accident) what do you do? His reply dad I'm a Volly fire fighter first I get in and try and save lives. This is exactly the same background as my daughter (initial police training now) who helped me in a Hely winch rescue on Tuesday. These people 95% should be able to decide when and where they will wear and if need be use there tools of their trade as it were.
>  The other 5% are there for job security or ego's . It is not up to us armchair experts to decide how our police should protect themselves and others when that moment comes. The Police will always be up to scrutiny from the public and I take my hat off to them, NZ Police do a fantastic job in this country and are worthy of your support. Step into their shoes sometimes. My 2c's


I think you are right but some here are arguing that arming the cops will increase the 5% and I think that it is true.
Certainly if the decision is taken for cops to have Glocks routinely carried then I fully support them having a lot more training than they get right now - if they carry then I want them to get training to use their tools safely

----------


## keneff

You have choices, solids, buck, smaller shot, Rock salt, flechers?, 

Flechettes? I think

----------


## Jexla

> I think you are right but some here are arguing that arming the cops will increase the 5% and I think that it is true.
> Certainly if the decision is taken for cops to have Glocks routinely carried then I fully support them having a lot more training than they get right now - if they carry then I want them to get training to use their tools safely


I support the police getting more training as things stand currently.

----------


## Wirehunt

> Legalise weed? How much extra are we going to have to pay in benefits for all the extra dope smokers who can't work because they're too unmotivated to get out of bed in the morning and then, because it's legal claim, a sickness benefit fore not being able to work?
> 
> What about all the extra costs for mental health services for those, usually younger people, who fuck up their brains smoking weed? 
> 
> Stoned drivers kill and main enough people now. Do you think the number would reduce if it was legal to smoke?
> 
> Filthy druggies should be forced into rehab programs on offshore islands for a minimum of a six month program.
> 
> Beneficiaries should be drug tested regularly and any illegal drugs found in their system should result in the benefits being cancelled.    
> ...


Do ya research.  Countries and states that have legalised/decriminalised have a had a drop in usage BUT are doing much better with the extra tax $$$ coming in.  This is a well known FACT.  Oh, added bonus, cops have way more time as they aren't running around doing drug bullshit.

----------


## kotuku

> Do ya research.  Countries and states that have legalised/decriminalised have a had a drop in usage BUT are doing much better with the extra tax $$$ coming in.  This is a well known FACT.  Oh, added bonus, cops have way more time as they aren't running around doing drug bullshit.


Unfortunately i pressed the wrong button-I dont fucking like and as much as all you oh yeah but taxes etcetc --do not and will lnever fucking see the screaming fucking misery this innocous wee herb causes with its instantaneous infantile pleasure .
yup its got a bastard brother ALCOHOL-if commonsense was a sire both would be aborted on conception!
 this frequently tossed about shit about legitimising it is just that SHIT.I can show you things
that would literally curdle your turds I kid you not
You taxpayers have no fucking idea the cost you ,yes you pay for those who indulged.
Now before "you go fuck this sanctimonious cunt   etcetc"-I am in favour of the cannabis as medicine -the proof is there Idont argue .FFS my late uncle in the early 80s was on legal heroin in his very final stages of cancer-yes HEROIN-unlike morphine it did not cause nausea&vomitting++++++++. shortly after his death it was removed from the medicines act
.prick of a rigmarole to actually collect the item and deliver to the patient anyhow.
IMHO-the sooner cannabis is legalised as a terminal stage analgesia  the better-providing its prescriber is experienced in this field of medicine.
Iwork with drugs that could entice daschund to f..k madonna but our surveillance on these is better than any SISagent could ever dream about.the side effects alone are about as inviting as putting a stick teased cobra down ya y fronts and challenging it "bring it on"
In summary ..think about it..an idiot can legalislate -you the bloody taxpayer ultimately pay the cost of that decision -not the fucking idiot

----------


## Sidney

Explain to me what the Crown is...

And after you have done that... kindly explain to me how your distorted idea of service and responsibility should be given any sort of power and authority...

----------


## Koshogi

> I thought the cops got their power from the Crown? Not the government of the day and certainly not the great unwashed "I pay your wages, you work for me" public.


Wow,  you can feel the contempt for the public through the bandwidth. 

Way to perpetuate the "Police vs public" problems. 

Attitudes like yours is a great argument  why Police should not be permitted to carry firearms on a regular basis. Power has already corrupted your mind.

----------


## Sidney

> Discussing pro's and con's, is fine, but analysing and critiquing what they "could have" done when you are not there at the time when they make these decisions is far less so. We trust the govt to train these people to be able to be able to make these decisions under pressure and in situations we would never ourselves to intentionally become involved in so for us to second guess what they decide after analysing the situation as they are trained to do is akin to a child giving parenting advice to their parents. At the end of the day, that cop is out there doing a job that* no one* should ever have to do, so personally, I dont think people who do not have the full story and all the information can come up with an acceptable critique...And the only people who really know all the details are the ones who were there making those decisions at the time.


Except that our law requires exactly that.... everybody is subject to the law and you don't get a free pass because you know better...

In terms of scrutiny... after the fact is the only way to do it...  and it has to be robust because I believe that anyone in authority is naturally inclined to take advantage if not held accountable...

----------


## 308

You may be interested to know that, in a recently published book called something like The Architecture of Crime, the author noted that in Los Angeles the police helicopter was not allowed to follow in the line of the airport approach path. The author said that police chases changed shape as a result - the crims would lead the cops in the direction of the area under the flightpath and try to lose them there knowing that they wouldn't be tracked by the chopper

People respond to incentives


QUOTE=timattalon;518548]I know a few police personnel, and I feel better knowing people such as these are out there doing a difficult task. I appreciate this. As for the above points, out of the 11, I agree with 8 of them, and the remaining three I do not know enough about to form a legitimate opinion. I dont agree with most of the people I work with that much, so I believe that this says a lot about the calibre of our police here in NZ. 

As for people being "5 oh" on our policy's, I will use an example that someone alluded to in the media and its foreseeable consequences. 

After a police chase the other day a member of the public said " _Its too dangerous for police to chase criminals past schools. They need to call it off as it is too dangerous...._"  If, that was to happen, will the result be safer school areas? Hell NO!!! It says loud and clear to every crim that you will get away if you speed past a school, and next thing every crim will INTENTIONALLY speed past a school knowing the cops wont follow. I pray that no one gets hurt, but I am also of the belief that chases should NOT be called off. If they get caught when they run, then the stupid ones will still run, but the remainder will not as they know it will only make things worse.....Some will get hurt in the process, as some always will, but in the long run, less will chance to flee if the consequences include THEIR death or injury....[/QUOTE]

----------


## Gapped axe

I feel that 95% of cops are there because they have a genuine belief that they are there to help others, and do this to the best of their ability. Sometime their job training works and sometimes their other or emotional training takes over. Case . I ask my son when you come to a MVA (motor vehicle accident) what do you do? His reply dad I'm a Volly fire fighter first I get in and try and save lives. This is exactly the same background as my daughter (initial police training now) who helped me in a Hely winch rescue on Tuesday. These people 95% should be able to decide when and where they will wear and if need be use there tools of their trade as it were.
 The other 5% are there for job security or ego's . It is not up to us armchair experts to decide how our police should protect themselves and others when that moment comes. The Police will always be up to scrutiny from the public and I take my hat off to them, NZ Police do a fantastic job in this country and are worthy of your support. Step into their shoes sometimes. My 2c's

----------


## Tahr

> We're the people supplying your gun and the power to decide if you kill someone with it or not.
> 
> I think that gives us the right to discuss the pros & cons.


You are not implying though that the Police don't actually pay taxes themselves, can't participate in democracy and shouldn't make decisions about their own safety are you?

----------


## keneff

> 1) Stop using plural, one bystander was shot and killed by one member of the Police with one bushmaster (one copped some fragments but wasn't directly shot). Don't get me wrong, it was a monumental fuk up. You don't like all FAL holders being labeled by the actions of one bad egg so how about extending the same logic to the Police.
> 2) To say there is no evidence to show cops have no care for bystanders is BS and actually borderline offensive, why do you think they join the job? Would they really risk their own safety if they don't care about bystanders? 
> 3) I'm pretty sure you have no idea what Police training consists of, there is zero 'Hawaii 50'. If you disagree then quote some examples or find some way of backing up your stupid claims.
> 4) We're all entitled to our own opinions, however if our opinions are poorly based then expect them to be challenged and/or dismissed. I suggest you apply some logic to some of your own biased comments.
> 5) Sorry about you experiences with the Australian Police, however I believe the NZ Police doesn't have that kind of attitude as a widespread problem, there is the odd idiot but in my experience they are reasonably far between and strongly disliked by other Police Officers.
> 6) I fully understand and agree with your friends from London.
> 7) I understand Systolics point of view and agree with some of it, I can't be bothered going back and reading them in detail.
> 8) Adequately armed for most situations doesn't cut it, which was shown by all of the cops that have had their cars stolen at gunpoint, been shot at, being shot, attacked with machetes etc. I don't like the idea of people in armchairs telling me when I should or shouldn't carry a gun when they aren't the ones going into the same situations and putting themselves at risk.
> 9) In the Police you pick your scuffles, and you only pick ones you are going to win. Weapon retention isn't hard. Cops having their own TASERs, pepperspray used against them is almost unheard of.
> ...


Savage1, you are correct, and you have my (sincere) apology. I was generalising and that is almost always wrong and comes from lazy thinking. Again, sorry. But I haven't spent  lot of my life in an armchair and have seen plenty of what you folk have to deal with. I've also been helped by police a couple of times and been grateful for that. But police aren't immune to being arseholes, just because they're police, and I have seen some arsehole cops in action, too.  I think the biggest problem is this "them and us" mindset, and that goes both ways, too. 
With that sense of separation between police and the populace who pay for their protection and other services the problems will not be solved by arming police fulltime while obviously working on disarming everyone else. There should be no "us & them."  It's supposed to be just us - apart from "them" who really do need to be in a cage.
 I was caught up in the anti-apartheit stuff in 81 and saw the way police brutalised their fellow citizens, and "copped" a bit of it myself. Every one in this country has the right to an opinion, even me, but some of what systolic has written in this thread proves that the "us & them" standpoint is not going to be an easy fix. He is obviousy more into punishment than protection, arresting rather than assisting. And his sick example of "fucking a 9-year -old girl" compared to someone smoking a joint, is way out of line. 
He typifies so much that is wrong between police and their fellow citizens. I've had my car stolen, and everything in it swiped and had no response apart ffrom having it towed and stored - at MY - despite telling them specifically that I didn't want it towed and was available to pick it up if it was found. The whole attitude seemed to be, "well fuck you, we'll do what we want."
 Had my house burgled and never even saw  a fingerprint lkit appear, let alone a cop carrying one. And you wonder why so many people have no respect for their police force? Yeah , yeah, "budget, blah blah." In the last 3 years before I retired I didn't get a budget increase either. Costs went up, pay didn't. Tough shit chit at your local church.  Handle it. Anyway, I've said what I wanted to say, including apologising to you for MY attitude. But don't expect me to support your wish to be armed fulltime, not when you've got weapons in your vehicle anyway. We don't see a friendly, caring cop; those days are gone. All we see is a collective blue uniform not doing its job. Or doing it badly.

----------


## systolic

> Wow,  you can feel the contempt for the public through the bandwidth. 
> 
> Way to perpetuate the "Police vs public" problems. 
> 
> Attitudes like yours is a great argument  why Police should not be permitted to carry firearms on a regular basis. Power has already corrupted your mind.


Why should cops not carry guns because of my attitude? 

My flat is almost 40 metres from the nearest high voltage power lines, so I'm not sure how the power would corrupt my mind. 

Although I did kick one of the labourers off the site for smoking dope at lunchtime a few months ago (the project manager caught him sparking up outside the bakery up the road). That made me feel powerful. The labourer was pretty useless anyway.

----------


## Ricochet

> You are not implying though that the Police don't actually pay taxes themselves, can't participate in democracy and shouldn't make decisions about their own safety are you?


No.

----------


## Ricochet

> I thought the cops got their power from the Crown? Not the government of the day and certainly not the great unwashed "I pay your wages, you work for me" public.


I said "I think we have the right to discuss the pros & cons". That's worlds away from "I pay your wages, you work for me".

You unnecessarily escalated the shit out of my statement.

----------


## 308

> I feel that 95% of cops are there because they have a genuine belief that they are there to help others, and do this to the best of their ability. Sometime their job training works and sometimes their other or emotional training takes over. Case . I ask my son when you come to a MVA (motor vehicle accident) what do you do? His reply dad I'm a Volly fire fighter first I get in and try and save lives. This is exactly the same background as my daughter (initial police training now) who helped me in a Hely winch rescue on Tuesday. These people 95% should be able to decide when and where they will wear and if need be use there tools of their trade as it were.
>  The other 5% are there for job security or ego's . It is not up to us armchair experts to decide how our police should protect themselves and others when that moment comes. The Police will always be up to scrutiny from the public and I take my hat off to them, NZ Police do a fantastic job in this country and are worthy of your support. Step into their shoes sometimes. My 2c's


I think you are right but some here are arguing that arming the cops will increase the 5% and I think that it is true.
Certainly if the decision is taken for cops to have Glocks routinely carried then I fully support them having a lot more training than they get right now - if they carry then I want them to get training to use their tools safely

----------


## keneff

You have choices, solids, buck, smaller shot, Rock salt, flechers?, 

Flechettes? I think

----------


## Jexla

> I think you are right but some here are arguing that arming the cops will increase the 5% and I think that it is true.
> Certainly if the decision is taken for cops to have Glocks routinely carried then I fully support them having a lot more training than they get right now - if they carry then I want them to get training to use their tools safely


I support the police getting more training as things stand currently.

----------


## Wirehunt

> Legalise weed? How much extra are we going to have to pay in benefits for all the extra dope smokers who can't work because they're too unmotivated to get out of bed in the morning and then, because it's legal claim, a sickness benefit fore not being able to work?
> 
> What about all the extra costs for mental health services for those, usually younger people, who fuck up their brains smoking weed? 
> 
> Stoned drivers kill and main enough people now. Do you think the number would reduce if it was legal to smoke?
> 
> Filthy druggies should be forced into rehab programs on offshore islands for a minimum of a six month program.
> 
> Beneficiaries should be drug tested regularly and any illegal drugs found in their system should result in the benefits being cancelled.    
> ...


Do ya research.  Countries and states that have legalised/decriminalised have a had a drop in usage BUT are doing much better with the extra tax $$$ coming in.  This is a well known FACT.  Oh, added bonus, cops have way more time as they aren't running around doing drug bullshit.

----------


## kotuku

> Do ya research.  Countries and states that have legalised/decriminalised have a had a drop in usage BUT are doing much better with the extra tax $$$ coming in.  This is a well known FACT.  Oh, added bonus, cops have way more time as they aren't running around doing drug bullshit.


Unfortunately i pressed the wrong button-I dont fucking like and as much as all you oh yeah but taxes etcetc --do not and will lnever fucking see the screaming fucking misery this innocous wee herb causes with its instantaneous infantile pleasure .
yup its got a bastard brother ALCOHOL-if commonsense was a sire both would be aborted on conception!
 this frequently tossed about shit about legitimising it is just that SHIT.I can show you things
that would literally curdle your turds I kid you not
You taxpayers have no fucking idea the cost you ,yes you pay for those who indulged.
Now before "you go fuck this sanctimonious cunt   etcetc"-I am in favour of the cannabis as medicine -the proof is there Idont argue .FFS my late uncle in the early 80s was on legal heroin in his very final stages of cancer-yes HEROIN-unlike morphine it did not cause nausea&vomitting++++++++. shortly after his death it was removed from the medicines act
.prick of a rigmarole to actually collect the item and deliver to the patient anyhow.
IMHO-the sooner cannabis is legalised as a terminal stage analgesia  the better-providing its prescriber is experienced in this field of medicine.
Iwork with drugs that could entice daschund to f..k madonna but our surveillance on these is better than any SISagent could ever dream about.the side effects alone are about as inviting as putting a stick teased cobra down ya y fronts and challenging it "bring it on"
In summary ..think about it..an idiot can legalislate -you the bloody taxpayer ultimately pay the cost of that decision -not the fucking idiot

----------

