# Hunting > Firearm Safety >  Support for tighter Acat storage

## Macca

Recent proposes to law changes regarding firearms has caused quite a stir and caused many to be very vocal about their opinions, some of which are more drastic than others. One point I've always looked at and thought needed improving was basic storage requirements of A category firearms.

Current standards approved by I have no idea who, But enforced by police (to their dismay) allow things such as a simple mild steel eye bolt into a wall stud with a wire cable etc to attach firearms, a basic stamped metal cabinet that could be cut with tin snips, or even just a cable around hot water cylinder pipes etc. Let's be honest here and agree that these options are pathetic (and most Acat safes) and we can do better than that as a community to protect out hobbies and investments.

What's wrong with making stout (ie more than 1mm Acat safes) boxes/safes which are securely attached to walls/floors a mandatory requirement and ditching the minimum? Such as how we do our Ecat/Bcat. I get cost may play a factor, but if we're spending thousands and thousands on our firearms then we can invest in secure storage.

Another touchy subject is making all semi autos (.22 and shotguns etc excluded) into Ecat or a new class where a process similar to permit to preclude must be followed. Because what semi autos do you hunt with that aren't ar15/AK derivatives? I only vaguely support this because any Joe Bloggs with a FAL can buy an Acat Ar15/AK and then buy a 30 round mag on the same licence (pretty sure you don't even need a licence?) And then sell it onto a criminal. Please don't come at us with the usual "police should do a better job vetting", and "they need to make longer sentences", because we need to do our part as well to protect our sport and future.

Please add your ideas and solutions as to what changes can be made to have a middle ground between us and police/anti gunners to make all parties happy.

----------


## stug

What about Browning Bar rifles? No way are they Ar derivatives. If you give an inch the Police/ Govt will take a mile. Police have proven they will bend and break the law to try and force through unlawful procedures.

----------


## inglishill

So what you are saying there in that second part is that all FAL's with semi's need to get relicenced because of a very very small minority may do as you mention.

Should we also come up with the same licencing method for people who drink and drive? Arguably the drinking and driving is far more widespread than the illegal sales of firearms in your particular given circumstance. Actually, should we not look at how many people are killed every year under these conditions you suggest about illegal sales and then look at the amount of people killed by drunk driving. After this exercise, do you think we could possibly look at where the police ought to be paying more attention? Perhaps we could let the statistics point them in that direction.

I am not saying you do not have an argument, what I am saying is there are far more pressing concerns in society than the issue you raise.

----------


## Paddy79

May be they should make it if you want to buy any gun parts you must have a current FAL  and if you want to buy a 30round mag you need E-cat  endorsement, trouble is there are actually people who just collect gun magazines as a hobby, have no guns or licence just collect magazines

----------


## 223nut

Yes to better security, no to changing semi auto.

----------


## inglishill

PS: Should you not be looking at licencing knives as well ? Christchurch dairy robbed at knifepoint by brazen woman - NZ Herald

----------


## stretch

The SKS, of which there must be thousands in NZ, are not an AK derivative.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

----------


## Macca

Guys I just mentioned ar15/ak as a reference since they're the most pronounced, and obviously things like rimfire and shotguns would be exempt in this. However keep the suggestions and ideas coming as it is good to get a wider perspective.

----------


## tetawa

> Recent proposes to law changes regarding firearms has caused quite a stir and caused many to be very vocal about their opinions, some of which are more drastic than others. One point I've always looked at and thought needed improving was basic storage requirements of A category firearms.
> 
> Current standards approved by I have no idea who, But enforced by police (to their dismay) allow things such as a simple mild steel eye bolt into a wall stud with a wire cable etc to attach firearms, a basic stamped metal cabinet that could be cut with tin snips, or even just a cable around hot water cylinder pipes etc. Let's be honest here and agree that these options are pathetic (and most Acat safes) and we can do better than that as a community to protect out hobbies and investments.
> 
> What's wrong with making stout (ie more than 1mm Acat safes) boxes/safes which are securely attached to walls/floors a mandatory requirement and ditching the minimum? Such as how we do our Ecat/Bcat. I get cost may play a factor, but if we're spending thousands and thousands on our firearms then we can invest in secure storage.
> 
> Another touchy subject is making all semi autos (.22 and shotguns etc excluded) into Ecat or a new class where a process similar to permit to preclude must be followed. Because what semi autos do you hunt with that aren't ar15/AK derivatives? I only vaguely support this because any Joe Bloggs with a FAL can buy an Acat Ar15/AK and then buy a 30 round mag on the same licence (pretty sure you don't even need a licence?) And then sell it onto a criminal. Please don't come at us with the usual "police should do a better job vetting", and "they need to make longer sentences", because we need to do our part as well to protect our sport and future.
> 
> Please add your ideas and solutions as to what changes can be made to have a middle ground between us and police/anti gunners to make all parties happy.


I have a great idea, how about some tough sentences for those who break in and steal legally owned firearms. The Arms Act is strict enough on firearm security, we need a few decent sentence's for the offenders plus more police available other than for issuing over the speed limit infringement notices.

----------


## 199p

Im keen on more people having better security

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

----------


## Macca

> May be they should make it if you want to buy any gun parts you must have a current FAL  and if you want to buy a 30round mag you need E-cat  endorsement, trouble is there are actually people who just collect gun magazines as a hobby, have no guns or licence just collect magazines


This is something that would be hard to monitor due to people owning rifles compatible with higher capacity magazines such as the Ruger Precision Rifle and Troy pump action AR, But I'm sure some of the guys here could come up with solutions. One could be only being able to purchase the higher capacity magazine if you present proof of owning an Acat firearms that uses them, and then only being able to on sell them to people who hold E or a bolt/pump acat. So basically adding a permit to procure to high (normal >.> ) capacity magazines.

----------


## Towely

There is no middle ground and you can all kiss your legal semi autos goodbye in the not so distant future. Fact.

----------


## Macca

> I have a great idea, how about some tough sentences for those who break in and steal legally owned firearms. The Arms Act is strict enough on firearm security, we need a few decent sentence's for the offenders plus more police available other than for issuing over the speed limit infringement notices.


This is what I said not to say in this thread however valid it may be. We can keep using these valid excuses to no avail or we can bang heads and come up with more.

But yeah current sentencing on firearms offences is pathetic.

----------


## inglishill

How about, and it seems really simple, to buy e-cat parts you need an e-cat licence, like the bloke said.

----------


## tetawa

> Im keen on more people having better security
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Yes and where does it stop. With the cordless gear with the high tech cutting discs available it doesn't take much to open the average gun safe. There needs to be a strong deterrent for the offenders.

----------


## Macca

> How about, and it seems really simple, to buy e-cat parts you need an e-cat licence, like the bloke said.


The issue with this is you would no longer be able to buy these attachments for Acat firearms that use them such as bolt/pump actions. I'm sure something can be done about this though as I mentioned in an above post.

----------


## tetawa

> There is no middle ground and you can all kiss your legal semi autos goodbye in the not so distant future. Fact.


Show me the proof to your "fact"

----------


## Tommy

> This is something that would be hard to monitor due to people owning rifles compatible with higher capacity magazines such as the Ruger Precision Rifle and Troy pump action AR, But I'm sure some of the guys here could come up with solutions. One could be only being able to purchase the higher capacity magazine if you present proof of owning an Acat firearms that uses them, and then only being able to on sell them to people who hold E or a bolt/pump acat. So basically adding a permit to procure to high (normal >.> ) capacity magazines.


More rules for someone who is going to break them anyway, do nothing. You'll have magazines serialised? And then ammo? No.




> Please don't come at us with the usual.....  and "they need to make longer sentences", because we need to do our part as well to protect our sport and future.


Why not? I see the useless sentences handed down as one of the prime reasons people continue to break the bloody law, be it burglary, theft, assault etc etc etc. There is no deterrent. There has to be a deterrent or the law is useless. 

https://www.counter-currents.com/201...nce-is-golden/

----------


## inglishill

> The issue with this is you would no longer be able to buy these attachments for Acat firearms that use them such as bolt/pump actions. I'm sure something can be done about this though as I mentioned in an above post.



How many bolt/pump guns use 30rd mags? Pick specific parts that make an e-cat an e-cat and apply said theory. Free standing pistol grip, it is only e-cat right, well, show an e-cat licence to buy it.

----------


## MSL

> Yes and where does it stop. With the cordless gear with the high tech cutting discs available it doesn't take much to open the average gun safe. There needs to be a strong deterrent for the offenders.


Where can I buy some of these 'high tech' cutting discs? They sound good

----------


## stug

No free standing pistol grip is only E cat for semi autos. You can have a free standing pistol grip on a bolt action and it is not E cat. Just shows you how stupid the current law is. Drafted by people who had no understanding of firearms.

----------


## Macca

> Why not? I see the useless sentences handed down as one of the prime reasons people continue to break the bloody law, be it burglary, theft, assault etc etc etc. There is no deterrent. There has to be a deterrent or the law is useless. 
> 
> https://www.counter-currents.com/201...nce-is-golden/


I only said this because its been said many times before and we all know it needs to happen, so I figured this thread could be for new ideas and opinions.

----------


## Paddy79

> How about, and it seems really simple, to buy e-cat parts you need an e-cat licence, like the bloke said.


Trouble is the 308  10 round mag in my rifle is A-cat but will fit into a Ar10 308 makes it E-cat, so how do we determine when a part is A or E-cat?

----------


## Macca

> How many bolt/pump guns use 30rd mags? Pick specific parts that make an e-cat an e-cat and apply said theory. Free standing pistol grip, it is only e-cat right, well, show an e-cat licence to buy it.


There's actually a lot of rifles and shotguns in A category format that will remain Acat if adjustable stock and free standing grips are attached.

Just to name a few

Ruger Precision Rifle (and the many new rifles like this that are being released by every manufacturer)
Troy pump action AR
Nearly every pump action shotgun that has a conversion kit to accept grips/stock etc.

----------


## inglishill

> There's actually a lot of rifles and shotguns in A category format that will remain Acat if adjustable stock and free standing grips are attached.
> 
> Just to name a few
> 
> Ruger Precision Rifle (and the many new rifles like this that are being released by every manufacturer)
> Troy pump action AR
> Nearly every pump action shotgun that has a conversion kit to accept grips/stock etc.


Yes I believe that has been covered by a few members now.

----------


## Paddy79

I think if minimum security was increased to a minimum 2mm thick Steel safe it may it a bit harder to steel guns after all a padlock through eyebolt or chain around the hot water cylinder will stop a burglar with bolter cutters for about 3 seconds
And 2mm safes are blimmin cheap as chips anyway

----------


## Cigar

My understanding is that currently there are no standards for A cat security - it is up to the local AOL to decide what is suitable. I have also heard from several sources that this is about to change. The letter that came with my FAL renewal notice said the recommended security was a 3mm safe (note it said recommended, not minimum).
The vetter who came round and inspected my security didn't like my locking rack (though it has defeated a burgler twice before). He preferred the firearms be stored in the safe I had recently bought and dynabolted to the concrete floor and coach screwed to the wall studs, but said keeping bolts and ammo in the internal locked compartment was no good, as does not count as stored separately (someone takes the safe they have everything).

----------


## Tommy

> I only said this because its been said many times before and we all know it needs to happen, so I figured this thread could be for new ideas and opinions.


Yup, so the answer is obvious, but another more flowery option with more details and regulations must be it. I appreciate that you believe that there's a magic box that hasn't yet been ticked, but the simple answer is:* Punish the people who break the law*, not those who aren't

----------


## Beavis

> Guys I just mentioned ar15/ak as a reference since they're the most pronounced, and obviously things like rimfire and shotguns would be exempt in this. However keep the suggestions and ideas coming as it is good to get a wider perspective.


Why would you exempt .22's and Shotguns? They are statistically the most commonly criminally mis-used firearms. What would you achieve by making all semi autos E category, when they are barely used in any crime at all?

----------


## 300CALMAN

I think increasing security is OK, it will help reduce some of the opportunistic thefts. But if they relay want them and are prepared there is only so much you can realistically do.

All the rest is just a slippery slope of miss trust in licensed firearm owners that eventually leads to prohibition.

----------


## Sasquatch

Raising the standards on minimum Acat security is pointless & impractical. What about a small safe or wall rack for a home away from home for those hunting trips? Or the student who is already on a tight budget and that is all they could afford? Just to name a few. You can have easily defeated Acat security concealed and out of sight to be far more practical then as to "raise the standards" and further erode our sport more down the track. 

There are smart ways of keeping storage concealed - Out of sight out of mind.

----------


## Jexla

What's the bet people opting to increase security requirements are the ones that live in their own homes.

I'm a student with endorsements and I have to rent. Do you know how hard it is for me to get a rental, especially with the security requirements required for my endorsements? (and I have a bloody cat!)

----------


## Sasquatch

As for buying "Ecat parts" like free standing pistols grips & mags etc only if you have an Ecat endorsement is another pointless suggestion. Those features work remarkably well on precision bolt action rifles among other platforms for a variety of shooting disciplines.

Why should those that choose to use such aesthetics on their firearms (because that is what they are at the end of the day don't forget...) suffer? And for what? It won't stop the crime that doesn't even exist as  @Beavis has mentioned.

----------


## 223nut

> What's the bet people opting to increase security requirements are the ones that live in their own homes.
> 
> I'm a student with endorsements and I have to rent. Do you know how hard it is for me to get a rental, especially with the security requirements required for my endorsements? (and I have a bloody cat!)


Been a student no endorsements and still managed to find the coin for a safe, worth it considering the investments it held at the time. Have seen a few racks I.e. From gun city that are well bolted to studs (cheap set up) seen others with plenty of money yet a thin chain and cheap padlock round a 4*2

----------


## Tommy

> As for buying "Ecat parts" like free standing pistols grips & mags etc only if you have an Ecat endorsement is another pointless suggestion. Those features work remarkably well on precision bolt action rifles among other platforms for a variety of shooting disciplines.
> 
> Why should those that choose to use such aesthetics on there firearms (because that is what they are at the end of the day...) suffer? And for what? It won't stop the crime that doesn't even exist as @Beavis has mentioned.


The designation itself is stupid, and achieves nothing.

----------


## chainsaw

+++++1 for tougher sentences for burglary where the crims are targeting firearms. We were targeted by crims last Xmas. Fortunately we were not away. They came 3 times in 24 hrs. After the first one which we came home and disturbed them in the act I knew they were after guns. We called cops told them the scoop.... the answer "are the crims on the scene ?" No. They done a runner ! Oh, well we'll send around a squad car some time ....it was the next day ! Crims turned again after 1 am that night for another go - scared them off, got pics with carefully placedtrailcams 😎. Next day cops show up for forensics- wearing gloves so no prints. Sorry about that. Cops leave. 30 min later crims are back - full black out like AOS. I chase them into the bush then jump in car and race up road to find their car and trap them in bush. Cops turn up this to me full Monty with Eagle & AOS ... 2 little shitheads still stuck in bush. AOS go in with dogs (best part of story !) & arrest them.... after the dogs have introduced themselves. Jump forward 9 mo - Case goes to court. One gets 100 hrs community service , the other gets 9mo home D. WTF!!???

----------


## Beavis

That's fuckin insane. Surely after three goes the police dogs should just be fuckin left to eliminate any risk of reoffending.

----------


## Ricochet

100% agree that A-cat safes are a joke. I only have an A-cat rifle & have an E-cat safe and a separate Ammo/bolt safe.

Should be 5mm minimum to stop burglars and other opportunistic thieves having easy access to firearms. Of course anyone can get to them with the right tools but we should be making it as hard as reasonably possible.

----------


## Paddy79

you can have all the security you like but if the crims know guns are there they will get them, even a hidden strong room is not safe to the right crim

----------


## 7mmwsm

> 100% agree that A-cat safes are a joke. I only have an A-cat rifle & have an E-cat safe and a separate Ammo/bolt safe.
> 
> Should be 5mm minimum to stop burglars and other opportunistic thieves having easy access to firearms. Of course anyone can get to them with the right tools but we should be making it as hard as reasonably possible.


Cut the fingers off thieves will make it hard for them. To many soft cocks running this place.

----------


## Danger Mouse

> 100% agree that A-cat safes are a joke. I only have an A-cat rifle & have an E-cat safe and a separate Ammo/bolt safe.
> 
> Should be 5mm minimum to stop burglars and other opportunistic thieves having easy access to firearms. Of course anyone can get to them with the right tools but we should be making it as hard as reasonably possible.




Dont agree. NZ police have proven to be ok with breaking the law, reinterpreting the law, and just plain making shit up when it comes to firearms legislation. They dont need any more freedom.

Whether it be a car, electronic data, money, or firearms. given enough time and skill, it WILL be taken. Lets start punishing the pricks with a meaningful sentence.

----------


## Hutch

Lots of good arguments for and against. Some security measures are well below par. Good security for your firearms and the cost of those precautions is something you should include in your decision when you buy your first firearm. It would be great if we could rely on the individuals to chose the appropriate standard of security for their particular set of circumstances. This is clearly not the case so the rule makers feel they need to step in and set minimum standards. This happens in many other industries. My security is chosen to keep every one safe but also to stop the crims from pinching my toys. I think the bar should be raised.
The Ecat Acat arguement is a tough one. I fail to see how a rifle with a pistol grip/flasher hider/bayonet lug is anymore dangerous than one without. Mag size makes a difference but really not a lot and its easy to get a bigger mag and someone who is well drilled could fire more rounds faster and with more effect than a muppet like me wit a big calacrity mag. I was thinking maybe calibre could be the tripping point but as Beavis said heaps of crime is committed with 22s and shot guns, not always semis. So are centrefire semi rifles with large capacity mags more dangerous than bolt actions with small mags. They can do more damage so yes they are more dangerous, in the wrong hands.  But at close range a semi 12 Guage can do way more damage, so should they be Ecat as well??.
It seems I don't have the answer. Lawful ownership of firearms is a responsibility that most take seriously. Some don't and couldn't give a toss. If everyone took that responsibility seriously and everyone obeyed the law we wouldn't be having this discussion.
What I would like see happen is increased minimum security for Acat. Better initial vetting and maybe renewing more often. Alot can change in 10 years. 
This would off course require more resources for the police for processing. I know this penalises lawful gun owners.
Maybe the answer is more resources for the police to sort gun crime. Better deterents for gun crime. More resources for mental health services and better collaboration between them and the police. There it is, the answer, I got there in the end.
Now I know someone is going to tell me why I am all wrong and I still haven't addressed the Acat Ecat issue.
sorry for the ramblings.  Half way thru I had to go shoot a possum the dogs had treed and it takes me 10minutes to get the gun out the safe.

----------


## Moutere

Fact is, A-category security is only intended to defeat opportunistic thieves and prevent children accessing firearms.
A little bit of discretion regarding shooting pursuits is probably far more effective than the gauge steel that your gun cabinet is made from.

----------


## Macca

> What's the bet people opting to increase security requirements are the ones that live in their own homes.
> 
> I'm a student with endorsements and I have to rent. Do you know how hard it is for me to get a rental, especially with the security requirements required for my endorsements? (and I have a bloody cat!)


Yeah... I'm the one that brought this up because of my recent change of address. I'm a student in a rental and convinced my property manager/landlord to let me install my pistol safe (20mm holes in newly carpeted floor). I also only currently use a single eye bolt with chain/padlocks/cables/trigger locks to secure my .22 and my Ar15. looking back on my $2 eye bolt security I thought to myself how abysmal it was for me to secure my firearms like that knowing that any criminal breaking in would likely have some basic hand tools or bolt cutter to get through it when they find it (2 bedroom home so not many places). The house is alarmed but that's not exactly going to stop a targeted attack from my blackpower neighbors who may or may not have seen me transfer a rifle bag to the boot of my car that i took every precaution to reverse as close to my door as possible.

Anyways I'm planning on transferring my firearms to a friend's house with better storage till I save for an Ecat safe when the police finally tell us what is allowed (recent debacle)... my pistol however... that's going to have to stay in there and hope whichever fucker breaks in doesn't have a decent grinder or 7 foot crowbar (it's Auckland so it will happen).

So no, not everyone who mentions tighter controls are the "ones with their own homes", and not everyone has the integrity to take a look at their security and say it isn't doing everything I can to secure MY firearms and protect OUR sport from crims/MPs/gun grabbers/media etc.

Oh and  @Jexla I also have a cat...
His name is Kobie
Yes he has 3 legs

----------


## veitnamcam

> Where can I buy some of these 'high tech' cutting discs? They sound good


Any engineering supplier.

----------


## Beavis

Why even entertain the idea of having more restrictions on A cat semi auto's? On average, we have had what, three high profile incidents involving semi autos in as many decades?

----------


## veitnamcam

The ring bolt and chain/lock is a minimum recommendation, for the likes of your hunting crib/batch etc, yes it is passed as primeray storage in some instances but generally it is expected you have better storage at your place of residence and rightly so IMO.

However....one needs to be very bloody careful about recommending law change around rifle storage as it would be difficult for most to carry the 200kilo e cat safe and battery powered dynadrill to bolt it to the nearest rock  to securely store your state of the art carbon stock carbon wrapped barrel carbon muffler pencil barreled rifle on a multiday foot hunt.

For the record I think a steel safe should be a minimum in your place of residence BUT 

If I wanted to gain entry to a steel safe, 100 dollar safe or 1000 dollar safe would make virtually no difference at all.

If you really want to defeat entry you need to be looking at bank vault type stuff and I cant see uni students or tire fitters paying for that (or most other firearms owners)

Our best defense is a competent Police force intent on solving crime and a justice system that backs the police by sensible sentencing.

Now if anybody has ideas on how we could get that I am all ears!

----------


## res

I would encourage everyone to have security that can't be kicked open like I did on a deceased family members on my last trip home. Our current standards for A cat were set to keep guns from kids and have worked well for this. Your never going to stop a crim who knows it's there and wants to get in- but stopping a junky just looking for stuff to swap for there next fix is doable most of the time. 

But actually changing the law?  I don't see that helping much if at all for all the reasons others have already mentioned. 

Changing rules around semi autos seems pointless, especially if you exclude shotguns and  rimfire. 

Making things more restrictive for legal gun owners just to be seen to be coming to the party on cracking down on crime is silly unless it will actually make a real difference-otherwise in a few years we will have to make another pointless gesture as the last one wasn't working. 

I hate to say it as the op doesn't want to go there, but the area that seems to need work is sentencing for arms crime-at the moment there doesn't seem to be much reason for a crim to advoid guns

----------


## tiroatedson

Oh oh a e-cat permit to buy only ammo that shoots through a e-cat...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## tetawa

> Any engineering supplier.


And I was trying to keep that a secret.

----------


## rossi.45

give me some evidence it will do some good and i will say Yes . . . but if its something like  ' i just feel its a good idea ' then its No,   pandering to the hysterical who are scared of everything does no good in the long run,

so when they wanted bayonet lugs removed from rifles  . . . how many people had been actually bayoneted in NZ

R.

----------


## Jexla

> Yeah... I'm the one that brought this up because of my recent change of address. I'm a student in a rental and convinced my property manager/landlord to let me install my pistol safe (20mm holes in newly carpeted floor). I also only currently use a single eye bolt with chain/padlocks/cables/trigger locks to secure my .22 and my Ar15. looking back on my $2 eye bolt security I thought to myself how abysmal it was for me to secure my firearms like that knowing that any criminal breaking in would likely have some basic hand tools or bolt cutter to get through it when they find it (2 bedroom home so not many places). The house is alarmed but that's not exactly going to stop a targeted attack from my blackpower neighbors who may or may not have seen me transfer a rifle bag to the boot of my car that i took every precaution to reverse as close to my door as possible.
> 
> Anyways I'm planning on transferring my firearms to a friend's house with better storage till I save for an Ecat safe when the police finally tell us what is allowed (recent debacle)... my pistol however... that's going to have to stay in there and hope whichever fucker breaks in doesn't have a decent grinder or 7 foot crowbar (it's Auckland so it will happen).
> 
> So no, not everyone who mentions tighter controls are the "ones with their own homes", and not everyone has the integrity to take a look at their security and say it isn't doing everything I can to secure MY firearms and protect OUR sport from crims/MPs/gun grabbers/media etc.
> 
> Oh and  @Jexla I also have a cat...
> His name is Kobie
> Yes he has 3 legs
> ...


You're lucky you've convinced your overseers. I spent the money to get a safe as I also have E/C endorsements. I've gotten to the point where I just don't tell them and just do it and deal with whatever consequences when I move out. It's not ideal, but beats not having a place to live. 

Cats and gun safes are serious deal breakers for landlords for some reason. I guess they'd rather children drawing all over their walls  :Psmiley:

----------


## Cordite

> Why would you exempt .22's and Shotguns? They are statistically the most commonly criminally mis-used firearms. What would you achieve by making all semi autos E category, when they are barely used in any crime at all?


Agree.  First off, Macca, thanks for starting this thread, well worth talking about.  

Security depends on so much more than the safe itself, several here having already raised points about sanding discs, etc etc for the determined.  Hiding the safe in plain sight is massively valuable.  Also avoiding blabbing about your guns (club membership may be a double edged sword in this regard).  Separating out ammo and bolts from the a-cat firearm too (and why not separate bolts from ammo while we are at it?).  I think the better approach is not to go the legislative way (give an inch and someone will take it a mile) but to just foster excellent security in excess of what is required of us -- while still allowing beginners a low-cost start-up in the sport.  After all, an upright gun safe is a lot less hassle than a bracket and people eventually buy one if they have more than a few guns.

The point, re excempting .22s from the proposed E-cat storage requirements is not based on fact but springs from a misperception of them as purely sport weapons, maybe even less dangerous than say a .308 bolt action.  Sure, it is unsuitable for stalking presidential cavalcades from book repository buildings, yet a silenced .22 semi is probably the one gun you don't want sick evil bastards to have, going out and about from house to house, room to room, killing people without the alarm getting raised too early: think David Gray (Aramoana) and Bain (Dunedin).  

The ubiquity of the silenced .22 semi-auto in NZ is chilling, and you will not get a competent cop investigating a burglary draw a sigh of relief if you tell him, "It's only my suppressed Ruger 10/22 that's missing, just as well they left the powerful rifles!"  There is really no case for excepting such guns, any guns, from such a proposed E-cat-safe-for-all idea.  But then again, legislation is not always based purely on reason, it just has to _appear_ reasonable.

----------


## Hunt4life

Friends of mine near Te Puke were burgled recently and only firearms and ammo targeted/stolen. The nincompoop crim left his gloves at the scene and long story short, was caught and charged through some bloody impressive police work. 
Guns taken are yet to be recovered. 
My key point is, the flimsy wooden cabinet was no match for the crim and he had access within seconds. The ammo was also stored in an open cupboard above the cabinet. Obviously this theft had the potential to result in a tragic disaster. Luckily it didn't. 
I agree with Maca that the minimum security requirements should be raised, for the community's sake as well as to protect our investments 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Cordite

> Friends of mine near Te Puke were burgled recently and only firearms and ammo targeted/stolen. The nincompoop crim left his gloves at the scene and long story short, was caught and charged through some bloody impressive police work. 
> *Guns taken are yet to be recovered.* 
> My key point is, *the flimsy wooden cabinet was no match for the crim and he had access within seconds*. The ammo was also stored in an open cupboard above the cabinet. Obviously* this theft had the potential to result in a tragic disaster. Luckily it didn't.* 
> I agree with Maca that *the minimum security requirements should be raised*, for the community's sake as well as to protect our investments 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hunt4Life, thanks for bringing this case to our attention.  Some points.

1. Too early to say, "luckily it didn't", don't you think?

2. Minimum A-cat security requirement by law is "sturdy construction".  How does this case demonstrate the law should be tightened?

----------


## Pineapple

I am not sure what side of the argument I fall on this yet (havent weighed everything up)
I would like see of stolen firearms, what security were they stolen from? (Chain cut, safe cut, stolen out of a car, safe left open, not secured at all etc) as seen recently a safe isnt worth dick if its left open. I know that in these examples owners stupidity is a factor but it would be interesting to see how often this is a factor.
I would like to think (in a perfect world) that all firearms owners would do the best they can in their circumstances. 
The reason I say this is when I bought my first rifle I simply didnt have the funds to get an ecat safe but I did have the resources to get an A cat safe (not necissarily the cheapest either). So I got an a-cat safe coach bolted it through the building frame, dyna bolted it to the concrete in an area that is not easily visable  and stored the bolt in a lock box in a different location. While not the maximum security not the minimum either. The point being as a responsible firearms owner I would be mortified if my rifle was taken from my posession and used to harm someone if I had not done everything I could to (within my personal circumstances) prevent it.  As my circumstances change so to does my level of resources I can apply to meeting my responsibility.

----------


## gonetropo

After installing security alarms and surveillance systems quite a few years now i will tell you the best security is anonymity, dont tell people you have firearms because people talk and word gets around.
I had a safe built, its only 1.5mm thick but double folded door etc, the best thing is that after it was built i glued in mdf panels. cutting blades dont like a mix of the 2 !
Get a decent security system, dont buy a self install job from jaycar etc, same with camera systems. You might think you are saving $$ but you are throwing it away.
But most importantly is to get through to these idiot judges that 100 hours of stealing and selling deadly weapons is a disgrace. The punishments should be severe not a slap on the wrist.

----------


## 223nut

> I am not sure what side of the argument I fall on this yet (havent weighed everything up)
> I would like see of stolen firearms, what security were they stolen from? (Chain cut, safe cut, stolen out of a car, safe left open, not secured at all etc) as seen recently a safe isnt worth dick if its left open. I know that in these examples owners stupidity is a factor but it would be interesting to see how often this is a factor.
> I would like to think (in a perfect world) that all firearms owners would do the best they can in their circumstances. 
> The reason I say this is when I bought my first rifle I simply didnt have the funds to get an ecat safe but I did have the resources to get an A cat safe (not necissarily the cheapest either). So I got an a-cat safe coach bolted it through the building frame, dyna bolted it to the concrete in an area that is not easily visable  and stored the bolt in a lock box in a different location. While not the maximum security not the minimum either. The point being as a responsible firearms owner I would be mortified if my rifle was taken from my posession and used to harm someone if I had not done everything I could to (within my personal circumstances) prevent it.  As my circumstances change so to does my level of resources I can apply to meeting my responsibility.


This sums it up nicely

----------


## Jexla

> After installing security alarms and surveillance systems quite a few years now i will tell you the best security is anonymity, dont tell people you have firearms because people talk and word gets around.
> I had a safe built, its only 1.5mm thick but double folded door etc, the best thing is that after it was built i glued in mdf panels. cutting blades dont like a mix of the 2 !
> Get a decent security system, dont buy a self install job from jaycar etc, same with camera systems. You might think you are saving $$ but you are throwing it away.
> But most importantly is to get through to these idiot judges that 100 hours of stealing and selling deadly weapons is a disgrace. The punishments should be severe not a slap on the wrist.


Sounds good, who's going to move that to my next rental for me?

----------


## Cordite

> After installing security alarms and surveillance systems quite a few years now i will tell you the best security is anonymity, dont tell people you have firearms because people talk and word gets around.
> 
> I had a safe built, its only 1.5mm thick but double folded door etc, the best thing is that after it was built i glued in mdf panels. cutting blades dont like a mix of the 2 !


 @gonetropo with you on keeping mom.  Do tell more of your MDF glue-in project.  Where did you get that idea from?  

Anyone else have simple ideas for increasing an A-cat safe's resistance?

----------


## systolic

> Sounds good, who's going to move that to my next rental for me?


Sell your guns and use the money towards a deposit for a house.

----------


## Cordite

> Sounds good, who's going to move that to my next rental for me?


 @Jexla Are you being a helpless girl here regarding a heavier-than-usual safe, or is it about the logistics of security system wiring in a rental?  

You can get a plug-in alarm system with a couple battery-operated IR sensors that communicate with the main system via radio waves.  No-one knows if it's monitored or not, and most burglars will anyway get too nervous about staying too long once a siren has gone off.  Not perfect but we are talking of layered security where every bit helps. 

e.g. Talking of layered security, if you are into pistols, why not also get yourself a crappy safe from Mitre 10, bolt it to the floor, and throw a couple of broken Airsoft pistols with some "A-cat ammo" for authenticity into it?

----------


## Jexla

> Sell your guns and use the money towards a deposit for a house.


You're full of bright ideas.
As a student I'm not in a position to start saving to buy a house, so what's the point of selling up my 1 of 2 hobbies that help keep me sane?




> @Jexla Are you being a helpless girl here regarding a heavier-than-usual safe, or is it about the logistics of security system wiring in a rental?  
> 
> You can get a plug-in alarm system with a couple battery-operated IR sensors that communicate with the main system via radio waves.  No-one knows if it's monitored or not, and most burglars will anyway get too nervous about staying too long once a siren has gone off.  Not perfect but we are talking of layered security where every bit helps. 
> 
> e.g. Talking of layered security, if you are into pistols, why not also get yourself a crappy safe from Mitre 10, bolt it to the floor, and throw a couple of broken Airsoft pistols with some "A-cat ammo" for authenticity into it?


When he said don't get a self install system he was referring to shit like that.

----------


## gonetropo

> @gonetropo with you on keeping mom.  Do tell more of your MDF glue-in project.  Where did you get that idea from?  
> 
> Anyone else have simple ideas for increasing an A-cat safe's resistance?


well i once had to cut through a metal sheet that had an mdf structure inside it, those disc cutting blades sure dont like it and fill the room with smoke really fast. i have heard of a hollow door filled with ball bearings, that would be near impossible.
of course if it was legal a door filled with ball bearings and gunpowder would sure stop re-offending

----------


## Paddy79

Just get a couple of dangerous guard dogs that attack.

----------


## Maca49

How about when the police cock up as they did in Whangarei, they apologise to everyone they blamed for easy access to firearms and admit they should have questioned the guy on his FAL a month before the shooting and now find out it was typical criminal activity, which new rules on abiding FAL owner will not fix and then deal harshly to the Crimson? Maybe the judges could be retrained in the area of tougher sentencing??

----------


## Savage1

The A cat security levels need to be raised, no doubt. Saying that it is "pointless and impractical" or is just irresponsible, and such statements are usually dished out by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

I've never heard of a safe being cut into up here during a burglary, most have found the keys, levered them open or ripped them out completely, all of which could be easily remedied. In fact every one I've been too has been down to poor storage, if they'd not found the keys or the safe was fixed and of stronger construction it's likely they never would've been found.

I cut a safe open once, a Buffalo River one, and if you have no knowledge of the internal mechanics then it's not as easy as you'd think, especially when they're in a wardrobe. Criminals with decent gear and knowledge on these things are very much an exception, not a rule, and those few exceptions are not really a valid argument, anyone could get into a bank vault given enough time and gear. That argument would also imply that we shouldn't have any more security other than to overcome a child as it's pointless because they will get it anyway.

Most people here haven't met the kind of people that burgle houses and steal guns, they don't look far enough ahead to think about the consequences, tougher sentences won't deter, however they will keep the scum out of circulation for longer. Strong sentences are dished out to meth dealers, but there are still plenty of them around.

I get sick of the stupid "ban knives" argument, it's just a typical deflection response from people who are unable to debate the facts. Another one is the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile", how about give a necessary inch and they won't take and unreasonable mile". I prefer a work and reason with approach myself.

As for restricting magazines etc, I think the horse has already bolted.

The reason for aesthetic features being restricted is that these features feature on certain types of firearms which attract a certain type of person, a person who would hopefully be identified through further vetting. That's the reasoning behind it, not particularly the lethality of the weapon.

I think universal E-cat standard should be sufficient.

----------


## Savage1

> How about when the police cock up as they did in Whangarei, they apologise to everyone they blamed for easy access to firearms and admit they should have questioned the guy on his FAL a month before the shooting and now find out it was typical criminal activity, which new rules on abiding FAL owner will not fix and then deal harshly to the Crimson? Maybe the judges could be retrained in the area of tougher sentencing??


What evidence have you got of this stuff up? Come on Maca I'm dying to hear this. I know the cop who visited him and know what was said/asked etc.

I'm 99.99% sure I know a hell of a lot more about this incident than you.

How about you make sure you know what you're talking about before making accusations, saves you from looking like an idiot when the story comes out.

----------


## Cordite

> When he said don't get a self install system he was referring to sh*t like that.


  @Jexla, you complained his ideal professionally installed no-sh*t security system was no option for you given your rental situation.  

I then, to be helpful, pointed out a simple option which can be installed in any dwelling, including yours, and outlined advantages it could provide irrespective of it being unmonitored, and you call it "sh*t".  

But such petulance leaves you with no solution for your rental, does it not?

----------


## Cordite

> Just get a couple of dangerous guard dogs that attack.


Might need a big safe to accommodate both your Dobermans and your guns.  Anyone remember Kato pouncing on Inspector Closeau from the fridge?

----------


## Nickoli

> What evidence have you got of this stuff up? Come on Maca I'm dying to hear this. I know the cop who visited him and know what was said/asked etc.
> 
> I'm 99.99% sure I know a hell of a lot more about this incident than you.
> 
> How about you make sure you know what you're talking about before making accusations, saves you from looking like an idiot when the story comes out.


Mate, I appreciate where you are coming from. Problem is; your NZPA President has no problem with disseminating LIES and INNUENDO before said facts come out.  The relationship with the community at large (not just licensed firearms owners) needs to be addressed - turns out those who wear suits aren't smart enough to realise this!!

----------


## 300CALMAN

> I get sick of the stupid "ban knives" argument, it's just a typical deflection response from people who are unable to debate the facts. Another one is the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile", how about give a necessary inch and *they won't take and unreasonable mile*". I prefer a work and reason with approach myself.


Deflection or common reasoning without emotional sensationalism? Apparently there is a problem in the UK since they now have no problem with firearms (yeah right).

Unfortunately after what they have just tried most of us have 0 faith that they wont take the unreasonable mile. Police HQ have lost all credibility, maybe first try to get it back?

I have no problem in the debate over security but PHQ has F**** that one up totally.

----------


## 300CALMAN

> What evidence have you got of this stuff up? Come on Maca I'm dying to hear this. I know the cop who visited him and know what was said/asked etc.
> 
> I'm 99.99% sure I know a hell of a lot more about this incident than you.
> 
> How about you make sure you know what you're talking about before making accusations, saves you from looking like an idiot when the story comes out.


OK tell us then @Savage1 We are all keen to know.

I have noticed the Police silence on this one. Are they still trying to pin it back to licensed firearm owners? That seems to be the normal approach now.

----------


## Savage1

> Deflection or common reasoning without emotional sensationalism? Apparently there is a problem in the UK since they now have no problem with firearms (yeah right).
> 
> Unfortunately after what they have just tried most of us have 0 faith that they wont take the unreasonable mile. Police HQ have lost all credibility, maybe first try to get it back?
> 
> I have no problem in the debate over security but PHQ has F**** that one up totally.


Nope, definitely deflection, just as you are continuing to do with this post, deflecting the issue of firearms security with the issues of PNHQ behaviour.

----------


## Savage1

> OK tell us then @Savage1 We are all keen to know.
> 
> I have noticed the Police silence on this one. Are they still trying to pin it back to licensed firearm owners? That seems to be the normal approach now.


You will find out in time, it's not my place to say. 

Police always remain silent for a long time on issues like this, better to wait and have the correct information than make assumptions and wild guesses without all available information. It's the responsible thing to do.

----------


## Nickoli

> You will find out in time, it's not my place to say. 
> 
> Police always remain silent for a long time on issues like this, better to wait and have the correct information than make assumptions and wild guesses without all available information. It's the responsible thing to do.


Tell that to your president....

----------


## 300CALMAN

> Nope, definitely deflection, just as you are continuing to do with this post, deflecting the issue of firearms security with the issues of PNHQ behaviour.


No not deflecting at all, just examining the logic behind your statement. I suggested it is worth debating, just suggesting that PNHQ IS a barrier due to o trust.

----------


## 300CALMAN

> Tell that to your president....


Ah the police association president CC? I was talking about PHQ. Well it is hard to tell the difference these days. 

CC hasn't said much yet, he usually doesn't even wait for the story to finish.

----------


## gonetropo

as much respect as i have for the average cop , police nhq gives me the shits. as for sentences handed out by judges well thats another story

----------


## Cordite

> The reason for aesthetic features being restricted is that* these features feature on certain types of firearms which attract a certain type of person*, a person who would hopefully be identified through further vetting.


  @Savage1,

What evidence is there for this stuff?  I get exactly what you are saying, I even freely admit to harbouring that very same prejudice myself against black guns.  Our shared innate prejudice is basically, people who like modern style black guns enough to pay for them are more likely to be potential mass murderers and criminals than oldies like me/us who prefer old fashioned wooded guns.  

But it does not bear scrutiny any more than the usual "young people nowadays are so different from us ol' cobblers."

First question that should be asked (if accepting the notion in the first place) is: how much more likely are such to be gun crims?  And how do you gauge how strong someone's like for MSSAs is?  In sexual research there are balloon cuffs measuring penile turgor in response to various images, maybe something analogous can be done with MSSA vs Bolt actions images. Point is, difficult.

And then there are the incidental individuals with criminal or political aims who don't have a particular love affair with guns, but use them as tools in their drug trade or to terror ends.  Anders Breivik is one creepy example, though overseas in fairness, who had no-long standing gun interest and could not have been identified by the above screening criterion, e.g by a liking of MSSA features.

On vetting, FAL applicants generally... all like firearms.  Some will like some style of gun more than another style.  If you can put a percentage on this, then how much can you really read into those percentages?  Am I for example allowed to like AR15s or AK's more than, say, a random 35% tipping point before being deemed potential criminally insane?  Thin ice.  In reality, few shooters would kick any particular kind of gun outa their beds outright (figuratively speaking, all gun cuddling perverts out there!).  

Anyway, political-assassins-to-be out there should of course be identified not by MSSA-love but by an equally perverted love of bolt actioned rifles with optics, never mind owners of .22 suppressed semi-autos (or those who would like to own one) are suspect in the extreme given how such have featured in Aramoana and the Bain murders.

No, this is a blind alley.

----------


## Nickoli

> Ah the police association president CC? I was talking about PHQ. Well it is hard to tell the difference these days. 
> 
> CC hasn't said much yet, he usually doesn't even wait for the story to finish.


....he has said more than enough: clambering over the feelings of the grieving and pushing his agenda without waiting for the recovery of the perpetrator's body...appearing on morning news shows saying " I didn't want to say I told you so; but....." Relationship burning and target fixation at its worst. Not a good reflection on @Savage1 and others on the front line - and time those who CC represents called him to task!!

----------


## 300CALMAN

We could also add pistol owners to this list. Why really would you want a pistol? An AR is a very good pest control rifle but I could argue that pistols having no legitimate hunting use. They are often black, high capacity and therefore attract the wrong type of people. Just look at statistics and you will find they are used in far more murders than rifles. It's the same type of logic...

----------


## 300CALMAN

> ....he has said more than enough: clambering over the feelings of the grieving and pushing his agenda without waiting for the recovery of the perpetrator's body...appearing on morning news shows saying " I didn't want to say I told you so; but....." Relationship burning and target fixation at its worst. Not a good reflection on @Savage1 and others on the front line - and time those who CC represents called him to task!!


SAD but true. He really has done them a big disservice.

----------


## gonetropo

> Sell your guns and use the money towards a deposit for a house.


forums are like arse holes, everyone has one

----------


## Ryan

> Recent proposes to law changes regarding firearms has caused quite a stir and caused many to be very vocal about their opinions, some of which are more drastic than others. One point I've always looked at and thought needed improving was basic storage requirements of A category firearms.
> 
> Current standards approved by I have no idea who, But enforced by police (to their dismay) allow things such as a simple mild steel eye bolt into a wall stud with a wire cable etc to attach firearms, a basic stamped metal cabinet that could be cut with tin snips, or even just a cable around hot water cylinder pipes etc. Let's be honest here and agree that these options are pathetic (and most Acat safes) and we can do better than that as a community to protect out hobbies and investments.
> 
> What's wrong with making stout (ie more than 1mm Acat safes) boxes/safes which are securely attached to walls/floors a mandatory requirement and ditching the minimum? Such as how we do our Ecat/Bcat. I get cost may play a factor, but if we're spending thousands and thousands on our firearms then we can invest in secure storage.
> 
> Another touchy subject is making all semi autos (.22 and shotguns etc excluded) into Ecat or a new class where a process similar to permit to preclude must be followed. Because what semi autos do you hunt with that aren't ar15/AK derivatives? I only vaguely support this because any Joe Bloggs with a FAL can buy an Acat Ar15/AK and then buy a 30 round mag on the same licence (pretty sure you don't even need a licence?) And then sell it onto a criminal. Please don't come at us with the usual "police should do a better job vetting", and "they need to make longer sentences", because we need to do our part as well to protect our sport and future.
> 
> Please add your ideas and solutions as to what changes can be made to have a middle ground between us and police/anti gunners to make all parties happy.


No amount of protection is going to stop shit cunts. Let's stop people from being shit cunts.

----------


## Paddy79

> No amount of protection is going to stop shit cunts. Let's stop people from being shit cunts.


only way to do that is to execute all the shit ppl to begin with to stop them breeding. lets put bromide in all of NZs water supply

----------


## systolic

> forums are like arse holes, everyone has one


Don't you mean opinions?

----------


## Maca49

> only way to do that is to execute all the shit ppl to begin with to stop them breeding. lets put bromide in all of NZs water supply


Your on to it!, :Grin:

----------


## Paddy79

> Your on to it!,


If only they did it sooner I wouldn't have 4 daughters to worry about but alas they didn't and I do, bugger 
pull out theory didn't work as planned aye  :Thumbsup:

----------


## Boaraxa

Theres some shit safes out there , I was recently at a mates place I said lets go & ping a few bunnies with the 22 he replied that he had lost the key for the padlock , five minutes latter with a pare of plyer,s ...doors open just one of those shit locker type things , bloody joke & it had been inspected & passed ,something like that any retard could get into & he had recently had trouble with small amounts of cash going missing off the table one week the next his lawn mower went missing ,exactly the sort of scenario where his guns could go missing to FFS , thankfully after that hes ordered a decent safe.

----------


## 10-Ring

> I have a great idea, how about some tough sentences for those who break in and steal legally owned firearms. The Arms Act is strict enough on firearm security, we need a few decent sentence's for the offenders plus more police available other than for issuing over the speed limit infringement notices.


I agree about tougher penalties however, the Arms Act is certainly not strict enough (as you put it) on A-Cat security. Way over due for a total revision. I've seen many hundreds of pathetic, yet currently legal security set ups for A-Cat firearms. That being so there must be many thousands of similar dismal security arrangements throughout the country. 

One pleasing aspect is that the younger generation, newer licence holders are generally far more likely to have decent security than many of us older goats in my experience.




> Dont agree. NZ police have proven to be ok with breaking the law, reinterpreting the law, and just plain making shit up when it comes to firearms legislation. They dont need any more freedom.
> 
> Whether it be a car, electronic data, money, or firearms. given enough time and skill, it WILL be taken. Lets start punishing the pricks with a meaningful sentence.


So you're quite happy with the current A-Cat security laws because the police in your opinion are corrupt? That even beats my wife's logic.
Well done.  :Thumbsup:

----------


## norsk

I agree with increased security for A cats.

We have to realize the responsibility for firearms not falling into the hands of Criminals is both a Public and Police matter.My work gear in in a alarmed shed,expensive tools in a lock box,with the Tractor forks ontop and a truck parked across the entrance.This is to stop it getting nicked because the Police can't.

----------


## Growlybear

> Recent proposes to law changes regarding firearms has caused quite a stir and caused many to be very vocal about their opinions, some of which are more drastic than others. One point I've always looked at and thought needed improving was basic storage requirements of A category firearms.
> 
> Current standards approved by I have no idea who, But enforced by police (to their dismay) allow things such as a simple mild steel eye bolt into a wall stud with a wire cable etc to attach firearms, a basic stamped metal cabinet that could be cut with tin snips, or even just a cable around hot water cylinder pipes etc. Let's be honest here and agree that these options are pathetic (and most Acat safes) and we can do better than that as a community to protect out hobbies and investments.
> 
> What's wrong with making stout (ie more than 1mm Acat safes) boxes/safes which are securely attached to walls/floors a mandatory requirement and ditching the minimum? Such as how we do our Ecat/Bcat. I get cost may play a factor, but if we're spending thousands and thousands on our firearms then we can invest in secure storage.
> 
> Another touchy subject is making all semi autos (.22 and shotguns etc excluded) into Ecat or a new class where a process similar to permit to preclude must be followed. Because what semi autos do you hunt with that aren't ar15/AK derivatives? I only vaguely support this because any Joe Bloggs with a FAL can buy an Acat Ar15/AK and then buy a 30 round mag on the same licence (pretty sure you don't even need a licence?) And then sell it onto a criminal. Please don't come at us with the usual "police should do a better job vetting", and "they need to make longer sentences", because we need to do our part as well to protect our sport and future.
> 
> Please add your ideas and solutions as to what changes can be made to have a middle ground between us and police/anti gunners to make all parties happy.


" I don't know the key to success,but the key to failure is trying to make everybody happy".
Given that the anti gunners are just that. Anti gun. Any gun at all. Thin end of wedge territory.

----------


## Maca49

> What evidence have you got of this stuff up? Come on Maca I'm dying to hear this. I know the cop who visited him and know what was said/asked etc.
> 
> I'm 99.99% sure I know a hell of a lot more about this incident than you.
> 
> How about you make sure you know what you're talking about before making accusations, saves you from looking like an idiot when the story comes out.


Story's out?

----------


## Maca49

> If only they did it sooner I wouldn't have 4 daughters to worry about but alas they didn't and I do, bugger 
> pull out theory didn't work as planned aye


Bit of a cock up huh? :Grin:

----------


## Chur Bay

Given that its reasonably easy for a determined thief to break into a safe, wouldnt it be better to hide the guns better. I have a mate who wanted to hide his rifle in the roof cavity. Had them chained up in there. He was told by his AO he needed a safe. Fair enough but if a random burglar enters a house and finds a gun safe, its like a neon sign saying "Guns Here!!"

----------


## Beavis

The last few gun burglaries I have personally heard of locally, the safes have either been physically removed from the house (a safe was chainsawed out of a house and carried off, on my street) and an E cat safe that was cut open and emptied. Talking to local police/AO over the years it seems that it is a common theme for the district, if they can't open your safe, they'll take the whole thing.

----------


## Macca

> The last few gun burglaries I have personally heard of locally, the safes have either been physically removed from the house (a safe was chainsawed out of a house and carried off, on my street) and an E cat safe that was cut open and emptied. Talking to local police/AO over the years it seems that it is a common theme for the district, if they can't open your safe, they'll take the whole thing.


I keep hearing about this chainsaw thing, But looking at my securoty it would be impossible to remove due to steel plate under floor running over to the next 2 rooms etc, so you'd need to demolish multiple walls too. Seems like it would take them too long and get a tap on the shoulder from police before they finish.

Wouldn't it just be easier for them to stand you over?

----------


## systolic

> I keep hearing about this chainsaw thing, But looking at my securoty it would be impossible to remove due to steel plate under floor running over to the next 2 rooms etc, so you'd need to demolish multiple walls too. Seems like it would take them too long and get a tap on the shoulder from police before they finish.
> 
> Wouldn't it just be easier for them to stand you over?


Who are 'them' and how would they know you had guns and where they were?

----------


## Beavis

> I keep hearing about this chainsaw thing, But looking at my securoty it would be impossible to remove due to steel plate under floor running over to the next 2 rooms etc, so you'd need to demolish multiple walls too. Seems like it would take them too long and get a tap on the shoulder from police before they finish.
> 
> Wouldn't it just be easier for them to stand you over?


I can only parrot what local police have told me.

I know of another case in a different town, where the victim had a large E cat safe bolted to concrete floor and the side if his garage. Thieves backed a truck up to the building, wrapped chains around the safe and drove off ripping the safe out of the building. The firearms were slowly recovered in drug raids.

----------


## tiroatedson

> Who are 'them' and how would they know you had guns and where they were?


When u get woken up at night with a gun/knife up up your nostril or your kids n they/them say 'you gotta gun bro' n you say 'yep, help yourself....'   I don't advertise it but people talk, quite often target shoot n close proximity of my house...shit will happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Sasquatch

> The A cat security levels need to be raised, no doubt. Saying that it is "pointless and impractical" or is just irresponsible, and such statements are usually dished out by people who have no idea what they're talking about.


Did you read my post properly? It's pointless because I believe concealment of security and keeping a low profile is of far more value to us then changing the law. Which once changed is often irreversible. And it's impracticable because of said reasons: _What about a small safe or wall rack for a home away from home for those hunting trips? Or the student who is already on a tight budget and that is all they could afford?_ You could also add pensioners & people on a low income. Do they not deserve to participate in our sport?

But hey, to you I'm someone who doesn't know what their talking about just like all the other keyboard commandos on here right?




> I've never heard of a safe being cut into up here during a burglary, most have found the keys, levered them open or ripped them out completely, all of which could be easily remedied. In fact every one I've been too has been down to poor storage, if they'd not found the keys or the safe was fixed and of stronger construction it's likely they never would've been found.


My district has also had burglaries similar to what @Beavis mentioned. It's rare but it does happen and one was an Ecat safe being chained and driven off down the road... 




> Most people here haven't met the kind of people that burgle houses and steal guns _like I have_


I don't dispute that, and I certainly don't live in apathy about it either.




> The reason for aesthetic features being restricted is that these features feature on certain types of firearms which attract a certain type of person, a person who would hopefully be identified through further vetting. That's the reasoning behind it, not particularly the lethality of the weapon.


You remind me of Clinton during the "Assault Weapons" ban during the 90's in the US. 

It has nothing to do with the "evil" aesthetics of firearms being attracted to a _certain_ type of person. Your statement is so stereotypical and tasteless. It's much more simpler then that and it's to do with where the industry is headed man. Our cars are more technologically advanced & safer to drive now and so too are our firearms - Their modularity alone is endless. Hence forth I have no qualms in why I choose to use firearms with such (safety) features and the reasons behind it. I threw safety in there because I have a bad wrist... And a pistol grip helps me immensely in the operation of those types of firearms. Does that make me a weirdo because of it?




> I think universal E-cat standard should be sufficient.


You may as well say that poor people and students cannot afford the sport of shooting if this standard was to be implemented effectively making the living cost too high.

----------


## Paddy79

Attach a tracking unit to their heart so if they try remove it they die :Wink:

----------


## Macca

> But hey, to you I'm someone who doesn't know what their talking about just like all the other keyboard commandos on here right?


I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, But most of us on this forum are genuine kiwi blokes who enjoy hunting/shooting sports and generally share similar ideas. This isn't an American ar15/glock forum where everyone on there is a neckbeard basement dweller who purchased a glock the day before from Wal-Mart.

----------


## Savage1

> Did you read my post properly? It's pointless because I believe concealment of security and keeping a low profile is of far more value to us then changing the law. Which once changed is often irreversible. And it's impracticable because of said reasons: _What about a small safe or wall rack for a home away from home for those hunting trips? Or the student who is already on a tight budget and that is all they could afford?_ You could also add pensioners & people on a low income. Do they not deserve to participate in our sport?
> 
> But hey, to you I'm someone who doesn't know what their talking about just like all the other keyboard commandos on here right?
> 
> 
> 
> My district has also had burglaries similar to what @Beavis mentioned. It's rare but it does happen and one was an Ecat safe being chained and driven off down the road... 
> 
> 
> ...


Just because you believe that concealment is of more importance doesn't mean that security is pointless, especially since kids and burglars with a lot of time will look, concealment isn't infallible so a certain level of security is still required. 

Being on a tight budget is not an excuse for having sub par security, it's a weak argument considering the cost of firearms, ammunition and getting a licence. Why should burglars have easy access to firearms because people can't afford a basic inexpensive safe? Should we remove safety features on cars and WOF requirements in vehicles to make them more affordable?

Just because a certain level of security can be overcome with extreme measures doesn't make it pointless, those events are very much an exception and. It a rule. 

The reasoning behind the defining features of E-cat weapons was explained to me by a senior police officer, who explained the reasoningNo where did I mention any thing about all types of persons attracted to them nor did I even mention any of the characteristics of the people that I was talking about. So if you've found any stereotyping or offence in that then it's down to your own lack of comprehension. 

You really missed the point.

----------


## Sasquatch

> Just because you believe that concealment is of more importance doesn't mean that security is pointless, especially since kids and burglars with a lot of time will look, concealment isn't infallible so a certain level of security is still required.


I didn't say that security is pointless, changing the law is. Read my post properly - Better education on firearm security is of more value then a law change; i.e gun safe placement in a dwelling. Because once the law is changed it is usually irreversible & effectively makes our sport more harder to get in to for society. Just like the whole Ecat/MSSA faff...




> Being on a tight budget is not an excuse for having sub par security, it's a weak argument considering the cost of firearms, ammunition and getting a licence. Why should burglars have easy access to firearms because people can't afford a basic inexpensive safe? Should we remove safety features on cars and WOF requirements in vehicles to make them more affordable?


Refer to my above response ^^^ Also burglars can't steal what they don't see? 




> The reasoning behind the defining features of E-cat weapons was explained to me by a senior police officer, who explained the reasoning No where did I mention any thing about all types of persons attracted to them nor did I even mention any of the characteristics of the people that I was talking about. So if you've found any stereotyping or offence in that then it's down to your own lack of comprehension. 
> 
> You really missed the point.


I haven't missed anything, the laws based around aesthetic features of firearms DO NOT prevent gun crime. It is pointless that laws are made based around firearms with "features" that offend based on only their appearance & certain functionality. The industry is ever changing & evolving so why should we all suffer with bureaucratic legislative bull-shit.

Savage1 I haven't found any offence to your post so your all good, I have a thick skin.

I plucked this from Colion Noir's instagram it has some resemblance to what is incrementally been happening here in NZ:

----------


## 40mm

> There is no middle ground and you can all kiss your legal semi autos goodbye in the not so distant future. Fact.


my cold dead hands

----------


## 300CALMAN

> The reasoning behind the defining features of E-cat weapons was explained to me by a senior police officer, who explained the reasoningNo where did I mention any thing about all types of persons attracted to them nor did I even mention any of the characteristics of the people that I was talking about. So if you've found any stereotyping or offence in that then it's down to your own lack of comprehension. 
> 
> You really missed the point.


So what is the point then?

I may agree that security needs to be looked at but this whole thing about features such as pistol grips is not based on any real logic that I can tell.

----------


## vbull

After talking to some incarcerated burglars during  prison preaching. The common consensus among them is that the only thing that will dissuade them from targeting gun owners is if there's a chance that the home owner/ occupant may use a gun for self defence. 

They know that we are not allowed to do this so the burglaries will continue. There needs to be a "castle doctrine" law setup in this country and an attitude change from the common people, politicians and police to allow this to happen.

----------


## tiroatedson

> After talking to some incarcerated burglars during  prison preaching. The common consensus among them is that the only thing that will dissuade them from targeting gun owners is if there's a chance that the home owner/ occupant may use a gun for self defence. 
> 
> They know that we are not allowed to do this so the burglaries will continue. There needs to be a "castle doctrine" law setup in this country and an attitude change from the common people, politicians and police to allow this to happen.


I was wondering about mentioning the 'castle doctrine' ...thought 'nah better not , might come across like one of redneck good Ol' boys....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Sasquatch

> After talking to some incarcerated burglars during  prison preaching. The common consensus among them is that the only thing that will dissuade them from targeting gun owners is if there's a chance that the home owner/ occupant may use a gun for self defence. 
> 
> They know that we are not allowed to do this so the burglaries will continue. There needs to be a "castle doctrine" law setup in this country and an attitude change from the common people, politicians and police to allow this to happen.


Ain't that the truth! This is why people should consider NZ First as their party vote. Castle Doctrine was introduced in Ireland's 2011 election, so why can't it here? It damn well should be considering there is no deterrent for criminals stealing guns with pathetic sentencing in our corrupt justice system.

----------


## Ryan

> After talking to some incarcerated burglars during  prison preaching. The common consensus among them is that the only thing that will dissuade them from targeting gun owners is if there's a chance that the home owner/ occupant may use a gun for self defence. 
> 
> They know that we are not allowed to do this so the burglaries will continue. There needs to be a "castle doctrine" law setup in this country and an attitude change from the common people, politicians and police to allow this to happen.


New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act &ndash; New Zealand Legislation

*Life and the Security of the Person*
As part of the right to life and security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:

"_The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)_"

Means to me that I can defend that right with any means necessary.

----------


## veitnamcam

> New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation
> 
> *Life and the Security of the Person*
> As part of the right to life and security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:
> 
> "_The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)_"
> 
> Means to me that I can defend that right with any means necessary.


And lose your entire lifes earnings defending it in court....= you still lose.

----------


## mikee

I view the "requirements" as the minimum requirement. If you can afford to / want to do better there is nothing to stop you. I also firmly believe that if someone wants to steal my stuff I cannot stop them only make it harder..

----------


## Cordite

> New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation
> 
> *Life and the Security of the Person*
> As part of the right to life and security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:
> 
> "_The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)_"
> 
> Means to me that I can defend that right with any means necessary.


No, it means you can defend yourself with reasonable force.  You have to be prepared to justify any such action because you should assume that you WILL be put on trial for use of lethal force.

Of course, you are NOT allowed to simply defend your property with potentially lethal force, e.g. do not send a couple of .308 rounds in the direction of fleeing cattle rustlers.

----------


## 300CALMAN

NZ is far too pink and the police won't want to give up their legal monopoly on shooting crims.
Putting them in prison long term too keep them out of circulation is probably the only short term option.
Let's just move along.

I suggest that regardless of the law purchasing the best security you can afford is worth it. Regardless of the outcome you will have done the best you can.

----------


## systolic

> New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act  New Zealand Legislation
> 
> *Life and the Security of the Person*
> As part of the right to life and security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:
> 
> "_The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)_"
> 
> Means to me that I can defend that right with any means necessary.


Any means necessary? Really?

Why don't you talk to a lawyer and see what they say about that?

----------


## 300CALMAN

> Any means necessary? Really?
> 
> Why don't you talk to a lawyer and see what they say about that?


Are you a lawyer troll features?

----------


## Sasquatch

Out if interest, can anyone reference what is actually statute law for reasonable force and/or necessary force in the defense of oneself or others?

----------


## Taff

Not wishing to offend anyone but talk of defending yourself is laughable, how many guns are stolen in home invasion?, as to breaking into safes ? How many thieves come equipped with a disc cutter ?
I personally have broken into two safes, both required removing from the wall first, one required a drill, and a socket set, the other a drill , long punch, a near copy of the key, and a schematic of the safe, neither was a quick job.
Having done a few quotes for customers to give to insurance company's , I would say alot of gun owners security is a joke, two I know of had safes broken into, both were in sheds away from there homes.
But if we are to have new storage regulations then we must have new minimum sentencing for illegal possession of firearms, say a minimum of 5yrs jail time.
As to semi auto,s, the horse has already bolted on that one, regarding a cat.

----------


## 300CALMAN

Yeah defending your castle is only going to work if you are home. I have no stats to back this up but I would assume most burglaries still happen when the residents are out.  In some places in the world the crims don't care and home invasion is common.

----------


## res

You remind me of Clinton during the "Assault Weapons" ban during the 90's in the US. 

It has nothing to do with the "evil" aesthetics of firearms being attracted to a _certain_ type of person. Your statement is so stereotypical and tasteless. It's much more simpler then that and it's to do with where the industry is headed man. Our cars are more technologically advanced & safer to drive now and so too are our firearms - Their modularity alone is endless. Hence forth I have no qualms in why I choose to use firearms with such (safety) features and the reasons behind it. I threw safety in there because I have a bad wrist... And a pistol grip helps me immensely in the operation of those types of firearms. Does that make me a weirdo because of it?

 Savage was not stating his opnion, he was stating the resoning that was used when the rule was made- maybe it was valid back then and maybe it wasnt but I personly think the modern modular nature of a lot of modern firarms makes it a mute point these days

----------


## timattalon

> NZ is far too pink and the police won't want to give up their legal monopoly on shooting crims.
> Putting them in prison long term too keep them out of circulation is probably the only short term option.
> Let's just move along.
> 
> I suggest that regardless of the law purchasing the best security you can afford is worth it. Regardless of the outcome you will have done the best you can.


Additional anti theft security does not have to be expensive to be effective. Everyone keeps going on about "this safe" and "that safe". Where some of the most effective security I have seen involved an average safe at best. But inside that safe were a number of big heavy F--K off steel eyes with a wire bike lock that passed though each magazine well and onto a big padlock.   $10 to $20 per padlock, with two rifles to a padlock, and about 5 bike cables cost about $100 all up. The U/O that did not have a mag well had a Hasp and staple arrangement that meant the action / trigger was attached to the inside of the cabinet with another padlock. 

If a thief has time, they can get anything. We need to make it as difficult as possible. 

A cat security has a primary function of stopping those who should not be playing with them from hurting them selves- Children and people in the house etc. We can only do our best to stop theft, but we must stop a child getting access and hurting themselves or others by mistake.

----------


## JWB

> Out if interest, can anyone reference what is actually statute law for reasonable force and/or necessary force in the defense of oneself or others?


Crimes Act 1961, section 48



> 48 Self-defence and defence of another
> 
> Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or herself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.
> 
> Section 48: replaced, on 1 January 1981, by section 2(1) of the Crimes Amendment Act 1980 (1980 No 63).

----------


## outdoorlad

They need to make the thief of firearms in a burglary a mitigating factor, mandatory minimum sentence of 5yrs+ no parole. At the moment it's a joke & the crimes know it. Get caught supplying/making meth 15yrs minimum.

----------


## Hunt4life

> Hunt4Life, thanks for bringing this case to our attention.  Some points.
> 
> 1. Too early to say, "luckily it didn't", don't you think?
> 
> 2. Minimum A-cat security requirement by law is "sturdy construction".  How does this case demonstrate the law should be tightened?


Simply because the AO had approved the cabinet as compliant ie. of sturdy construction. Yet one solid strike with a mallet proved it wasn't so sturdy. Interpretation seems to be a common theme. 

I agree the primary focus should be on significantly harsher penalties for burglary and particularly when caught with illegal possession of firearms.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## inglishill

Another great example of tougher sentencing Sentence overturned for paintball shooter who blasted group outside a bar - NZ Herald  This is simply a joke, I kind of feel like our legal system is just taking the piss.

----------


## Cordite

> Another great example of tougher sentencing Sentence overturned for paintball shooter who blasted group outside a bar - NZ Herald  This is simply a joke, I kind of feel like our legal system is just taking the piss.


First of all, shame on the system for not letting the victim know he was appealing!

Apart from that, did the boy set out to blind the woman?  No.  He did something stupid which had very bad consequences.  How about similar sentences for people who cause death by reckless driving???  The initial sentence was disproportionate.

----------


## Cordite

> Any means necessary? Really?
> Why don't you talk to a lawyer and see what they say about that?


 @systolic.  You have, as a law-abiding person, the right to defend your right to life, against anyone and with any means necessary.  The important, moderating word to consider is of course "necessary".  Did you really not know this?

----------


## systolic

> @systolic.  You have, as a law-abiding person, the right to defend your right to life, against anyone and with any means necessary.  The important, moderating word to consider is of course "necessary".  Did you really not know this?


No, the important word word is _reasonable_. 

There's a difference between reasonable and "any means necessary" 

Someone posted the bit of the law a couple of pages back in this thread.

----------


## Sasquatch

To be reasonable is to have sound judgment and be sensible, "any means necessary" is determined, existing, or happening by natural laws or predestination; inevitable. Which in turn goes back to the fundamental wording you have missed - *No one* *shall* *be deprived of life* (of a person) lacking a specified benefit that is considered important. The key word there is shall.

It is considered important because it is our natural God-given right.

----------


## systolic

> To be reasonable is to have sound judgment and be sensible, "any means necessary" is determined, existing, or happening by natural laws or predestination; inevitable. Which in turn goes back to the fundamental wording you have missed - *No one* *shall* *be deprived of life* (of a person) lacking a specified benefit that is considered important. The key word there is shall.
> 
> It is considered important because it is our natural God-given right.


And what happens if the person is not trying to actually kill you (deprive you of life)?

Like someone jabbing you in the back of the leg with a nail?  Can you use any means necessary? Or can you only use reasonable force to stop them?

----------


## Sasquatch

> And what happens if the person is not trying to actually kill you (deprive you of life)?
> 
> Like someone jabbing you in the back of the leg with a nail?  Can you use any means necessary? Or can you only use reasonable force to stop them?


Your scenario is a tad outlandish but if it were me I would opt for reasonable force & crack them in the head really hard with my fist. Given that the nail was of decent length that is... If it was stapler material then I would push them away and tell them to scat.

What would you do systolic? Don't ignore, provide a decent answer.

----------


## stretch

> And what happens if the person is not trying to actually kill you (deprive you of life)?
> 
> Like someone jabbing you in the back of the leg with a nail?  Can you use any means necessary? Or can you only use reasonable force to stop them?


Reasonable force only, but the other important wording is "in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be". What level of force can be deemed reasonable to use to defend yourself depends on the circumstances AS PERCEIVED BY THE DEFENDANT.

Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or herself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.

Compare and contrast section 48 with sections 52 - 56, Defence of Property.

The Defence of Property sections all say "do not strike or do bodily harm to the other person" EXCEPT when defending your home from breaking and entering:



http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...est/whole.html

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

----------


## stretch

Here's some examples:

Connor Morris trial: The case for self-defence | Stuff.co.nz, and more recently: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...a-murder-trial

----------


## Savage1

The BOR act isn't the relevant legislation you're all wanting.

Basically comes down to section 48 & 62 of the Crimes Act

----------


## Koshogi

> The BOR act isn't the relevant legislation you're all wanting.
> 
> Basically comes down to section 48 & 62 of the Crimes Act


Lol

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

----------


## Cordite

As per @Savage1,

From NZ Crimes Act 1961:
48 Self-defence and defence of another
Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or herself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.
62 Excess of force
Every one authorised by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess, according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

Nothing too unusual or un-British there.

----------


## Sasquatch

The Connor Morris trial is a hard one as there were a "group" of head hunters beating Murray's brother... Bringing a knife (sickle) to a fist fight as described in the article was where Murray went wrong but then again, he was watching is brother get beaten badly by a pack of HH's. 

Also to note: _September 2007: Stephen Bellingham was shot by police in Christchurch after damaging property then approaching an officer with a hammer raised. The Independent Police Conduct Authority found the officer acted in self-defense._

So there appears to be inconsistency with case by case trials on self defense. Because if a regular civilian smoked a guy that was approaching him or her with a hammer, is that excessive force or reasonable???

It appears there are anti-freedom loopholes in regards to this that could be fixed hopefully this election.

----------


## Paddy79

As long as there is law and politicians there will be loop holes remove the laws and politicians no more loop holes

----------


## Macca

Hypothetical situation here 

If I was to be driving down the road and saw a group of youths going to town on a young girl with baseball bats and one was getting a machete from the car, would it be within my rights to pull a rifle or pistol from my car that was there with legal intentions (wife calls cops I'm the mean time) and I take the time to load the rifle and threaten them to no avail... proceed to take a pot shot or two to try to scare them off to no avail... And then finally shoot the guy with the machete centre of mass as a show of force because I truly believed the woman would die. Would this not still be use of excessive force as i had a gun while they had bats/machete? Is that not the same as the cop shooting the guy who had a hammer?

No intentions to point fingers at the police here, Just curious.

----------


## stretch

> Hypothetical situation here 
> 
> If I was to be driving down the road and saw a group of youths going to town on a young girl with baseball bats and one was getting a machete from the car, would it be within my rights to pull a rifle or pistol from my car that was there with legal intentions (wife calls cops I'm the mean time) and I take the time to load the rifle and threaten them to no avail... proceed to take a pot shot or two to try to scare them off to no avail... And then finally shoot the guy with the machete centre of mass as a show of force because I truly believed the woman would die. Would this not still be use of excessive force as i had a gun while they had bats/machete? Is that not the same as the cop shooting the guy who had a hammer?
> 
> No intentions to point fingers at the police here, Just curious.


I would say that is reasonable and not excessive. There is a spectrum of force that can be applied in any situation, from restraining someone, to pushing them, to striking them, to using a blunt instrument, to using an edged weapon, to using a distance weapon like a bow or a firearm. The likelihood of lethality increases along the spectrum.

In my mind it would likely be deemed excessive to meet non-lethal force with likely lethal force. You don't shoot someone for shoving you. If someone comes at you (or anyone else) with a machete (a likely lethal means), then that threat can be REASONABLY countered with the minimum available means that is likely to stop the threat.

I wouldn't get into a sword fight with another swordsman of equal skill. I would shoot him. But it might be seen as unreasonable to mag dump into him.

I recall a lesson on vehicle checkpoints and rules of engagement. If a vehicle tried to crash through the barrier, you weren't allowed to open fire. But if you or another soldier were standing in the way, then the car and driver became a lethal threat, to be countered with lots of bullets.

All just my P.O.V. Not to be treated as legal advice.

----------


## inglishill

If someone runs at you with a golf club you can shoot them.

----------


## stretch

> If someone runs at you with a golf club you can shoot them.


Yep, because a blow to the head would most likely be lethal.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

----------


## inglishill

Yeah, I was referencing that bloke the police shot a few years back for it.

----------


## stretch

> Yeah, I was referencing that bloke the police shot a few years back for it.


Yep. That case features in the stuff article with various examples I linked to earlier.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

----------


## canross

Macca, I can see what you're saying, and why you're saying it in the initial post. However I've just moved here from Canada where the laws were tightened in the 90's with some support from the gun community along these lines, and the restrictions didn't stop there. The federal police (RCMP) are now at the stage where they're permitted to interpret the law at will, and change their interpretations when it suits them. The end result is the reclassification of firearms into more restricted (outright prohibited) categories, which has yet to ever be successfully appealed. Usually they go after importers once the guns are in country and paid for, so the company is out of pocket on the whole deal and has to pay for the guns to sit in impound at port while it's fought over in court. In the end it costs the businesses customers and puts huge dents in their pocket books, hurting their ability to bring in more guns in the future, which appears to be the purpose of the whole exercise.

Interestingly, Canada had a registry for all guns, including what would be considered A Category here. You had to call a usually quite unpleasant operator to transfer a firearm to another person, then wait for them to mail you a transfer, then a new registration. Unfortunately, that also meant every time they changed their minds on what was illegal, they would send you a letter requiring it be turned over for destruction (without compensation) or you'd have a three year jail sentence. That annoyed enough people that they lobbied to remove the non-restricted/A Category registry.... which is a pity because in other ways it did help limit guns used in crime.... but it was abused by the RCMP. 

So yes, the gun community would be wise to be proactive and meet the issue head on, but how they do so is the issue. I don't believe that supporting more restrictive laws is a good idea. In Canada at least, it has lead to a culture in which firearms ownership is being consistently eroded, and in many ways it appears Canada is just further down the path than NZ is at the moment... which makes sense because last I heard the RCMP had been consulted by the NZ police on their firearms program. 

Where the Canadian organizations are making their greatest gains is in forming organized active national groups that are financially strong enough to employ lawyers to fight their battles. They're also slowly learning that engaging the non-shooting public is vital to removing gun control from public agenda. It's easy for the gun community to preach to the choir how guns aren't a problem (all of us have sat around the table with other hunters or shooters and talked about how ridiculous further restricting laws would be)... but we aren't the audience that needs it. Running charity fundraisers in the public realm, doing community volunteer work as a shooting organization, publicized public range days or outdoor field trips for families and children with game dinners at the end do a good job of helping the public see who the firearms community really is.

In this way, the firearms community will not burn any bridges with the NZ police, and will gain broader public support, thus removing the major impetus for increased restrictions. I've honestly been pleasantly surprised by how friendly and open the police and firearms related officials have been that I've interacted with here. Admittedly, things have been pretty limited, but I'm used to interactions being icy at best, so having someone volunteer information and make suggestions has been quite the novelty. Maybe since the bridges haven't been burned here like they have in Canada, there is an option for the firearms community to help support the police without requiring tougher laws. I'm too new here to really understand the dynamics at play, but I can at least offer insight from Canada.

In thinking about it further, if low quality A-Category storage lockers are the issue, it seems to me that Arms Officers are already capable of denying permission without a change in the laws. It is within their discretion to grant or deny storage, so without making it a legal requirement they could just decide to not pass flimsier safes. Is this not the case?

----------


## JWB

Asking for stronger security measures to appease people who hate guns is irrational, foolish, indeed it could be called stupid behaviour. It is an own goal. It is actively working to remove firearms use from the NZ population. In the same way that a vote for any political party except NZ First, is a vote against firearms ownership in NZ.
I know my fellow citizens and I accept that most of you will vote for more gun control, and settle down to give up your sport bit by bit in the cause of safety. You will get the govt. you deserve, and they will serve it up to you.

----------


## Taff

I lock my car, I lock the door on my house, I put my wallet in a safe place, my money in the bank, and guess what I look my guns in a safe as they are valuable, as to voting NZ first  :Wtfsmilie:

----------


## Savage1

> Asking for stronger security measures to appease people who hate guns is irrational, foolish, indeed it could be called stupid behaviour. It is an own goal. It is actively working to remove firearms use from the NZ population. In the same way that a vote for any political party except NZ First, is a vote against firearms ownership in NZ.
> I know my fellow citizens and I accept that most of you will vote for more gun control, and settle down to give up your sport bit by bit in the cause of safety. You will get the govt. you deserve, and they will serve it up to you.


To assume that people are only asking for stronger security measures in order to appease people who hate guns is stupid irrational and wilfully arrogant. 

I'd love to see a rational explanation for the first three sentences of your post.

----------


## Beavis

I think there are two distinct schools of thought.

There is and always will be crime and criminals. Crime and criminals are gradually getting worse, more criminals are willing to use violence against other criminals, the police and the public. More criminals are willing to use and want guns to this end. Most criminals get their firearms illegally through theft, generally from residential burglaries. Because of this, and because it is too hard and will take too long to solve the issues that create criminals, gun owners need to give some ground and bare the financial burden of securing their firearms to a greater standard, making it more difficult to all but the most determined theives to steal their guns. This will at least slow the flow of guns to criminal hands and the black market. 

The other school of thought, is that society needs to address the issues that create criminals in the first place, rather than imposing more regulations on generally honest, law abiding and productive members of society. Making gun owners install better safes won't stop  or prevent criminals from committing burglaries in the first place, because there are no real consequences for theft in this country. The government, judiciary, police and to a greater extent society, need to grow a spine and dish out real punishments for offenders and lock up repeat offenders for a very long time. The authorities need to put more effort into destroying organised crime. Society needs to sort it's shit out so less people become criminals.

That's how I'm looking at the debate

----------


## Jexla

> There is and always will be crime and criminals. Crime and criminals are gradually getting worse, more criminals are willing to use violence against other criminals, the police and the public. More criminals are willing to use and want guns to this end. Most criminals get their firearms illegally through theft, generally from residential burglaries. Because of this, and because it is too hard and will take too long to solve the issues that create criminals, gun owners need to give some ground and bare the financial burden of securing their firearms to a greater standard, making it more difficult to all but the most determined theives to steal their guns. This will at least slow the flow of guns to criminal hands and the black market.


Unfortunately the stats don't align with that train of thought. Crime is and pretty much always has been on a decrease. At least in my life time anyway.

----------


## scottrods

I support stouter A Cat storage. I've seen people using those bike stranded locks in a hotwater cupboard, tin lockers a spoon will pop open and wooden cupboards that with the hinge screws on the outside. 

Since the aim is to make them less easy to access by someone who has broken into our home - how about longer sentences for those stealing firearms, handling stolen firearms or dealing in them - after all those scumbags involved in the Dunedin theft got no more than 5yrs each. How about 10yrs minimum?

----------


## Sasquatch

I concur to "The Other School of Thought" - Society needs to make this change happen, you can throw all the bureaucratic legislation you want at it, it won't stop criminals being criminals.

----------


## timattalon

> I concur to "The Other School of Thought" - Society needs to make this change happen, you can throw all the bureaucratic legislation you want at it, it won't stop criminals being criminals.


Indeed, 40 years ago if you got busted drink driving you were considered unlucky to be caught. Society did not see it as a dangerous decision, but merely one that was decided by those above, now the attitude is different.Drink driving is socially considered poor judgement or stupidity at best and a moronic suicidal tendency at worst. It is as illegal then as it is now, but societies attitude towards it has matured. It is also why making laws in places like the US will have little affect on the populations issues with firearms there. Because until the Society changes its attitude, the law wont make a difference.

----------


## Cordite

> In thinking about it further, if low quality A-Category storage lockers are the issue, it seems to me that Arms Officers are already capable of denying permission without a change in the laws. It is within their discretion to grant or deny storage, so without making it a legal requirement they could just decide to not pass flimsier safes. Is this not the case?


Yes, clearly FAOs have in the past approved storage that should perhaps not have been approved.  No change in law, just need to watch the enforcers do their job properly.  

The problem here is police watching police, perhaps supporting the idea of firearms officers' jobs should be done by a shooters organisation, e.g. NRA, NZDA or even the Blackpowder shoorters, but subject to police oversight.  You'd soon find rules get adhered to, and the police busy checking on the checkers.

----------


## Nick-D

> society has got softer years ago if you went before a judge the ones they thought that could be rehabilitated where given a choice volunteer for the army or have a holiday inside.i met a few doing basic training in the territorials at Waiouru they freely admitted that it was the best choice they made.these where nco's who actually said it gave them direction and they made a career out of it why not bring this back something like a 2 year stint in the army getting paid instead of jail for first time offenders.we are also to blame we gave our kids an easier time than what we had and I can see it that the next generation is giving their kids an easier ride again.the anti smacking law I think is creating more kids that think they can do anything without consequences and seeing how kids perceive life through the playing off violent video games I see as a downward spiral in attitudes and treatment of others mainly in a small percentage of kids but it is there and I think it will only get worse as time goes on and more generations.i think too that there is more stress in life than thirty years ago but a lot of that I think is the fact that people want more so incur more debt work more less home and recreation life /family time and the divide between the haves and the have nots then we have the ones that don't want to earn it they will steal it using violence or guns to threaten without understanding what they can do or don't care what happens because they will get out of jail sooner rather than later.the ones with mental illness are the hardest to help as they are not monitored and are not supervised to take their medications that keep them on an even keel like david grey he was ok in the hospital and when that was shut he was ok when his mother was alive as she made sure he took what he had to but when she passed away he slowly went off his medication end result we all know.that was a result of government saving us good taxpayers some money.just like getting the honest person to beef up their security because government don't want do their bit.


Except that pretty much every study shows, longer jail times don't achieve shit, crims still crim, and the taxpayer just gets a bigger bill. Those countries with death sentences for petty crimes and dismemberment for theft still have massive crime rates. Those stats also show crime decreasing per capita so Im not sure much this soft handling theory is worth.

Here is what does decrease crime. A healthy strong balanced economy. In short if people have money, they don't steal shit, get in gangs or kill people. Police absolutely could increase resource around finding and busting these crime syndicates and gun trades. But mandatory minimums and 3 strike rules achieve fuck all except expensive overflowing jails.

My OG gun rack I could have pulled my rifles off with 1 hand. I voluntarily upgraded mine recently, but the AO was more than happy with the old one.
 I think we have legislation around it why not tighten up the definitions a bit. Its the 1 piece of proposed legislation that would actually have a positive effect, and would go a long way towards upping the public perception that we actually care about the issues with the firearms black market in NZ.

I for one will fight tooth and nail against any nonsensical rule changes but will welcome sensible legislation with open arms.

----------


## Jexla

> Except that pretty much every study shows, longer jail times don't achieve shit, crims still crim, and the taxpayer just gets a bigger bill. Those countries with death sentences for petty crimes and dismemberment for theft still have massive crime rates. Those stats also show crime decreasing per capita so Im not sure much this soft handling theory is worth.
> 
> Here is what does decrease crime. A healthy strong balanced economy. In short if people have money, they don't steal shit, get in gangs or kill people. Police absolutely could increase resource around finding and busting these crime syndicates and gun trades. But mandatory minimums and 3 strike rules achieve fuck all except expensive overflowing jails.
> 
> My OG gun rack I could have pulled my rifles off with 1 hand. I voluntarily upgraded mine recently, but the AO was more than happy with the old one.
>  I think we have legislation around it why not tighten up the definitions a bit. Its the 1 piece of proposed legislation that would actually have a positive effect, and would go a long way towards upping the public perception that we actually care about the issues with the firearms black market in NZ.
> 
> I for one will fight tooth and nail against any nonsensical rule changes but will welcome sensible legislation with open arms.


Criminals have a hard time re offending and victimizing the public from jail. What is that worth monetary wise? I don't know.

What will you be offering next to up the public perception that we "actually care about the issues with the firearms black market in NZ"?

Because your kind gesture will soon be conveniently forgotten.

----------


## Nick-D

> Criminals have a hard time re offending and victimizing the public from jail. What is that worth monetary wise? I don't know.
> 
> What will you be offering next to up the public perception that we "actually care about the issues with the firearms black market in NZ"?
> 
> Because your kind gesture will soon be conveniently forgotten.


Yeah, but not when they get out, with all their new criminal buddies and skills. Thats why the recurrence rate is so high in criminals?  They only way that theory works is if you lock every criminal up forever. 

I'm not offering anything up, I'm merely agreeing with this piece of legislation. The current standard for storage is shite

----------


## Paddy79

> Criminals have a hard time re offending and victimizing the public from jail. What is that worth monetary wise? I don't know.
> 
> What will you be offering next to up the public perception that we "actually care about the issues with the firearms black market in NZ"?
> 
> Because your kind gesture will soon be conveniently forgotten.


its something of around the 100k mark per year apparently, I say put a bolt gun to a lot of their heads, not all just a lot 
and also if you do a crime and hurt your self the NO ACC because crims get a new leg on ACC for breaking the law while hard working people wait till they are 70 to get a knee replacement after the fact their health has gone down hill as a result of their knee

----------


## 300CALMAN

> Yeah, but not when they get out, with all their new criminal buddies and skills. Thats why the recurrence rate is so high in criminals?  They only way that theory works is if you lock every criminal up forever. 
> 
> I'm not offering anything up, I'm merely agreeing with this piece of legislation. The current standard for storage is shite


Your argument has gone far beyond increasing A Cat security.

So should we build the prison around us? Hope like hell we don't go through a recession. Let them all free?

----------


## Cordite

Lockthemupandthrowawaythekey, etc.  What a thoughtful debate...

----------


## 300CALMAN

A burglary reported every 7 minutes as recorded crime rate jumps | Stuff.co.nz
What statistics are you talking about  @Nick-D these guys disagree with you. OK so one face on the page has no credibility but the economy is APPARENTLY going very well but burglary getting worse.

----------


## Carlsen Highway

> Recent proposes to law changes regarding firearms has caused quite a stir and caused many to be very vocal about their opinions, some of which are more drastic than others. One point I've always looked at and thought needed improving was basic storage requirements of A category firearms.
> 
> Current standards approved by I have no idea who, But enforced by police (to their dismay) allow things such as a simple mild steel eye bolt into a wall stud with a wire cable etc to attach firearms, a basic stamped metal cabinet that could be cut with tin snips, or even just a cable around hot water cylinder pipes etc. Let's be honest here and agree that these options are pathetic (and most Acat safes) and we can do better than that as a community to protect out hobbies and investments.
> 
> What's wrong with making stout (ie more than 1mm Acat safes) boxes/safes which are securely attached to walls/floors a mandatory requirement and ditching the minimum? Such as how we do our Ecat/Bcat. I get cost may play a factor, but if we're spending thousands and thousands on our firearms then we can invest in secure storage.
> 
> Another touchy subject is making all semi autos (.22 and shotguns etc excluded) into Ecat or a new class where a process similar to permit to preclude must be followed. Because what semi autos do you hunt with that aren't ar15/AK derivatives? I only vaguely support this because any Joe Bloggs with a FAL can buy an Acat Ar15/AK and then buy a 30 round mag on the same licence (pretty sure you don't even need a licence?) And then sell it onto a criminal. Please don't come at us with the usual "police should do a better job vetting", and "they need to make longer sentences", because we need to do our part as well to protect our sport and future.
> 
> Please add your ideas and solutions as to what changes can be made to have a middle ground between us and police/anti gunners to make all parties happy.



There is no need to invent a ''middle ground.'' We have strict firearms licensing laws already; and very successful ones. 

You, for example, can't even shoot your pistols anywhere except a gazetted range, and you're not even sure if you are legally allowed to have a loaded magazine in your possession that is not attached to a firearm. 

Exactly what problem you trying to solve, you haven't stated. It seems you simply think that things should be harder, in order to impress anti-gun people. (Whoever they are. The leader of the Police Union is the only one that comes to mind. And he is unlikely to be satisfied with anything short of a complete hand in.) Things should be easier. The restrictions we have already have been in part driven by misunderstandings about firearms and politicians wanting to be seen to do something, even if it is meaningless; much of that is inflamed by a media who love to write anything about 'guns' because it makes it sound like they are in the Big Time. Couple that with constant depictions of actors being shot in television detective shows, followed by American news of actual shootings....a place where they do have problems with a violent gun culture.

I hypothesis here that if our television was restricted to Italian cooking shows and Indian dance videos, interspersed with mild soft-porn for both genders, we would have hardly any firearms restrictions at all, because if the firearms laws were driven by actual events rather than a perception created by media and made up stories in movies, things would be much different. 

Actual firearms crime is modest to the point of quaint in this country. (If you are going to get murdered here, for example, you have only a one in ten chance of being murdered with a firearm in New Zealand. You are ten times more likely to get killed by someone, should they want to kill you, with a heavy stick, or a crockpot. Or a lobster.) 

Storage and security is sufficient for its intention - to deter opportunistic theft. Anyone who actually has targeted your firearms will get them over more robust precautions, even if they are only modestly determined. 

It is naive to attempt to keep all parties happy, but happily, it is not required. 

I am more concerned about the amount of people that drown in this country than in how secure someones Ruger 10/22 is.

----------


## mikee

> There is no need to invent a ''middle ground.'' We have strict firearms licensing laws already; and very successful ones. 
> 
> You, for example, can't even shoot your pistols anywhere except a gazetted range, and you're not even sure if you are legally allowed to have a loaded magazine in your possession that is not attached to a firearm. 
> 
> Exactly what problem you trying to solve, you haven't stated. It seems you simply think that things should be harder, in order to impress anti-gun people. (Whoever they are. The leader of the Police Union is the only one that comes to mind. And he is unlikely to be satisfied with anything short of a complete hand in.) Things should be easier. The restrictions we have already have been in part driven by misunderstandings about firearms and politicians wanting to be seen to do something, even if it is meaningless; much of that is inflamed by a media who love to write anything about 'guns' because it makes it sound like they are in the Big Time. Couple that with constant depictions of actors being shot in television detective shows, followed by American news of actual shootings....a place where they do have problems with a violent gun culture.
> 
> I hypothesis here that if our television was restricted to Italian cooking shows and Indian dance videos, interspersed with mild soft-porn for both genders, we would have hardly any firearms restrictions at all, because if the firearms laws were driven by actual events rather than a perception created by media and made up stories in movies, things would be much different. 
> 
> Actual firearms crime is modest to the point of quaint in this country. (If you are going to get murdered here, for example, you have only a one in ten chance of being murdered with a firearm in New Zealand. You are ten times more likely to get killed by someone, should they want to kill you, with a heavy stick, or a crockpot. Or a lobster.) 
> ...


Post of the week right there.  Especially the last line there are a lot more things/problems in our country that deserve more effort to solve rather than firearms issues.
Its just that they don't grab headlines.  For example "man affords to go to doctor" or "children get enough food" does not has quite the same ring as Man Shoots at Police"

----------


## Nick-D

> A burglary reported every 7 minutes as recorded crime rate jumps | Stuff.co.nz
> What statistics are you talking about  @Nick-D these guys disagree with you. OK so one face on the page has no credibility but the economy is APPARENTLY going very well but burglary getting worse.


Well I was referring to crime statistics as a whole, which is in fact really irrelevant to the argument, my point being very well documented that increasing sentences has little effect on crime rate. This is commonly offered up by our community as a counter argument to reduce firearm crime rates, and I'm just pointing out that it is based on about as much evidence as thumbhole stocks making ar15's safer. 

It's nonsense, as is much of the current legislation. Im merely saying that given the issues with theft, implementing better standards than the current shite ones would actually have an effect on the issue at hand.

As for the economy, well it's going Ok, but inflation and cost of living is sky rocketing much faster than wages leaving the lower socioeconomic groups most affected. You do the maths there. It's why I said, not just a healthy but a balanced economy. All of that is irrelevant anyway, but just musings

----------


## Cyclops

The way I see it, for what it's worth, is that the greatest threat my to the security of my firearms is myself and my family - not how strong my safe is. 

If some lowlives invade my home and threaten my family or me I'm not going to be foolish and risk serious harm or death to prevent access to my firearms. They can have them all and bugger off. Mine won't do the average lowlife much good as they're all single shot target rifles, mostly big and heavy. Even if cut down they'd still be big and heavy and cumbersome. 

I'm not brave if the choice is harm to myself or my family or give up my firearms it won't matter how strong my gunsafes are.

----------


## Sasquatch

> But mandatory minimums and 3 strike rules achieve fuck all except expensive overflowing jails.


I reckon shoot to kill and you won't have a problem then.

----------


## Cordite

> I reckon shoot to kill and you won't have a problem then.


  @Sasquatch

Hmm, Yeah right then...

Disproportional crackdowns are a breakdown in justice, just in the other extreme.  

The whole point of "an eye for an eye" is PROPORTIONALITY of punishment / restitution.  

This both rules out Mohammedan-type justice (severing thieves' limbs etc), ridiculous light sentences, and Sasquatchanism.

One instance where we go wrong is overuse of jails, seeing 'deprivation of freedom' as a punishment rather than a protective measure for the public.  I do think it is stupid and unjust to lock someone up for thieving, instead of having them productively doing forced work and income generated going to their victims until what was stolen is compensated for.

----------


## Sasquatch

I was being flippant in that post and it wasn't to be taken with too much seriousness, although in all seriousness - I do grow tired of these weak arguments on "more" stringent security for firearms based on no real evidence and lame sentencing for serious firearm offending.

With the current "status-quo" for our justice system; it simply isn't working & we could be in serious trouble if society doesn't sort this problem out. As for Sasquatchanism, I had to have a chuckle at that!

----------


## Cordite

@Sasquatch

Imagine you Avatarial self lending his name to a new World Religion of Piece*, huh?

*One piece of you here, the other piece over there.

----------


## Nick-D

> A burglary reported every 7 minutes as recorded crime rate jumps | Stuff.co.nz
> What statistics are you talking about  @Nick-D these guys disagree with you. OK so one face on the page has no credibility but the economy is APPARENTLY going very well but burglary getting worse.


Well I was referring to crime statistics as a whole, which is in fact really irrelevant to the argument, my point being very well documented that increasing sentences has little effect on crime rate. This is commonly offered up by our community as a counter argument to reduce firearm crime rates, and I'm just pointing out that it is based on about as much evidence as thumbhole stocks making ar15's safer. 

It's nonsense, as is much of the current legislation. Im merely saying that given the issues with theft, implementing better standards than the current shite ones would actually have an effect on the issue at hand.

As for the economy, well it's going Ok, but inflation and cost of living is sky rocketing much faster than wages leaving the lower socioeconomic groups most affected. You do the maths there. It's why I said, not just a healthy but a balanced economy. All of that is irrelevant anyway, but just musings

----------


## Cyclops

The way I see it, for what it's worth, is that the greatest threat my to the security of my firearms is myself and my family - not how strong my safe is. 

If some lowlives invade my home and threaten my family or me I'm not going to be foolish and risk serious harm or death to prevent access to my firearms. They can have them all and bugger off. Mine won't do the average lowlife much good as they're all single shot target rifles, mostly big and heavy. Even if cut down they'd still be big and heavy and cumbersome. 

I'm not brave if the choice is harm to myself or my family or give up my firearms it won't matter how strong my gunsafes are.

----------


## Sasquatch

> But mandatory minimums and 3 strike rules achieve fuck all except expensive overflowing jails.


I reckon shoot to kill and you won't have a problem then.

----------


## Cordite

> I reckon shoot to kill and you won't have a problem then.


  @Sasquatch

Hmm, Yeah right then...

Disproportional crackdowns are a breakdown in justice, just in the other extreme.  

The whole point of "an eye for an eye" is PROPORTIONALITY of punishment / restitution.  

This both rules out Mohammedan-type justice (severing thieves' limbs etc), ridiculous light sentences, and Sasquatchanism.

One instance where we go wrong is overuse of jails, seeing 'deprivation of freedom' as a punishment rather than a protective measure for the public.  I do think it is stupid and unjust to lock someone up for thieving, instead of having them productively doing forced work and income generated going to their victims until what was stolen is compensated for.

----------


## Sasquatch

I was being flippant in that post and it wasn't to be taken with too much seriousness, although in all seriousness - I do grow tired of these weak arguments on "more" stringent security for firearms based on no real evidence and lame sentencing for serious firearm offending.

With the current "status-quo" for our justice system; it simply isn't working & we could be in serious trouble if society doesn't sort this problem out. As for Sasquatchanism, I had to have a chuckle at that!

----------


## Cordite

@Sasquatch

Imagine you Avatarial self lending his name to a new World Religion of Piece*, huh?

*One piece of you here, the other piece over there.

----------

