Thread: National creates a Hunting and Fishing portfolio

Originally Posted by Danger Mouse

Police figures and statements don't support the idea that criminals are obtaining firearms from license holders selling them in large numbers.


You still don't get it. Just because you don't want a semi auto is no reason to not support their legal use. Your firearm of choice will be on the chopping block soon enough.

A more pertinent topic isn't access to public land, it's the new costs, and regulations for ranges and events.

Hell where do I start?

“Police figures and statements don’t support” I find that fairly had to believe. If you want to make such claims, stump up your evidence for all to see.

“You still don’t get it” quite an assumption from a short post. I lost a semi. I’d still like to use one.
The problem is not their legal use.
The problem is F-wits like Tarrant and god knows how many loopy Americans, who have exclusively used such weapons, to shoot up large numbers of innocents.
We fortunately live in a democracy, and we as a community of firearm users, need to present well, and fit in the the voting public. If we’re lucky Act will have their hands on the strings of power by the end of the year. They will possibly have the power to minimise further damage. Perhaps undo some of the more onerous rule changes. But life is a compromise from start to finish. This is a compromise we will have to accept. I didn’t say I liked it, I simply accept it.

“A more pertinent topic” What I said was; “What do we/you want from any govt” so yes that means you Danger Mouse. Rather than dismiss others, why don’t you just add your point. It’s a valid one.

Originally Posted by Lauries Hut

Hell where do I start?

“Police figures and statements don’t support” I find that fairly had to believe. If you want to make such claims, stump up your evidence for all to see.

“You still don’t get it” quite an assumption from a short post. I lost a semi. I’d still like to use one.
The problem is not their legal use.
The problem is F-wits like Tarrant and god knows how many loopy Americans, who have exclusively used such weapons, to shoot up large numbers of innocents.
We fortunately live in a democracy, and we as a community of firearm users, need to present well, and fit in the the voting public. If we’re lucky Act will have their hands on the strings of power by the end of the year. They will possibly have the power to minimise further damage. Perhaps undo some of the more onerous rule changes. But life is a compromise from start to finish. This is a compromise we will have to accept. I didn’t say I liked it, I simply accept it.

“A more pertinent topic” What I said was; “What do we/you want from any govt” so yes that means you Danger Mouse. Rather than dismiss others, why don’t you just add your point. It’s a valid one.

You mean like nz polices own media statements? Or the OIA requests?

And in the US the majority of furearrelated deaths is with handguns. Besides which, what happens in the US has little bearing on NZ. Jackie used the pokices negligence in giving Tarrant a license, as a platform to promote her self image if Saint cindy. She didn't achieve anything other than being seen to be doing something. A recurring theme which is why the wheels finally fell off.

You still missing the point, you want to throw other disciplines of hunting and shooting under the bus? It comes back on you. NZDA got a rude lesson on that.

The main problem is sentences for selling to unlicenced people are too light. Home or community detention and PD for fucks sake. Make it hurt. Starting point of five years. No discounts for what ever bullshit the defence lawyer dreams up. No early parole. No easy jail's either.

Originally Posted by Steve123

The main problem is sentences for selling to unlicenced people are too light. Home or community detention and PD for fucks sake. Make it hurt. Starting point of five years. No discounts for what ever bullshit the defence lawyer dreams up. No early parole. No easy jail's either.

Pointless if the courts don't apply the penalties

Originally Posted by Steve123

The main problem is sentences for selling to unlicenced people are too light. Home or community detention and PD for fucks sake. Make it hurt. Starting point of five years. No discounts for what ever bullshit the defence lawyer dreams up. No early parole. No easy jail's either.

I think your still a bit light Steve sorry.

I think 8 years minimum sentence. Lifetime prohibited person status (means you can't even touch a firearm) This gets around them using one under supervision from a FAL holder.

Not allowed to live in a building where firearms are stored. (ie no access to firearms).

Must register their home address with the Police and actually live there. (I.e their home address is not the local gang pad)

Not allowed to associate with gang members.

Generally, I think that we need to make the penalty outweigh the rewards from this dangerous illegal activity. There will still be some who will do it. (and squeal when they go to jail)

So be it. Do the crime, do the time. Stop fucking up our sport with your selfishness!

Originally Posted by Danger Mouse

You mean like nz polices own media statements? Or the OIA requests?

And in the US the majority of furearrelated deaths is with handguns. Besides which, what happens in the US has little bearing on NZ. Jackie used the pokices negligence in giving Tarrant a license, as a platform to promote her self image if Saint cindy. She didn't achieve anything other than being seen to be doing something. A recurring theme which is why the wheels finally fell off.

You still missing the point, you want to throw other disciplines of hunting and shooting under the bus? It comes back on you. NZDA got a rude lesson on that.

Yes if you have statements from the police, put them up. Likewise OIA requests with info supporting your claims, put them up.

And as for missing the point. I’ll try and be a little clearer.
I’m not throwing any discipline under the bus. The bus has already run over your beloved military style semi auto.
I’m simply stating what I see as the obvious.
They’re gone. There’s as much chance of Act or National rescinding the MSSA law there is of slavery returning.
The general public find them abhorrent, the Nats and Act will pick their battles, and MSSA will not be one of them.

As I said in the beginning, we as a hunting-shooting community need to decide what’s important to us, what’s realistically achievable.
As you said: onerous and unworkable rules around ranges are a perfect example.
Now Todd and his role is in play we must begin the process of putting rational and reasoned arguments on the table.

Originally Posted by Lauries Hut

Yes if you have statements from the police, put them up. Likewise OIA requests with info supporting your claims, put them up.

And as for missing the point. I’ll try and be a little clearer.
I’m not throwing any discipline under the bus. The bus has already run over your beloved military style semi auto.
I’m simply stating what I see as the obvious.
They’re gone. There’s as much chance of Act or National rescinding the MSSA law there is of slavery returning.
The general public find them abhorrent, the Nats and Act will pick their battles, and MSSA will not be one of them.

As I said in the beginning, we as a hunting-shooting community need to decide what’s important to us, what’s realistically achievable.
As you said: onerous and unworkable rules around ranges are a perfect example.
Now Todd and his role is in play we must begin the process of putting rational and reasoned arguments on the table.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.scoop...al-weapons.htm

That wasn't so hard to find now was it?

my point being none of those would ever get registered.....

Bullshit aye mickey. Just goes to prove that their buyback was a waste of money and time because only honest people complied.

We all know this, but alas, Politicians, they live in their own clean white cotton wool lives where nothing is ever wrong with what they do.

The irony is that even simpletons like us can see these issues.

Originally Posted by Danger Mouse

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.scoop...al-weapons.htm

That wasn't so hard to find now was it?

Don’t mean to piss on your fire, but may pay to read the article.
1. The way I read it: “Police don’t know the source of 82% of criminals weapons” This means they can only the identify the source of 18%. The rest no they have no proof, so they can’t statistically apply the numbers to a source.
2. Within the report they identified 10% came from licensed owners either via theft or being illegibly on-sold.

Statistically speaking the way it works is you use the ratios of the known sources to apply to the unknown sources, to gain a more complete picture. My guess this is what they did.
As we’re all well aware, crimes aren’t in the habit of narking on their own, or shitting in their nest.
And unfortunately this large proportion of seized firearms with no known source, actually supports my argument. It’s the simple fact they can’t identify the source of so many that supports their argument.
How can they close off the source when they don’t know where it is?

I heard from a pretty reliable source the police busted a gang gun manufacturing operation in Wellington fairly recently, using 3D printers (apparently they had 3 running) and imported parts which could not be identified as firearm parts. So there is no doubt there are plenty being smuggled and locally manufactured.

Again I’m not arguing it’s right, or fair on us. I’m just realistic as to how they come to these decisions (aided by politicians who are aiming to please the general public who are afraid of MSSA and mass shootings).

Originally Posted by Lauries Hut

Don’t mean to piss on your fire, but may pay to read the article.
1. The way I read it: “Police don’t know the source of 82% of criminals weapons” This means they can only the identify the source of 18%. The rest no they have no proof, so they can’t statistically apply the numbers to a source.
2. Within the report they identified 10% came from licensed owners either via theft or being illegibly on-sold.

Statistically speaking the way it works is you use the ratios of the known sources to apply to the unknown sources, to gain a more complete picture. My guess this is what they did.
As we’re all well aware, crimes aren’t in the habit of narking on their own, or shitting in their nest.
And unfortunately this large proportion of seized firearms with no known source, actually supports my argument. It’s the simple fact they can’t identify the source of so many that supports their argument.
How can they close off the source when they don’t know where it is?

I heard from a pretty reliable source the police busted a gang gun manufacturing operation in Wellington fairly recently, using 3D printers (apparently they had 3 running) and imported parts which could not be identified as firearm parts. So there is no doubt there are plenty being smuggled and locally manufactured.

Again I’m not arguing it’s right, or fair on us. I’m just realistic as to how they come to these decisions (aided by politicians who are aiming to please the general public who are afraid of MSSA and mass shootings).

That's the point. Saying the majority comes from license holders is totally unfounded. I'm glad you agree with me.

Originally Posted by Danger Mouse

That's the point. Saying the majority comes from license holders is totally unfounded. I'm glad you agree with me.

https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....rmation-90049/

From 2005, there have been 11,701 firearms stolen over 4900 incidents where firearms have been reported stolen. Thats an average of 2.4 firearms per theft, 5.5 thefts a week.
Now unless its unlicensed persons reporting thefts to the Police, those 11000 weapons came from licensed owners.

Originally Posted by Lauries Hut

“Police figures and statements don’t support” I find that fairly had to believe. If you want to make such claims, stump up your evidence for all to see.

All we have seen from Police so far is reference to couple of examples of people onselling firearms illegally and historic firearm burglary rates. But in the great scheme of thing they have not produced any specific statistics on recovered firearms vs sources. And if you ask them they say they don't have those numbers.

So police figures and statements don't support any specific source of firearms for criminals. At the moment you can tell them that the tooth fairy (I mean the real one... not the ex-pm) pulls them out of her arse and leaves them under a Mongrel Mobs patch when he loses a tooth and the police would struggle to contest that.

It is highly likely that the registry will actually prove or disprove the theories on the source of firearms. It's even more likely that it will disprove it's own value if it is revealed that recovered firearms used by criminals have had their serials or identifying marks removed (wouldn't that be a surprise!).