Thread: National creates a Hunting and Fishing portfolio

Im buggered if that is logical @Lauries Hut .....because they/we/anyone doesnt know where guns came from does not in ANY WAY proove where they came from.
thats like saying because 127 children under the age of 15 were found with cigarettes ,logic says they were purchased by same children in 4 square supermarkets.
or that they were "straw bought" by older people from night n day stores.
there is NO WAY to tell if they were or were not....
it ignores the corner dairy...it ignores the ciggys being pinched in a ram raid (now there is a logical source if ever I ve seen one) it ignores the chance the 15 year old LOOKS like they are 17-18-19 and picked dairy with young person behind counter,who couldnt tell and was too shy to ask for ID or too lazy,it ignores the local store with young man behind counter and the big bossomed young lady with short shorts n even shorter top coming in to buy them,or being in shop when they were purchased...or next in line flashing big puppy dog eyes at young man,who hurried purchase through so he could serve (oh what a choice of word) young woman next.
you have agreed about smuggling parts and making locally...so its still logical there are some smuggled in whole,I can tell you right here and now having unloaded many shipping containers in a former life...it would be childs play to include lots of items inside one full of legitamate cargo ,absolute childsplay.not to mention how many ships slip in and out of port each day and how many larger pleasure craft we have that are more than capable of whizzing out to meet them at sea. the possibilities are endless,if the desire and or the $$$$ involved are high enough there is no way you could stop them getting in.

EG if you were to offer $5,000 right now to buy a sks ..how long do you think it would be before you would get one???
if you were to offer $10,000 for a handgun...again how long????
now pretend for one moment that money is NO ISSUE,you want a uzi and you want it in a hurry,will pay whatever is asked.....you honestly believe one wont magically appear quicksmartly if the finder fee is in say 5 figures and your happy to pay same to whoever they got it off...or double to just the "finder"??????

now that bridge I have to sell.....

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

Im buggered if that is logical @Lauries Hut .....because they/we/anyone doesnt know where guns came from does not in ANY WAY proove where they came from.
thats like saying because 127 children under the age of 15 were found with cigarettes ,logic says they were purchased by same children in 4 square supermarkets.
or that they were "straw bought" by older people from night n day stores.
there is NO WAY to tell if they were or were not....
it ignores the corner dairy...it ignores the ciggys being pinched in a ram raid (now there is a logical source if ever I ve seen one) it ignores the chance the 15 year old LOOKS like they are 17-18-19 and picked dairy with young person behind counter,who couldnt tell and was too shy to ask for ID or too lazy,it ignores the local store with young man behind counter and the big bossomed young lady with short shorts n even shorter top coming in to buy them,or being in shop when they were purchased...or next in line flashing big puppy dog eyes at young man,who hurried purchase through so he could serve (oh what a choice of word) young woman next.
you have agreed about smuggling parts and making locally...so its still logical there are some smuggled in whole,I can tell you right here and now having unloaded many shipping containers in a former life...it would be childs play to include lots of items inside one full of legitamate cargo ,absolute childsplay.not to mention how many ships slip in and out of port each day and how many larger pleasure craft we have that are more than capable of whizzing out to meet them at sea. the possibilities are endless,if the desire and or the $$$$ involved are high enough there is no way you could stop them getting in.

EG if you were to offer $5,000 right now to buy a sks ..how long do you think it would be before you would get one???
if you were to offer $10,000 for a handgun...again how long????
now pretend for one moment that money is NO ISSUE,you want a uzi and you want it in a hurry,will pay whatever is asked.....you honestly believe one wont magically appear quicksmartly if the finder fee is in say 5 figures and your happy to pay same to whoever they got it off...or double to just the "finder"??????

now that bridge I have to sell.....

Hell it’s not that hard.

Statistics works in a similar way to polling for an election. They ask a sample of 1000 people: who will you vote for?
You end up with 450 who will vote for National or 45%
390 for labour 39%
110 for the Greens 11%
And 50 who dont know 5%
1000 sample votes, your 5+11+39+45% adds up to 100%
So they’ll tell us from this sample this is how we will vote come Election Day. Where it’s different is the 5% who don’t know, have been left as dont knows.

In the case of the article, (this part I’m going by memory so the numbers will be wrong but the principal is correct)
They had something like 82% of recovered illegal firearms where they couldn’t trace the source. In other words they didn’t know how the person they recovered it from got it.
They just don’t know.

But, they did know with certainty, that 6% were stolen, and they knew where from. Presumably they owners had records of serial numbers, proof of ownership. And or they were caught red handed as part of a burglary investigation.
4% were found to have been sold by a licensed owner to an unlicensed. (Strawman)
There was another 8% which were imported illegally I think. Which actually seems very high to me. If I was to make a guess, I would have thought illegally imported would be the lowest percentage. But I’m not a crim, don’t know any crims, so I haven’t got any basis for why I think that, it’s just a hunch.

So you have 4% strawman sourced, 6% stolen, 8% imported illegally. 18% where they categorically know how they were obtained buy the crims.
82% where they don’t. Because there was such a large number of dont knows, they’ve taken the ratio of the ones they do know and applied it to the don’t know sample.

So it’s a very simple mathematical calculation to convert your 4% of the known number, to a percentage of ratio to the remaining 82% you don’t know the source to, which is 22%
This gives you a statistical data to make such a claim.
They larger the sample, the more accurate.
Sorry don’t know if I’ve made it as clear as it is in my head😉
So for sure 4% sounds like a very low number. Because it’s only out of 18% of the sample, but in all mathematical likelihood, 22% have been sourced by Strawmen..

I know it’s not what many of you want to hear. But this is how the police or whoever gathered the data will present it to the pollies.

Originally Posted by Lauries Hut

So you have 4% strawman sourced, 6% stolen, 8% imported illegally. 18% where they categorically know how they were obtained buy the crims.
82% where they don’t. Because there was such a large number of dont knows, they’ve taken the ratio of the ones they do know and applied it to the don’t know sample.

So it’s a very simple mathematical calculation to convert your 4% of the known number, to a percentage of ratio to the remaining 82% you don’t know the source to, which is 22%
This gives you a statistical data to make such a claim.
They larger the sample, the more accurate.
Sorry don’t know if I’ve made it as clear as it is in my head��
So for sure 4% sounds like a very low number. Because it’s only out of 18% of the sample, but in all mathematical likelihood, 22% have been sourced by Strawmen..

I know it’s not what many of you want to hear. But this is how the police or whoever gathered the data will present it to the pollies.

so its "creative accounting" manipulation of the figures to give the desired result......

or in "me speak" if you cant dazzle em with brilliance baffle them with bullshit.

Originally Posted by Lauries Hut

Hell it’s not that hard.

Statistics works in a similar way to polling for an election. They ask a sample of 1000 people: who will you vote for?
You end up with 450 who will vote for National or 45%
390 for labour 39%
110 for the Greens 11%
And 50 who dont know 5%
1000 sample votes, your 5+11+39+45% adds up to 100%
So they’ll tell us from this sample this is how we will vote come Election Day. Where it’s different is the 5% who don’t know, have been left as dont knows.

In the case of the article, (this part I’m going by memory so the numbers will be wrong but the principal is correct)
They had something like 82% of recovered illegal firearms where they couldn’t trace the source. In other words they didn’t know how the person they recovered it from got it.
They just don’t know.

But, they did know with certainty, that 6% were stolen, and they knew where from. Presumably they owners had records of serial numbers, proof of ownership. And or they were caught red handed as part of a burglary investigation.
4% were found to have been sold by a licensed owner to an unlicensed. (Strawman)
There was another 8% which were imported illegally I think. Which actually seems very high to me. If I was to make a guess, I would have thought illegally imported would be the lowest percentage. But I’m not a crim, don’t know any crims, so I haven’t got any basis for why I think that, it’s just a hunch.

So you have 4% strawman sourced, 6% stolen, 8% imported illegally. 18% where they categorically know how they were obtained buy the crims.
82% where they don’t. Because there was such a large number of dont knows, they’ve taken the ratio of the ones they do know and applied it to the don’t know sample.

So it’s a very simple mathematical calculation to convert your 4% of the known number, to a percentage of ratio to the remaining 82% you don’t know the source to, which is 22%
This gives you a statistical data to make such a claim.
They larger the sample, the more accurate.
Sorry don’t know if I’ve made it as clear as it is in my head��
So for sure 4% sounds like a very low number. Because it’s only out of 18% of the sample, but in all mathematical likelihood, 22% have been sourced by Strawmen..

I know it’s not what many of you want to hear. But this is how the police or whoever gathered the data will present it to the pollies.

and TWICE AS MANY have been illegally imported..USING YOUR FIGURES ..yet that bit keeps getting ignored and the low hanging fruit of licence holders is targeted..... now if you going to trouble to illegally import,surely you would import naughtier guns than could be "otherwise sourced" hmm methinks resources would be better spent elsewhere..after all that 44% illegally imported is NEARLY HALF.......
see I can manipulate figures too.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

and TWICE AS MANY have been illegally imported..USING YOUR FIGURES ..yet that bit keeps getting ignored and the low hanging fruit of licence holders is targeted..... now if you going to trouble to illegally import,surely you would import naughtier guns than could be "otherwise sourced" hmm methinks resources would be better spent elsewhere..after all that 44% illegally imported is NEARLY HALF.......
see I can manipulate figures too.

Yep.
My feeling too is that there is no way, nearly half of the guns in the unlicensed/criminal fraternities hands are illegally imported.
We are an island in the middle of nowhere, and a gun would be very difficult for average Joe to get in.
In saying that if your in the importation business, not so hard to hide a few in containers, but I’ve never heard/read of anyone being caught. So I’m not convinced, but doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

As someone said, they’re picking low hanging fruit, and want quick wins to show they’re making a difference.

However if you think about it logically: 21 year old gang prospect who’s got his license, up until the law change could jump on Trademe and buy a cheap semi like an sks or a pump action shotty.
Chop the barrel down and hock it on the black market, for what I would guess as considerable gain. Or if nothing good on TM, here, Gun City. Plenty of options.
It’s very easy to imagine, and I bet quite lucrative.

Like it or not, this is what they’re trying to stop. The Unfortunate consequence is they catch us all in such legislation.

Originally Posted by Lauries Hut

Yep.
My feeling too is that there is no way, nearly half of the guns in the unlicensed/criminal fraternities hands are illegally imported.
We are an island in the middle of nowhere, and a gun would be very difficult for average Joe to get in.
In saying that if your in the importation business, not so hard to hide a few in containers, but I’ve never heard/read of anyone being caught. So I’m not convinced, but doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

As someone said, they’re picking low hanging fruit, and want quick wins to show they’re making a difference.

However if you think about it logically: 21 year old gang prospect who’s got his license, up until the law change could jump on Trademe and buy a cheap semi like an sks or a pump action shotty.
Chop the barrel down and hock it on the black market, for what I would guess as considerable gain. Or if nothing good on TM, here, Gun City. Plenty of options.
It’s very easy to imagine, and I bet quite lucrative.

Like it or not, this is what they’re trying to stop. The Unfortunate consequence is they catch us all in such legislation.

This reasoning is spuruous. Consider the intent to impose scores of millions of dollars costs onto legit firearms users, clubs and businesses and ask yourselves why is all that funding not being directed specifically at the criminal element in addition to money already being spent, instead of investing it into penalising legit kiwi users, clubs and businesse?

Originally Posted by Lauries Hut

Yep.
My feeling too is that there is no way, nearly half of the guns in the unlicensed/criminal fraternities hands are illegally imported.
We are an island in the middle of nowhere, and a gun would be very difficult for average Joe to get in.
In saying that if your in the importation business, not so hard to hide a few in containers, but I’ve never heard/read of anyone being caught. So I’m not convinced, but doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

As someone said, they’re picking low hanging fruit, and want quick wins to show they’re making a difference.

However if you think about it logically: 21 year old gang prospect who’s got his license, up until the law change could jump on Trademe and buy a cheap semi like an sks or a pump action shotty.
Chop the barrel down and hock it on the black market, for what I would guess as considerable gain. Or if nothing good on TM, here, Gun City. Plenty of options.
It’s very easy to imagine, and I bet quite lucrative.

Like it or not, this is what they’re trying to stop. The Unfortunate consequence is they catch us all in such legislation.

No comment about locally grey manufactured or unlawfully manufactured or converted and also no comment about using replica/fake firearms to intimidate... Stats are bs again.

You mates with Duterte?

Originally Posted by XR500

You mates with Duterte?

no but hes got the right idea

Let's just hope it's not Minister of "Hunting and Fishing brand"

Originally Posted by Steve123

Let's just hope it's not Minister of "Hunting and Fishing brand"

Now that's a good idea, we can have businesses sponsor the members of cabinet.

Minister of "Hunting and Fishing" - sponsor is obvious.

Minister of Primary Production - sponsored by Fed. Farmers.

Tourism Minister - sponsor by Air NZ, Qantas, or Emirates?

Minister for Building - Fletchers.

Minister for Roads - Fulton Hogan, Higgins, HEB?

Minister for Employment - sponsored by unions or businesses?

Please add to the list.

Minister for Oceans and Fisheries - Sponsored by Sealord / Vela……

B

I do not fear the implementation of the register because my info may be leaked to crims. I genuinely fear that it is a step towards confiscation of my (now) legally held firearms. It is only because of the 'buyback' and the very odd sealing of information and findings around the 2019 massacre that has created this fear.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

very odd sealing of information and findings around the 2019 massacre that has created this fear.

What sealing of information and findings are you talking about? The final report is available for anyone to download and read?

Originally Posted by HG Man

What sealing of information and findings are you talking about? The final report is available for anyone to download and read?

Could you please provide a link to this report ? I would like to read it. My belief was that the report was sealed.