Thread: National creates a Hunting and Fishing portfolio

Originally Posted by No.3

To be guilty of 'supply', you have to have intent (to supply). Having your firearms stolen from your place of residence from compliant and correctly utilised security does not mean you have supplied them to criminals.

I've been party to several discussions of how firearms have been stolen from approved security arrangements, including racks, safes etc etc. It is pretty concerning how quickly and discretely a knowledgeable person can defeat most modern lock systems and window designs used in houses to gain unauthorised access, and once in the house you can pretty much work completely uninterrupted unless a resident comes home or there is some form of security system. It doesn't go much from there to defeating firearms security measures unfortunately...

Thats for the crime of 'supply'. I'm clearly not using it in that context.

If its a case of breaking into safes and that kind of thing, then surely Police would be seeking to change the regs around what is considered legal? Or is it a case of you can't stop it?

Originally Posted by HG Man

Thats what a guess means. And given we don't have any actual information to go on, thats all we can do. If they aren't being forced to open the safe, maybe the crims are getting into the safes some other way? What do you think is happening?

A guess in this case is idle speculation!!
!NZ police are in modern days renowned for their failures to respond to OIA requests -senior journalist Andrea Vance wee while ago ripped the shit out of police over her own oia requests to them for info
.Damning in particular 2instances where over 100days passed before she was even acknowledged let alone the requested information provided .Excuses galore from PHNHQ spindoctors until it hit the debating chamber and the Ardern knitted eyebrows surfaced .IIRC it was also referred to IPCA who deemed it unsatisfactory given the clear legal rule ALL OIA REQUESTS ARE TO BE ACTIONED WITHIN 20 DAYS OF REQUEST-INCLUSIVE OF INFO BEING IN REQUESTEES HANDS AND POLICE WERE NOTED TO FREQUENTLY BREAK THE RULE.Top case is mine for emphasis !

Its also not unkown for them to conceal stats ,as I remember Chris Hipkins reaming them out for it.

All this excuses etc to me is simply camo because if things keep on going the way its seems their cushy wee ride may be opened up to severe scrutiny and certain top echelon desk flyers given a inglorious DCM..

Originally Posted by kotuku

a guess in this case is idle speculation!!!

Sure. Guess, speculation, same thing.

Police have started to publish all firearms related OIA's on their website, I did a thread on it previously. So maybe things are changing, I'll wait and see though.

Originally Posted by HG Man

No, thats why its a guess. Thats what a guess means. And as I go on to say there might be the odd case of someone being forced to open the safe, but you can't tell me thats happening 5 times a week.

‘Unsecured’ can be an arguable point.

The guy with a catE safe for his firearm storage may consider the guy who chains his firearms to the rafters/hot water cylinder as having insecure firearms.
Well that’s my 1/50th of a dollar opinion.

Originally Posted by HG Man

The video of him shooting the people at the mosques? Whats different about the report vs the actual footage?

Section 21 of the commissions report states that the shooter left the mosque several times and went to vehicle for more ammunition. At the time while we were still allowed to view video this ( the shooter going to get ammunition ) is not what actually happened. Considering that the shooter was by all accounts well prepared and had done considerable planning, does it seem likely that he would have not planned to carry all the ammunition on him and would ?
I remember at the time, discussion regarding the occupied Toyota car parked adjacent to the door and this car leaving after the shooter acknowledged him. The person in the red coat walking along the inner fence.
All of these things have obviously been examined by the police, but are absent from the report

Originally Posted by HG Man

Thats for the crime of 'supply'. I'm clearly not using it in that context.

If its a case of breaking into safes and that kind of thing, then surely Police would be seeking to change the regs around what is considered legal? Or is it a case of you can't stop it?

Christ you're boring. Welcome to my ignore list.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Section 21 of the commissions report states that the shooter left the mosque several times and went to vehicle for more ammunition.

I'm not seeing it in Sections, can you point it out better? Which part is it in?

Originally Posted by HG Man

I'm not seeing it in Sections, can you point it out better? Which part is it in?

21 below is not consistent with what I remember

The individual was in no hurry to carry out his terrorist attack. We have seen no evidence to suggest that he ever intended to work to earn money and we have no doubt that the eventual timing of the terrorist attack was significantly driven by his financial circumstances. He was cautious in his preparation and generally tried to avoid attracting attention. In this he may have been assisted by his personality, which enabled him to operate without a need for regular or deep engagement with others. He generally attempted to maintain operational security with only limited lapses. His preparation was methodical, and his planning detailed and elaborate.

Many of those we have spoken to have expressed the view (or at least suspicion) that others must have played a role in the planning, preparation and execution of the terrorist attack.

9

It is true that following his arrest, the individual told New Zealand Police, both when he was stopped and later that afternoon while being interviewed, that up to nine other people were actively involved in the terrorist attack. At one stage he referred to “nine more shooters”. He also said that there are “like-minded” people in Dunedin, Invercargill and Ashburton. As we have explained, he further claimed to have been in touch with the Oslo terrorist’s “organisation” which he called the “reborn Knights Templar” and which he said had given a “blessing” for the terrorist attack. He also referred to other people in other jurisdictions and also to training. Aspects of what he told New Zealand Police were reported to the public on the afternoon of 15 March 2019, in particular that there were thought to be other shooters who were active. This has contributed to community perceptions that others may have been involved.

10

When we interviewed the individual, he said that he had acted alone and that what he had said in his manifesto and to New Zealand Police to the contrary was untrue. We accept that this is so. Just as the claim of an association with the Oslo terrorist and “reborn Knights Templar” was a false trail, so too were his claims that other shooters were involved in the terrorist attack. There are a number of reasons for this conclusion that he acted alone.

11

The first place to start is the interview with New Zealand Police on the evening of 15 March 2019. The narrative of events that he gave was all about himself and did not leave room for participation by others. The “nine more shooters” did not materialise. So, from a very early stage New Zealand Police were satisfied that he had acted alone.

12

He had his own money and did not require outside funding. We know what equipment he used and how he paid for it. No one else was involved. He trained for the terrorist attack by gaining proficiency with firearms, attaining a high level of fitness and bulking up on his own, albeit with the assistance of drugs. We know the broad details of his reconnaissance at Masjid an-Nur and in Dunedin and Ashburton. He also told us of limited reconnaissance of the Linwood Islamic Centre on the late afternoon of 8 January 2019. There is no evidence of anyone else being involved. Indeed, given the nature of his reconnaissance, he did not need assistance from anyone else. He was able to obtain any additional information he needed from the internet.

13

The planning documents that are discussed in chapter 6 were either emails to himself or located on the SD card of the drone or external hard drive. None of those documents indicate involvement of other people. The individual did not intend these to be seen after the terrorist attack as he had deleted them. We have set out earlier in this Part extracts of those documents that are relevant to his planning, despite the distressing nature of some of what was said. The overwhelming impression of this material in its totality is that the individual’s planning for his terrorist attack was a solo effort.

14

We have reviewed the GoPro footage that the individual recorded, along with CCTV footage from Masjid an-Nur. This material gives no indication of anyone else participating in the terrorist attack. During the terrorist attack he was heard talking to others but this was only to his online audience. It was a one-way conversation.

15

Engaging others in the planning or execution of the terrorist attack would have been inconsistent with his introverted personality. More generally his approach was influenced by that of the Oslo terrorist who was also a lone actor.

16

We acknowledge a view is held in the community that, while the individual may have acted alone on 15 March 2019, he formed part of a network of people holding similar views to him and therefore was not, in that sense, a “lone actor”.

17

We have no doubt that the individual’s internet activity was considerably greater than we have been able to reconstruct. The style in which his manifesto was written indicates fluency in the language customarily used on extreme right-wing websites and associated memes and in-jokes. The individual confirmed to us that he visited 4chan and 8chan and it is likely that he contributed comments (although we have no direct evidence of this). He also visited other sites and discussion boards where there was discussion promoting extreme right-wing and ethno-nationalist views similar to his own and sometimes supporting violence. He also spent much time accessing broadly similar material on YouTube. His exposure to such content may have contributed to his actions on 15 March 2019 - indeed, it is plausible to conclude that it did. We have, however, seen no evidence to suggest anything along the lines of personalised encouragement or the like.

18

For these reasons we conclude that the individual is appropriately labelled a lone actor.

21 At 1.42 pm, the individual left Masjid an-Nur to return to his car. On his way, he fired at people outside the masjid and on the Deans Avenue footpath to the north and south of the masjid. When he reached his car, he dropped the semi-automatic rifle he had been using in the driveway and retrieved the other semi-automatic rifle. He lifted up one of the incendiary devices in the rear of his vehicle but ultimately left it in the car. He then ran to a driveway to the south of the masjid, firing at those he could see. Entering the masjid again, he fired more shots at people inside before returning to his car. On the way, he fired at people outside the masjid and in the carpark, including women who had come out of the women’s prayer room and were trying to flee through a pedestrian gateway.

[QUOTE=Moa Hunter;1408293]21 below is not consistent with what I remember

Interesting. I never watched the video, I had no desire to watch people praying being slaughtered. I don't know why your recollection and the Report are different.

Originally Posted by HG Man

Maybe it could come from the 11,700 firearms which we know were stolen between 2005-2022

maybe you buy cigarettes for underage children ....

Originally Posted by HG Man

They've stated it as 'Number of firearms reported as stolen to Police, by year of when the alleged theft took place'. Its all we have to go on, unless you have something else to add?

Yes. Look deeper into the reporting of incidents involving firearms in general and also the reporting of burglary/theft - there have been occasions where airsoft/spring/pneumatic guns have been reported as 'firearms' and similarly replica firearms as well as reports of concern/firearm - none found. This is but one way where the generalised stats are up the crap. It needs to be broken down by firearm type and again by manner of Police interaction with that 'firearm reported' to get any sort of meaningful statistics from the numbers that are released. Without such a detailed breakdown (which is unlikely to be easily obtained without a serious dig and some support) any conclusions are just guesses. One of the issues clouding the numbers being generated is there are still apparently discrepancies between how different districts report their interaction stats - this makes drawing 'apples vs apples' conclusions virtually impossible for the likes of you and me.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

maybe you buy cigarettes for underage children ....

And maybe you just persist with your own creative writing exercise

Originally Posted by No.3

Yes. Look deeper into the reporting of incidents involving firearms in general and also the reporting of burglary/theft -

Yeah, I guess so. We can say the numbers might not be accurate, but we can't say how inaccurate for example. So it could be 11500 thefts or 1500 thefts? Who knows. But its all we've got to go on.

I've put in a fairly detailed OIA about the recent gang op that they ran and the firearms seized as part of that, we shall see what that comes back with.

I know of one person,who had one firearm stolen.
the story is worth retelling.....
about 10 years ago this young fella went hunting in wet crappy conditions,so when he got home,rifle got whipe over and put in hot water cupboard to dry out..the next day while at work..his house got broken into and rifle taken.....now this young man was gutted,first rifle,had shot firt deer with it and many others..he was absolutely gutted and out for blood..his father and uncle both talked him out of going on search n destroy for folks who took it (turned out infor he had was incorrect anyway) but he listened and "did the right thing" reported theift to police.
now here is where it gets curly.
BECAUSE rifle was unsecured..as such..locked house locked yard....doesnt count. he was threatened that his FAL was going to be taken away...
a tense few weeks went by,some good advice was followed and he got to keep FAL.
now that could very very easily gone differently,the police didnt act well..young fella had made a cock up..fair enough,he put hand up to that,but the threat to punish him in such a way was wrong...he could very easily have "turned" had it happened...happily it didnt and he has carried on to be a good member of society and hunts responsibly still.....
that remains the ONLY firearm I know of personally stolen...actually nope know of 2 others where cabinet was ripped open with angle grinder.... none of those 3 were recovered.
another mate years earlier had a bruno fox in 22 hornet taken...it was recovered and he got it back..well what was left of it.stock cut off and barrel sawn off...a new stock and barrel saw it back in use....
so yes there is SOME cases of genuine theif ..but somehow I believe 5 per day/week is grossly over reality.

If it was five per day it would be head line news to encourage a public out cry , and another demand another firearm confiscation!

Pity we are not in Canada that have the balls to tell their government to get stuffed! Seems their confiscation is going very badly indeed! The police won’t touch it and they cannot find a private company that wants to door to door to asking for people to hand in their firearms