Well said Mikee! :thumbsup:
Printable View
Well said Mikee! :thumbsup:
The "I want" is a good enough reason argument will never work, same principle could be applied to explosives, claymore mines, RPG, chemical weapons etc. Work on the "I need" argument, pest control,sporting etc.
Can we apply it to the subsidized bar a tucker at the buzzy house? The overweight polis don't need the grog, nor do a lot of them need to eat so much; they could exist on bread and water, everyone could. We don't need people to write fiction, nor make movies, nor music. But without choices the world would be an awfully dull place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
No one 'needs' alcohol at all and it sure as shit causes a thousand times more deaths, social and economic harm than semi auto guns do, it's literally poison, Ban alcohol.
Or at least limit them to a 7ml capacity, require an empty to be handed in before a full one is issued, ensure that the owner has security such that the under aged cannot access it, require a valid reason for requesting it, ....Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
I never thought I would agree with Gimp-but he speaks the truth! Apart from fat chicks Gimp-they 'need' alcohol!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
Im not for banning alcohol-I enjoy it (responsibly) just like many of us enjoy semis-responsibly! But gimp has hit on a valid point.
I have a car that can travel more than 100km/h (the limit to our speed laws) but it doesn't mean im going out and speeding at 150km/h every day and causing mayhem and carnage. I see many people with Holden or Ford V8s that can travel faster than our legal speed limits but these cars are not banned or require special endorsements to own-so why are AR and other semi rifles frowned apon or facing further restrictions?
If you are a vetted, legal and law abiding citizen then why to we have to pander to enjoy our sport?
Alcohol and cars cause so many more deaths, injuries and harm to our community every year than firearms do, but its easier to walk into a bar and buy a RTD or into a auto shop and buy a turbo Skyline than it is to own a semi auto in original issue!
But what is considered the bigger evil?-firearms!!!
Its a mad mad world!
Need based arguments are terrible. Come back with a good reason why I should be assumed to be a dangerous criminal who can't be trusted with things that look slightly different to other things that I can be trusted with. Don't make me submit to interviews, safety testing and background checks, all of which should add up to say that I'm in fact not a dangerous criminal, then say 'no, you can't have 2 functionally identical items, because one of them looks like something I saw in a movie with Ahnold and I'm scared of it'.
It's an emotive subject and I hope we can discuss it rationally without getting too worked up. The problem is that the arguements to ban things are largely from an emotive standpoint, much like people wanting to ban hunting because 'think of the animals'. Show me some concrete evidence that banning lawful, licensed, vetted firearms owners from owning certain things which are cosmetic features of a firearm will achieve any net good that is worth the reduction in freedom. Bayonet lugs, pistol grips,etc.
I can't have an adjustable LOP stock on my AR, but it's okay for me to have one and pin it at the shortest position as long as it's over the legal minimum length, or have a gun with no stock at all as long as it's over legal length and not designed to be fired with one hand. It's ridiculous. Anyone who wants a short concealable gun for a crime is just going to break that law anyway, because they're already planning on breaking laws, they're not going to care if their sawed off 12g isn't over 762mm.
You can say 'that sort of gun attracts "The wrong sort of person". Well I like 'that sort of gun', (although I'm just as picky about semi-autos as I am about bolt guns, and everything else, because I'm a fussy bitch) so do a lot of others, and I'm not "the wrong sort of person", and I find it very insulting that the assumption is made, it's an intensely obnoxious and prejudiced phrase. "The wrong sort of person" shouldn't have any gun and that should be prevented in the initial licensing/vetting process. If "the wrong sort of person" gets their hands on any gun and intends to use it for nefarious purposes, they're not going to obey the laws regardless, it is just restricting the freedoms of one of the most heavily vetted to be lawful sectors of society.
And this is getting political I guess so I shouldn't even be posting this stuff. I don't know why I bother since people are very unlikely to be swayed from an opinion on an emotive subject like this by a discussion on the Internet, regardless of merit.
I think a good rebuttal to the "you don't need an AR" argument is "you don't need an AR to go on a shooting rampage", which seems to be why everybody gets hurt feelings over them. You literally don't. No point restricting them.
I'd also like to point out the fact that the ready availability of AR's to A cat holders, hasn't resulted in any increased firearms wrong doing. Think it pretty much kills the issue of cosmetic features.
all we need now is for one violent crime to be committed with an Ar15 and were all fucked
If you were the paranoid type you would be worried about the powers that be insuring that it happened so they had the ammo to push it threw
Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2
LOL, actually if I look at semi's then Im definately a SKS person, but purely because of the cheap fun aspect of them,
:thumbsup:
I can see them as a huge blast, just I wonder about say hunting with them.
I mean there is a huge difference from $2k for an AR10/15 v $400~800 for a chinese/russian sks to take down a range and throw lead down. If I had $2k I'd be looking at or saving more for a quality bolt like a sako 85 I can hand onto my son one day. Otherwise, yes I think an SKS should be in my gun safe...Im sure my son wouldnt let it sit there gathering dust.
:cool:
WHOAH!!! An AR10 for 2k!? Where? Where?Quote:
Originally Posted by steven
Just my 2c....ive got both an SKS and an AR15.....do i NEED either of them for hunting?, no, ive got two bolt actions for that,....then why do i own them?Quote:
Originally Posted by steven
because i WANT to own them....ive been interviewed and vetted by the Police, my partner also, and i have more than adequate security to keep them safe....
As a law abiding citizen of this country where i have the legal right to own these 'classes' of firearms, that is all i have to say on the subject!!!!!!!!
I agree steven. first you buy the sako hunting rifle then you buy the ar15
I suppose you can argue all day either way but at the end of the day they aren't saying you can't have them, just if you want them there is an extra level of vetting and increased security. I personally see no problem with that, I don't know what the big deal is.
You want the toys, get the endorsement, job done. I'm sure an extra level of vetting is a good thing when concerning rifles of this nature.
The car argument hardly works as they aren't used or designed to commit mass killings, personally I couldn't care less if they restricted all civilian vehicles to 110km/h, they do it with trucks at 90 and buses at 100 in Europe. There is no "need" to go faster and "wanting" to isn't a good enough reason as it endangers others including the people who have to pick up your pieces lying on the road.
In some ways I agree, ie why is it can I walk into a car showroom and buy a Porsche or a Ferrari both clearly capable of far in excess of the speed limit and no one bats an eyelid or asks you for a Cat E driving licence. Yet someone drools over a nice gun and the namby pampies think you are a nut job. Sit outside polishing one 4 wheel possesion and ppl smile, do the same with the other posession and ppl fll their undies and call the cops. I wonder how life looked 100 years ago, read a piece where ppl would walk into a park and do their target practice there...in this case it was the guy who shot the crown prince and started WW1, somethings just dont seem consistant.
Tell me the true figures of people killed by a semi AR15 type rifle in the last 10 years for all people charged with murder or manslaughter [excepting Aramoana out of the consideration]. Bet you it comes at the bottom and knives are top of the list.Bureaucrats do not like the truth much like politicians. Unfortunately we can vote out the latter but the former are a protected species in NZ. Even a noted judge Grant Hammond is appalled by the National govt proposal to legislate against bureaucrats being sued.You can see Mrs Crouch is very lucky to get any pay out and the incredibly stupid response by Anne Tolley about the case. Many many people are going to Aussie every day and for good reason.
Personally, I find that a pistol grip on a rifle is more ergonomic than a traditional grip.
Actually I think the first thing is a good (enough) FTR gun (or 2), then do the Deer stalkers hunting course...then get a sako!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill999
Actually I will probably do their course this spring, my eldest is very keen to do it just for the experience.
:thumbsup:
what the hell is a FTR gun.
Whoa, there!! Since when are sporting rifles designed to commit mass killings? If you don't like ARs, then fair enough, don't buy one. But don't buy into the hyperbole of the ignorant who promote gun hysteria either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
At the end of the day all guns are dangerous, that is why we're all responsible adults who take great care with firearms.
ETA. Apologies if this sounds a bit grumpy, am at home today with toothache, so normal thought filters aren't working at their best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaggly
Ohh that's about the most sensible , common sense reply i have seen on this topic..
I don't use my guns to commit mass killings? So they're not used or designed for that. Look at the end result of what happens with the item, not a nebulous theoretical idea of what it was designed for. Fast cars going fast on public roads dangerously result in people dying. Pistol grips on a rifle result in... people having cool guns and enjoying using them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
The problem I have is with what this thread was started about: changing pistol grips back to E. it's bullshit emotive legislation based on fear of a cosmetic feature that has no actual benefit and is just going to inconvenience and cost law abiding firearms owners.
Orig question was kinda anyone know the result of law changes proposed or coming or whatever. Sounds like answer has been delayed some what. Yeehaa worry about it later. Be prepared to get E cat if need to. If it becomes law such is life and all the rest of your firearms in an E cat safe will be safer and harder to remove by thieves etc Just looks like this convo is going no where now . We can debate it for ever but why bother it ll become "political". If anyone does hear anything concrete please let us all know
"To these old-timers, the AR-15 just didn’t seem like a “hunting rifle” in any meaningful sense of the word. In addition to its non-traditional look and the aforementioned stigmas attached to it, the AR’s small-caliber cartridge ruled it out for many hunters. Accustomed to taking down trophy bucks with a hefty .30-caliber round, they ridiculed the AR-15 as a “mouse gun” and feared that its smaller .223-caliber bullet would only wound an animal, instead of taking it down with a single, clean shot. Other hunters whose opinions of the AR were formed mostly by Hollywood movies hated the gun for the opposite reason, fearing that machine-gun-toting yahoos would be out shredding game, trees, and possibly other hunters with a spray of uber-high-powered bullets. Either way, traditionalist hunters felt that these modern “tactical” rifles were designed solely for armed combat, and therefore had no place in a sport where the prey can’t actually shoot back."
Full article here: The AR-15 Is More Than a Gun. It's a Gadget | Danger Room | Wired.com
I can personally attest they are excellent for hunting
I'll buy a quality Noveske or similar AR that I can pass down along with my Benelli m2, Sako75, etc, and it'll be equally useful and usedQuote:
Originally Posted by steven
In the only context I'm aware of, it's a subset of F-Class requiring a .308 or .223.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill999
Fast cars and or speed doesn't kill.
If it did i would be dead and so would anyone who had ever entered any sort of race.
Camper vans on the wrong side of the road and pissed Cunts kill.
Similarly i can't recall any case of a pistol grip or folding stock killing anyone ever.
Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2
You're right, speed itself in suitable conditions and places does not kill anyone. I should stop making generalisations, but my posts are already too longQuote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
TR = target rifle or a "palma gun", in NATO military ammo. So .308 or .223, peep sites up to 1000yds, usually 30in or so barrel length, 13:1 twist 155gr max bullet. FTR is a TR / plama class gun but with a bipod and scope for us old gits who are half blind and too decrepid to hold the f**king thing up any more.
:roll:
You can use a hunting type .308, but its not competitive. .223 is an alternative....
:XD:
F-open is a "FTR" class where the caliber is free to 8mm and the front support can be a tripod, can weigh more I think as well. l 6MM, 6.5MM and 7MM seem popular. Generally costs shed loads to do....
:super:
Yeah sorry I didn't mean that in the way it was taken, I mean't in the way that an AR is based on the M16 which was designed for killing people. As for used I am talking about how mass killings have been performed using guns but am un aware of any that have used a car.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaggly
I don't hate ARs at all, I own one myself!
Back to the original question, if you have an AR or AK derivative then I would be getting prepared to get an E endorsement, I have been.
Most bolt actions are based on the 98 Mauser originally, and that killed plenty of people. It's all about what you use it for now though that counts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
Yes but bolt actions don't attract the kinds of nutters that go and shoot up schools. MSSA do. Like I said, if you want that type of rifle then get the endorsenment, they aren't saying you can't have one and I think that most people would agree that the current A cat FAL is a little easy to get.
The A cat system should be enough to weed out nutters making endorsements moot. I don't like the idea of nutters having access to 10/22's, shotguns and Tikka T3's, let alone AR15's. I get that black rifles attract some people who's cheese ain't on the cracker, but really we have a vetting process to go through, that is meant to weed them out, if it doesn't we are doing something wrong.
Depends on intended use. Even if you have an E-Cat licence, if you tell the AO you want one for hunting he will most likely tell you to go get a hand in first - thats almost as effective as saying you cant have one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
Couldn't agree more Beavis, just wish the vetting process was better for A-Cat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
I spewed in my mouth when i read this. I always do when i see utter dribble like the above post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
where did you study psycoligy again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
peer reviewed examples to back up your claims please, to make them relevant NZ examples only please.
just to show us how the currant system is failing