Printable View
And who could not like the peanut butter nutter.? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
Sorry my terminology may not have been correct. just saying if a nutter lives in a blue house and I live in a blue house does that mean I must be a nutter as well ..?
Lots different views on this topic. Its a hard one for all to agree on. Dont know the answer. I dont mind change and changes cos thats guaranteed in life. I dont really like change for the sake of change.
If it aint broke ,,, etc
Molenaar was using illegal rifles because the police fucked up, additional restrictions would have made no difference. He was also hardly a mass killer, pretty sure some guy killed more people with a samurai sword. Samurai swords attract the wrong sort of person, ban them! Grey isn't relevant because it was before the current system, so how can it show a failure of the current system?Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
Making pistol grips on a rifle E cat again is simply a giant waste of time and money for legal, responsible gun owners as it's going to cost us either to change what was a legal rifle to make it compliant, or $200 for the endorsement plus safe costs plus the hassle of the interviews etc. And it is 100% banning based on cosmetics not any function, it is stupid as hell and will prevent nothing.
If you read what I posted you would see that I was using them as examples of nutters wanting MSSA, Grey is very relevant as he was a nutter who went mad with an MSSA regardless of the legislation at the time.
As for Molenaar not being a mass killer, he attempted to kill a lot of people just missed all but one of them, could have been very different.
I never said there was a failure in the current system.
The E cat laws are based on cosmetics as well hence the flash suppressor, cosmetics do attract some unhinged people. I personally don't have a problem in having to have an extra interview and upgraded security to make it that much more difficult for unsavoury people to get hold of these types of rifles, at least we can still get them.
Try reading my post properly before implying that I have said otherwise.
Slight change of drift here....high cap mags.......i have a 'permanent' 7 cap mag on my SKS, an A cat AK47 (or chinese equivalent) is usually 5 cap, there is more or less no difference in these 2 firearms (IMHO)
but i can get an SKS for (roughly) $300 on Gun Citys weekly $1 reserve, brand new in 'cossy oil', while the 'chinky AK' costs around a grand more to buy, why? because through 'Hollywood' and the like, the AK has
reached 'ICON' status.....thats the only reason why, if you dont have the 30 rd 'banana clip' on full auto, the SKS is the same but much cheaper alternative......
I have been asked a couple of times by hikers/trampers, 'Ooo you have an AK' and there almost 'swooning'...'NO, I own an SKS' is my reply......'a what?'
its exactly the same with 'The Black Rifle'....its the 'three sixes' scenario, the 'horned beast' of firearms......not when it has a 5 rd cap mag..........my SKS would kick its arse all the way back to yankyville......
High cap mags....they need legislation....not semi-automatic 'whatevers'.......discuss
PS i own both an SKS & AR15
The A cat vetting ought to stop those "nutters" getting their hands on firearms at all, and you haven't supplied any evidence that it doesn't - Grey was before the current system, Molenaar had let his license lapse and no-one bothered to check that he had got rid of his guns. Molenaar is also irrelevant as there are plenty of people who have shot people with bolt actions, shotguns etc, why cherry pick one single example out of dozens to point to and say that he's the only 'nutter' and had some illegal 'MSSAs' therefore nutters are attracted to MSSAs? What about all the other 'nutters' who were attracted to ye olde .303? Or the 'nutters' who beat someone to death with a bar stool? Or a samurai sword?
You literally must think there is a failure in the current system since you support changing it to make cosmetic features more restricted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
Mag changes take literally a second regardless of capacity. Legal restrictions on magazine size will not stop anyone who plans on breaking the law. No one is going to think "I'm going to shoot someone! But I'll only use a 7 round mag because anything else is illegal!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Scouser
Shooting people is illegal. People need to realise that if someone is planning on shooting people, they will have no qualms about breaking any number of other laws. Before legislating, prove that there will actually be some benefit, because otherwise you are simply restricting the freedoms of honest and law abiding people.
You're not reading what I'm writing, I said nutters are attracted to MSSAs hence the Mollenar and Grey examples, very relevant. Where are your examples of people going on shooting sprees with bolt actions? There will be the odd one but far out numbered by MSSA examples. If they had the choice I would put money on which one they would have chosen and how much more damage would have they done?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
I have seen people I would consider a bit strange or unstable with a FAL, I've also met many criminals with a FAL, and I've done something about it. I don't need evidence that there are some unsavoury people with a FAL, I've seen and dealt with it myself.
The A-Cat should be perfect and stop the bad people getting a FAL but lets be realistic, it doesn't. For a start it is only once every 10 years without any requirement for inspections. People can change a lot in 10 years, join a gang, develop paranoid schizophrenia etc, at least with E-Cat they should be getting regular inspections and meetings with AO. Ideally the A requirements should be equal to the E IMHO.
Our laws aren't perfect but they are pretty good I think.
That is a fair call I reckon. Some just want to know how a change will effect them and what they are required to do to comply. Or even if they need to. Or even what the rule is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
Here is possibly not the place to air feelings about the whys and wherefores.. even if it is a piece of shite ...
all changing the law does is makes it harder for law abiding citizens. crims dont care what the law says
crims will still get the guns the would have got because the way they get them is thru illigal channels
if there was a huge firearms related crime increase attributed to ar15 ownership Id probably agree with you
the truth is firearm crime related to ar15s is low, mainly due to their high cost. robbers usually like to get rid of the weapon they kill people with incase the ballistics can be traced.
a $30 cut down 303 or cheep shot gun is a much better option.
the fact is ar15s are scary, people see movies with other people killing people with them.
From Wiki:Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
The government was led to believe that Gray had shot all his victims with an AK-47 7.62x39mm assault rifle. It was subsequently proven that Gray used several firearms, none of which were an AK-47 assault rifle. Four of the Aramoana victims were proven to have been shot with a Norinco 84s .223 semiautomatic sporting rifle.
Ok so EVERYBODY is assuming that any gun restrictions being implemented regarding gunlaws has to have something to do with targeting criminal activity, right? I see the same trend through other forums both local and overseas.
But why has nobody decided to look outside the square and question weather any restrictive legislation is actually there to target the LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER? What better way to get the blackguns followed by every other type of firearm off the street then by targeting those that will comply with the states wishes?
As you all seem to point out, criminals dont respect the law and will break it as they see fit. Law abiding citizens on the other hand will do anything there masters say..
What's your point? The 84s pretty much is an AK47 but in .223. Looks the same and functions the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by FletchNZ
I was told the E cat system was there to make it harder for undesirable people who wanted to commit mass shootings to get their hands on an MSSA by targeting the things that appeal to them, eg large mags, pistol grip, flash suppressor. Not because they are any more dangerous than other weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Towely
I read a fascinating journal article by criminologist Greg Newbold who critiqued NZ gun law changes since aramoana and he concluded that pretty much all of them have little or no impact on the availability or use of firearms by criminals.
Another fun thing is that of all the NZ mass killings, as far as I can tell, only Aramoana involved an mssa/evil black gun. The others all involve sporting firearms. Makes cracking down on cosmetics seem a bit daft.
Newbolds' research also suggests that cracking down on sporting arms won't do much good either, as so many are already in circulation (same as for mssas due to previous non-compliance with the advent of ecats, only around 7k of the est 15k mssa's were ever registered) and our huge and largely unpatrolled borders meaning that criminals already have a ton of restricted weapons and access to more of them if they really, really want them.
The advent of internet plans and computerised CAD mills (and in future 3d printing) is only going to make it easier for those who shouldn't to get their hands on guns. Only the law abiding obey the law and picking on those who obey the law won't make much odds in the long run.