Thread: Here we go folks

Originally Posted by Nick-D

I see this bandied about a bunch, but statistically harsher sentencing has a pretty negligible effect on crime rate. The biggest deterrent comes in an uptake of certainty of sentencing. Ie how likely is it that I will get caught. In short if we want to reduce the crime, we need police and investigation resource out there catching more crims. That or some sort of wholesale seeping social and economic change, but I think the police resource is.probably the easier answer.

I don't really get what this bill is meant to achieve, and don't see it going anywhere

Statistically if someone has to actually SERVE 30+ years for serious violent crime they are extremely unlikely to commit another violent crime against the mostly law abiding populace during that 30 year period.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Statistically if someone has to actually SERVE 30+ years for serious violent crime they are extremely unlikely to commit another violent crime against the mostly law abiding populace during that 30 year period.

But we aren't talking about serious violent crime. We are talking about weapons possession laws. Like it or not evidence shows increasing sentences won't make a meaningful difference to crime rates, increasing the likelihood of getting caught will.

If we are going to put forward alternative suggestions as a community we might as well suggest somthing that actually works.

Originally Posted by Nick-D

If we are going to put forward alternative suggestions as a community we might as well suggest somthing that actually works.

How about death? Death works! It may not stop some prick doing a crime but it sure as shit stops them doing it again.

Originally Posted by Nick-D

But we aren't talking about serious violent crime. We are talking about weapons possession laws. Like it or not evidence shows increasing sentences won't make a meaningful difference to crime rates, increasing the likelihood of getting caught will.

If we are going to put forward alternative suggestions as a community we might as well suggest somthing that actually works.

Recidivism would suggest that either criminals are stupid (they've been caught before, and believe they won't be caught again?) or that the namby-pamby sentences handed out are no deterrent. As for non-violent crimes - the judiciary are pretty soft on all crime and if a criminal (in many cases with a history - refer to the Kiwigunblog's OIA requests) has a firearm, meth, any other manner of tools for committing a crime then we should be looking to charge them with intent as well....
Just my 2 cents.

I may be dumb, and apologise for the politics, but why are National working on this and not our current government?

Originally Posted by Gibo

I may be dumb, and apologise for the politics, but why are National working on this and not our current government?

Because our current government is busy working out how much damage winny can do and how to fix it while the boss is at home with bubs.....

Any member of parliament can propose new legislation, it goes in a draw (as a Private members bill) to see if it goes before Parliament. If it gets drawn then Parliament votes on it. Unless you are in the government it is unlikely to get passed unless you can convince enough government members to support it (which is unlikely).
Government has the right to introduce new legislation when they want, pretty much.

Originally Posted by stug

Any member of parliament can propose new legislation, it goes in a draw (as a Private members bill) to see if it goes before Parliament. If it gets drawn then Parliament votes on it. Unless you are in the government it is unlikely to get passed unless you can convince enough government members to support it (which is unlikely).
Government has the right to introduce new legislation when they want, pretty much.

Sounds like the waste of time it reads like

Originally Posted by Gibo

Sounds like the waste of time it reads like

One of the earlier posts mentioned it was getting ready 2020 when they expect to be back. Never a waste of time to let them know we are on their heels.

It's called Politics.

police komodo dragons, trained to eat first ask questions later.
I know i am repeating myself here, but it is just such a good idea.

I just sent him a strongly worded email- Summary: you are an absolute cabbage thinking a shortened barrel makes a gun more dangerous.

Originally Posted by 7mmTom

I just sent him a strongly worded email- Summary: you are an absolute cabbage thinking a shortened barrel makes a gun more dangerous.

You realise that he was only talking about guns shortened to less than legal length? Not ANY shortening like was first thought before all the facts of what was proposed were known.

Originally Posted by systolic

You realise that he was only talking about guns shortened to less than legal length? Not ANY shortening like was first thought before all the facts of what was proposed were known.

Nowhere in the draft amendments did it mention "762mm" or "minimum overall length".

Originally Posted by Beavis

Nowhere in the draft amendments did it mention "762mm" or "minimum overall length".

I think I mentioned "before all the facts of what was proposed were known".
And, as you pointed out, it was a draft. Which being a draft is subject to revision to clarify exactly what is intended or proposed.

You would have to be pretty stupid to fly off the handle before knowing exactly what was proposed.
You would have to be pretty stupid to really believe that the idea was ever to restrict guns with any shortening, not just below 762mm.