Thread: Here we go folks

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.

Originally Posted by Nickoli

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.

Thats a pretty big cognitive leap.

Recidivism rates don't meaningfully change with the introduction of longer sentences, neither does crime occurrence. We don't have to guess, there is plenty of empirical data to gather our conclusions from. Even capitol punishment and 3 strike laws don't work. There aren't many harsher penalties. If you want to reduce recidivism you need to use the carrot as well, not just the stick.

Don't get me wrong there is a time and place to throw the book at someone, but all blanket harsher sentencing will achieve is to cost the taxpayer shit tonnes of money and not make the streets any safer. You are better off putting that money towards increasing policing resource catching more crims earlier, and attempting to rehab them.
Especially in the case of illegal firearms, more police resource = more illegal firearms recovered and off the street.

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 Nick-D

Thats a pretty big cognitive leap.

Recidivism rates don't meaningfully change with the introduction of longer sentences, neither does crime occurrence. We don't have to guess, there is plenty of empirical data to gather our conclusions from. Even capitol punishment and 3 strike laws don't work. There aren't many harsher penalties. If you want to reduce recidivism you need to use the carrot as well, not just the stick.

Don't get me wrong there is a time and place to throw the book at someone, but all blanket harsher sentencing will achieve is to cost the taxpayer shit tonnes of money and not make the streets any safer. You are better off putting that money towards increasing policing resource catching more crims earlier, and attempting to rehab them.
Especially in the case of illegal firearms, more police resource = more illegal firearms recovered and off the street.

I've said it before: outsource our justice system to China or Saudi Arabia...send crims first class, one way to somewhere that will deal with the problem - we could even pay a nominal annual upkeep (much greater savings than keeping them here - and if they don't survive to make it back: so what?)
Of course this will only be applicable for those slow to learn their lessons....
Cut the bleeding heart shit - as has been said before, no further crime can be committed if the problem has been removed, we just need to agree on a cost effective way of taking out the trash (again - this isn't first time offender solution talk here...)

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.

Originally Posted by Nickoli

I've said it before: outsource our justice system to China or Saudi Arabia...send crims first class, one way to somewhere that will deal with the problem - we could even pay a nominal annual upkeep (much greater savings than keeping them here - and if they don't survive to make it back: so what?)
Of course this will only be applicable for those slow to learn their lessons....
Cut the bleeding heart shit - as has been said before, no further crime can be committed if the problem has been removed, we just need to agree on a cost effective way of taking out the trash (again - this isn't first time offender solution talk here...)

You know you don't make it easy to think that you're a fit and proper person when you literally advocate for the death penalty for recidivism. Murder and rape I get but recidivism is a different kettle of fish.

The money you'd spend on killing NZ citizens would be better spent elsewhere.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by systolic

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.

You would have to be pretty stupid to not point out, what a useless pile of shit this proposal is, in every facet.

Originally Posted by systolic

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.

What was proposed, was what was proposed and did in fact indicate ANY shortening was covered. You'd have to be pretty stupid to let that slide, or to propose it in the first place.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

What was proposed, was what was proposed and did in fact indicate ANY shortening was covered. You'd have to be pretty stupid to let that slide, or to propose it in the first place.

Yes, what was proposed in the DRAFT. Which was then changed to be more specific and reference 762mm.

Only a retard would seriously think that making illegal the fitting a thinner recoil pad, or scraping 0.00002mm off by rubbing on concrete was the intention of this proposal.

I hope all those who sent in abusive or half cocked emails sent another to apologise and congratulate him on seeking heavier penalties for those found with cut down guns.

Originally Posted by systolic

Yes, what was proposed in the DRAFT. Which was then changed to be more specific and reference 762mm.

Only a retard would seriously think that making illegal the fitting a thinner recoil pad, or scraping 0.00002mm off by rubbing on concrete was the intention of this proposal.

I hope all those who sent in abusive or half cocked emails sent another to apologise and congratulate him on seeking heavier penalties for those found with cut down guns.

Intention is worthless when it comes to writing arms amendments. Apparently some think the intention of previous arms amendments, was to limit the import of modern semi automatic rifles into the country. But I don't see that written in the arms act? Oh but it's common sense right?

Also needing a permit to cut down a firearm? Up to 5 years in prison, so probably next to nothing in reality, served concurrently? Man that'll scare them!

Originally Posted by systolic

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.

You would have to be pretty stupid to write an entire draft amendment and forget to include the defining element.


Sent from my SM-A510Y using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by systolic

Yes, what was proposed in the DRAFT. Which was then changed to be more specific and reference 762mm.

Only a retard would seriously think that making illegal the fitting a thinner recoil pad, or scraping 0.00002mm off by rubbing on concrete was the intention of this proposal.

I hope all those who sent in abusive or half cocked emails sent another to apologise and congratulate him on seeking heavier penalties for those found with cut down guns.

you calling me a retard? @systolic

Folks get your popcorn ready.

Originally Posted by Nick-D

Thats a pretty big cognitive leap.

Recidivism rates don't meaningfully change with the introduction of longer sentences, neither does crime occurrence. We don't have to guess, there is plenty of empirical data to gather our conclusions from. Even capitol punishment and 3 strike laws don't work. There aren't many harsher penalties. If you want to reduce recidivism you need to use the carrot as well, not just the stick.

Please explain how capital punishment does not reduce recidivism.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk