Thread: Kiwis support stricter controls on gun owners

Maybe we should run a poll on this forum to see who is for tougher gun laws? :-)

Originally Posted by Friwi

Maybe we should run a poll on this forum to see who is for tougher gun laws? :-)

That's not a bad idea however the problem is you need to define "tougher"... because that word alone is too subjective. Your idea of tougher will be different to mine... and his... and his. First give some limitations, then run a poll that will give meaningful results, not a simple yes or no.

Personally, I'd really like to have a civil dialogue, devoid of emotion with people whose views are for or opposed without it denigrating into a bun fight or a quest for one-upmanship.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Personally, I'd really like to have a civil dialogue, devoid of emotion with people whose views are for or opposed without it denigrating into a bun fight or a quest for one-upmanship.

Unfortunately for the wider public discussion, the mass-market media want the exact opposite of that.

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Unfortunately for the wider public discussion, the mass-market media want the exact opposite of that.

I was referring to the confines of this forum.

Stricter storage requirements for a cat is about all I would want changed. I have a safe bolted to the floor so not worried personally but know some that use the old bike lock... Sure this has come up in the past

I think tougher to me means more stringent (and maybe scientific) back ground checks on suitability, purpose and mental stability. Also maybe more thorough training and testing. I honestly don't know enough about it, but thats my gut feeling based on my experiences and observations. I personally know people who shouldn't in my view have a gun license.

I would also like to see far tougher penalties for illegal gun ownership or dealing.

A good point tahr, some people tempered,end change over time and they no longer become a fiit and proper person in my eyes. May even you get licence renewed every 10years you should get an interview, eye test and general once over by police. Means a lot more work for police though, therefore increased costs

People temper and they change, certainly. Some don't. Some just get old (physically). But do they all suddenly commit crimes with firearms?

Nobody can predict what can happen with the human personality. We can monitor what happens but that in itself brings another intrusion to bear - i.e. should a person, because he has firearms, is automatically perceived as a threat and should receive increased scrutiny from the state?

Firearms owners are the most vetted people in New Zealand society. Given the amount of overzealous security inspections recently, not to mention the glaring inconsistencies in the interpretation of the law - that - combined with the low incidence of firearm crime in this country - I see no reason to suddenly grant increase powers of surveillance to those who are not suitably aware of the existing laws that they are attempting to administer.

I am in Oz at the moment and have to put up with this crap. My bro ranted about the neo liberal feminists infringing on his right to have a penis and is in favor of gun control cos it works so well in Oz. When i asked him if he would accept mass surveillance of all his emails in order to prevent some theoretical terrorist attack he said no as long as there was only a small number of attacks??? And then complained about the stricter drinking laws killing the night life in King's Cross. Apparently it's only the freedoms that he enjoys that matter.

Australia is beyond repair.

I can't justify "tougher" restrictions. It's not like people are getting shot, robbed or threatened by licensed gun owners every day of the week.

I think A cat registration is a pending cluster fuck. I'm not saying it from the point of view of somebody who wants to hide his gun from the government. They already claim to know about all of my favourite rifles anyway. I'm looking at it from a cost to benefit analysis.

The title of of the poll itself is misleading. It should read " 83% of people who visit our website support stricter controls on firearms owners."

That's cool and all, but do the people who visit that website form an indicative portion of the population? I'm a late 20s, European, male and I've probably never visited that website. I would like to see the demographic breakdown of people who frequent that site. Are a greater portion of them in an older age bracket than me? Do they actually represent the population?

Welcome to journalism. Publish any headline you like.

For all we know it could be '83% of staff members in the TVNZ cafeteria support stricter controls on firearms owners'

There is a consensus amongst most licensed firearms owners (note I haven't used the word 'gun' - it's has a horribly 'emotional' inference), is that our current licensing system is quite strict enough.
Going back a few years (like @Tahr, I'm retired - and the same age), the license holder was vetted by the local AO.
If he thought you were a pretty 'sound looking bloke', you got your firearms license, i.e. you were licensed to own firearms and were required to keep a record of purchase/sale of these on your license (the little Red Book).
The training/vetting system now is much stricter and is wholly aimed at law-abiding citizens.
What is missing IMO, is severe penalties for using firearms - or any weapon (including 'king hit' punches), capable of inflicting fatal injuries - in the commission of a crime.
I'd like to think that the punishment - I'd recommend automatic life imprisonment, with no parole period - is so draconian, that even a 'fit of temper' or 'crime of passion' (gotta love the French), does not exempt the perpetrator.
That violence in the family unit (refer to TV the last couple of nights), will almost assuredly draw automatic penalties for the 'beater' or violation of restraining orders, bringing similar retribution from the courts.
Time for COLFO, NZDA, NZCTA and other shooter organisations to get together and present a united face to the Gov't, media and the public, regarding the current biased results that are aired so willingly by our so-called 'Free Press'.
I see no benefit in us talking to each other on this and other shooter/firearms owners forums.
The message needs to get out into the public arena that the law-abiding firearms owners are not the problem, it's the use of our 'toys' by criminals in the execution of their lawbreaking.
Because we're reasonably sensible people (in the main), and responsible firearms owners, we are 'painted' with the same brush as the criminals - who have illegally acquired firearms in their criminal behaviour - this is what irks me personally.
To be classified in the same group of people that are practicing illegal behaviour, yet I'm complying with the firearms law, as it stands, in every way, really rubs me up the wrong way - gets me really angry.
My 2c worth.