You are being obtuse. I was musing about possibilities and ideas. Not rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koshogi
Printable View
You are being obtuse. I was musing about possibilities and ideas. Not rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koshogi
To me this is more prevalent from members I know to have ARs etc from what they share one here, no judgement just an observation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kscott
But inferred nonetheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibo
I actually wouldn't mind having a civil discussion, even with people I know from past posting that have a dim view of what rifles I like.
Just highlighting the above... again, as an "AR type firearm owner".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
Not really. Just an observation, take a defensive stance if you wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
An observation that you felt compelled to comment on as a non-AR type rifle owner? I think it's an inaccurate one but carry on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibo
Ha ha see
I sure do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibo
Man cant even make an unbiased observation without hurting feelings, how do you all think you can handle a civil discussion. Outies!
You're welcome to contribute to the topic at hand (Kiwis supporting further firearm controls) instead of casting opinion based observations about who slings the most mud?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibo
Personally, I'd like to see increased security for A category firearms, a practical competency test as part of the firearm licensing process and more rigorous enforcement of laws that are already on the books.
My feelings: Target the fucking crims, spend money on solving crime instead of raping the lawful. There ya go :)
Don't know who said this - someone much cleverer than me:
"From the garden of enforced peace, so the seeds of war are reaped".
Civil discussion about 'toys' can be 'difficult', when all parties to the discussion are passionate about their type of toy.
And others take the piss mercilessly - something I'm enjoying.
I'm sorry that would infer it will be able to fire something pointy, you can only whittle a small branch with rounded ends and you then need to get it coated in foam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
I have conducted a survey with myself and have 100% agreement with myself that this is the preferred option (okay there were two decenting voices but I ignored them to make a round number like my gut.)
Does anyone want to give me an AR so that I can be the lone AR owner in NZ who wants tougher firearm laws ? Pretty please :D
Tougher penalties for crims using firearms.
Tougher penalties for poachers / illegal hunters.
Improved security requirements for storage - ffs put the thing in a safe !
Training tailored to the end use - target identification for hunters...
Consistency in terms of interpretation of the "law" by AOs in different districts.
An end to the MSSA debacle. Only way I can see this ever working is to make all semis a special category. So go gotta join a club to own one ? What is the big deal ?
Start flaming boys :P
ebf, thats tougher at the right end, the rest I can live with!:)
mine will be for sale in a few months ebf!!!!!!! remember it has the nice trigger you likedQuote:
Originally Posted by ebf
Seems reasonable, however I dont agree with the last bit. I think the MSSA definition should get binned (completely not just the name) and anything that holds less than 11 rounds is A cat, anything over 11 rounds or shorter than 30inchs (or whatever it is) is E cat then large capacity magazines can be controlled.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
I made a comment on an SSNZ upload to a FB page about tougher prison terms for firearms offences, the reply was that would lead to gun fights between Cops and Robbers, is that a bad thing?
So you're suggesting to restrict magazines of any sort above 10 rounds to only people who hold an E cat licence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilli_Dog
I'm presuming that you're suggesting all semi-automatic longarms fall under "E" category classification? If so, I think the horse has long since bolted in that regard with the amount of unregistered semiautomatics already in circulation. With police's resources already stretched, I cannot see how the registration of all of these firearms could be conducted.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
As for belonging to a club as being a requirement to own a semi... Why? I can't see how it would make anyone safer? A farmer who rides around with his 10/22 probably doesn't have the time or the inclination to belong to a club just so he can have a .22 rifle which happens to be semiautomatic.
What is wrong with the current system?
Oh boy oh boy......united we stand divided we fall...as you were
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HI agree with everything except the training, having lived in a country where voluntary training for hunting is looking like becoming compulsory and having taken clients out from country's where it is compulsory,I can assure you it is pointless , buck fever cannot be trained for, idiots are idiots, and some of the NZ attitude to hunting does not help, quote " I don,t like blaze orange as it looks like the brown of a deer " a customer in the shop said to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
Yip, an arbitry line in the sand that I think would solve a few of the concerns the Police have with A cat ARs being used in E cat configuration (which seems to be part of the reason for the current push), while at the same time not being overly restrictive for most users. How many non-semi firearms out there hold more than 11 rounds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexla
Even though as far as I can see it is a reasonable solution, it is largely irrelevant as it will never happen. I also don't think a register is a good idea and I don't think all semis should end up E cat either.
The odd tube mag lever or pump action I guess. Changing the wording to 'detachable magazines' would leave out tube mag guns though if that was an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilli_Dog
Until someone can explain to me (convincingly and with facts) how making/enforcing yet more laws on law abiding firearms owners/user who are arguably the most law abiding of citizens, (as all of us have been vetted and licensed by the govt representatives ), in the country will make us all safer I prefer to stick with current status quo.
Actually I believe if you are fit an proper to have a license that should be it, there are not "degrees of fit an properness"
Not withstanding handguns only to be used on an approved club range should the above ever eventuate
The cynic in me says we firearms user groups will all line up to throw each other under the Govt Bus in the vage hope we might be allowed a reprieve for our own interest/hobby
i'd like to see the lower end of security improved. Giving me a license with a bike lock coach screwed into a stud is bullshit. Minimum of a an approved gun safe so the tin foil office folder type jobs don't cut it. At the end of the day i think the main issue is the wrong people having guns so first step is trying to prevent them stealing them. After that the other ways, dishonest people legally buying and supplying to crims etc need to be addressed. All firearms purchases are recorded in store, if they were in a central database someone could see a person had bought dozens and dozens of firearms so questions could/should be asked. The harder we make it the more they cost on the black market and therefore will cut half the useless crims out of the game and so on. Like it or not, these toys we have can change someones life for ever, either ending it or ending the life of a loved one. We do need to, and i'm sure everyone does appreciate that the assholes are ruining it for us and accept we will have to jump through a few more hoops to continue to enjoy them like we do.
I'm happy with the license proceedure, i'm not sure how they will predict when/if someone will flip mentally so that's just what it is. we are dynamic creatures, each day has different challenges.
Sounds a bit like a car.....truck .....bus "these toys can change someone's life..."Quote:
Originally Posted by smidey
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah and we all hear how tough they are getting on testing and enforcement. They have a few more safety features to
Sent from my workbench
I don't mind the lower level of security standard as long as its for occasional rather than regular use.
For example, there is a basic gun rack bolted to the wall inside a cupboard at relatives place so that when I or other family members are there visiting for a night or two and have guns with us, we can lock them up. They don't own any themselves and firearms are never stored there long term, to me its a quite acceptable standard for that use. I've even used a cable lock through the action and around a beam when staying at a mates bach, some security is better than none.
I wouldn't personally be happy with that level of security for regular primary storage, but for the intended use its fine.
Having discussed security with an arms officer in the past (probably when they were checking my safe), he thought the same thing - the lower end of permitted security is intended for occasional rather than regular use and is appropriate for that purpose, but he didn't like the idea of people using it for long-term storage.
I guess the problem they have in enforcing security requirements on all licence holders is you have to draw the line somewhere - if the security required is too expensive/onerous then some people who would otherwise have a licence (and be vetted etc) might not bother. Thinking about the sort of people who don't own a gun, but borrow one from a mate to go duckshooting for a weekend.
You would hope those guys had both kinds of license, or the loaner could be in a world of troubleQuote:
Originally Posted by GravelBen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
Bwaharrrrr....thanks for the humour Tussock....this will be printed off and hung in my man cave......
PS, im looking for ash now (whittle, whittle)
That is an interesting point in itself that a lot of people here may not have picked up on. I started in a similar way but didnt really do any shooting after leaving school and have only got my license this year. That said I have had quite a bit of time handling a firearm and could have walked into the MSC course and passed it without reading the book as my Dad had drummed it all into me many years ago. What hit me in that course though was that there were probably half a dozen people out of 30 odd there that had never even touched a firearm before and there is a pretty big difference between being told you have to do this and that all the time and actually doing it, like pointing a firearm in a safe direction all the time etc. No idea how to fix this though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
Getting OT now but at age 12 I was handed the farm Gecado single shot and a packet of 50 ICI hollow points and sent out. When I returned I was asked how many rabbits for how many shots. I was chasticed if the ratio wasn't 1:1. That was back in the "good Ole days" when there were no accidents ha ha, or either spreading of news was a lot slower and less efficient.
Extract from the latest COLFO Newsletter -
"A recent poll commissioned by TVNZ indicated that 83% of New Zealanders favour tougher gun laws. Of course they did not specify what “Tougher gun laws” actually mean and we doubt whether many of those questioned know either let alone what laws apply to licensed firearm owners now.
However what this poll shows is that the New Zealand public at large has been persuaded by sensational and often biased media reporting that our firearms laws are lax. Invariably the media publish statements made by those opposed to firearm ownership but steadfastly refuse to publish counter arguments.
What we all need to do is counter this adverse perception at every opportunity. Explain that our current laws are effective and law abiding firearm owners are not the problem; that invariably gun crimes are committed by unlicensed individuals who show no regard for any laws; that tougher gun laws will most certainly divert police resources away from combating real criminal activity and have them focusing new restrictions on law abiding people.
This is how YOU can get the message out: talk to your MP and local politicians; write to newspapers challenging stories that call for “tougher gun laws”; and most important of all make submissions concerning any new changes to the Arms Act when you’re called upon to do so."
I'm thinking the odd complaint to the broadcasting standards authority about unbalanced/biased reporting could be in order too.Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmer
heres an idea. for those that use a firearm to commit a crime then 10 years minimum no parole. for those that cause death in committing a crime a short rope and a long drop
I vote the really inhumane solution. Lock'em up and continuously play "The Sound of Music."Quote:
Originally Posted by gonetropo
Isn't it strange that prior to 1983 firearms could be quite legally put behind the kitchen door, left under the seat in the car, or hung on a nail in the shearing shed, and it was no real problem. Sure, there was not a total lack of crime but it was relatively rare, and people did not go ballistic if they saw someone minding their own business with a firearm. So what has changed? Basically six things, as follows;
Police are not in small local Police stations, patrolling their local beat, and afraid to kick the arse of trouble-makers when they see them.
We had a viable mental health system with 'laughing academies' that kept inmates in varying levels of security according to their potential risk.
Schools were not PC, teachers wore appropriate clothing (dresses, or shirts and ties), classes were not biased toward the dumbest students, and misbehavior was punished on the spot.
Courts dealt out punishment appropriate to the offence, with borstal for serious young offenders.
The population was not corrupted by crap films and TV shows, biased journalism, violent video games, and the easy availablility of drugs.
People of all ages were expected to be responsible for their actions.
The lack of these six points has bred a generation that contains a high proportion of members that simply have no real grasp of the basic norms of an harmonious society (including many of our current crop of politicians). Given this situation, it is no wonder that they are looking at punishing the very people that are not causing the problem, viz. the law-abiding, decent, Police-vetted licenced firearms owners of our fair land. Until we can change some attitudes, expect to be victimized! I have done my fair share over the years to try and change things (in the esteemed company of a few fellow shooters) but until the majority of you make a point of expressing your outrage directly to those in Government and the news media, then we are on the slippery slope!
I have no problems about our current gun laws save for some of the damned idiots who get to own them legally. Outside of gun laws, I think everyone is concerned about all of the damned idiots who own them illegally.