Thread: Car crash radio interview with Chris Cahill

https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/play...khPuVDyhT1dnUE

Suggestion: Could we please create perhaps a sub-form under "Shooting" for police related threads - specifically ones pertaining to legislation and police association communications, so that they can be easily referenced in future?

6 mins of my life I'm never getting back

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

first he rambles on about criminals having guns then he decides that we need more regulation for lawful owners. the guy is a muppet. of course penalising us will stop illegal handguns coming in with 100kg of P.

03:47 - "...it's all good rhetoric but it isn't evidence, is it?"

03:51 - "Well it is evidence..."

I heard the interview this morning, before I knew who he was I thought what an idiot.

Fantastic!

05:00 we have the union tongue firmly up their master's arse, then 06:20 we have his imaginary friends again. Fuck off Chris, you're a lying sack of shit.

I love the 4.29 mark can you give me actual numbers? Chris blah blah blah no answer in that
Lobbied by a small section of the gun community?

My question didn’t we sign a petition on this? If so how many signatures?

What a knob. Thought Guyon Espiner did a good job.

Another thing I've heard him mention consistently in his radio interviews and it's very important:

05:55 - "... we need to have a better discussion around how many guns are imported every year, the sort of guns and whether they're all needed".

Basically what he is advocating for has not been realised. "Better discussion" is double speak for "how can we control". We all know what sort of firearms he is querying "the need" for. The same type that more often than not simply do not feature in the infinitesimally number of actual - not imagined - incidents where firearms are presented at police. As for "need", it's a free country - for the time being at least. One might also ask why do we "need" bottled water?

It's a slippery slope when one has to justify "needs" to the state.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Another thing I've heard him mention consistently in his radio interviews and it's very important:

05:55 - "... we need to have a better discussion around how many guns are imported every year, the sort of guns and whether they're all needed".

Basically what he is advocating for has not been realised. "Better discussion" is double speak for "how can we control". We all know what sort of firearms he is querying "the need" for. The same type that more often than not simply do not feature in the infinitesimally number of actual - not imagined - incidents where firearms are presented at police. As for "need", it's a free country - for the time being at least. One might also ask why do we "need" bottled water?

It's a slippery slope when one has to justify "needs" to the state.

It's so obvious to see through his bullshit. Basically he wants registration so he can have some actual data (which he strangely seems to be lacking to back up what he is saying).

Once he has that data, he can run back and say "OMG, we had no idea there were so many of this kind of gun, and we had no idea there are so many people who own more than a couple, we need a buyback and limitations on xyz..."

That's where all of his rhetoric points to if you read and listen to him carefully.

I wonder what Mr Cahill thinks about the proposal from Wellington to cut back arms management field staff drastically? How would they fit the implementation of such a bold undertaking as universal registration into the midst of such a radical restructure, when the 36 field staff have all of their other duties to carry out at the same time? Are AO's not part of the police association?

Originally Posted by Beavis

It's so obvious to see through his bullshit. Basically he wants registration so he can have some actual data (which he strangely seems to be lacking to back up what he is saying).

Once he has that data, he can run back and say "OMG, we had no idea there were so many of this kind of gun, and we had no idea there are so many people who own more than a couple, we need a buyback and limitations on xyz..."

That's where all of his rhetoric points to if you read and listen to him carefully.

I wonder what Mr Cahill thinks about the proposal from Wellington to cut back arms management field staff drastically? How would they fit the implementation of such a bold undertaking as universal registration into the midst of such a radical restructure, when the 36 field staff have all of their other duties to carry out at the same time? Are AO's not part of the police association?

He said that they don't have actual data yet, but are starting to collect it now.
So in 12months time they will say it's 100x worse than they thought and it's getting worse, despite no long term data to actually back it up.

Originally Posted by Beavis

It's so obvious to see through his bullshit.

Indeed.

Cahill's feet need to be held to the fire at every turn. Not only is he targeting LFAO but in this interview he even discredits the organisation he represents:

02:08 - "Police have also admitted that their firearms data is flawed, it's very bad and it has to umm improve dramatically. In a internal review they did they found of 90 firearm incidents, only 5 were correctly recorded. So I um... have very grave doubts that their data is actually correct".

In other words 5.55% were correctly recorded. What determines a "firearm incident"? Let's assume two basic factors for the purpose of this discussion:

1. A firearm is present
2. A firearm is presented

One should ask how difficult can the presence of or the presentation of a firearm be to document if ~94% are "incorrectly recorded"?

It's not complicated. There was a firearm present, or not. A firearm was presented, or not.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Indeed.

Cahill's feet need to be held to the fire at every turn. Not only is he targeting LFAO but in this interview he even discredits the organisation he represents:

02:08 - "Police have also admitted that their firearms data is flawed, it's very bad and it has to umm improve dramatically. In a internal review they did they found of 90 firearm incidents, only 5 were correctly recorded. So I um... have very grave doubts that their data is actually correct".

In other words 5.55% were correctly recorded. What determines a "firearm incident"? Let's assume two basic factors for the purpose of this discussion:

1. A firearm is present
2. A firearm is presented

One should ask how difficult can the presence of or the presentation of a firearm be to document if ~94% are "incorrectly recorded"?

It's not complicated. There was a firearm present, or not. A firearm was presented, or not.

Do airsoft, paintball, replica's and starter guns count as guns when they get recorded.....? I bet they do.

Originally Posted by 40mm

Do airsoft, paintball, replica's and starter guns count as guns when they get recorded.....? I bet they do.

Gun-fingers probably count. Not that they would have the data available