Thread: The anti gun lobby

Lol if our current systems mandated 5 year checks, they would be crying for 2 year checks. There is no limit to what these morons want. We concede semi auto's, they'll whinge cuz we still have pump actions. No compromise.

Originally Posted by Beavis

No compromise.

That's not really correct, there are quite happy for us to compromise everything we have.

That's why we shouldn't compromise

Originally Posted by Bryan

Uneducated, ill researched dribble with no academic backing. Can't believe that crap was published.

Sent from my GT-I8190T using Tapatalk

Its the media for ya mate. Bunch of one sided cocks

Originally Posted by 199p

Its the media for ya mate. Bunch of one sided cocks

Speaking from experience lately mate


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Beavis, at the COLFO AGM this "noise" was discussed and the Pollies are saying that the pro-Gun lobby is all but invisible, meanwhile Amnesty International, and other anti-gun organisations are lobbying all the time. So really apathy could lose us our privaledges...that worries me. I mean look at the UK, every gun on a licence and anally applied rules. eg if the licence says 7.62x51 you cant buy a 308winchester, do we really want to end up there? Because with these bozoes lobbying against us that's what will happen. Also the stupidity of some and especially young males in ignoring the rules is going to f*** us over IMHO.

regards

In at least half of the "incidents" over the last couple of years where so-called responsible gun owners have been given a bad name or more ammunition provided for the anti lobby, the person responsible was not a youngster.

In fact, until the incident, several of them would have been held up as examples of safety conscious, responsible firearms users...

Originally Posted by steven

So really apathy could lose us our privaledges...that worries me.

People referring to firearm ownership as a privilege worries me.

So far in May 7 people have been killed on our roads. these lobby groups really need to look at themselves and focus on where people are getting killed.

Personally, please don't bite my head off on this, but I would like more focus on firearms safety when getting your licence. Maybe there needs to be a Learners endorsement on a firearms licence if your under a certain age. That way they can spend some time with an experience Licence holder.

Originally Posted by ebf

It has always amazed me that you can simply walk into the bush and hand your buddy (who does not have a license) a firearm. We all know that "supervision" in the bush or maimai is not the same thing as supervision by a RO on a range...

If an unlicensed shooter is under your 'immediate' supervision as defined in the arms code, what does it matter where supervision is undertaken.
There should be little to no risk involved when someone is supervised in the manner required buy law.

Originally Posted by Trevs

Personally, please don't bite my head off on this, but I would like more focus on firearms safety when getting your licence. Maybe there needs to be a Learners endorsement on a firearms licence if your under a certain age. That way they can spend some time with an experience Licence holder.

I'll bite, what you suggest above is the exact system we have now. A licence holder can 'directly' supervise a licenced, or unlicenced individual. The idea is to mentor their approach to safety and proficiency. That person can be a father, a neighbour, a friend or club member. A simple system for us, the end user, with no need for additional controls. The arms code provides a crystal clear definition of immediate supervision.
As stated above, experience has little to do with the outcome of many of the most recent hunting incidents.
People need to stop with the graduated licence rubbish. I for one don't wish to have the current licencing system restricted or complicated unnecessarily at the request of an outspoken few.

Firearm deaths and injury are typically a hunting issue, leave the licensing criteria out of it.
I challenge anyone to identify an incident where at least one of the 7 safety rules has not been followed to its fullest, sadly hunter safety should be that simple.

Originally Posted by Banana

People referring to firearm ownership as a privilege worries me.

Better check the bottom of the first page of the arms code.

Originally Posted by Moutere

Better check the bottom of the first page of the arms code.

The Arms Code is the Police's interpretation of the Arms Act, the Code itself has no legal standing. Privilege, implies that the police/government own our freedom and are fully entitled to restrict it for whatever reason they feel. People viewing firearm ownership as a privilege that we should be grateful for, is why we will get screwed each time the police want to enact more pointless gun laws.

Originally Posted by Moutere

Better check the bottom of the first page of the arms code.

A document produced by the police written from their perspective, and swallowed without apparent thought by those duped into believing that they should be grateful for such consideration.

This is not legally clarified as a privilege. Only by the police who want to make you dependant on their decision making.

The granting of permission for the ownership and use of a firearm is a regulatory function, and providing that you meet the legal criteria, the police have no right to deny your rights under the law.

The conditions that attach/control access to your rights are a lot harder to change or alter if we are talking about individual rights, as opposed to "privileges"

It would appear that the brainwashing is very successful... because we constantly hear this BS... and from our own fraternity...

We need to change the terminology....

Originally Posted by Moutere

I'll bite, what you suggest above is the exact system we have now. A licence holder can 'directly' supervise a licenced, or unlicenced individual. The idea is to mentor their approach to safety and proficiency. That person can be a father, a neighbour, a friend or club member. A simple system for us, the end user, with no need for additional controls. The arms code provides a crystal clear definition of immediate supervision.

A particular problem facing many new tyro FAL holders is that they simply don't have someone to mentor them in the correct (read: safe) use of a firearm. I would argue that competence in safe handling procedures should be proven before being issued a FAL, which is why I continue to advocate the introduction of a proficiency test as part of the FAL application process.

Originally Posted by Banana

The Arms Code is the Police's interpretation of the Arms Act, the Code itself has no legal standing. Privilege, implies that the police/government own our freedom and are fully entitled to restrict it for whatever reason they feel. People viewing firearm ownership as a privilege that we should be grateful for, is why we will get screwed each time the police want to enact more pointless gun laws.

Fair enough, Are you insinuating firearm ownership is some right then?
Firearm ownership is a privilege exercised by being appropriately licenced.
You have to have one to get the other. Any one is 'free' to apply for a licence, thankfully there are measures to determine their suitability.
NZ has a good balance.

Totally agree, I grew up shooting and have just recently completed my licence. I though the course was well though out and well presented, with good applicable information, but was based to much in the theoretical. It would take bugger all more time and $ to include a portion of the test that includes actual handling and simulated firarms use, across a couple of common scenarios.
That being said, you will never completely remove human error from any activity, and in terms of injuries and deaths, hunting and shooting is still nowhere near as dangerous as many other common past times. And I do think at least in my experience, that the test does a good job of providing you with the right knowledge to be a safe/responable firearms owner.

The application of that knowledge is up to the end user. And you will always get those who are to arrogant/stupid to adhear to the rules even when dealing with something with such a high potential for danger as a firearm.
I just hope like hell we dont end up like ausi or the UK. No semi's and a million restrictions around every aspect of firearms.