@dannyb - please lock this thread at the first sign of politics. There is an excellent video we should all watch and share that gives Nicole McKie's side of the story - https://youtu.be/rhQc596j8Nw
Printable View
@dannyb - please lock this thread at the first sign of politics. There is an excellent video we should all watch and share that gives Nicole McKie's side of the story - https://youtu.be/rhQc596j8Nw
I think Nicole covered it off very well, nuff said.
Yes, in the interview on TV news a couple of night ago, Nicole did not hold back & made it clear that Cahill was not truthful & was telling lies. Going on to sight examples of his lies
got a link ?Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw
Following with interest.
She's the one person Cahill should not pick a metaphorical fight with. She's smart, savvy, a great orator, has enormous subject knowledge, is extremely practical and has run a successful business. VERY few politicians can tick all those boxes. Go Nicole!!!
And dont forget also a grandma .Quote:
Originally Posted by XR500
That lady speaks very well.you go girl.
It was on 6 o’clock TV 1 news night before last. Maybe available via the streaming service?Quote:
Originally Posted by gonetropo
Jeez, your very first sentence...don't bait the man!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bol Tackshin
I'm not the only mod here, just saying. Sadly by the very nature of the topic involved thus thread will likely denigrate to political discussion/debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by outlander
I'd love to be proved wrong, but I sincerely doubt it :psychotic:
But the whole discussion is purely political.
Its impossible to discuss this subject without politics because its a political football.
Yes but certain individuals like to take it well into the political territory (something I'm guilty of).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fee Knicks
It's just nice to finally see a proper debate being had in good faith, something we have never had.
I'm glad that Cahill has thrown his toys out of the cot and Nicole has been cool as a cucumber.
Enough so the the media is even giving a non-biased take on things.
I've meet Nicole and she is such a down to earth person I think it'll be hard for anyone to get the "gun lobby" label to stick.
Cahill on the other hand, well he's shown people who he really is, and as Nicole pointed out with his performance during the pay negotiations, he really should be focusing on other things right now (like doing his job).
That would be a true statement..well said there .Quote:
Originally Posted by XR500
One news tonight had a different slant on this but she still came across well. Only time will tell.
Quite funny how different people view this debate. I saw an article about illegal firearm imports while having lunch at work yesterday and mentioned to a colleague that this is why the registry will never be accurate. He then started spouting on about "that ACT woman" being on TV and how she doesn't have a clue what she's talking about.
Him being English and I don't think has ever handled a firearm was then given an education by me about who Nicole is and what she has done in her life in regard to firearm use, safety, law and that she is probably one of the most knowledgeable people in NZ to cover these issues. He didn't have anything to say after that.
Good on you mate.
I’m not so sure the mainstream media are that non biased.
They are being a bit more subtle, but there is definitely element of spin in the balance of their articles.
Hopefully the discourse is allowed to run without too much bias such that the general public get to hear all sides of the story.
Time will tell I guess if the average kiwi is still able to think for themselves
I think most Kiwis think for themselves - its just that many , many of them are too afraid to voice an opinion for fear of ridicule or shaming or outright attacks from those who have differing opinions.
Ultimately , being offended doesnt make you right - it just means you disagree.
Well if TV1 news coverage tonight is anything to go by then media bias is a clear & present danger. They interviewed that curly headed slapped from GunControl NZ for several minutes, never questioned or challenged the crap she was spewing out. And no attempt to include an alternate view from Colfo or similar. Very biased & lazy journalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boner
Some people will always have strong opinion on things they know nothing about.Quote:
Originally Posted by RUMPY
Or will think a certain way as that’s what they’ve always thought/the culture they’ve been bought up in.
Unfortunately nothing can ever been done about that, other than just ignoring them.
The hate farmers get from certain parts of the population beggars belief as an example of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fee Knicks
Unfortunately I think you give most people too much credit. I have yet to meet a non gun person that didn't swallow the media spin hook, line & sinker. Most that know me (including close family) know that I have/enjoy firearms but the only comments I hear on the subject are negative ranging from "murder tools" to "they'll all be gone soon".
I do try to educate/inform them of the other side but with most of them they've got both feet well and truly in the other camp without even realizing it.
That is the problem and would probably apply to a majority of the population in New Zealand, they have been feed the lies from the media and that is what they believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by No good names left
The media have shaped the opinions of New Zealanders for a prolonged time and are like the police they will never admit to being wrong.
Apparently there are approx 250000 firearms owners in nz.
If we can't make our voices count together we are in trouble.
Kiwis typically don't care until it affects them directly.
Then it's to late.
Sent from my SM-A556E using Tapatalk
This recent issue with Cahill needed a bit of anti gun spin
.
He was firmly placed back in his box by Mckie but now is in a difficult position. If NZPHQ speaks in support of him,they show he is their mouthpiece, if they stay silent the public think NZPHQ don't support him.
In which case he is speaking gor the 51% of the Police who voted for him. Or was the position uncontested again?
The media talking to the loonies helps muddy the waters a bit ,but it dose come down to who Cahill is actually representing.
My view on this is that the forums rule is “No Politics”. However very unfortunately, a great number of our membership do not fully understand that “politics” and something “political” are two quite different things. This subject which affects us hugely and which should be of topical interest to us all and debated freely, is definitely political but is not politics. One man’s view!Quote:
Originally Posted by Beetroot
On the subject matter, Chris Cahill should not get into a battle of wits with Nicole McKee as he will very quickly realise that he is an unarmed man. (pun intended)
Cahill is doing his utmost to distract from his disaster after he caved to the Govt on the pay deal to the detriment of his Union Membership, which begs the question, whose interest is Cahill working for. Methinks he is working at the behest of Police National HQ for the simple reason an in depth Review is going to show their complete and utter incompetence in all things Firearms related and that is in spite of evidence proving that salient point being buried for 50 years post - 2019/20. The obvious question is Who has the most to lose ???. Answer = PNHQ and Chris Cahill in that order.
I don't think you can say Cahill caved on the pay deal - I doubt in this environment that there was ever anything more coming. The PA held out as long as they could for their membership, but in the end the legal process of compulsory and binding arbitration made the deal for all parties and the arbitrator (a well respected employment lawyer) basically agreed with the Government. Effectively if Cahill failed in anything in representing the serving Police Officers it's not concluding the deal under the previous Govt, but they were not willing to play to his tune either.
As far as the firearms end, that was really a 'last ditch' level action from him. If it doesn't work and get his wishes accepted, then his position becomes 'fringe group' and virtually sidelined going forwards. That's the way it looks like it's going too! The GCNZ woman (Yasbek?) never interviews well, the guy who's part of that 4-person outfit speaks a lot more articulacy than she does. They have a point if you purely look from the 'societal safety' viewpoint in that anything that could be used as a weapon can harm the 'fabric of society', but that includes groups such as hers being weaponised to serve a purpose of others!
I got quite angry with Newstalk ZB on Tuesday. The wgtn morning show with nick (dunno has last name), he kept calling Nicole McKee a lobbyist - comparing her with people from the tobacco industry. The current head of COLFO rung in a very eloquently put him in his place, however Nick doubled down and wouldn't admit he'd got it wrong.
I would love to see Cahill get into it with Nicole…. It would shine a light directly on the hypocrisy that Cahill is…..I would very much like to see that debate….. please,bring it on!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bChPQYkdY2E
Cahill on the Platform today.
I do find it funny some of the evidence he gave for a gun register.
-Mathew Hunt being killed with a MSSA, depsite being 6 months after the gun buyback where Police assured us the criminals would all be handing their guns in.
-The Mosque Shooter being able to get and AR on an A cat licence didn't mean that the E cat had to be scrapped.
In many ways this is also an own goal as the Police pissing around with pistol grip definitions made A cat ARs more widely spread, which is how he managed to get and AR so easily.
He present his side pretty well, nice to see he didn't resort to name calling.
He presents some genuine views and concerns that need to be considered in this discussion, but it's just one side of the story among many and undoubtedly has many biases built in.
Again I'm glad this discussion is being had openly and in good faith, as we all know the Cahills opinion was just taken for granted as being correct last time, without any debate from the otherside.
I think the position that Cahill and his mates put up is best understood by utilising a practical example, so here goes.
If I kill someone with an axe, I am a bad bugger.
If I kill group of people with a chainsaw, I am a villan.
If I bomb a sports stadium or rock concert and kill the quivalent of a small town population, I am very bad.
If I put poison into a water supply and kill an entire city, I am evil.
If I shoot someone with a semi auto rifle, it's Nicole McKee's fault.
Media and the anti gun nutters would also have you believe it is the semi auto rifle’s fault because it is evil. Our world full of numpties that attribute human characteristics to inanimate objects. Chris Cahill is a special kind of Numpty fo making the comment you highlighted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Waimata
It's a weird one aye. Any other fatality and the person gets blamed, but with shootings alone it's the fault of the firearm. Cahill said in the Platform interview that semi autos should have been banned because of the Aramoana tragedy, but he said nothing about banning cars for the 15,000 or so road deaths since then (incidentally largely committed by registered vehicles).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
I said it just after aramoana incident...look at the time frame.he could've used a golf club and done as much damage. BUT as many pointed out,the intent of changes made after that were sidestepped which hamstrung any worthwhile effect.
Quote; Cahill on the Platform today.
Well plunket doesn’t help the cause either … he firmly believes all guns should be registered and that solves the problem,obviously it doesn’t…….,plunket also said that the excuse shooters make about have the data base stolen and the whereabouts of gun owners and there guns is Bullshit “because” the numbers don’t support it……here’s a bloke who thinks we are just minority whinging gun owners who need to get a grip!!????…… fuck him,he’s part of the problem!!!
….. his main reasoning was ….. if we register cars etc,then we should register guns as well…..
That tendency is called anthropomorphism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
The safety argument around gun control and registration don't stack up either.
Cars are registered and yet cars are stolen every hour.
Cars are registered and yet about 380 people were killed on our roads in each of the last two years.
If the safety argument was to be applied to driver licensing then it would be much harder to get drivers licenses.
The penalty for driving unlicensed or outside of one's license conditions would be much more stringent.
If the safety argument was to be applied to cars then all cars would be restricted to less than 60 kmh, roll cages, race seats, harnesses & helmets would be compulsory and vehicle safety checks would be required much more frequently.
More people are killed each and every years by cars and drivers and no restrictions have or will be imposed on drivers and their vehicles.
Gun laws/regulations/restrictions are easier to apply as guns are easier to portray as evil things and gun owners are a minority in the electoral system.