Terms of Reference are in link within the article.
https://www.colfo.org/post/governmen...egistry-review
Printable View
Terms of Reference are in link within the article.
https://www.colfo.org/post/governmen...egistry-review
sooner the better. i no longer take firearms outside to put in the car and the registration stats will make it to the crims so increase the risk of burglary and invasion.
Snowflake alert in 3. 2. 1...
Waste of money-check
Targeting law abiding people and not criminals-check
Introduced under false pretences ala all firearms used by crims came from us but inreality most were imported-check
Taking a shit ton of money away from proper policing-check
That's the registry
I emailed those thoughts to Nicole a couple of hours agoQuote:
Originally Posted by csmiffy
If nothing else I'm glad the register is getting an independent review, and a cost benefit analysis done.
Everything the previous Government did regarding firearms needs to be looked at again as we all know it was done with bad intentions.
I live in hope but fear that not much of great benefit to our fraternity will come of it.
I agree, beurocrats will always be the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
This is great news and just what I have hoped for
Sure I don't know what the decision will be but I am as happy as a clam that someone is actually taking a look at it
A really positive sign
Especially when you look through some of the related links.Quote:
Originally Posted by 308
With the government actively reducing spending, the open cheque book of the last government is being undone. They want to reduce bureaucrats' wastage in time, costs and resources then everything government run departments is under the microscope. A good chance for Nicole to use as leverage under the guise of reducing bloat. The police did use the opportunity to create a new self-regulated gold-plated bureaucratic empire, as would any other gov department.
Interesting to see in Aussie the claims of the benefits provided by their version of the registry don't seem to be stacking up to reality. A lot of shooting-related incidents over there seem to have creative classifications added to them which seems to spread their footprint over multiple incident types rather than appearing in one heading of gun crime. Looking back through the news feeds from Aussie their numbers of shooting related gun crime seems to be at a roughly similar rate to what we are experiencing, along with knife crime at a population level. It's a little hard to be specific while the authorities are fudging the numbers obviously.
Hopefully this comes out as part of the review and they don't just use the official figures. There seems to be a solid case to be made for directing the funding and resources for the registry back to the front line that's for sure.
AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by Slug
The way to sell the abandoning of the register to Joe and Jane citizen is
a) Showing how much money it will cost
b) Showing how little crime it will solve
c) Show how many times overseas it has been tried and failed, including the cost overruns (eg Canada)
After all, we used to have a register (red lifetime license) and abandoned that because it no longer worked so we can say it was tried here before and failed so in these straitened circumstances, we would be best to abandon it as it looks like what the Statesiders call a "boondoggle"
Yea but you need to show the real numbers for that not "their" numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by 308
I predict "nothing will change much for now" and I hope to be proved happily wrong but I'm not holding my breath for fear of passing out.
And Right On Cue the Herald run a hit piece, no doubt at the behest of Police. It is behind a pay-wall so not many will read it hopefully.
Firearms and ammunition purchased by straw buyers supplied to Head Hunters, Black Power and Rebels gangs
I remember at the begining of this saga act bought up the fact that known gangmembers actually had firearms licences I wonder what became of that?
I think this quote from the article linked by the OP sums it up perfectly.
the costs versus the benefits of the Registry, and
what changes, if any, are required.
My thoughts are that it is here to stay in 1 form or another. I'm personally not registering yet, not for any fear or hatred of the register but I have no triggering events upcoming for a few years.
Can't read the Herald article but presume any Police comment highlights so called failings that will be corrected by the Firearms Register and prevent future recurrence. Police heirarchy are poor at pointing fingers at themselves. I can see no reason why under authority they currently have there has not already been more effective action against this particular issue. I also don't know why more pressure from politicians is not applied to Police to get on with it. Just maybe it's not serious enough to command higher priority currently. And maybe rather than look weak when the spotlight gets focussed on them Police heirachy would rather deflect with some anti gun opinion that they know will make headlines and that falsely places blame elsewhere. Pretty poor performance all round in my view.
The issue with this is it is a doctrinal problem - Police doctrine is response based i.e. a crime happens, Police respond, investigate and hopefully catch the crim which in theory results in a reduction in crime and an increase in safety. The issue here is when Police are tasked with an administrative function that is not directly related to core business - they follow human nature and tend to flog the resources for core business requirements which is not just a Police failing - as I said human nature.
The main issue with this, is Police by their doctrine treat all parties involved in the admin function as core business clients - which is to say no different than their run of the mill customer base i.e. crims. Dealing with these people vs normal law abiding citizens tends to require a mind shift and the average Police representative does this but you get the hard core that don't and treat everyone as undetected criminals which creates a them/us response.
Police heirachy seem to fall into this latter category and seem to want to nail everyone associated with the admin function of firearms be it dealers, licence holders, retailers, clubs, etc etc. It would appear that managing a softer approach for the people that require it and the harder approach for those that demand it would just seem to hard, too much energy required so buy more and bigger clubs and bash everyone with the proverbial thumping stick seems to be the result. Not ideal.
500 million (rough reported cost of the registry) is I think someone announced 2000 extra people on the beat, or if you wanted to go fully equipped and ready to play something like an extra 750 uniformed sworn staff? That would have a considerably bigger effect on crime, safety and recidivism than an admin system of limited benefit by anyone's reckoning as a means of actually solving crime. Like all 'tracking' systems - it tells you where the item WAS not where it IS, or may be at some time in the future and by the very nature of the claims made the registry can't do it. 500 million also funds a large chunk of the cancer drugs and mental health requirements - just plonking that out there, or a large chunk of the cancelled te tiriti based programs...
The reason quoted for getting rid of the old paper based system is that it was so out of date and it contained so many errors that it was basically useless. The E-cat and B-cat registries containing the data for a much smaller number of firearms similarly contained a fairly hefty error percentage, this was the reason behind wanting to make the new system electronic and public facing so the licence holders took on the job of ensuring their own records were correct. Unfortunately, the means of entering the data and the amount of work to get access means that of the 100,000 odd firearms registered there is likely the same numbers of errors already accumulating in the recently populated data. The main issue is without the licence holders doing the checking there is no way of knowing for the workers on the system to know whats good and whats an error. And the majority of people I've chatted to about it haven't bothered to go and check - they've registered when they needed to and done their bit no longer their problem and it's more effort than they cared about expending to go and do it. We just can't know if the data is good or toast. Makes the whole shooting box look like a waste of money, brains and time - the proverbial WOMBAT project.
The whole straw buyers thing is what Police are pushing the most. Sure they have caught a lot of people but they have been stupid people, people going into a gunshop and dropping $10K and buying 3 or 4 of the same type of firearm plus a shit ton of ammo. The register will allow them to run cross references of firearms against names and licence numbers. So thats why we see so many straw buyer stories, so the public will think the register is making NZ safe, and NZ police are correct to want it to be kept.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSA
And to make it worse the report under the OIA recently suggested it was only single digit percentages of firearms confiscated by police during crimes that were ever recorded from anywhere which means nearly all of them were probably imported which renders registration as a control tool for criminal activities useless.
It's just a tool for future bans and confiscations
if you are bringing in meth by the 100kg batch you arent going to be hindered with a 100 pistols at the same time
The other problem with dealing with crims with firearms vs responsible firearms owners is crims are quite prepared to use them against police your normal garden variety firearms owner wouldn't and will comply with police requirements. So on a risk based scale who is going to be the easiest to make an example of and if your example complies its a job well done, nothing to see here...
Gunshops keep a record of sales and it's available to Police at any time. Tell me how that is different to a registry? And 10K and 3-4 firearms of the same type? More common than you would think with pest and bird control types purchasing 3 or more shotguns and a couple of slabs or so of ammo... Straw buying might be a relatively speaking uncommon problem in the scheme of the pool of firearms licence holders, but it has potential for a lot of harm so Police are right to want to close the loophole no argument with that - but I'd suggest an extra 750 boots on ground with their vehicles and gear would do more to close the loophole than a registry. If the registry is accurate, efficient, cheap and does what is promised I've got no argument. At this stage, I am not convinced from the reports so far that it is of a standard to meet those requirements. The bigger it gets, the harder it will be to fix the issues too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Percy Jones
Idiots will be idiots regardless of rules. We've had C cat holders selling firearm so how is a registry going to be any different.
Good people will behave bad people won't.
The gun shop records would be the most accurate records they have. Re another post of mine the police contacted me re an investigation they were doing and wanted to verify the records they had on me from 2017 until current. Everything they had from those records was accurate...
At least there is going to be a review so I for one are hoping that the information that will be presented will show that this registry will suck up a huge amount of money that won’t fix the problems that they are meant to.
As already stated the money would be better spent on more police on the streets.
no point with police on the beat as some wimpy judge just hands out p.d and low sentences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooseman
i would hate to be a frontline cop, put my life in danger, spend ages doing paperwork. sit in court and have the judge hand out sentences that mean nothing
I agree with all the reasons given here why the register is a waste of time; too expensive, serial numbers can be removed, etc, etc, etc. But I have come round to holding the opposite opinion now; the public have been convinced this is a good idea, they're happy to pay for it with tax, so let's do it! Before anyone shouts me down please hear me out;)
A lot of people believe the register will make us safer. Ok, let's register our firearms. Then we're all safe, they say. But as legal shooters we WILL be better off. Any firearms crime from then on will be shown to be not committed by us. Once we're all registered and criminals are finding firearms, Cahill cannot blame us any more. Gun Control NZ cannot make a big deal about evil irresponsible firearms owners. Any legal firearm owner supplying guns to gangs will get hammered big time... good. I doubt there are many licenced shooters acting irresponsibly, but I'm happy for those bad few to get hammered. It's in our collective advantage to be proven to be the good guys.
At the end of the day it will be seen that firearms crime has not changed, unless the police are allowed to seriously go after criminals. Legal shooters will be shown to be blameless. I don't see a downside for us.
The idea that the register will be a shoping list for criminals is a legitimate concern. However, it also works in our favour. First up, if I was wanting to steal a firearm for crime I would target B, C and P licences, these firearms have been registered for decades anyway. I'm a farmer, any criminal wanting a firearm will know that most farms are a good source for firearms, I'm no worse off for being registered. Deliberate firearms theft from farms and other businesses likely to have them will not increase from firearms being registered. If the police database is broken into and firearms stolen to order by gangs it will be the biggest legitimisation of the shooters position imaginable, and a death blow for the positions of GCNZ etc and all the other gun-grabbers/registry fanatics. I doubt most people will be at significanlty higher risk of firearm theft after registering than they are now, and the politics of any of these thefts that might occurr are entirely in our favour.
The registry is highly favoured by too much of our population for it to work in our favour if it is abolished now. If it is abolished at this stage all future firearm crime will be publicly seen as our fault, and "it would not have happened if those selfish/evil shooters had been registered". Yes it is expensive and a pain in the butt, but ultimately it is very much in our favour for winning public support. There is not much to lose by registering, and much potential political advantage once it's clearly shown that the register is not stopping crime, and that we were innocent all along.
Logic says you are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Waimata
But name me one country where registration hasn't resulted in confiscation.
Confiscation is a different discussion altogether. If it gets to that point we have serious issues and might need to reconsider options.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7mmwsm
You make a very good point but I suspect that registration is more like the thin end of the wedge
You don't need semiautos
You don't need a 50 cal
You don't need anything bigger than a 300Win Mag
You don't need pistols with mags larger than 6
You don't need military calibres
You don't need..
I believe that if you don't fight you lose
I think it is best summed up with a favorite saying of a since retired talk show host, "inch by inch, step by step"
You reasons are sound, but the biggest issue is that it's not what the registry can do for shooters - it what it costs all of us on the way there. Sure, general public currently believes the register fixes all evil but also don't underestimate the pressure from other jurisdictions that totally dislike the fact that NZ has had such a permissive regime for many years without a registry. I think the issue we are having with some of those jurisdictions probably help that cause though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Waimata
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what the public thinks of the registry though - if it became an equation of registry or cancer drugs, registry or mental health etc etc I have a fair idea which way it would go. I mean, this is the same public that thinks we should all stop drilling for oil and gas, burning coal, and buying ICE cars but then gets totally pissy when their power bill goes up or they can't get a loan from the bank. A lot of gear but no idea. Go figure...
The registry will be expensive and ultimately useless... but the best way to demonstrate this at this stage is to do it. Just like the best way to make people realise our profound dependance on oil and carbon fuels generally is to go with alternatives for a few winters... once the population is cold, and food and clothing etc is unaffordable and unobtainable due to increased transport costs people will release there is a real choice to be made; do we want a modern standard of living, or accept a pre-industrial lifestyle (while other countries speed past us in standard of living) in the hope of saving the wrold from the weather? The current collapse in EV sales across the world is a strong indication that rationality is coming back to the green dream, as the alternatives are shown to be worse than ICE vehicles, conventional fuels etc. I see potentially the same thing in the registry, the anti- people will hold it against us forever if we don't demonstrate to them we are not the problem. Worst case is that we had it wrong and the register actually does make us all safer, so it's a win win. I don't want the register with the associated waste of money but after 5 years of sustained propaganda I see down sides to getting rid of it before it is proven to be ineffective, and if the majority of the population want it that is democracy in action.Quote:
Originally Posted by No.3
ummm but we weren't the bad guys in the first place so we are fuked anyway.
Ben,it Always leads to confiscation. Always.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Waimata
Along the way the costs increase,the security requirements become more onerous,types of guns become limited, the number you can own does too.
Then ,when there is nothing left the people who remember the good times wish they did more.A generation later firearm access is so limited that the very idea fades from reality. I have seen it mate and its going on here too.
There is not much to lose by registering, and much potential political advantage once it's clearly shown that the register is not stopping crime, and that we were innocent all along.
Fair statement Ben but unfortunately NZ Police are taking their lead from Australia, what will happen is they will double-down and start making it more restrictive by way of Legislation via Order-in-Council. Next we will have Calibre & Ammunition Restrictions, Number of Firearms Held restrictions etc, etc, etc. At the heart of this is Police National HQ (Bullshit Castle) do not want anyone to have Firerams except themselves. They will keep at us continually - ad infinitum.
While I agree with you us Shooters have to remember we are not on a fair playing field.
Yes a little bit at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7mm tragic
Look up a peom called The Hangman by Maurice Ogden
Very fitting for these discussions.
If someone could link it here please. I'll try but not sure I have the skills.