Colfo press release

Depends, define "a significant source".

You need to learn management-speak XR500 :D

Significant as in via the 99 out of 100 shipping containers that DONT get opened and inspected portside?

Or significant as in 3 or 4 firearms a year from dishonest employees of gunshops?

A lie , no matter how you word it or dress it , is still a lie

Well no, the dictionary says:

Quote:

---

significant:
adjective
1. sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.

---

So if a 1 out of 100 guns in gang possession were used in a murder then the source of that gun would be: worthy of attention; noteworthy... significant.

Technically it's not a lie, but it is a deception. He is not a liar, but he is deceitful.

I shall stick with my summation , thanks.

Really?

I think it is interesting when language like this used. Because a lie can be a misunderstanding, or just repeated. For example he could just be repeating what he has been told (the lie). And we know that police management hold the view that gangs source most firearms from LFOs.

But if we look at his use of language we can see he knows the truth and is being deliberately deceptive. Which imho is far far worse than a simple lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve123

What's unfair is that four ivory tower academics who make up guncontronz to scam taxpayer funding for themselves are presented by media as so called experts while an organisation that represents most shooting clubs and shooters in the country is dismissively referred to as "the gun lobby".
Oh to have an impartial and objective media in this country.

---

What is really telling is that COLFO and Nicole Mckee are repeatedly referred to as 'lobbyists', while for GCNZ they use the term 'advocate'.

Quite interesting choice by Newshub, but it was good to see this make mainstream media.

I think Nicole Mckee is GCNZ's worst nightmare - she knows the subject and in this era of identity politics she 'disarms' at least two of the usual tropes. I've been even more impressed by her as an MP than I thought I would be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportco62

Significant as in via the 99 out of 100 shipping containers that DONT get opened and inspected portside?

Or significant as in 3 or 4 firearms a year from dishonest employees of gunshops?

A lie , no matter how you word it or dress it , is still a lie

---

Or the ones Police lose themselves or have stolen from supposedly secure lockups in Police stations!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surat

Any public servant including police have to abide by a public service code of conduct - they cannot knowingly withhold information from ministers that may be embarrassing or controversial.
That said I suspect only three things can be ascertained know that we know the truth.

One -that some senior police managers breached the code of conduct?

Two - that they did in fact show the minister and the ministers asked them to suppress or lose it.

Three - that certain senior police managers and politicians colluded to deceive the public by suppressing this info.

Given that the register was on the wish list of the certain deluded police managers for a long time, and that the last Govt was a big fan of useless virtue signalling legislation that made things worse rather than better most of the time, I think three is the most likely scenario.

---

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." Napoleon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Average-Lad

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." Napoleon

---

that clause does not apply to public servants/politicians.

Also malintent and incompetence/stupidity are not mutually exclusive. Leftists are usually a combination of both.

Sadly, over time I've come to realise that regardless of the rights and wrongs of an issue, money talks. The fastest way to get a crap process dumped is to point out how much it costs and where it could be better spent, especially if vested interests see that cash as something they can grab hold of. I liked the earlier comment in regards to where that cash could have been better spent; health, education, etc. There's no point wrestling with certain animals, or arguing with an anti-firearms zealot, you both get dirty and the zealot enjoys it. Better off raising the financial cost of the whole shambles

Well they were wingeing on the news tonight about not having the money for the police they were going to employ.
Mmm wonder what they could stop for the money?????

If u wanna see a police cover up/ suppression of free speech , see what happened with friendly geordies in Australia, once he called the ruling party out on selling land earmarked for koala protection , things went fairly interesting.
Interesting info, how will it be acted on , clear show of collusion and data fidgeting
I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apkiwi

Sadly, over time I've come to realise that regardless of the rights and wrongs of an issue, money talks. The fastest way to get a crap process dumped is to point out how much it costs and where it could be better spent, especially if vested interests see that cash as something they can grab hold of. I liked the earlier comment in regards to where that cash could have been better spent; health, education, etc. There's no point wrestling with certain animals, or arguing with an anti-firearms zealot, you both get dirty and the zealot enjoys it. Better off raising the financial cost of the whole shambles

---

Very good point, and luckily a very likely outcome...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XR500

"We see this as a significant source for how gangs obtain firearms," Wilson said

Doesn't line up with the OIA data Mr Pinocchio Wilson

---

Since dealer firearms aren't registered yet it looks like they don't need the registry to identify the licensed firearms owners who sell firearms to those that aren't legally allowed to have them.

Or did the police give these people firearms dealers licences knowing they would sell firearms illegally and then apprehend them to support the registry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 19Badger

Since dealer firearms aren't registered yet it looks like they don't need the registry to identify the licensed firearms owners who sell firearms to those that aren't legally allowed to have them.

Or did the police give these people firearms dealers licences knowing they would sell firearms illegally and then apprehend them to support the registry?

---

Yes they are.