Thread: E cat safe/safe room options

Originally Posted by Savage1

How about supplying firearms to unlicenced or unendorsed people? Registration has been used to catch/prosecute people who've done that. I also know of a person who did it with A-Cat but since there was no registration nothing could be done about the 10+ AR15s that he'd bought in the last year and sold to his head hunter associates.

Encouraging people to not speed doesn't work on everyone, why would this be any different?

When our long gun registry ended in Canada the gun control groups and liberal party (our current majority government and rabidly anti-gun creators of our current firearms act) claimed that this was going to happen. Ultimately it hasn't, and the few cases that have popped up have been tracked back to the stores they were bought from anyways. I accept that NZ isn't the same as Canada in terms of social and economic issues, however I would think Canada has a stronger criminal network as it's tied in with the drug trade through the US, and a far larger population, so it stands to reason if crime were to be a large issue, it would be so in Canada.

Originally Posted by Danger Mouse

encouraging people not to speed isnt effective because the public are wising up to the tax rort that it is. The arguments for the zealous enforcement are bullshit.

Regisration of firearms is a joke, the sole purpose is to find out where they are prior to confiscation, as we have seen before.

Ultimately the confiscation issue is what caused our long gun registration to be ended in Canada. I was more or less ok with the system we had until our federal police started to change their interpretations of the law in order to seize different makes/models of firearms based on their new interpretations (IE It looks like an AK, therefore it is an AK, therefore it's prohibited and we're taking it or you're going to jail). When this started happening frequently the firearms community voted in the government of the time (conservatives, pro-gun) and ended the long gun registry, which was good timing considering our current gov is now working on legislation to ban the guns that were de-registered, as well as those still registered (pistols and full/converted autos).

Originally Posted by gonetropo

i have photos of all my firearms complete with serial numbers and distinguishing features (eg scratch on stock).
sorry @SAVAGE i trust no department or agency with that info unless they were stolen

Added bonus - having clear specific photos also often helps insurance pay out on rare or unique firearms that would otherwise be hard to assess by the insurance company.

Originally Posted by Ryan

The fact is that its uses are infinitesimal compared to the astronomical monetary and administrative cost of implementing and running the system with any degree of accuracy. As has been borne out by Canada who dropped it and has one of the lowest firearm crime rates in the world and South Africa, who continues to implement it and well... *shrugs*

Interestingly Canada's crime rates, gun violence, homicide rates and suicide rates all kept declining at a consistent and unaffected rate since the 70's, through the 90's (when our firearms act came into effect) and through to today, some 5 years after the long gun registry was scrapped. Also our registry was, and remains to be, a colossal money hole. It seems to be stabilizing a bit now (27 years later), but it's been orders of magnitude over budget every year since it was created, and only started to vaguely operate correctly after the long gun registry was ended, reducing its load by 3/4 and retaining the same excess budget to run it... so in truth the system might have been functional with a budget 4 times larger, but even now it struggles along. Last number I saw was that it was supposed to cost 2 million per year to run but by 2002 it was $629 million over budget, after which time they stopped talking about it. Keep in mind the system frequently lost registry information, was riddled with errors, transfers took 3-12 weeks to process or were lost, and it's estimated that there was only a 40-60% compliance/registration rate.

Originally Posted by Savage1

You're assuming that it is only possible by spending billions like Canada, when we have one running here that costs very little. South Africa's problems have little, if anything, to do with their firearm registration and is a ridiculous comparison.

It seems to me the gist of the conversation (now that it's not about E cat storage) is whether a registry is a good idea or not. At its core the question is: Will the government eventually decide to use the registry to force the surrender of private property, and am I ok with this?

Originally Posted by Ryan

Let's be clear about what we're discussing - universal registration. Canada has registered firearms, New Zealand has registered firearms, South Africa has registered (all, except black powder) firearms.

It is not an assumption but an evidence based fact that Canada's attempt to introduce universal registration was a costly and cataclysmic failure. As far as the New Zealand system is concerned, presuming we're discussing the register of B, C, D, E, F - by far the least numerous firearms in the country - how much does it cost exactly?

Can you please define "very little"?

From what I've seen documented on this forum and others, the NZ firearm registry is often comically inaccurate. If we combined inspection periods even more so. I have not had my annual inspection since I've lived at my current residence, which is a number of years. I've even mentioned it to my arms officer more than once when I've processed P2Ps.

If the NZP cannot administer the existing system effectively, how can one expect them to administer one with universal registration - when there are thousands of already unregistered firearms out in the wild? I certainly wouldn't want my or anyone else's hard earned taxes being squandered addressing what is essentially a non-issue in the greater scheme of problems facing this country.

I'd rather spend that money on my child's education or making sure that I'm not a burden on the health system or any number of other more tangible reasons.

As for South Africa - if you read my posts again carefully, I am referring to licensed firearm owners, registration, the non-effect it has on reducing firearm related crime in that country (or any country really) and the continued legislative push to introduce further firearm restrictions - in a country where poor and rich, need their firearms the most.

It sounds like NZ is approaching firearms control the same way Canada did - as a feel-good reaction to a non-existent problem. Guns are an easy target to legislate against, the average city person or member of the public only knows guns from movies and news reports, so in their mind guns can be found anywhere easily, the minute you pick one up you're instantly rambo, and that they compel you to start world war 3, so of course they support firearms control. By legislating against firearms the government addresses media sensationalism, and looks like it's doing something, all the while not actually having to do anything to get results.

It seems that NZ has a semi functional system in place, and I don't know enough about it to really comment on what it is, but I can say that any attempt to implement a universal system like in Canada isn't going to work - it's too expensive and complicated, and even when our government threw money at ours for 25 years, it still didn't work, and has now been partially dismantled. Additionally, I don't consider it paranoid to dislike the idea of firearms being registered. I used to be ok with it, and then went through 10 years of the police arbitrarily changing the rules, and now am facing the prospect of the current majority government changing the rules yet again and banning most of the guns on the market today, including but not limited to, a ton of great hunting guns, because they look scary.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I understand the respect you guys have for the system and its purpose, but I also speak from experience when I say that it does not take much time at all for the laws to change. Not having a registry was the only thing that caused the police to rethink those laws, and is currently the only bargaining tool the firearms and hunting communities have now that there's an anti-gun government in power in Canada. As said above, the real question is: What are the real costs to society from not registering firearms? Are you willing to accept that you, or your children will have their property confiscated now or later, in what is likely to be an ineffective and useless law aimed at making the public feel safe?

Anyways, I'm out. I realize I'm new to the forum and making more waves than is generally polite, so I'll avoid the politics for a bit.