Thread: Firearms ban in Western aussie

@Tahr. An interesting fishing expedition. At least, though, the decision outlines what not to argue.

Originally Posted by RugerM77

@Tahr. An interesting fishing expedition. At least, though, the decision outlines what not to argue.

Its how the law lays. If people want to argue the Magna Carta and antiquated law they can go to it. This will be the result.

Flyblown is arguing compromise. The trouble with compromise is that you seldom get more than 50% of what you want.

Argue subjectivity laced with emotion and you will get nothing. Thats what I sometimes see as a theme in these threads.

Reasoned argument using facts and objectivity laced with dogged determination will be persuasive. NZDA in particular and maybe other organisation Im not familiar with seem to be getting this nowadays.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Flyblown is arguing compromise. The trouble with compromise is that you seldom get more than 50% of what you want.

Sure, fair point. But if the 50% is what you really need and the 50% you didn't get were the "nice to haves but not essential", then it's still a win.

It's when you end up with nothing because you set out with an ill advised position and refused to budge, with no political capital to support that position, that's when you have a real problem.

My information from our local branch is that the NZDA is much, much better prepared now. Long may it continue.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Its how the law lays. If people want to argue the Magna Carta and antiquated law they can go to it. This will be the result.

Flyblown is arguing compromise. The trouble with compromise is that you seldom get more than 50% of what you want.

Argue subjectivity laced with emotion and you will get nothing. Thats what I sometimes see as a theme in these threads.

Reasoned argument using facts and objectivity laced with dogged determination will be persuasive. NZDA in particular and maybe other organisation Im not familiar with seem to be getting this nowadays.

Sadly the Government argues using ‘may’ ‘possible’ and ‘might’ in their argument, just look at the WA authorities justification for banning those calibers.

Originally Posted by timattalon

I did not jump to that conclusion...I suggested that by your reasoning that this would be in line with you support. To state a calibre (or anything) should be banned because it was designed specifically for military use against other humans is simplistic and emotional.

So we are still in the same position.

I did not say that any of the rifles should be banned because they were designed specifically for military use. I did not say that. What I did was respond to another poster’s claim that all the rifles on the list were sporting rifles, specifically hunting cartridges. That is demonstrably untrue, and that is what I pointed out by posting the Wikipedia description of the .408 Cheytac. Post #21 and #23. You (and others) have gone and taken that comment (which is factually correct) and applied a hefty dose of supposition and concluded that I must support a ban of all military cartridges. Whilst your conclusion is completely incorrect, it nevertheless influences subsequent discussion and before you know it what I did say is completely irrelevant. Flyblown supports a ban of all military cartridges. This is the Internet / social media problem, right there.

The expression "you couldn't make this stuff up" comes to mind. Seems that we can, its real easy.

@Flyblown, they are sporting rifles.

These are not owned by people involved in the military...

They are used by private citizens for the sport of ELR shooting.

Just like the AR15s in NZ that I and others used for service rifle and 3-gun.

Originally Posted by ebf

@Flyblown, they are sporting rifles.

These are not owned by people involved in the military...

They are used by private citizens for the sport of ELR shooting.

Just like the AR15s in NZ that I and others used for service rifle and 3-gun.

And therein lies the very guts of the debate Eben.

Because it totally depends on whose definition of "military" and "sporting" carries the most weight in a negotiation.

Remember what was said, in this thread, specifically. That the rifles in the WA list are hunting rifles.

"All the calibers mentioned are sporting calibers.....hunting."

That is what I responded to. A .50 BMG is not a hunting rifle. You know that, I know that, the police know that, the SSAA know that, COLFO know that. Some will argue that it can be whatever you like, but you and I both know that would just make you look silly in your discussions with police.

Which brings me to the important point - at least you are having discussions with police! And long may that continue. The question in my mind is have you lawyered up? The funding for proper legal representation is the Achilles heel going forward - the NRA defend themselves through an army of specialist lawyers that are very hard to beat.

Those sitting on the other side of the table from you will be hoping you turn up with a ill-considered "no compromise" position, because that is always the easiest position to defeat. A "no compromise" position enables them to make you look intransigent and dangerous, and there's all sorts of ways that can be used against you. This is why so many influential figures did not adopt a non-compromise position here in NZ last time round. No compromise needs more support that you've probably got and that's a big problem.

Originally Posted by ebf

@Flyblown, they are sporting rifles.

These are not owned by people involved in the military...

They are used by private citizens for the sport of ELR shooting.

Just like the AR15s in NZ that I and others used for service rifle and 3-gun.

now speaking of shooting ones self in foot..... what pray tell me is the definition of a "service rifle" and what would be the definition of a AR15 used as a service rifle if its NOT A MILITARY RIFLE...or a rifle of military design used in a military fashion....

I hear what your saying,we should be allowed to shoot rabbits in the back paddock with a lewis gun in the perfect world,and all pighunters and shepherds should be allowed to carry a revolver..but its NOT a perfect world...and the general public were fed a load of bullshit which the majority of them swallowed down and regurgitated back up for others to swallow... we are where we are....
the argument thats certain types of firearm should be OK for all to use because a few use them in specialised means has been bandied around forever.... the reality is this..its not going to happen and the general public wont back you up on it.the governments of our time sure as hell wont.
at very best we MAY end up with limited use permitted with special licence...like a P ENDORSMENT has done for the rifles you mentioned..a purpose deemed relevant has been put forward and the tools to do it have been approved. it remain to be seen if poking holes in paper or making steel plate go BOOOOOIIING is deemed important enough to be a relevant purpose.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

now speaking of shooting ones self in foot..... what pray tell me is the definition of a "service rifle" and what would be the definition of a AR15 used as a service rifle if its NOT A MILITARY RIFLE...or a rifle of military design used in a military fashion....

I hear what your saying,we should be allowed to shoot rabbits in the back paddock with a lewis gun in the perfect world,and all pighunters and shepherds should be allowed to carry a revolver..but its NOT a perfect world...and the general public were fed a load of bullshit which the majority of them swallowed down and regurgitated back up for others to swallow... we are where we are....
the argument thats certain types of firearm should be OK for all to use because a few use them in specialised means has been bandied around forever.... the reality is this..its not going to happen and the general public wont back you up on it.the governments of our time sure as hell wont.
at very best we MAY end up with limited use permitted with special licence...like a P ENDORSMENT has done for the rifles you mentioned..a purpose deemed relevant has been put forward and the tools to do it have been approved. it remain to be seen if poking holes in paper or making steel plate go BOOOOOIIING is deemed important enough to be a relevant purpose.

The first part of your question was tightly defined in the service rifle match code Pre-2019. In layman's terms it had to be as close as possible to a standard issue infantry rifle. With regards to an AR15, in general you could not use an actual military issue one as it would fall under the category of a restricted weapon by virtue of the lower receiver and trigger group. Ironically we can still own these, but we can't compete with the semi auto versions anymore.

and for the record I HAVE ABOSOLUTELY no issue with any firearms being in hands of responsible licence holders.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

now speaking of shooting ones self in foot.....

Micky, shooting oneself in the foot is a whole lot more common on NZ police ranges and Pistol NZ ranges (as opposed to service rifle comps), yet they don't seem to be the target of the latest round of controls... go figure

I realise this meme is based on the American experience, but the theme travels very well.

https://ifunny.co/picture/illustrate...able-gLRiaCHM8


My grandfather had a pistol in the 20's, and used it for pig hunting - as did a lot of others. The pistols were lost because the Govt feared they would be used as assassination tools in a Communist uprising. Not an entirely unreasonable fear given what was going on in Russia at the time, but nevertheless they went, we had no revolution, and they stayed gone.

Now, after the loss of lifetime licenses, semi auto centrefires, 15 shot magazines in .22 rifles, we should compromise - what do we get in return? By now, if you can't see that sections of the Govt - and especially PNHQ want all guns gone, you are deluded. Bit by bit the common persons ability to own guns will all be eroded unless it is stopped by us.

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

Now, after the loss of lifetime licenses, semi auto centrefires, 15 shot magazines in .22 rifles, we should compromise - what do we get in return? By now, if you can't see that sections of the Govt - and especially PNHQ want all guns gone, you are deluded. Bit by bit the common persons ability to own guns will all be eroded unless it is stopped by us.

It would be interesting to see an evidence based case for the “PNHQ want all guns gone” part.

I really need to see this evidence. This belief that the police want all firearms gone is at the core of much of what is stated as supposed fact on social media, yet to my eyes and ears there is a wholesale lack demonstrable evidence that supports this belief. In the absence of any demonstrable evidence, then is that statement not the delusion?

To that end, is it not a situation where fear has overtaken objectivity? That’s what @Tahr was saying above. Subjectivity laced with emotion. Whenever I chat face-to-face with someone who has these fears about police motives and I ask this same question, I never get a straight answer on the evidence part. It just comes across as fear.

In most similar democracies, e.g. UK, gun control has stopped at what the ordinary guy would regard as the typical sporting rifle. It’s been that way for many years now. Gun control as I experienced it did not in any way shape or form stop me from hunting, be it deerstalking, rough shooting with 12ga or rimfire small game shooting.

We all share the same concerns about over-reach and excessive imposition of control due to ulterior motives. If the police motive truly is the removal of all firearms from society, and there is irrefutable evidence that supports this view, then how do you propose we go about stopping it? Because this is the next part of the face-to-face conversation I have with people who are worried about this. They all say the same thing… unless we stop it. But how?

The how part never gets a straight answer.

What do you propose?

Originally Posted by Flyblown

It would be interesting to see an evidence based case for the “PNHQ want all guns gone” part.

I really need to see this evidence. This belief that the police want all firearms gone is at the core of much of what is stated as supposed fact on social media, yet to my eyes and ears there is a wholesale lack demonstrable evidence that supports this belief. In the absence of any demonstrable evidence, then is that statement not the delusion?

To that end, is it not a situation where fear has overtaken objectivity? That’s what @Tahr was saying above. Subjectivity laced with emotion. Whenever I chat face-to-face with someone who has these fears about police motives and I ask this same question, I never get a straight answer on the evidence part. It just comes across as fear.

In most similar democracies, e.g. UK, gun control has stopped at what the ordinary guy would regard as the typical sporting rifle. It’s been that way for many years now. Gun control as I experienced it did not in any way shape or form stop me from hunting, be it deerstalking, rough shooting with 12ga or rimfire small game shooting.

We all share the same concerns about over-reach and excessive imposition of control due to ulterior motives. If the police motive truly is the removal of all firearms from society, and there is irrefutable evidence that supports this view, then how do you propose we go about stopping it? Because this is the next part of the face-to-face conversation I have with people who are worried about this. They all say the same thing… unless we stop it. But how?

The how part never gets a straight answer.

What do you propose?

My Uncle was a cop.
My best man was a cop.
My partner was a cop.
I've been on ridealongs, drunk in station bars and hunted with cops. I luved with cops in London, and I've walked around with my eyes open all my life.

Over the 39 years I've owned firearms there has been a steady increase in the rhetoric and the actions of both the Police Association and any of the Police spokesfolk with regard to firearms that I'd wonder about your cognitive capacity if you didn't think that the body of the Police weren't anti gun.
Look at how they handle orders in council.
Look at this nonsense around ranges.
Look at how they handled the aftermath of Christchurch.
Look at what they are doing with licensing.
I am an absolute supporter of the Ryle of law, but I am very disappointed in the way the NZ Police are handling the firearms issue.

Lived, not luved
Also rule of law, not Ryle.