Thread: Firearms Storage Inspection ....

Oh, good argument Beavis (sigh). So another extremist view is that I should hunt deer with a knife, bow or sticks and stones?
"Need" refers to type of weapon required to carry out a clean kill at distance and also infers that competitive sport shooting can be with any other type of firearm. Automatics, IN MY OPINION, just aren't necessary for shooters to enjoy the sport of shooting.

Take a good look at the USA currently: the NRA are fighting hard out for NO gun control amendments. Why? Because they fear that allowing any control measures will open a floodgate for eventual gun elimination. This is highly unlikely to occur or even be suggested. But the problem of free-for-all gun sales (in supermarkets next to your meat!) and the possession of automatic weapons by nut jobs competing with the last nut job for the top spot as public enemy No.1 is way out of control. Hunting and club sport shooting isn't even being threatened.
Do we want this situation here? Personally, I don't. So I'm taking a stand as an ethical gun owner who cares for his community. Feel free to disagree with me, but I wouldn't be convinced of a different way of thinking. Over and out


Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting

Originally Posted by Hunt4life

Automatics, IN MY OPINION, just aren't necessary for shooters to enjoy the sport of shooting.
So I'm taking a stand as an ethical gun owner who cares for his community. Feel free to disagree with me, but I wouldn't be convinced of a different way of thinking.

Opinions change. I started with bolts 35 years ago, obtained an AR maybe 30-32 years ago, got rid of the AR and stayed with bolts. Recently (maybe last five years) rediscovered semis (Drag's + AR's) as they are fun to shoot (range weapons).
Thank God this country is still a democracy where I am permitted to enjoy life in the ways I choose (morally and legally of course). I oppose anyone with opinions such as yours which restricts my enjoyment of life.
The politicians have passed reasonable laws and the police have done a pretty good job in keeping loopies away from firearms. It's all good in NZ in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Hunt4life

Oh, good argument Beavis (sigh). So another extremist view is that I should hunt deer with a knife, bow or sticks and stones?
"Need" refers to type of weapon required to carry out a clean kill at distance and also infers that competitive sport shooting can be with any other type of firearm. Automatics, IN MY OPINION, just aren't necessary for shooters to enjoy the sport of shooting.

Take a good look at the USA currently: the NRA are fighting hard out for NO gun control amendments. Why? Because they fear that allowing any control measures will open a floodgate for eventual gun elimination. This is highly unlikely to occur or even be suggested. But the problem of free-for-all gun sales (in supermarkets next to your meat!) and the possession of automatic weapons by nut jobs competing with the last nut job for the top spot as public enemy No.1 is way out of control. Hunting and club sport shooting isn't even being threatened.
Do we want this situation here? Personally, I don't. So I'm taking a stand as an ethical gun owner who cares for his community. Feel free to disagree with me, but I wouldn't be convinced of a different way of thinking. Over and out


Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting

Your post indicates to me that everything you know about "rapid fire automatic weapons" or what ever, you learned from watching TV. You don't need to hunt either.

Originally Posted by Hunt4life

Automatics, IN MY OPINION, just aren't necessary for shooters to enjoy the sport of shooting.

I wholeheartedly dissagree.

Shooting is the oldest organised sport in this country. It was also the first sport here to have trophies competed for, such as the Cavalry Champions Belt, 1st competed for in 1871, now known as the Charles Upham Memorial triophy and recently won by a forum member.

My point is, our shooting sports has Military origins, before anything else such as hunting. We actually have the historic provenance to support shooting military style matches, with current general issue equipment, more than anything else. So certain MSSA's, IMO, have a legitimate place in NZ shooting sports.

Umm, you are allowed to keep pistols at home if you have the appropriate licence and security.
I have my E cat soon to renew my B I no longer own an E cat firearm.
I don't need one for hunting but owned one for my job.
If you are fit and proper and it is legal, you should be able to have what you want. Semi or not.
Far be it for me to say someone does not need something if it is legal and they want to own and use it legally.

I know I've stuck my head out and this view wouldn't be popular with many. I've got similar opinions about speed limits for vehicles on public roads. ie. computerised speed governers/limiters... Highly unpopular as most people want a liberal society where we can choose to break laws and take the consequences if we get caught. I speed like anyone else at times, just as I'd like to shoot an AR for fun. Liberties don't make it 'right', as the risks speak for themselves. My point really is, if as a society we really want to reduce the risk of harm, we should make the rules more fool proof and consequences much more severe.
It's okay guys... We live in NZ. A soft touch on everything, so we'll all be sweet


Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting

This whole argument about semi's, in particular ar styled, being used for crimes, is any of this based on actual fact? I would love to see the stats of shot guns vs semi auto rifles used in robberies etc.

All guns go bang, and all are inherently dangerous. Not trying to play down any accidents that happen to shooting victims but ACC pays out a shitload more to people like me that injure themselves in other sports like basketball and rugby.

NZ is pretty safe in a whole.

Originally Posted by Nibblet

This whole argument about semi's, in particular ar styled, being used for crimes, is any of this based on actual fact?

Absolutely not, and most especially in New Zealand

The only ar I've seen in anything vaguely related was a drug bust. Only thing was, the ar in question was a softair plastic pellet gun. There might be some limited incidences of ar's falling into the wrong hands, but none that I know of.

According to the cops I know, the firearms most commonly used by criminals are cut down shotguns, .22's and old .303s with all three usually cut down to pistol length. Mostly this is because they're the most commonly available firearms, and the law of averages says the more prevalent something is the more likely it is to fall into the wrong hands.

There are already lots of urban legends about OMCs having full auto kit anyway, so semi-autos aren't really up there with those, and at the end of the day, a half-way competent machinist with a P habit could pay off their debts with hand-made pistols in fairly short order. After all pistols are much more practical for criminals, and cad plans for pistols are all over the web....

Originally Posted by scaggly

The only ar I've seen in anything vaguely related was a drug bust. Only thing was, the ar in question was a softair plastic pellet gun. There might be some limited incidences of ar's falling into the wrong hands, but none that I know of.

According to the cops I know, the firearms most commonly used by criminals are cut down shotguns, .22's and old .303s with all three usually cut down to pistol length. Mostly this is because they're the most commonly available firearms, and the law of averages says the more prevalent something is the more likely it is to fall into the wrong hands.

There are already lots of urban legends about OMCs having full auto kit anyway, so semi-autos aren't really up there with those, and at the end of the day, a half-way competent machinist with a P habit could pay off their debts with hand-made pistols in fairly short order. After all pistols are much more practical for criminals, and cad plans for pistols are all over the web....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fna9WEO6BjE

Originally Posted by gimp

Absolutely not, and most especially in New Zealand

Exactly. Saw off shotties the choice of most crims over here.

Everyone just being sucked into media hype. Nothing like a bit of scare mongering to get the public flapping.

The E-Cat measures were brought on by the David Grey shooting that happened right here in NZ. It doesn't specifically target ARs. It is a preventative measure to try and stop MSSAs from falling into the wrong hands, and it may possibly have worked for the last 20yrs looking at the statistics.

Do define which weapons needed more control they used features on certain types of firearms that aren't vital for any sporting use of firearms except the odd exception (Service Rifle Shooting), which also attract the types of people that go on shooting sprees. For the people that really wanted them they had the reasonably easy process of getting the necessary endorsement.

Sounds quite reasonable when put out there in the basic version. But people continue to use the argument that the rifles are no more dangerous or used in crime and refuse to look at the reasoning behind it because it doesn't fit their argument.

I personally don't think the A-Cat system is strict enough to allow people to get MSSAs, I mean a 16 yr old can easily get one.

The way I see it is that if you want the toys then get the endorsement, simple. Mine's underway.

Originally Posted by Savage1

The E-Cat measures were brought on by the David Grey shooting that happened right here in NZ. It doesn't specifically target ARs. It is a preventative measure to try and stop MSSAs from falling into the wrong hands, and it may possibly have worked for the last 20yrs looking at the statistics.

Do define which weapons needed more control they used features on certain types of firearms that aren't vital for any sporting use of firearms except the odd exception (Service Rifle Shooting), which also attract the types of people that go on shooting sprees. For the people that really wanted them they had the reasonably easy process of getting the necessary endorsement.

Sounds quite reasonable when put out there in the basic version. But people continue to use the argument that the rifles are no more dangerous or used in crime and refuse to look at the reasoning behind it because it doesn't fit their argument.

I personally don't think the A-Cat system is strict enough to allow people to get MSSAs, I mean a 16 yr old can easily get one.

The way I see it is that if you want the toys then get the endorsement, simple. Mine's underway.

It is probably worth saying that those changes were a knee jerk reaction, that cynics might suggest were an attempt to cover up for someone getting a license who never should have had one in the first place.... kind of like the most recent round of changes to the rules.....

Those 1992 changes were also responsible for driving a fairly substantial number of mssa's underground which have had ample opportunities to fall into the wrong hands over the last 30 years...

The reality is, the world has moved on. The rules are 30 years old and are as out of date as if they were outlawing that newfangled cased ammunition, and restricting everyone to muzzle loaders.

Originally Posted by scaggly

It is probably worth saying that those changes were a knee jerk reaction, that cynics might suggest were an attempt to cover up for someone getting a license who never should have had one in the first place.... kind of like the most recent round of changes to the rules.....

Those 1992 changes were also responsible for driving a fairly substantial number of mssa's underground which have had ample opportunities to fall into the wrong hands over the last 30 years...

The reality is, the world has moved on. The rules are 30 years old and are as out of date as if they were outlawing that newfangled cased ammunition, and restricting everyone to muzzle loaders.

They actually tried to make the changes earlier but weren't able to, it took a few deaths for them to pass it.

Last time I counted 1992 was 21 years ago. Just because the firearms could have gone underground doesn't mean they all ended up in the wrong hands.

Last I heard MSSA's are still the most popular weapon amongst people in the world for mass shootings, I think the world has moved on but probably in the wrong direction.

20 or 30, doesn't alter the fact that the rules are horribly outdated. Like if I was going to be pedantic, I'd point to the fact that MSSA's don't exist anywhere but here.

The interesting common denominator across an awful lot of mass-shootings is that the people doing them shouldn't have had licenses under the rules that existed at the time, but did. Port Arthur, the guy was a retard. Aramoana, the guy had some fairly serious mental peculiarities. Most of the US ones, mental health issues all over the place. Being nuts has always been a bit of a no-no for owning guns. before the advent of semi-autos, as well as after.

If i was a cynic, I'd suggest that trying to restrict guns based on looks was a deliberate ploy to distract attention away from questions about how people who never should have had a license, got one and then went off the deep end.