Thread: HDPA does indeed lie about firearms

Originally Posted by keneff

Well they're shooting bystanders with bushmasters anyway, at a shitload less than 40 metres (Northwestern Motorway) so what the fuck are you on about, systolic? If you're trying to say the cops give a fuck about bystanders, I haven't yet seen much evidence of it. They crash chase cars into civilians, shoot bystanders and I think "training", for a lot of them consists of too much Hawaii 50. Your bias is obvious, but that's okay - we're all entitled to have an opinion - it's just tidier if at least it has some logic.I arrived in Melbourne in 1981 and approached a cop on the corner of Flinders and Swanston Sts and asked for directions to a suburb. He put his hand on his revolver and said "Buy a fukn map". We know that being a fuckwit and an arsehole is way up there in the Victoria Police job description, lbut I was a bit disppointed by his crap attitude. It comes down to the attitude instilled at the police colleges and in the stations. There was a female member of the dog club I was secretary of, who went off to become a WPC. She was acually instructed that nobody was a friend unless they were a police officer. Her whole attitude had changed from being a warm, friendly enthusiastic young woman to being a total cnut. And she always had her piece in her handbag, even at club days, because she was instructed that even when she was off-duty, she was never off duty. And she used to brag about all this shit. I have a cousin in London. He and his wife are both cops, and a really nice couple of people. They both said they'd hate to be armed fulltime, but also hated not to be, because there was no knowing when some radical arsehole might go apeshit with a knife or a gun. I have sympathy for both sides of the argument and like most in this forum can see the pros and the cons. But unlike O'Connor and systolic, I think the police are adequately armed for most situations as is. Okay, if some shit-for-brains comes charging out of the bushes swinging an axe or something, you're in deep poo, but you'd still be in the same amount even with a Glock on your belt. And chances are, said Glock would end up in the very wrong hands. And Savage, kudos to you that you kept possession of your weapon in "scuffles" - but what if you hadn't? Wonder what your position would be now on the subject? Are you able to be objective enough to consider that? This whole argument has just about been done to death. O'Connor is starting to sound like a spluttering lunatic - or a stuck record, and he and his pet so-called "journalists" would be boring if they weren't so fucking dangerous to our freedoms and rights and privileges. By the way, @kotuku once wrote a very well-informed post on the subject of firearms ownership in dear old confused NZ. My stand is that we haven't yet degenerated quite as much as the USA or frigging Aussie, and haven't yet reached a point where we need our police force to carry sidearms at all times. But arm them and see how long it takes for them to have to start using them. And see how long it takes for at least some of them to start becoming as arrogant and pig-igorant as that prick of a Victorian cop I mentioned. Today's rant over.

1) Stop using plural, one bystander was shot and killed by one member of the Police with one bushmaster (one copped some fragments but wasn't directly shot). Don't get me wrong, it was a monumental fuk up. You don't like all FAL holders being labeled by the actions of one bad egg so how about extending the same logic to the Police.
2) To say there is no evidence to show cops have no care for bystanders is BS and actually borderline offensive, why do you think they join the job? Would they really risk their own safety if they don't care about bystanders?
3) I'm pretty sure you have no idea what Police training consists of, there is zero 'Hawaii 50'. If you disagree then quote some examples or find some way of backing up your stupid claims.
4) We're all entitled to our own opinions, however if our opinions are poorly based then expect them to be challenged and/or dismissed. I suggest you apply some logic to some of your own biased comments.
5) Sorry about you experiences with the Australian Police, however I believe the NZ Police doesn't have that kind of attitude as a widespread problem, there is the odd idiot but in my experience they are reasonably far between and strongly disliked by other Police Officers.
6) I fully understand and agree with your friends from London.
7) I understand Systolics point of view and agree with some of it, I can't be bothered going back and reading them in detail.
8) Adequately armed for most situations doesn't cut it, which was shown by all of the cops that have had their cars stolen at gunpoint, been shot at, being shot, attacked with machetes etc. I don't like the idea of people in armchairs telling me when I should or shouldn't carry a gun when they aren't the ones going into the same situations and putting themselves at risk.
9) In the Police you pick your scuffles, and you only pick ones you are going to win. Weapon retention isn't hard. Cops having their own TASERs, pepperspray used against them is almost unheard of.
10) Sorry for the numbering
11) I think it should be the individual choice of the officer, providing they have been shown to be competent in handling the firearm and their decision making has been tested under pressure.

Originally Posted by systolic

Too long. Didn't read.

Don't care if you didn't read. Probably a bit tricky with one eye anyway. And in reply to your comment about unions - I've been a union delegate, my father was president of a union and my grandfather was on the executive of several unions and a delegate to the Trades Council and a communist. I grew up with it all. And of all the union meetings I've been to I have not once heard anyone singing the Red Banner.A union president is not necessarily a communist. As for O'Connor, you seem to hold him in high regard, and that's your right and fine by me, if it matters. But I don't like him or anything he professes to stand for, and that's my right, and I don't care whether it matters to you or not. As our beloved leader, John Key says, I'm comfortable with that. But I don't tell you how you should think and you certainly aren't going to tell me how I shoudl think. So it looks like we'll just have to accept that we are different people with differing views and agree to disagree. Take care out there.

Originally Posted by keneff

Don't care if you didn't read. Probably a bit tricky with one eye anyway. And in reply to your comment about unions - I've been a union delegate, my father was president of a union and my grandfather was on the executive of several unions and a delegate to the Trades Council and a communist. I grew up with it all. And of all the union meetings I've been to I have not once heard anyone singing the Red Banner.A union president is not necessarily a communist. As for O'Connor, you seem to hold him in high regard, and that's your right and fine by me, if it matters. But I don't like him or anything he professes to stand for, and that's my right, and I don't care whether it matters to you or not. As our beloved leader, John Key says, I'm comfortable with that. But I don't tell you how you should think and you certainly aren't going to tell me how I shoudl think. So it looks like we'll just have to accept that we are different people with differing views and agree to disagree. Take care out there.

That's an interesting and rich back ground.
It's always interesting to know what sort of background informs people's views and opinions. I came from the other side of the table, but have become more liberal as I've got older.

Keneff, if you want people to read anything you say please try using paragraphs

Otherwise, rant at will

Well I have read all pages in this thread and it seems after page 5 it was hijacked and became a pissing contest among a few individuals.

Over and out.

[QUOTE=Tahr;518475]That's an interesting and rich back ground.
It's always interesting to know what sort of background informs people's views and opinions. I came from the other side of the table, but have become more liberal as I've got older.[/QUOTE
Thanks for your comments, Tahr. It's funny though we're from different sides of the table, and I find I've become LESS liberal as I've aged - not quite a redneck yet, but getting there, Unions have contributed hugely to societal improvements, but have become fairly gummy tigers, which in some ways is good and in others, not so great. I can remember as a child, sitting on my grandparents' table with adults sitting around talking over a beer, no doubt conspiring to overthrow some government. My grandfather did time in Mt Eden for printing and distributing "seditious literature". My grandmother was his typist. They, along with my parents were deeply involved in the '51 lockout of the Aucklnd Watersiders, along with Jock Barnes. Not sure whether it was before or after the lockout, but they had a big falling-out with Jock, I think over doctrine. Jim Knox and Bill Andersen were close family friends. Rob Muldoon detested my father and my grandfather, and nobody in the family feels diminished by that. They're all dead now, anyway, so it doesn't matter any more. I was born in Freeman's Bay, which was the heart of working class Auckland until the government tore it down to destroy the unity and cohesion that used to exist. Auckland has always been an "immigrant city" and the dispersion of the hard-core unionists combined with the ethnic diversity and differing needs and interests all combined to make it easier for the government to control a fairly free-thinking, liberal and stubborn populace that lost its leadership. And so the "social experiment" trundled on. I still have some memories of those days. Nobody was ever alone in trouble in those days. people helped each other, supported each other. And it was mainly the unions that made it happen. The support networking was incredible, compared to today. Now, you're lucky if you get to know your next-door neighbour. Then, all of us kids were in and out of each other's homes, and the parents always knew where everyone was.I remember the ice man delivering ice for the "icebox.No fridges, then The coal man lived a couple of doors down the street. Both big, strong, tough men. No pedophile would have survived. It's said it takes a village to raise a child. That was Freeman's Bay in those days'. I miss it.

Originally Posted by res

I should explain this better.

right now everyone buys pot from crims, most crims sell to anyone regardless of age. make it a legit product and it becomes sold by reglulatd companies who mostly obay laws like miname age of buyer. this would make it harder for younger people to get than it curently is.

I understand the reasoning and can see where you're coming from, but I disagree - I think we'd just see the same situation we do with alcohol where those old enough to buy it supply it to their younger friends (who share it with friends younger again, and so on).

It is very similar to the argument some people made when lowering the drinking age that making alcohol legal for 18-21 year olds would cause them to drink in safer legitimate environments and avoid some of the riskier associated behaviour. Of course it just moved the riskier drinking-associated behaviour to the next age group down, who probably found it much easier to get 18 year olds to supply them than 21 year olds.

It is a tricky one though, because as you say there is the issue of taxing legal sales vs illegal etc, and the question of whether legalising will increase use and make the harm done more widespread. What I've read of the results so far in the states seems to suggest that it has little effect on the relatively rich occasional users who were largely responsible for pushing legalisation through, but a significant increase in addiction and poverty rates among the urban poor.

Even more off topic than normal now!

Originally Posted by Reindeer

Well I have read all pages in this thread and it seems after page 5 it was hijacked and became a pissing contest among a few individuals.

Over and out.

And then proceeds to start a new thread:

http://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co.n...14/#post518527

Are a you trying to be a windup merchant?

Not at all

This thread along with any other that jexla ans systolic,and others, get involved with tend to stray far from the point and become contests of who has the biggest cock.
sorry but this sort of shit is best left for the pub.
I do respect the fact that people have strong opinions about issues but i feel keeping to at least the point (context) of the thread in question is important.

Threads go of topic, a nature of the Internet.

As long as things stay polite(and more polite than this one has would be nice) then what's the harm?
The exchange of ideas and viewpoints benefits us all, and forums are well forums.

You say it should be kept to the pub, personally I don't get what the difference is-personally I know everyone I have engaged with in this thread other than gravelben and he is someone who's posts I read with interest on any subject

Originally Posted by Savage1

1) Stop using plural, one bystander was shot and killed by one member of the Police with one bushmaster (one copped some fragments but wasn't directly shot). Don't get me wrong, it was a monumental fuk up. You don't like all FAL holders being labeled by the actions of one bad egg so how about extending the same logic to the Police.
2) To say there is no evidence to show cops have no care for bystanders is BS and actually borderline offensive, why do you think they join the job? Would they really risk their own safety if they don't care about bystanders?
3) I'm pretty sure you have no idea what Police training consists of, there is zero 'Hawaii 50'. If you disagree then quote some examples or find some way of backing up your stupid claims.
4) We're all entitled to our own opinions, however if our opinions are poorly based then expect them to be challenged and/or dismissed. I suggest you apply some logic to some of your own biased comments.
5) Sorry about you experiences with the Australian Police, however I believe the NZ Police doesn't have that kind of attitude as a widespread problem, there is the odd idiot but in my experience they are reasonably far between and strongly disliked by other Police Officers.
6) I fully understand and agree with your friends from London.
7) I understand Systolics point of view and agree with some of it, I can't be bothered going back and reading them in detail.
8) Adequately armed for most situations doesn't cut it, which was shown by all of the cops that have had their cars stolen at gunpoint, been shot at, being shot, attacked with machetes etc. I don't like the idea of people in armchairs telling me when I should or shouldn't carry a gun when they aren't the ones going into the same situations and putting themselves at risk.
9) In the Police you pick your scuffles, and you only pick ones you are going to win. Weapon retention isn't hard. Cops having their own TASERs, pepperspray used against them is almost unheard of.
10) Sorry for the numbering
11) I think it should be the individual choice of the officer, providing they have been shown to be competent in handling the firearm and their decision making has been tested under pressure.

I know a few police personnel, and I feel better knowing people such as these are out there doing a difficult task. I appreciate this. As for the above points, out of the 11, I agree with 8 of them, and the remaining three I do not know enough about to form a legitimate opinion. I dont agree with most of the people I work with that much, so I believe that this says a lot about the calibre of our police here in NZ.

As for people being "5 oh" on our policy's, I will use an example that someone alluded to in the media and its foreseeable consequences.

After a police chase the other day a member of the public said " Its too dangerous for police to chase criminals past schools. They need to call it off as it is too dangerous...." If, that was to happen, will the result be safer school areas? Hell NO!!! It says loud and clear to every crim that you will get away if you speed past a school, and next thing every crim will INTENTIONALLY speed past a school knowing the cops wont follow. I pray that no one gets hurt, but I am also of the belief that chases should NOT be called off. If they get caught when they run, then the stupid ones will still run, but the remainder will not as they know it will only make things worse.....Some will get hurt in the process, as some always will, but in the long run, less will chance to flee if the consequences include THEIR death or injury....

There were a few needless, antagonistic comments but by and large an interesting read really and some good points. Also some horrific ones, but oh well, you can't have freedom without disagreement I spose.

Originally Posted by Savage1

8) Adequately armed for most situations doesn't cut it, which was shown by all of the cops that have had their cars stolen at gunpoint, been shot at, being shot, attacked with machetes etc. I don't like the idea of people in armchairs telling me when I should or shouldn't carry a gun when they aren't the ones going into the same situations and putting themselves at risk.

We're the people supplying your gun and the power to decide if you kill someone with it or not.

I think that gives us the right to discuss the pros & cons.

Originally Posted by Ricochet

We're the people supplying your gun and the power to decide if you kill someone with it or not.

I think that gives us the right to discuss the pros & cons.

Discussing pro's and con's, is fine, but analysing and critiquing what they "could have" done when you are not there at the time when they make these decisions is far less so. We trust the govt to train these people to be able to be able to make these decisions under pressure and in situations we would never ourselves to intentionally become involved in so for us to second guess what they decide after analysing the situation as they are trained to do is akin to a child giving parenting advice to their parents. At the end of the day, that cop is out there doing a job that no one should ever have to do, so personally, I dont think people who do not have the full story and all the information can come up with an acceptable critique...And the only people who really know all the details are the ones who were there making those decisions at the time.

Originally Posted by Ricochet

We're the people supplying your gun and the power to decide if you kill someone with it or not.

I think that gives us the right to discuss the pros & cons.

I thought the cops got their power from the Crown? Not the government of the day and certainly not the great unwashed "I pay your wages, you work for me" public.