Thread: Media Firearms beat-up continues

Originally Posted by stug

Should the age someone can get a firearms licence be raised? - Opinion - NZ Herald News

A load of the most contrived left leaning socialist tripe as big as any Ive seen from this rag! whose the gutless wonder author -another journalistic excuse with no spine for a shiver to run up I wouldnt insult my arse by wiping it with this peurile crap!this is the sort of rigged shit you get on the bastion of intellectual paddling pools -trademe message boards.

I find it odd that the very people who say our gun laws should be made tougher are the same people who expect the "heavily armed " police or army to protect them (or is that that they only protect "Important People", Politicians or "Wealthy People" and possibly not the "Sheeple")

With firearms there are NOT "Degrees of Dangerousness" depending on the type.

For example with a MSSA being a semi over 7 rounds capacity, can someone explain how the 8th shot is more "dangerous'er" than the 5th, 6th or 7th ones


You are either "fit and proper" or not.

Originally Posted by mikee

I find it odd that the very people who say our gun laws should be made tougher are the same people who expect the "heavily armed " police or army to protect them (or is that that they only protect "Important People", Politicians or "Wealthy People" and possibly not the "Sheeple")

With firearms there are NOT "Degrees of Dangerousness" depending on the type.

For example with a MSSA being a semi over 7 rounds capacity, can someone explain how the 8th shot is more "dangerous'er" than the 5th, 6th or 7th ones


You are either "fit and proper" or not.

WTF are you on about "Protect us from who ???" The gun nutter with AR15, with 10*30round mags who wants to shoot the shit out of anything that moves ???
Fuck we have people being killed by single shot rifles here, so wake up when I say we need more training !!!!! NOT Military training just fucking common sense training !!

Originally Posted by Natatale

WTF are you on about "Protect us from who ???" The gun nutter with AR15, with 10*30round mags who wants to shoot the shit out of anything that moves ???
Fuck we have people being killed by single shot rifles here, so wake up when I say we need more training !!!!! NOT Military training just fucking common sense training !!

Well Protect us from Criminals for a start.................

"The gun nutter" as you so eloquently put it, with AR15 should have failed the Fit and proper test if the vetting was done properly!!

Not too mention have 30 round mags they waould have also been vetted again for their E Endorsement,


We are going to have to agree to disagree I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Natatale

WTF are you on about "Protect us from who ???" The gun nutter with AR15, with 10*30round mags who wants to shoot the shit out of anything that moves ???
Fuck we have people being killed by single shot rifles here, so wake up when I say we need more training !!!!! NOT Military training just fucking common sense training !!

I have had a few "former military" people who have been "trained" in firearms tell me they were son much better etc and that they were safer than hunters. I will say I never had to listen to a hunter ask for a semi auto AK with a 30 round mag (pre MSSA when they were still A cat) so he could shoot ducks on the golf course......And yes I did hear that discussion with a shop who RIGHTLY refused to sell that rifle. I have heard so many scary techniques that former military think is safe when hunters would flinch at the idea. In a military scenario the training they have is exactly what they need to survive in a combat situation, fast reflexes, snap shots, quick follow up, always ready, etc. Almost none of the training reflect "safe" firearms use in a hunting situation. (think how many of the 7 basic rules are NOT used by these military training techniques. Load only when ready to fire, Always point in a safe direction, to name the first obvious ones.

I am on the fence with what you are saying. In some respects I agree with your intentions and ideas but the problem I have is the reasoning behind why you want this. Look at all the mass shootings, here and in the US. Look closely. They were NOT because the shooters were untrained, in fact, I am under the understanding that some of them have sought out training to make them more effective. They are almost all primarily due to failings in detecting or controlling mental issues or drugs and violent attitudes. Training people to use firearms safely is a good idea, and all shooters should search out this increase in skill level. But it will make no difference whatsoever to mass killings. If you really want to reduce that risk then you are needing to target mental health providers and policy makers to change THEIR ways. You need to target drug dealers and reduce the impact of these on society. Why is this not happening? Too hard.......

Gun registrys are a waste of time and resource. The only firearms that will be on there will be legally owned by law abiding citizens who are not the problem. The "nut jobs and druggies" that own or steal firearms, and criminals will not register theirs as they would be immediately seized. Aussie has some of the silliest knee jerk rules around gun ownership and is following closely with the NATO premise that only military organisations should have firearms. Considering Aussie has a large number of animals that are hazardous to humans (crocs, snakes, huge razor back boars, etc) they should be the other way inclined to allow the citizenry protect itself from legitimate threats to human safety.

Finally my take is Guns dont kill people, Cars do. And registering those certainly stopped mass killing didn't it? Driver training helps but did that stop the deaths?

How many people own guns in this country? Last I heard is there was nearly a million guns in NZ. That is one for every 4 people. How many cars? double that? More? 4 million? and how many people die by car each year.....?

Might I suggest you are barking up the wrong tree? More people in Aussie drown each year than sharks have killed in many decades combined, Yet are they more scared of the sharks or drowning?

Originally Posted by Natatale

The gun nutter with AR15, with 10*30round mags who wants to shoot the shit out of anything that moves ???

Who are all these people that shoot the shit out of anything that moves?
In my experience most shooters and hunters are responsible, considerate and above all law abiding.

My 2 cents worth.

My son turned 16 last month and obtained a learners drivers licence and a firearms licence.

Both were relatively easy to get. He had more vetting for his FAL than the drivers.
He is more likely to injure or kill someone when using his drivers licence than his firearms licence.

It is the misuse of vehicle or firearm that will kill regardless of the licence status of the user.

I don't think raising the age for either licence would achieve any meaningful change.

Originally Posted by Natatale

Fuck we have people being killed by single shot rifles here, so wake up when I say we need more training !!!!! NOT Military training just fucking common sense training !!

I presume you're talking about hunting accidents here?
Have you ever stopped and wondered why so many hunting accidents are caused by experienced hunters. I think the discussion on human factors is a good direction. Sadly, I bet in nearly every situation the individual was convinced that they were shooting at game and not a person. No amount of competence based training will help someone that succumbs to visual illusions and incorrectly identifies their target.

Yeah but I have no doubt that a process that we were trained to go through would help with that.... we just need to know how it happens, and how to best deal with it.. then perhaps we might be able to generate a mental exercise that is more highly likely to be the correct outcome. The aim small, identify 3 parts of the animal sort of thing might be a useful part of that process... I would make the point also that we will be unlikely to be able to realistically identify people more likely to have issues prior to an incident. Eyesight tests and colour blindness and any potential susceptibility to optical illusion doesn't necessarily translate into poor decision making. It often makes people more careful and less likely to have problems.

Also there is no evidence to suggest that only some individuals are susceptible... I think that we all are. There could be a genetic factor at work, but all of us are subject to optical illusion under certain circumstances.

Originally Posted by mikee

You are either "fit and proper" or not.

That's it in a nut shell !

Military trained people safe😆

Na. Obeying common safety in civilian circles is useless and counter productive in the military.
Common sense and trust amongst soldiers is the only strict safety observed away from a designated range.

I admit struggling with some aspects of civilian range rules when I retired. Still do.

Some things we took in our stride in the military would have people visably sick in civilian circles regarding safety.

How many of you would walk forward from 100 to patch out a target on a screen while another mate is shooting at a point 12" away on that same screen and continues to do so until you return.
That is just a tame example.😆

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

what is it with this ' ex military ' that they think they're so much better with guns than anyone else . . because they did some training for dummies back in the day.

this lack of thinking that says ' its a recipe for disaster if anyone but them has a semi-auto ' facts have no place with them . . you cannot fix stupid but you do have to spend so much time trying to fend them off before they do to much damage.

Exactly my point, anyone is susceptible to this phenomenon. All the things you added Sidney are all part of the Swiss cheese effect that lead up to an incident to where some is situationally impaired. Maybe that was a better term than visual illusion.

My previous post would be more correct to read...... 'someone that succumbs to a visual illusion and incorrectly identifies their target'.

As a former soldier (ex military for you that are not in the know) I do not believe that the training that I received has made me a safer handler of firearms than anyone that has not been in the forces. In fact when I first sat my FAL test I got one question wrong and that was one of the seven critical questions that cannot be answered incorrectly. In hindsight on the day when reviewing why I had gotten all other questions correct and this one wrong it was simply because I had answered from a former soldiers viewpoint. Being ex military is no determinant of safety.

Ok so you join a branch of the military do you get a firearms licence?
If you leave the military do you instantly get given a firearms licence or do you still need to sit one?
Now join the military and don't have vehicle licence?