Thread: New gun security laws

Originally Posted by Savage1

I do, there's a reason the army uses the Steyr over the Tikka T3.

We'll ignore the fact that the army do use a bolt action rifle and that the Steyr is select fire shall we?

Sounds good.

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

Such data is confidential. Nothing to do with the person you're referring to or the bull that the media churns out either. They have their agendas for sure.

Do you really think that firearms related crime has fallen or stayed static in NZ? Might have something to do with methamphetamine, although that's just my opinion.

How's this for an opinion?

My opinion is the fact that the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population has remained much the same since 1995 that gun crime is not increasing and has fallen dramatically from what it was pre 1995.

We've even had record low rates during 2011 and 2012.

The annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is:

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

That's going to happen with A cat security because the regulations aren't as specific as they should be. What exactly does "stout construction" mean in absolute terms? It's too loose and open to interpretation and thus we have the variables.

I looked it up in a dictionary

"bulky in figure; heavily built; corpulent; thickset; fat:"

Stout = Short and fat........(or its a beer...)

Originally Posted by Jexla

How's this for an opinion?

My opinion is the fact that the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population has remained much the same since 1995 that gun crime is not increasing and has fallen dramatically from what it was pre 1995.

We've even had record low rates during 2011 and 2012.

The annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is:

Attachment 52298

Whilst this set of figures is one perspective and represents sadly actual deaths it may be misleading on the actual extent of firearms crime. In 1990 for example David Grey was probably the total contributor to that year's statistic.

The news in our neck of the woods pertaining to E-cat safes is that the inspectors will need to sight a manufacturer's guarantee that an e-cat safe is 6mm thick and/or an engineer's guarantee that a home-made safe is minimum 6mm thick with the appropriate locks.

The rule is not retrospective so if you are good now you are good in the future.

I gather that the idea is that the inspectors do not have the technical know-how to say if an e-cat safe is good or not. Obviously a set of calipers would do the trick but apparently that is not to be.



All that aside, I agree that A-cat safes in general should be stronger than they are - a personnel locker with a hasp and staple on it is as much good as a one-legged man in an arse kicking party

Originally Posted by timattalon

I looked it up in a dictionary

"bulky in figure; heavily built; corpulent; thickset; fat:"

Stout = Short and fat........(or its a beer...)

There a times when a beer safe could be handy!

Originally Posted by 308

The news in our neck of the woods pertaining to E-cat safes is that the inspectors will need to sight a manufacturer's guarantee that an e-cat safe is 6mm thick and/or an engineer's guarantee that a home-made safe is minimum 6mm thick with the appropriate locks.

The rule is not retrospective so if you are good now you are good in the future.

I gather that the idea is that the inspectors do not have the technical know-how to say if an e-cat safe is good or not. Obviously a set of calipers would do the trick but apparently that is not to be.



All that aside, I agree that A-cat safes in general should be stronger than they are - a personnel locker with a hasp and staple on it is as much good as a one-legged man in an arse kicking party

Thats always been the rule for e/b/c

Originally Posted by 308

The news in our neck of the woods pertaining to E-cat safes is that the inspectors will need to sight a manufacturer's guarantee that an e-cat safe is 6mm thick and/or an engineer's guarantee that a home-made safe is minimum 6mm thick with the appropriate locks.

The rule is not retrospective so if you are good now you are good in the future.

I gather that the idea is that the inspectors do not have the technical know-how to say if an e-cat safe is good or not. Obviously a set of calipers would do the trick but apparently that is not to be.



All that aside, I agree that A-cat safes in general should be stronger than they are - a personnel locker with a hasp and staple on it is as much good as a one-legged man in an arse kicking party

Because we all know how tricky using those callipers can be.....Almost need a degree

hey , wait a min ..... i might be effing great in an ass kicking party .......

Originally Posted by Jexla

We'll ignore the fact that the army do use a bolt action rifle and that the Steyr is select fire shall we?

Sounds good.

It took you longer to bite than I expected, do you really think c-cat is more deadly than a-cat?

Originally Posted by Jexla

How's this for an opinion?

My opinion is the fact that the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population has remained much the same since 1995 that gun crime is not increasing and has fallen dramatically from what it was pre 1995.

We've even had record low rates during 2011 and 2012.

The annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is:

Attachment 52298

What a great example of using very selective statistics to back an argument.

Come on jexla, I'm sure you can see the blatantly obvious holes in that argument.

Originally Posted by Savage1

It took you longer to bite than I expected, do you really think c-cat is more deadly than a-cat?

Depends what the firearm is that is on C cat. If it's select fire then yes Mr policeman, I do think it is more deadly, don't you?

Originally Posted by Savage1

What a great example of using very selective statistics to back an argument.

Come on jexla, I'm sure you can see the blatantly obvious holes in that argument.

Sure, we don't have statistics on actual gun crime because your lot don't record it. What we do have however is statistics on gun murders and it's the best we have to go off, unless you know some better stats to use, cough 'em up....

Originally Posted by Jexla

Depends what the firearm is that is on C cat. If it's select fire then yes Mr policeman, I do think it is more deadly, don't you?



Sure, we don't have statistics on actual gun crime because your lot don't record it. What we do have however is statistics on gun murders and it's the best we have to go off, unless you know some better stats to use, cough 'em up....

So you think E cat is no deadlier than A but C is more deadly than A if it is select fire? I fail to follow your logic.

If you only have a narrow amount of information then avoid coming to broad conclusions, homicides are far from being the only crimes that involve firearms, a lot aren't reported, often some of the worst of them. Going off of your logic then there wouldn't have been a single firearms offence in Northland so far this year, which is funny because I've personally lost count of the number of crims I've confronted this year that who have been carrying firearms at the time and/or very recently used one in the commission of a crime. But hey, what would I know compared to someone who sits at a desk most days.

The problem I see is that there doesn't appear to be any clear direction or game plan to tackle organised crime and the drug trade. Everybody wants an end to gangs, P etc but the approach we are taking is a broken record and doesn't appear to be making an impact.

With regards to firearms, the police association is taking a disjointed and rambling crusade against legal gun owners who they dont differentiate from criminals. They cry for gun registration, restrictions on .50 BMG's, further restrictions on MSSA's. None of those things will serve to enhance officer safety. Most illegal guns are obtained through theft, so registration won't do shit. .50BMG's are pretty much never used in crime. Restricting them is pointless. MSSA's are already among the most tightly controlled guns. They are already registered anf required to be kept in more substantial security. What more could they want to increase officer safety? There is something to be said for A category security being to relaxed, most A cat safes are shite. But as has been pointed out, why should we have to saddle a burden caused by organised crime?

Perhaps we need take a drastic new direction. Maybe we need to legalise all drugs. That would basically destroy the economy of the gangs. If meth addicts could get a cheap hit without having to commit crimes to feed their habits we might see a steep decline in burglary, which may result in less guns being stolen. We should introduce warrentless searches for anybody known to be associated with organised criminal gangs. MSSA owners are burdened with this so why the fuck can't we do it to gang members. Imagine how impossible it would be to operate a crime ring if the cops could pay a daily visit to the gang pad or the associates houses.

omg .... im one legged , and i sit at a desk ....... this is becoming all about me