Thread: New gun security laws

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

The fact that there is two simultaneous pushes to arm front line police and restrict private gun ownership indicates that Ryan is right. This isn't a tinfoil hat conspiricy theory it's the logical conclusion given the facts.

On a similar note there is a worldwide push headed by the USA to restrict the ability of private individuals to share\copy information or media that they own (anti piracy, IP laws, Sky copyrighting the Olympic news) at the same time state governments are affirming their rights to read all of your web traffic and private e-mails whenever they want.

Why is it ok for the NSA\GCSB to read my e-mails the contents of which are private and something I care about personally but I can't download a movie off megaupload.com which only has a very small monitary value and no privacy implication? Why does a Hollywood movie studio have more rights than I do?

The only bright spot in all this is that anything is hackable so the Panama papers got released and Hillary Clinton's emails got hacked and released. Eventually they will intimidate the hackers into stopping though...

Bloody hell were all doomed.

Originally Posted by Taff

Bloody hell were all doomed.

Not necessarily.

It would however be remiss to deny that there is an insidious movement to erode people's rights under the guise of "national security". The USA Patriot Act (USA), Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ), Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act, 2002 (South Africa) to name but a few examples.

Is it just coincidence or convenience that at least two of these countries happen to have well funded lobbying organisations that advocate additional legislative firearm controls through a campaign of fear mongering and misinformation?

I was being sarcastic , not paranoid

Okay - I was being neither.

Sort of Ironic that with mass surveillance they still have a difficult time stopping terror attacks. It is abundantly obvious that the states are just asserting their monopolies on all things - information, force, money etc.

Originally Posted by Beavis

Sort of Ironic that with mass surveillance they still have a difficult time stopping terror attacks. It is abundantly obvious that the states are just asserting their monopolies on all things - information, force, money etc.

They surveil foreign countries with impunity. They never needed laws passed to do so. If the threat is supposedly coming from beyond the borders, why the need for increased powers for domestic surveillance?

The bottom line is that it's the crim's who are stealing firearms, the sentencing for this is a joke, that's the first thing that needs to change, harsher penalties are required & once all the bastards are locked up the theft rate will drop.

I saw a news article last night about record numbers of tradies tools being flogged, mainly to fuel meth heads, burglary rates also at an all time high. Here's a novel idea for those clowns in Wellie, how about some more funding for the police so they can go after the gangs hard, if your a gang member & get caught with a firearm, 10yrs! no gangs = no meth = no need for stolen guns= no crack heads ripping our shit off to feed there habits & us law abiding folk can go about enjoying our hobby/sport, etc

Slight topic change... Mainstream media doesn't cover the shooting where some nutted goes off in a shopping mall and an average citizen pulls a pistol and cuts things short. Concealed carry does have its place. Cant remember the examples but know there where at least 2 in the last 4 years.

Its not just about giving the police funding, its about how their bureaucrats decide to use the funding. I wonder how the 'investigate burglaries' budget compares with the 'issue speeding tickets' budget?

Originally Posted by 223nut

Mainstream media doesn't cover the shooting where some nutted goes off in a shopping mall and an average citizen pulls a pistol and cuts things short.

Don't remember them saying much about that nutjob in Japan stabbing a bunch of people recently either?

Originally Posted by Kscott

Going to pick one thing in your post (because it's the easiest). Sky has paid a lot of $$ for Olympic broadcast rights. News media in NZ have always worked with restrictions for access and video if they are not the rights holder - same for any big event like RWC, Commonwealth Games, America's Cup, etc.

Fairfax aka Stuff and NZME aka NZ Herald have said they want to use Sky video as much as they like, on their websites. Not in newspapers which is their origin, but web sites. And Sky have said no, unless you agree to limiting the duration of the video. TVNZ and TV3 have always been in the same boat and have always agreed to the restrictions.

Both Stuff and NZHerald and said no, they don't want to follow those rules, despite they're using the video just like TVNZ and TV3. Which is why Sky took Fairfax to court for breach of copyright - it's business.

There's no grand world wide conspiracy.

It's simply Stuff and NZHerald acting like dicks and getting their hand smacked and complaining.

The IP discussion for individuals is more complex, so a glib one liner won't be good enough.

Getting off topic here, but even though sky paid the big bucks for brodcasting rights NZ copyright law has exemptions for fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting. Sky say Stuff is using too much and costing them suscribers, Stuff say they acting within "fair use". Its not up to Sky to dictate what is fair, this is why a judge is now involved.

Order out of chaos comes to mind. Criminals and gang members caught with firearms should be punished severely but that just doesn't happen. The question is why?

My Grandmother (rest her soul) once told me; it's easy to be a bad person & an arsehole in life, but it's hard to be good and stand out from the rest. Ya know, don't lie & steal peoples shit.

Why is it in this country our justice system systematically makes it easier to be a criminal. Or for them to even exist for that matter. It's simply not fair. As mentioned before we who are law abiding, for the most part honest too and from my experience with you folks on here and other friends & family I shoot with are good people. It baffles me that crime in alot of cases gets pathetic sentences which in my opinion is more injustice.

But hey, at least we all still have our integrity.

Originally Posted by Chilli_Dog

Getting off topic here, but even though sky paid the big bucks for brodcasting rights NZ copyright law has exemptions for fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting. Sky say Stuff is using too much and costing them suscribers, Stuff say they acting within "fair use". Its not up to Sky to dictate what is fair, this is why a judge is now involved.

It's new territory for Fairfax and NZME who want to play video sourced from someone else, but more importantly, play adverts around that footage and earn money from it, without paying a cent getting the footage. The game is changing, Sky is 1st out of the box on this.

"Friday at the High Court in Auckland, Justice John Fogarty ruled it was impossible to decide what was fair use in such a short hearing." So Fairfax have won round 1. That Fairfax wanted to place adverts around that footage, and earn money off it, dilutes the fair use for News term a little bit. Because it's all click bait for them. Which brings in advertising money.

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Order out of chaos comes to mind. Criminals and gang members caught with firearms should be punished severely but that just doesn't happen. The question is why?

My Grandmother (rest her soul) once told me; it's easy to be a bad person & an arsehole in life, but it's hard to be good and stand out from the rest. Ya know, don't lie & steal peoples shit.

Why is it in this country our justice system systematically makes it easier to be a criminal. Or for them to even exist for that matter. It's simply not fair. As mentioned before we who are law abiding, for the most part honest too and from my experience with you folks on here and other friends & family I shoot with are good people. It baffles me that crime in alot of cases gets pathetic sentences which in my opinion is more injustice.

But hey, at least we all still have our integrity.

Cut off the hand that steals and that thief will not likely steal again. There is some rationale from ancient middle eastern culture that resonates well with me.

Originally Posted by Rushy

Cut off the hand that steals and that thief will not likely steal again. There is some rationale from ancient middle eastern culture that resonates well with me.

Of course, the flipside is cut off the hand accused of stealing with marginal evidence and you'll look a right prick if it turns out they're innocent later. Still need a fair trial and all that.