Thread: Support for tighter Acat storage

Originally Posted by Beavis

There is and always will be crime and criminals. Crime and criminals are gradually getting worse, more criminals are willing to use violence against other criminals, the police and the public. More criminals are willing to use and want guns to this end. Most criminals get their firearms illegally through theft, generally from residential burglaries. Because of this, and because it is too hard and will take too long to solve the issues that create criminals, gun owners need to give some ground and bare the financial burden of securing their firearms to a greater standard, making it more difficult to all but the most determined theives to steal their guns. This will at least slow the flow of guns to criminal hands and the black market.

Unfortunately the stats don't align with that train of thought. Crime is and pretty much always has been on a decrease. At least in my life time anyway.

I support stouter A Cat storage. I've seen people using those bike stranded locks in a hotwater cupboard, tin lockers a spoon will pop open and wooden cupboards that with the hinge screws on the outside.

Since the aim is to make them less easy to access by someone who has broken into our home - how about longer sentences for those stealing firearms, handling stolen firearms or dealing in them - after all those scumbags involved in the Dunedin theft got no more than 5yrs each. How about 10yrs minimum?

I concur to "The Other School of Thought" - Society needs to make this change happen, you can throw all the bureaucratic legislation you want at it, it won't stop criminals being criminals.

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I concur to "The Other School of Thought" - Society needs to make this change happen, you can throw all the bureaucratic legislation you want at it, it won't stop criminals being criminals.

Indeed, 40 years ago if you got busted drink driving you were considered unlucky to be caught. Society did not see it as a dangerous decision, but merely one that was decided by those above, now the attitude is different.Drink driving is socially considered poor judgement or stupidity at best and a moronic suicidal tendency at worst. It is as illegal then as it is now, but societies attitude towards it has matured. It is also why making laws in places like the US will have little affect on the populations issues with firearms there. Because until the Society changes its attitude, the law wont make a difference.

Originally Posted by canross

In thinking about it further, if low quality A-Category storage lockers are the issue, it seems to me that Arms Officers are already capable of denying permission without a change in the laws. It is within their discretion to grant or deny storage, so without making it a legal requirement they could just decide to not pass flimsier safes. Is this not the case?

Yes, clearly FAOs have in the past approved storage that should perhaps not have been approved. No change in law, just need to watch the enforcers do their job properly.

The problem here is police watching police, perhaps supporting the idea of firearms officers' jobs should be done by a shooters organisation, e.g. NRA, NZDA or even the Blackpowder shoorters, but subject to police oversight. You'd soon find rules get adhered to, and the police busy checking on the checkers.

Originally Posted by berg243

society has got softer years ago if you went before a judge the ones they thought that could be rehabilitated where given a choice volunteer for the army or have a holiday inside.i met a few doing basic training in the territorials at Waiouru they freely admitted that it was the best choice they made.these where nco's who actually said it gave them direction and they made a career out of it why not bring this back something like a 2 year stint in the army getting paid instead of jail for first time offenders.we are also to blame we gave our kids an easier time than what we had and I can see it that the next generation is giving their kids an easier ride again.the anti smacking law I think is creating more kids that think they can do anything without consequences and seeing how kids perceive life through the playing off violent video games I see as a downward spiral in attitudes and treatment of others mainly in a small percentage of kids but it is there and I think it will only get worse as time goes on and more generations.i think too that there is more stress in life than thirty years ago but a lot of that I think is the fact that people want more so incur more debt work more less home and recreation life /family time and the divide between the haves and the have nots then we have the ones that don't want to earn it they will steal it using violence or guns to threaten without understanding what they can do or don't care what happens because they will get out of jail sooner rather than later.the ones with mental illness are the hardest to help as they are not monitored and are not supervised to take their medications that keep them on an even keel like david grey he was ok in the hospital and when that was shut he was ok when his mother was alive as she made sure he took what he had to but when she passed away he slowly went off his medication end result we all know.that was a result of government saving us good taxpayers some money.just like getting the honest person to beef up their security because government don't want do their bit.

Except that pretty much every study shows, longer jail times don't achieve shit, crims still crim, and the taxpayer just gets a bigger bill. Those countries with death sentences for petty crimes and dismemberment for theft still have massive crime rates. Those stats also show crime decreasing per capita so Im not sure much this soft handling theory is worth.

Here is what does decrease crime. A healthy strong balanced economy. In short if people have money, they don't steal shit, get in gangs or kill people. Police absolutely could increase resource around finding and busting these crime syndicates and gun trades. But mandatory minimums and 3 strike rules achieve fuck all except expensive overflowing jails.

My OG gun rack I could have pulled my rifles off with 1 hand. I voluntarily upgraded mine recently, but the AO was more than happy with the old one.
I think we have legislation around it why not tighten up the definitions a bit. Its the 1 piece of proposed legislation that would actually have a positive effect, and would go a long way towards upping the public perception that we actually care about the issues with the firearms black market in NZ.

I for one will fight tooth and nail against any nonsensical rule changes but will welcome sensible legislation with open arms.

Originally Posted by Nick-D

Except that pretty much every study shows, longer jail times don't achieve shit, crims still crim, and the taxpayer just gets a bigger bill. Those countries with death sentences for petty crimes and dismemberment for theft still have massive crime rates. Those stats also show crime decreasing per capita so Im not sure much this soft handling theory is worth.

Here is what does decrease crime. A healthy strong balanced economy. In short if people have money, they don't steal shit, get in gangs or kill people. Police absolutely could increase resource around finding and busting these crime syndicates and gun trades. But mandatory minimums and 3 strike rules achieve fuck all except expensive overflowing jails.

My OG gun rack I could have pulled my rifles off with 1 hand. I voluntarily upgraded mine recently, but the AO was more than happy with the old one.
I think we have legislation around it why not tighten up the definitions a bit. Its the 1 piece of proposed legislation that would actually have a positive effect, and would go a long way towards upping the public perception that we actually care about the issues with the firearms black market in NZ.

I for one will fight tooth and nail against any nonsensical rule changes but will welcome sensible legislation with open arms.

Criminals have a hard time re offending and victimizing the public from jail. What is that worth monetary wise? I don't know.

What will you be offering next to up the public perception that we "actually care about the issues with the firearms black market in NZ"?

Because your kind gesture will soon be conveniently forgotten.

Originally Posted by Jexla

Criminals have a hard time re offending and victimizing the public from jail. What is that worth monetary wise? I don't know.

What will you be offering next to up the public perception that we "actually care about the issues with the firearms black market in NZ"?

Because your kind gesture will soon be conveniently forgotten.

Yeah, but not when they get out, with all their new criminal buddies and skills. Thats why the recurrence rate is so high in criminals? They only way that theory works is if you lock every criminal up forever.

I'm not offering anything up, I'm merely agreeing with this piece of legislation. The current standard for storage is shite

Originally Posted by Jexla

Criminals have a hard time re offending and victimizing the public from jail. What is that worth monetary wise? I don't know.

What will you be offering next to up the public perception that we "actually care about the issues with the firearms black market in NZ"?

Because your kind gesture will soon be conveniently forgotten.

its something of around the 100k mark per year apparently, I say put a bolt gun to a lot of their heads, not all just a lot
and also if you do a crime and hurt your self the NO ACC because crims get a new leg on ACC for breaking the law while hard working people wait till they are 70 to get a knee replacement after the fact their health has gone down hill as a result of their knee

Originally Posted by Nick-D

Yeah, but not when they get out, with all their new criminal buddies and skills. Thats why the recurrence rate is so high in criminals? They only way that theory works is if you lock every criminal up forever.

I'm not offering anything up, I'm merely agreeing with this piece of legislation. The current standard for storage is shite

Your argument has gone far beyond increasing A Cat security.

So should we build the prison around us? Hope like hell we don't go through a recession. Let them all free?

Lockthemupandthrowawaythekey, etc. What a thoughtful debate...

A burglary reported every 7 minutes as recorded crime rate jumps | Stuff.co.nz
What statistics are you talking about @Nick-D these guys disagree with you. OK so one face on the page has no credibility but the economy is APPARENTLY going very well but burglary getting worse.

Originally Posted by Macca

Recent proposes to law changes regarding firearms has caused quite a stir and caused many to be very vocal about their opinions, some of which are more drastic than others. One point I've always looked at and thought needed improving was basic storage requirements of A category firearms.

Current standards approved by I have no idea who, But enforced by police (to their dismay) allow things such as a simple mild steel eye bolt into a wall stud with a wire cable etc to attach firearms, a basic stamped metal cabinet that could be cut with tin snips, or even just a cable around hot water cylinder pipes etc. Let's be honest here and agree that these options are pathetic (and most Acat safes) and we can do better than that as a community to protect out hobbies and investments.

What's wrong with making stout (ie more than 1mm Acat safes) boxes/safes which are securely attached to walls/floors a mandatory requirement and ditching the minimum? Such as how we do our Ecat/Bcat. I get cost may play a factor, but if we're spending thousands and thousands on our firearms then we can invest in secure storage.

Another touchy subject is making all semi autos (.22 and shotguns etc excluded) into Ecat or a new class where a process similar to permit to preclude must be followed. Because what semi autos do you hunt with that aren't ar15/AK derivatives? I only vaguely support this because any Joe Bloggs with a FAL can buy an Acat Ar15/AK and then buy a 30 round mag on the same licence (pretty sure you don't even need a licence?) And then sell it onto a criminal. Please don't come at us with the usual "police should do a better job vetting", and "they need to make longer sentences", because we need to do our part as well to protect our sport and future.

Please add your ideas and solutions as to what changes can be made to have a middle ground between us and police/anti gunners to make all parties happy.

There is no need to invent a ''middle ground.'' We have strict firearms licensing laws already; and very successful ones.

You, for example, can't even shoot your pistols anywhere except a gazetted range, and you're not even sure if you are legally allowed to have a loaded magazine in your possession that is not attached to a firearm.

Exactly what problem you trying to solve, you haven't stated. It seems you simply think that things should be harder, in order to impress anti-gun people. (Whoever they are. The leader of the Police Union is the only one that comes to mind. And he is unlikely to be satisfied with anything short of a complete hand in.) Things should be easier. The restrictions we have already have been in part driven by misunderstandings about firearms and politicians wanting to be seen to do something, even if it is meaningless; much of that is inflamed by a media who love to write anything about 'guns' because it makes it sound like they are in the Big Time. Couple that with constant depictions of actors being shot in television detective shows, followed by American news of actual shootings....a place where they do have problems with a violent gun culture.

I hypothesis here that if our television was restricted to Italian cooking shows and Indian dance videos, interspersed with mild soft-porn for both genders, we would have hardly any firearms restrictions at all, because if the firearms laws were driven by actual events rather than a perception created by media and made up stories in movies, things would be much different.

Actual firearms crime is modest to the point of quaint in this country. (If you are going to get murdered here, for example, you have only a one in ten chance of being murdered with a firearm in New Zealand. You are ten times more likely to get killed by someone, should they want to kill you, with a heavy stick, or a crockpot. Or a lobster.)

Storage and security is sufficient for its intention - to deter opportunistic theft. Anyone who actually has targeted your firearms will get them over more robust precautions, even if they are only modestly determined.

It is naive to attempt to keep all parties happy, but happily, it is not required.

I am more concerned about the amount of people that drown in this country than in how secure someones Ruger 10/22 is.

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

There is no need to invent a ''middle ground.'' We have strict firearms licensing laws already; and very successful ones.

You, for example, can't even shoot your pistols anywhere except a gazetted range, and you're not even sure if you are legally allowed to have a loaded magazine in your possession that is not attached to a firearm.

Exactly what problem you trying to solve, you haven't stated. It seems you simply think that things should be harder, in order to impress anti-gun people. (Whoever they are. The leader of the Police Union is the only one that comes to mind. And he is unlikely to be satisfied with anything short of a complete hand in.) Things should be easier. The restrictions we have already have been in part driven by misunderstandings about firearms and politicians wanting to be seen to do something, even if it is meaningless; much of that is inflamed by a media who love to write anything about 'guns' because it makes it sound like they are in the Big Time. Couple that with constant depictions of actors being shot in television detective shows, followed by American news of actual shootings....a place where they do have problems with a violent gun culture.

I hypothesis here that if our television was restricted to Italian cooking shows and Indian dance videos, interspersed with mild soft-porn for both genders, we would have hardly any firearms restrictions at all, because if the firearms laws were driven by actual events rather than a perception created by media and made up stories in movies, things would be much different.

Actual firearms crime is modest to the point of quaint in this country. (If you are going to get murdered here, for example, you have only a one in ten chance of being murdered with a firearm in New Zealand. You are ten times more likely to get killed by someone, should they want to kill you, with a heavy stick, or a crockpot. Or a lobster.)

Storage and security is sufficient for its intention - to deter opportunistic theft. Anyone who actually has targeted your firearms will get them over more robust precautions, even if they are only modestly determined.

It is naive to attempt to keep all parties happy, but happily, it is not required.

I am more concerned about the amount of people that drown in this country than in how secure someones Ruger 10/22 is.

Post of the week right there. Especially the last line there are a lot more things/problems in our country that deserve more effort to solve rather than firearms issues.
Its just that they don't grab headlines. For example "man affords to go to doctor" or "children get enough food" does not has quite the same ring as Man Shoots at Police"

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

A burglary reported every 7 minutes as recorded crime rate jumps | Stuff.co.nz
What statistics are you talking about @Nick-D these guys disagree with you. OK so one face on the page has no credibility but the economy is APPARENTLY going very well but burglary getting worse.

Well I was referring to crime statistics as a whole, which is in fact really irrelevant to the argument, my point being very well documented that increasing sentences has little effect on crime rate. This is commonly offered up by our community as a counter argument to reduce firearm crime rates, and I'm just pointing out that it is based on about as much evidence as thumbhole stocks making ar15's safer.

It's nonsense, as is much of the current legislation. Im merely saying that given the issues with theft, implementing better standards than the current shite ones would actually have an effect on the issue at hand.

As for the economy, well it's going Ok, but inflation and cost of living is sky rocketing much faster than wages leaving the lower socioeconomic groups most affected. You do the maths there. It's why I said, not just a healthy but a balanced economy. All of that is irrelevant anyway, but just musings