Thread: Support for tighter Acat storage

Originally Posted by Savage1

Nope, definitely deflection, just as you are continuing to do with this post, deflecting the issue of firearms security with the issues of PNHQ behaviour.

No not deflecting at all, just examining the logic behind your statement. I suggested it is worth debating, just suggesting that PNHQ IS a barrier due to o trust.

Originally Posted by Nickoli

Tell that to your president....

Ah the police association president CC? I was talking about PHQ. Well it is hard to tell the difference these days.

CC hasn't said much yet, he usually doesn't even wait for the story to finish.

as much respect as i have for the average cop , police nhq gives me the shits. as for sentences handed out by judges well thats another story

Originally Posted by Savage1

The reason for aesthetic features being restricted is that these features feature on certain types of firearms which attract a certain type of person, a person who would hopefully be identified through further vetting.

@Savage1,

What evidence is there for this stuff? I get exactly what you are saying, I even freely admit to harbouring that very same prejudice myself against black guns. Our shared innate prejudice is basically, people who like modern style black guns enough to pay for them are more likely to be potential mass murderers and criminals than oldies like me/us who prefer old fashioned wooded guns.

But it does not bear scrutiny any more than the usual "young people nowadays are so different from us ol' cobblers."

First question that should be asked (if accepting the notion in the first place) is: how much more likely are such to be gun crims? And how do you gauge how strong someone's like for MSSAs is? In sexual research there are balloon cuffs measuring penile turgor in response to various images, maybe something analogous can be done with MSSA vs Bolt actions images. Point is, difficult.

And then there are the incidental individuals with criminal or political aims who don't have a particular love affair with guns, but use them as tools in their drug trade or to terror ends. Anders Breivik is one creepy example, though overseas in fairness, who had no-long standing gun interest and could not have been identified by the above screening criterion, e.g by a liking of MSSA features.

On vetting, FAL applicants generally... all like firearms. Some will like some style of gun more than another style. If you can put a percentage on this, then how much can you really read into those percentages? Am I for example allowed to like AR15s or AK's more than, say, a random 35% tipping point before being deemed potential criminally insane? Thin ice. In reality, few shooters would kick any particular kind of gun outa their beds outright (figuratively speaking, all gun cuddling perverts out there!).

Anyway, political-assassins-to-be out there should of course be identified not by MSSA-love but by an equally perverted love of bolt actioned rifles with optics, never mind owners of .22 suppressed semi-autos (or those who would like to own one) are suspect in the extreme given how such have featured in Aramoana and the Bain murders.

No, this is a blind alley.

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

Ah the police association president CC? I was talking about PHQ. Well it is hard to tell the difference these days.

CC hasn't said much yet, he usually doesn't even wait for the story to finish.

....he has said more than enough: clambering over the feelings of the grieving and pushing his agenda without waiting for the recovery of the perpetrator's body...appearing on morning news shows saying " I didn't want to say I told you so; but....." Relationship burning and target fixation at its worst. Not a good reflection on @Savage1 and others on the front line - and time those who CC represents called him to task!!

We could also add pistol owners to this list. Why really would you want a pistol? An AR is a very good pest control rifle but I could argue that pistols having no legitimate hunting use. They are often black, high capacity and therefore attract the wrong type of people. Just look at statistics and you will find they are used in far more murders than rifles. It's the same type of logic...

Originally Posted by Nickoli

....he has said more than enough: clambering over the feelings of the grieving and pushing his agenda without waiting for the recovery of the perpetrator's body...appearing on morning news shows saying " I didn't want to say I told you so; but....." Relationship burning and target fixation at its worst. Not a good reflection on @Savage1 and others on the front line - and time those who CC represents called him to task!!

SAD but true. He really has done them a big disservice.

Originally Posted by systolic

Sell your guns and use the money towards a deposit for a house.

forums are like arse holes, everyone has one

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.

No amount of protection is going to stop shit cunts. Let's stop people from being shit cunts.

Originally Posted by Ryan

No amount of protection is going to stop shit cunts. Let's stop people from being shit cunts.

only way to do that is to execute all the shit ppl to begin with to stop them breeding. lets put bromide in all of NZs water supply

Originally Posted by gonetropo

forums are like arse holes, everyone has one

Don't you mean opinions?

Originally Posted by Paddy79

only way to do that is to execute all the shit ppl to begin with to stop them breeding. lets put bromide in all of NZs water supply

Your on to it!,

Originally Posted by Maca49

Your on to it!,

If only they did it sooner I wouldn't have 4 daughters to worry about but alas they didn't and I do, bugger
pull out theory didn't work as planned aye

Theres some shit safes out there , I was recently at a mates place I said lets go & ping a few bunnies with the 22 he replied that he had lost the key for the padlock , five minutes latter with a pare of plyer,s ...doors open just one of those shit locker type things , bloody joke & it had been inspected & passed ,something like that any retard could get into & he had recently had trouble with small amounts of cash going missing off the table one week the next his lawn mower went missing ,exactly the sort of scenario where his guns could go missing to FFS , thankfully after that hes ordered a decent safe.

Originally Posted by tetawa

I have a great idea, how about some tough sentences for those who break in and steal legally owned firearms. The Arms Act is strict enough on firearm security, we need a few decent sentence's for the offenders plus more police available other than for issuing over the speed limit infringement notices.

I agree about tougher penalties however, the Arms Act is certainly not strict enough (as you put it) on A-Cat security. Way over due for a total revision. I've seen many hundreds of pathetic, yet currently legal security set ups for A-Cat firearms. That being so there must be many thousands of similar dismal security arrangements throughout the country.

One pleasing aspect is that the younger generation, newer licence holders are generally far more likely to have decent security than many of us older goats in my experience.

Originally Posted by Danger Mouse

Dont agree. NZ police have proven to be ok with breaking the law, reinterpreting the law, and just plain making shit up when it comes to firearms legislation. They dont need any more freedom.

Whether it be a car, electronic data, money, or firearms. given enough time and skill, it WILL be taken. Lets start punishing the pricks with a meaningful sentence.

So you're quite happy with the current A-Cat security laws because the police in your opinion are corrupt? That even beats my wife's logic.
Well done.