Thread: TV3 & Guncity mistake

You'll never know!

That article from the Waikato times was psychologically disturbing, his "suspicious" views on Hunters is not only alarming but incredibly insulting to say the least. And ironically HE is the one that is "paranoid" especially trying to stipulate that we are all ticking time bombs being as he called it "nutters"

I have met some of the nicest down to earth people in the firearm industry through reputable gun clubs and organizations like this site, COLFO etc. We are NOT nutters, far from it. Obviously I can't speak for everyone in NZ, no one can but we need to stick together on this "mass anti-gun hysteria" that's being portrayed on the TV. It's predominately infected with misinformation and deception which is why many of us law-abiding citizens frown and feel angry about it...

It's a battle of the publics minds as of lately, that is the true reason that drives this agenda - They (The media in this case) want the masses to think we are ALL irresponsible, gun-loving nutters and according to the headlines in places like stuff (spew) or TV3, yes! There is a huge gun problem in NZ!

What a total psyop. As many have said here, justice needs to be served so yes, Heather should be prosecuted.

On a happier note COLFO will be our saving grace and we all should encourage more new/active shooters & hunters to sign up.

Sasquatch out

And timed nicely to coincide with up and coming changes to the arms act. See enclosed response from Police Minister to a letter of mine on the subject.

Differing points of view may skew focus on crime stats

Haha

Originally Posted by Beavis

Guys it's official, we're all a bunch of cunts.

Our gun-loving fraternity spiralling ?out of control? | Opinion | Stuff.co.nz

Going by his statistics there are nearly as many guns in country as there are cars. Cars kill hundreds of people each year and as mentioned before you dont need a license to buy one. Perhaps TV3 could do a story on that......Oh wait, then everyone will see how twisted they really are. As for stuff, there is a reason its names that- Stuff all fact checking, Stuff all truth, and Stuff you if you dont like all the fringe element reporters we found......

There used to be an editor who would fact check before something goes to print- now Stuff just prints what it likes and if it is later found to be (woefully) inaccurate or wrong, they just change it after everyone has already taken the lies for truth. They dont even check the spelling and I have spotted some real primary school level shockers in there.

You'll get the argument that cars have a legitimate use so the risk is acceptable. This is where the argument between pro and anti and some in between breaks down. We don't see anything wrong with what we do. They hate what we do.

And the Dom Post puts its two cents worth in.

Editorial: New Zealand's gun laws still too lax | Stuff.co.nz

I don't know why some have compared us, as gun owners, with the US. The US has the RIGHT to own and bear arms embedded in law by their Constitution. We don't even have a Constitution; and the PRIVILEGE of owning and bearing arms is "granted" to us by politicians elected by us to represent us - and Greg O'Connor wants to be one of them. He plans to ride his hobby-horse in to town and clean up. The sad thing is that he will quite likely to succeed. An even sadder thing is that we will likely let him. The woman broke laws and put herself in this position. And let's not forget the origin of this whole issue - Greg O'Connor. TV3's dumb reporter let her stupid self be manipulated into this situation. She should face consequences just as you or I would - for being so bloody stupid, if nothing else. The fact is, she has been used by O'Connor - no great intellect himself - but she has flopped straight into his agenda. Savage1, with all due respect, the boss of your union is a conniving, manipulative, self-serving, media whore with political ambitions. Good that a hole has been patched, but if O'Connor was for real he would have taken it to the Commissioner, not a so-called journalist. Fact is, he has dropped her in the shit. I hope he catches some of the splatter.

When the day comes that it is as easy to get a Firearms Licence as it is to drive legally on our roads, I'll REALY worry.

Originally Posted by tetawa

When the day comes that it is as easy to get a Firearms Licence as it is to drive legally on our roads, I'll REALY worry.

I don't understand tetawa. It is a lot more difficult to get a drivers licence than an FAL. Learners can only drive under supervision (lessons really), restricted can only drive by themselves or with a full license holder, full license takes a couple of years to get. Am I missing your point?

My parents and or partner and a freind were not grilled about my sutability to own a motorvehicle before being given a drivers licence Rushy.

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

My parents and or partner and a freind were not grilled about my sutability to own a motorvehicle before being given a drivers licence Rushy.

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

OK I get that bit but I personally think it should be a tougher row to hoe to get an FAL as currently there is nothing in the process that even ensures that the recipient can handle a firearm safely.

Weĺl even profesionally trained army and police still have incidents so what is a day at the range going to prove?

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Weĺl even profesionally trained army and police still have incidents so what is a day at the range going to prove?

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

Accepted, and so do professionally trained doctors and surgeons but I suspect it would be a whole lot worse without the training. No level of training will ever completely eliminate the hazards associated with anything but training goes a very long way to reducing the likelihood that they will occur. There will always be the possibility of momentary inattention and all the training in the world will never get rid of the stupidity factor in those that have it.

True Rushy.... but a license process that requires training would therefore only be required if it can be established that we have a significant problem as a result of inexperience.

If as I suspect, we have more issues with experienced people where is the benefit to reducing harm by evaluating those without experience....?

Resources are scarce, and someone always has to pay... we better be certain we dedicate any resources to areas where it can be established that we have significant benefit, it is not necessarily conclusive that those without experience are more dangerous...