TV One a puppet of the anti-gun lobby (again!)
Bruce Simpson
"cache of arms" found in a "bunker" inside a Whangerei house.
In that item they featured someone who held a sporterised SKS
semi-automatic rifle. The rifle had clearly had its bayonet lugs
filed off and had an internal 7 round magazine.
It was stated that this was an assault rifle and required a special
license endorsement to own.
What a load of CRAP!
The gun concerned had clearly been sporterised and therefore qualified
as an A category (standard firearms license) rifle.
The guy making the statement appeared to be associated with the police
- do they not know their own gun laws or are they simply more
interested in crawling up GunSafe's back passage I wonder?
Who checks the facts at TVNZ - do they even bother? This is yet
again, another case where TVNZ News seem to be far more interested in
sensationalism and promoting the case of the anti-gun lobby (possibly
with the help of the police) than they do in presenting the facts
objectively. This is outrageous!
They also said he had 2,00 rounds of ammunition ... So? What's the big
deal?
Keen shooters often buy their ammo in bulk. Right now I've got 1,000
rounds of .22 calibre ammunition (a whole $70 worth!) and 1,200 rounds
of centrefire ammo (a whole $225 worth). I also have 4 guns -
including an A-Category SKS (like the one on TV).
Does that mean the cops will also be raiding my house and declaring my
loffice to be a "bunker" loaded with an "arms cache" - even though all
my firearms have been legally procured, are legally owned and stored
in full compliance with the firearms laws?
I think it might be time to lay a complaint with the Broadcasting
Standards Authority, may be even an MP or two.
---------------------------------
Don't send email to me, send a Memo.to me
http://memo.to/BruceSimpson
Memo.to, your email firewall, stops junk email dead!
Richard Clemance
>Last night (Wednesday) TV One news carried an item on an alleged
>"cache of arms" found in a "bunker" inside a Whangerei house.
>In that item they featured someone who held a sporterised SKS
>semi-automatic rifle. The rifle had clearly had its bayonet lugs
>filed off and had an internal 7 round magazine.
>It was stated that this was an assault rifle and required a special
>license endorsement to own.
>What a load of CRAP!
So they made a mistake on the TV news. It happens all the time. I
didn't see the news item so can't comment specifically.
>The gun concerned had clearly been sporterised and therefore qualified
>as an A category (standard firearms license) rifle.
>The guy making the statement appeared to be associated with the police
>- do they not know their own gun laws or are they simply more
>interested in crawling up GunSafe's back passage I wonder?
But might not the firearm have one of the other features which make a
special endorsement necessary? Some of the things might have been
sportified but others might not have. Isn't there are list of about 8
features any one of which, if a firearm has makes it a MSSA?
>Who checks the facts at TVNZ - do they even bother? This is yet
>again, another case where TVNZ News seem to be far more interested in
>sensationalism and promoting the case of the anti-gun lobby (possibly
>with the help of the police) than they do in presenting the facts
>objectively. This is outrageous!
Exactly how that is promoting the case of the so-called anti-gun lobby
I don't know, any more than showing pistol shooting etc on TV at the
recent Commonwealth Games is promoting the case of the so-called
pro-gun lobby.
>They also said he had 2,00 rounds of ammunition ... So? What's the big
>deal?
If he had that amount of ammunition surely that is presenting the
facts objectively which you want. It may not be very unusual or
newsworthy.
>Keen shooters often buy their ammo in bulk. Right now I've got 1,000
>rounds of .22 calibre ammunition (a whole $70 worth!) and 1,200 rounds
>of centrefire ammo (a whole $225 worth). I also have 4 guns -
>including an A-Category SKS (like the one on TV).
>Does that mean the cops will also be raiding my house and declaring my
>loffice to be a "bunker" loaded with an "arms cache" - even though all
>my firearms have been legally procured, are legally owned and stored
>in full compliance with the firearms laws?
>I think it might be time to lay a complaint with the Broadcasting
>Standards Authority, may be even an MP or two.
Please lay a complaint. It will be interesting to see what becomes of
it.
Richard Clemance
G Merryweather
Clemance) wrote:
Re: TVNZ declaring a "A cat" SKS a MSSA...
>So they made a mistake on the TV news. It happens all the time. I
>didn't see the news item so can't comment specifically.
Firstly, "news" programs shouldn't make mistakes, let alone "all the
time" - signs of typically poor and sloppy journalisim.
TVNZ seem to make more mistakes when it comes to guns than other
issues. Anyone recall the demonstration of a full auto army Styer
(illegal to shoot in NZ) when discussing changes to the arms act a few
years ago. They did this TWICE, despite a ruling against them after
the first time.
NZ shooters (as usual) didn't get much coverage at the Commonwealth
Games, despite very good performances, as compared to out cricket team
('nuff said).
Geoff
--
Radar detector FAQ, Forte Agent automation FAQ, bathroom fan FAQ
and THE WORLDS BEST CHRISTMAS PUDDING RECIPE
are at http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~geoff/
REMOVE "DELETEME" SPAMBLOCKER FROM ADDRESS TO REPLYTO USENET POSTINGS
Richard Clemance
>On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:07:35 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>Clemance) wrote:
>Re: TVNZ declaring a "A cat" SKS a MSSA...
>>So they made a mistake on the TV news. It happens all the time. I
>>didn't see the news item so can't comment specifically.
>Firstly, "news" programs shouldn't make mistakes, let alone "all the
>time" - signs of typically poor and sloppy journalisim.
Yes, I agree, but it is one thing to make a mistake and another to
deliberately mis-report something which is what the orignal poster
implied.
Did you see the news item and do you think there was a mistake made?
Perhaps the gun in question still had a feature which made it a MSSA
i.e. some of the features had been removed and/or modified and some
hadn't.
> TVNZ seem to make more mistakes when it comes to guns than other
>issues. Anyone recall the demonstration of a full auto army Styer
>(illegal to shoot in NZ) when discussing changes to the arms act a few
>years ago. They did this TWICE, despite a ruling against them after
>the first time.
Probably because you know about guns you notice when a mistake has
been made. But the mistakes in things you know little about you
wouldn't notice simply because you wouldn't know they were mistakes.
> NZ shooters (as usual) didn't get much coverage at the Commonwealth
>Games, despite very good performances, as compared to out cricket team
>('nuff said).
>Geoff
The cricket team got a bronze medal which wasn't too bad.
I suppose some of the shooting events aren't very "televisual" but
from what I saw of them, some were quite exciting especially with the
(computerized?) scoring system.
Richard Clemance
Bruce Simpson
Clemance) wrote:
>>Firstly, "news" programs shouldn't make mistakes, let alone "all the
>>time" - signs of typically poor and sloppy journalisim.
>Yes, I agree, but it is one thing to make a mistake and another to
>deliberately mis-report something which is what the orignal poster
>implied.
>
>Did you see the news item and do you think there was a mistake made?
>Perhaps the gun in question still had a feature which made it a MSSA
>i.e. some of the features had been removed and/or modified and some
>hadn't.
No... I took particular note that the rifle shown did *NOT* have any
of the following features which are those that would make it an E-cat
MSSA:
* A folding or telescopic but
* A magazine which holds or looks like it is capable of holding more
than 7 cartridges
* Bayonet lugs
* A military pattern free-standing pistol grip
* A flash supressor
All of these things are *very* easy to spot - and they weren't there.
It had a conventional rifle stock, a built-in 6 or 7 round magazine,
the bayonet lugs had been ground off and the SKS never had a flash
supressor anyway.
It was an A-Cat rifle, legally able to be owned by any gun owner with
a regular firearms license.
>> TVNZ seem to make more mistakes when it comes to guns than other
>>issues. Anyone recall the demonstration of a full auto army Styer
>>(illegal to shoot in NZ) when discussing changes to the arms act a few
>>years ago. They did this TWICE, despite a ruling against them after
>>the first time.
>
>Probably because you know about guns you notice when a mistake has
>been made. But the mistakes in things you know little about you
>wouldn't notice simply because you wouldn't know they were mistakes.
If you notice the name I gave this thread ... I get the impression
that the guy who appeared on the TV segment was a policeman and that
HE was using the media to misinform the public. ie: TVNZ was a puppet
in this case and because they didn't seek independent verification of
the police assertions - they got it wrong.
"Why should they need to verify the police's assertions?" you might
ask. Well just look at recent events I'd say. Only yesterday the
police got repremanded for performing illegal searches. There are
documented cases where evidence has been planted, investigations have
seemingly been deliberately botched, etc. If TVNZ (or anyone)
automatically assumes that everything the police says is "fact" then
we're in very big trouble!
>> NZ shooters (as usual) didn't get much coverage at the Commonwealth
>>Games, despite very good performances, as compared to out cricket team
>>('nuff said).
>>Geoff
>
>The cricket team got a bronze medal which wasn't too bad.
>
>I suppose some of the shooting events aren't very "televisual" but
>from what I saw of them, some were quite exciting especially with the
>(computerized?) scoring system.
Perhap's it's because I'm interested in the sport - but the
split-screen technique quich shows the shooter on one side and the
target on the other is (to me) every bit as exciting as a spectator
sport as golf or snooker (which both get quite a bit of coverage on
TV). You get to watch the shooter's intense concentration and see
exactly where the shot falls.
By comparison you seldom get to see the expressions on cricketer's
faces as they stand around waiting for the bowler to deliver or for a
boundary ball to be returned.
Of course ... we can't have the media showing any more than an
absolute minimum of shooting events for fear it might let the public
see that we're not all rambo-type maniacs.
Richard Clemance
>No... I took particular note that the rifle shown did *NOT* have any
>of the following features which are those that would make it an E-cat
>MSSA:
> * A folding or telescopic but
> * A magazine which holds or looks like it is capable of holding more
>than 7 cartridges
> * Bayonet lugs
> * A military pattern free-standing pistol grip
> * A flash supressor
Could there possibly have been another magazine found with the firearm
capable of holding 30 rounds?
>If you notice the name I gave this thread ... I get the impression
>that the guy who appeared on the TV segment was a policeman and that
>HE was using the media to misinform the public. ie: TVNZ was a puppet
>in this case and because they didn't seek independent verification of
>the police assertions - they got it wrong.
Are you saying that a possible policeman is deliberately mis-informing
the public because he is a member of the so called anti-gun lobby?
And that he is deliberately ignoring the law and has for some reason
decided to confiscate some weapons which are perfectly legal?
If so the firearm owner will likely make a complaint and get
compensation.
Also if the fact that the firearm wasn't illegal was so obvious that
you watching on TV could spot it how would he think he could "get
away" with it!
I don't really see how it is helping the so-called anti-gun lobby
anyway. Some of the so-called pro-gun lobby are anti-gun controls of
any sort so I suppose showing the gun control laws being legally
enforced (if that is what they were showing) might upset them.
"Why should they need to verify the police's assertions?" you might
>ask. Well just look at recent events I'd say. Only yesterday the
>police got repremanded for performing illegal searches. There are
>documented cases where evidence has been planted, investigations have
>seemingly been deliberately botched, etc. If TVNZ (or anyone)
>automatically assumes that everything the police says is "fact" then
>we're in very big trouble!
I agree that the police aren't always trustworthy but reporters simply
wouldn't have the time to double-check everything which makes it to
the daily TV news or newspapers. As a rule they have to more or less
accept what anyone says to them as true unless they have reason to
believe otherwise.
Also about the recent police searches I think it was the search
warrants which were issued illegally and not the searches themselves.
The police don't issue search warrants but only apply for them.
>Perhap's it's because I'm interested in the sport - but the
>split-screen technique quich shows the shooter on one side and the
>target on the other is (to me) every bit as exciting as a spectator
>sport as golf or snooker (which both get quite a bit of coverage on
>TV). You get to watch the shooter's intense concentration and see
>exactly where the shot falls.
I agree.
>Of course ... we can't have the media showing any more than an
>absolute minimum of shooting events for fear it might let the public
>see that we're not all rambo-type maniacs.
I don't see why the media can't show more shooting "sports". You have
done it again - divided people up into groups - as if no members of
the public participate in shooting sports and all firearm owners do.
Richard Clemance
Graeme Butler
>Keen shooters often buy their ammo in bulk. Right now I've got 1,000
>rounds of .22 calibre ammunition (a whole $70 worth!) and 1,200 rounds
>of centrefire ammo (a whole $225 worth). I also have 4 guns -
>including an A-Category SKS (like the one on TV).
>
>Does that mean the cops will also be raiding my house and declaring my
>loffice to be a "bunker" loaded with an "arms cache" - even though all
>my firearms have been legally procured, are legally owned and stored
>in full compliance with the firearms laws?
>
>I think it might be time to lay a complaint with the Broadcasting
>Standards Authority, may be even an MP or two.
>
G Merryweather
Clemance) wrote:
>Could there possibly have been another magazine found with the firearm
>capable of holding 30 rounds?
The SKS has a fixed magazine - fed from a "charger" or the
cartridges are pushed in the top individually. A larger capacity
magazine cannot be fitted without some reasonably extensive
gunsmithing.
Geoff
Richard Clemance
>On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 21:28:19 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>Clemance) wrote:
>>Could there possibly have been another magazine found with the firearm
>>capable of holding 30 rounds?
> The SKS has a fixed magazine - fed from a "charger" or the
>cartridges are pushed in the top individually. A larger capacity
>magazine cannot be fitted without some reasonably extensive
>gunsmithing.
>Geoff
Thanks for the info.
I still can't see why if the police confiscated a legal (or illegal
for that matter) firearm it is helping the so-called anti-gun lobby.
If the firearm was illegal surely, if you agree with the firearm laws,
it is helping society in general.
And if the firearm was legal then mis-information and illegal acts by
the police or anyone else ultimately usually help no-one.
And it is a big step from saying a probable policeman made a
deliberate mistake to saying TV One is a puppet of the anti-gun lobby.
Unless you think a reporter should be expected to know the law better
than a policeman!
Richard Clemance
Bruce Simpson
Clemance) wrote:
>Check.my.si...@l.address (Bruce Simpson) wrote:
>
>
>>No... I took particular note that the rifle shown did *NOT* have any
>>of the following features which are those that would make it an E-cat
>>MSSA:
>
>> * A folding or telescopic but
>> * A magazine which holds or looks like it is capable of holding more
>>than 7 cartridges
>> * Bayonet lugs
>> * A military pattern free-standing pistol grip
>> * A flash supressor
>
>Could there possibly have been another magazine found with the firearm
>capable of holding 30 rounds?
The rifle concerned very much appeared to be the version (of which
significant numbers were imported into NZ about 4-5 years ago) which
has a built-in (ie: not removable) magazine - therefore you can't just
plug in a 30 round magazine.
>Are you saying that a possible policeman is deliberately mis-informing
>the public because he is a member of the so called anti-gun lobby?
It is not beyond the bounds of reasonable belief that, based on the
police's clear support of more draconian gun laws and a proven ability
to engage in "abuse of power", that this oportunity may have been
seized by some to further this particular agenda through a
misrepresentation of the facts.
>And that he is deliberately ignoring the law and has for some reason
>decided to confiscate some weapons which are perfectly legal?
>If so the firearm owner will likely make a complaint and get
>compensation.
It's not the legality that is in question - if this guy was an
unlicensed gun owner and had *any* type of firearm in his posession
then he deserves to go for a big skate. What angers me is that
certain parties would deliberately choose to deceive the public by
asserting that a sporterised rifle was in fact a restricted E-category
MSSA - the very type of rifle at the heart of proposed new gun laws.
>Also if the fact that the firearm wasn't illegal was so obvious that
>you watching on TV could spot it how would he think he could "get
>away" with it!
But as I say - in the hands of an unlicensed gun owner - *all*
firearms are illegal - that's not the point. It's the scaremongering
being undertaken that attempt to fool the public into believing that
a A-Cat, sporterised rifles which are legally owned by tens of
thousands of NZers are actually a restricted E-category rifle.
Remember, it's these E-category rifles that the government and police
are claiming are the reason for proposed new gun laws so it's rather
handy to be able to mislead the public into thinking that all
criminals have them.
>I don't really see how it is helping the so-called anti-gun lobby
>anyway. Some of the so-called pro-gun lobby are anti-gun controls of
>any sort so I suppose showing the gun control laws being legally
>enforced (if that is what they were showing) might upset them.
But what was shown was (seemingly) a policeman telling lies about the
type of gun that was found. How is this supposed to be good?
>I agree that the police aren't always trustworthy but reporters simply
>wouldn't have the time to double-check everything which makes it to
>the daily TV news or newspapers.
Why not - most journalism courses teach the basics of verifying your
facts before publishing.
>As a rule they have to more or less
>accept what anyone says to them as true unless they have reason to
>believe otherwise.
That's BAD journalism. The rule is generally that you should have at
least TWO sources for your facts, preferably more. Unless you're into
tabloid journalism and rumour-mongering it pays to stick to this
guideline otherwise you get:
1. False reports of Bob Hope's death (Associated Press)
2. False reports that a German train crash was caused by a car falling
onto railway tracks (BBC)
.. and a whole lot more embarrassing mistakes.
It's very easy to add the word "alleged" to any unsubstantiated
assertions so as to clearly indicate that the information presented is
yet to be confirmed.
>Also about the recent police searches I think it was the search
>warrants which were issued illegally and not the searches themselves.
>The police don't issue search warrants but only apply for them.
And to get a warrant, the police must provide enough information to
convince a judge. So... do you think the police were totally honest
in the information they gave to the judge in this case?
Richard Clemance
>>Are you saying that a possible policeman is deliberately mis-informing
>>the public because he is a member of the so called anti-gun lobby?
>It is not beyond the bounds of reasonable belief that, based on the
>police's clear support of more draconian gun laws and a proven ability
>to engage in "abuse of power", that this oportunity may have been
>seized by some to further this particular agenda through a
>misrepresentation of the facts.
By some? You have already said that there was only one possible
policeman involved. Also given your need to have more than one source
of facts (see below) what is your other source other than TV One news?
But I agree the nature of TV filmed events means that people can
usually see for themselves. But most of the time the film is edited
so perhaps the mistake occured then i.e. footage of the wrong firearm
was shown. I didn't see the news item so can't say.
It is only to be expected that mistakes sometimes occur for many
different reasons. It is unfortunate that what ever happened in this
case has given you more "ammunition" in your struggle with the
so-called anti-gun lobby.
(What day was it shown and where did the event occur? I might go to
the library and look in the appropriate local newspaper to see if
> What angers me is that
>certain parties would deliberately choose to deceive the public by
>asserting that a sporterised rifle was in fact a restricted E-category
>MSSA - the very type of rifle at the heart of proposed new gun laws.
You are angry because you think someone MIGHT have deliberately
deceived the public. Far enough. But there is no proof it was
deliberate. And if it was what the intention was.
>But as I say - in the hands of an unlicensed gun owner - *all*
>firearms are illegal - that's not the point. It's the scaremongering
>being undertaken that attempt to fool the public into believing that
>a A-Cat, sporterised rifles which are legally owned by tens of
>thousands of NZers are actually a restricted E-category rifle.
So are you saying "they" are trying to make out that there are more
E-category rifles than there actually are? But I thought the number
was more or less unknown and was in the thousands anyway.
There are plenty of E-category rifles around so if they wanted to show
one on TV being seized surely there wouldn't be any problem doing so.
>Remember, it's these E-category rifles that the government and police
>are claiming are the reason for proposed new gun laws so it's rather
>handy to be able to mislead the public into thinking that all
>criminals have them.
Don't see how showing one person having an illegal firearm, or a
firearm illegally, is implying that all people who commit crimes have
them. The so-called public aren't so stupid as to think that all
people who commit crimes have firearms.
>>I don't really see how it is helping the so-called anti-gun lobby
>>I agree that the police aren't always trustworthy but reporters simply
>>wouldn't have the time to double-check everything which makes it to
>>the daily TV news or newspapers.
>Why not - most journalism courses teach the basics of verifying your
>facts before publishing.
It is impractical to verify EVERYTHING. But perhaps I should take your
advice. Since I didn't see the news item we are talking about I don't
really know it even exists or was transmitted. No-one else has said
they saw it. But it is "common-sense" for me to believe that some
news item along the lines of what you have said was shown.
Some things can be verified easier than others.
>It's very easy to add the word "alleged" to any unsubstantiated
>assertions so as to clearly indicate that the information presented is
>yet to be confirmed.
Far enough but in the heading to your posting you didn't say "TV One
an alleged puppet of the anti-gun lobby" but stated it as a fact.
But since you seem to include the police and the government in the
anti-gun lobby I suppose anything transmitted by TV One concerning
those two groups and firearms you didn't agree with, or contained
mistakes, would by your definition make TV One a puppet etc.
But if you agreed with what was said/shown would that make TV One a
puppet for the so-called pro-gun?
Richard Clemance
G Merryweather
Clemance) wrote:
>So are you saying "they" are trying to make out that there are more
>E-category rifles than there actually are? But I thought the number
>was more or less unknown and was in the thousands anyway.
>
>There are plenty of E-category rifles around so if they wanted to show
>one on TV being seized surely there wouldn't be any problem doing so.
The point being not so much to show an E cat firearm (go to the
movies for that...) but to show that they are a tool of criminals and
hence should be banned.
snip
>
>Don't see how showing one person having an illegal firearm, or a
>firearm illegally, is implying that all people who commit crimes have
>them. The so-called public aren't so stupid as to think that all
>people who commit crimes have firearms.
some are... The public really has little idea of firearms laws, types
or the sport. most shooters keep a fairly low profile (for security
reasons if nothing else) and the increasing urbanisation of NZ means
that there is less contact for non-shooters with gun owners. This is
in contrast with ~45 years ago when my father used to go shooting
rabbits where Selwyn College is now jsut before Kepa Road in
Kohimaramara.
Bruce Simpson
Clemance) wrote:
>> What angers me is that
>>certain parties would deliberately choose to deceive the public by
>>asserting that a sporterised rifle was in fact a restricted E-category
>>MSSA - the very type of rifle at the heart of proposed new gun laws.
>
>You are angry because you think someone MIGHT have deliberately
>deceived the public. Far enough. But there is no proof it was
>deliberate. And if it was what the intention was.
I was being kind. The only alternative that I can think of to it
being a deliberate attempt to mis-inform would be that the person
concerned honestly didn't know of what he spoke. How much confidence
does THAT give you in the police's ability to enforce the law when
they have no clue as to what that law is?
>>It's very easy to add the word "alleged" to any unsubstantiated
>>assertions so as to clearly indicate that the information presented is
>>yet to be confirmed.
>
>Far enough but in the heading to your posting you didn't say "TV One
>an alleged puppet of the anti-gun lobby" but stated it as a fact.
It was (as is most things posted to nz.general) an opinion. I publish
my news at 7am.com and aardvark.co.nz. What I write here is my
opinion, plain and simple.
Richard Clemance
>On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:01:35 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>Clemance) wrote:
>>There are plenty of E-category rifles around so if they wanted to show
>>one on TV being seized surely there wouldn't be any problem doing so.
> The point being not so much to show an E cat firearm (go to the
>movies for that...) but to show that they are a tool of criminals and
>hence should be banned.
>snip
As I said I didn't see the TV One news item so don't know if the word
banned was even mentioned so "unfortunately" I can't comment!
Don't even know what the main point of the news item was.
>>
>>Don't see how showing one person having an illegal firearm, or a
>>firearm illegally, is implying that all people who commit crimes have
>>them. The so-called public aren't so stupid as to think that all
>>people who commit crimes have firearms.
>some are... The public really has little idea of firearms laws, types
>or the sport. most shooters keep a fairly low profile (for security
>reasons if nothing else) and the increasing urbanisation of NZ means
>that there is less contact for non-shooters with gun owners. This is
>in contrast with ~45 years ago when my father used to go shooting
>rabbits where Selwyn College is now jsut before Kepa Road in
>Kohimaramara.
But the so-called public see and hear about crimes committed everyday
and only a small proportion of them involve firearms. Perhaps some
people might think for example shoplifters, con-men and embezzlers
carry firearms but I would be surprised if many people would think
that.
But isn't the fact society is changing part of the whole point? There
is becoming less NEED for the majority of people to own a firearm - it
is illegal to use one in built-up areas so even the opportunity to use
one is decreasing.
But some people still have the DESIRE to own one. But is DESIRE
enough to allow people to have firearms? And what types of firearms
should they be allowed to have?
Richard Clemance
Bruce Simpson
Clemance) wrote:
>But isn't the fact society is changing part of the whole point? There
>is becoming less NEED for the majority of people to own a firearm - it
>is illegal to use one in built-up areas so even the opportunity to use
>one is decreasing.
There's no "need" to smoke; to drink; or engage in a raft of other
dangerous activities - but we still consider it an individual's right
to do so - even when we know full well that that "right" will cost
society a huge amount in terms of law enforcement and medical
expenses.
Besides which it IS legal to use a firearm in a built-up area,
provided its at an approved range - and there are quite a few within
the city limits, certainly around Auckland.
>But some people still have the DESIRE to own one. But is DESIRE
>enough to allow people to have firearms? And what types of firearms
>should they be allowed to have?
Is "desire" enough justification for allowing anyone to drink when we
know full well that hundreds of them will then go on to drive and
become involved in fatal accidents on our roads?
Richard Clemance
>On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:48:42 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>Clemance) wrote:
>>But isn't the fact society is changing part of the whole point? There
>>is becoming less NEED for the majority of people to own a firearm - it
>>is illegal to use one in built-up areas so even the opportunity to use
>>one is decreasing.
>There's no "need" to smoke; to drink; or engage in a raft of other
>dangerous activities - but we still consider it an individual's right
>to do so - even when we know full well that that "right" will cost
>society a huge amount in terms of law enforcement and medical
>expenses.
The subject is firearms. Still I can understand why you would want to
change it. It isn't a right anyway.
Bruce, I am still waiting for you to tell me where the event shown on
TV you objected to occured so I can perhaps find out more about it.
It has got me curious to find out more and perhaps make a complaint
myself ( if it gave the so-called anti-gun lobby a bad name!)
>Besides which it IS legal to use a firearm in a built-up area,
>provided its at an approved range - and there are quite a few within
>the city limits, certainly around Auckland.
I thought there might be but wasn't sure where the approved ranges
were - I was brought up in the country where the ranges were not in
built-up areas.
>>But some people still have the DESIRE to own one. But is DESIRE
>>enough to allow people to have firearms? And what types of firearms
>>should they be allowed to have?
>Is "desire" enough justification for allowing anyone to drink when we
>know full well that hundreds of them will then go on to drive and
>become involved in fatal accidents on our roads?
The subject is desire for firearms. Why don't you stick to it?
Richard Clemance
Richard Clemance
>Is "desire" enough justification for allowing anyone to drink when we
>know full well that hundreds of them will then go on to drive and
>become involved in fatal accidents on our roads?
No, desire isn't justification which is why the desire to own firearms
or certain types of firearms isn't enough either.
Richard Clemance
>Last night (Wednesday) TV One news carried an item on an alleged
>"cache of arms" found in a "bunker" inside a Whangerei house.
I have checked the Northern Advocate for 23/9/98. It says the
following weapons were found out of sight either at the house or in
the car of the accused
pipebomb
two Norinio 7.62mm MSSA's
12 gauge sem-automatic shotgun
Military style semi-automatic Sterling .22 rifle
(plus two other un-named firearms)
capsicum spray
ammunition
So all those could be justly described as a cache of arms or perhaps
more properly a cache of weapons. (It seems the word cache means
hidden articles)
(on the front page is a photo of a policeman with the six firearms,
ammunition etc. and an inset photo of the pipebomb after it was
exploded in a controlled situation).
In the Northern Advocate on 23/9/98 it says some of the weapons were
in a "specially built concrete block bunker". In the court report in
the same newspaper on 24/9/98 it is described as a "large steel and
concrete safe" in the basement.
So the use of the word "bunker" seems justified.
(sorry I didn't have money to get a photo-copy of the newspaper
articles so I can post the articles in full)
>In that item they featured someone who held a sporterised SKS
>semi-automatic rifle. The rifle had clearly had its bayonet lugs
>filed off and had an internal 7 round magazine.
>It was stated that this was an assault rifle and required a special
>license endorsement to own.
>What a load of CRAP!
>The gun concerned had clearly been sporterised and therefore qualified
>as an A category (standard firearms license) rifle.
I am sorry but I don't know enough about firearms to tell which of the
firearms listed above as being found is likely to be the one you are
talking about as having been shown on TV (except not the shotgun).
Since that seems to be your main complaint it hasn't been very
helpful. The man was charged with 18 offenses the ones listed being
unlawfully possessing a military style rifle, explosives and
ammunition, unlawfully possessing a firearm in a public place and
possessing offensive weapons.
But isn't it really only a detail whether the firearm was a E-type one
or not? Unless you are trying to say that there are none of that type
illegally in New Zealand i.e. ALL are held legally.
>The guy making the statement appeared to be associated with the police
>- do they not know their own gun laws or are they simply more
>interested in crawling up GunSafe's back passage I wonder?
Can you remember his name? There are two police officers mentioned in
the North Advocate - Dave Clement as officer in charge of the case,
and pictured with the weapons etc. is Constable Steve Duckmanton.
Richard Clemance
Bruce Simpson
Clemance) wrote:
>Bruce, I am still waiting for you to tell me where the event shown on
>TV you objected to occured so I can perhaps find out more about it.
>It has got me curious to find out more and perhaps make a complaint
>myself ( if it gave the so-called anti-gun lobby a bad name!)
It was on the TV One mid-day and 6:00pm news bulletins a few weeks
back (probably on the 10:00pm bulletin on TV2 as well but I didn't see
it there).
Bruce Simpson
Clemance) wrote:
>Check.my.si...@l.address (Bruce Simpson) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Is "desire" enough justification for allowing anyone to drink when we
>>know full well that hundreds of them will then go on to drive and
>>become involved in fatal accidents on our roads?
>
>
>No, desire isn't justification which is why the desire to own firearms
>or certain types of firearms isn't enough either.
Well on the day they reintroduce prohibition and ban tobacco I'll
gladly hand over my guns.
Richard Clemance
>On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 20:19:14 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>Clemance) wrote:
>>Check.my.si...@l.address (Bruce Simpson) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Is "desire" enough justification for allowing anyone to drink when we
>>>know full well that hundreds of them will then go on to drive and
>>>become involved in fatal accidents on our roads?
>>
>>
>>No, desire isn't justification which is why the desire to own firearms
>>or certain types of firearms isn't enough either.
>Well on the day they reintroduce prohibition and ban tobacco I'll
>gladly hand over my guns.
You still can't seem to see that alcohol and tobacco are dfiferent and
are used in a different way from firearms. (Hope you don't invite me
round for a drink!)
Also the same applies to cars which you seem to bring up alot.
It may be alarming to some that it seems you would prefer to give up
your car, alcohol and tobacco before (or at the same time) you give up
any of your firearms. Most people see all those items differently.
But it isn't what you (or I) think is "good" for us but what is "good"
for society as a whole.
(I have already posted something about the newspaper reports from the
Northern Advocate in Whangere about the incident in question i.)
Richard Clemance
G Merryweather
Clemance) wrote:
>It may be alarming to some that it seems you would prefer to give up
>your car, alcohol and tobacco before (or at the same time) you give up
>any of your firearms. Most people see all those items differently.
"if it saves just one life ..." Using that logic, guns, tobacco and
alchohol come a long way ahead of legally owned firearms..
Richard Clemance
>On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 02:56:55 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>Clemance) wrote:
>>It may be alarming to some that it seems you would prefer to give up
>>your car, alcohol and tobacco before (or at the same time) you give up
>>any of your firearms. Most people see all those items differently.
>"if it saves just one life ..." Using that logic, guns, tobacco and
>alchohol come a long way ahead of legally owned firearms..
>Geoff
So do you think firearms, cars, tobacco and alcohol are all as
necessary in society as each other and are all used in the same way,
for the same reasons, and by the same number of people?
I don't use the argument "If it saves one life...' as far as possibly
banning MSSA's but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other
possible reasons to consider trying to ban them.
For a start it is basically illegal to use a firearm in a built-up
area but basically legal to use a car. So why should firearms be
"allowed" to be in built-up areas if they cannot be legally used?
Sure we can trust people not to use them as we do at the moment.
But why have them there in first place?!
But to me the fact that at the moment civilians are allowed to have
MILITARY style firearms in itself is "wrong".
Firearms are used (or there is a threat of use) in far more "bad" ways
than in mass murders - there are the threats etc. in domestic
situations, bank robberies etc. - so to me, mass murders are really
pretty irrelevant i.e Even if there were none and had never been any
in New Zealand I think we should have firearm control!
Richard Clemance
Bruce Simpson
Clemance) wrote:
>>Well on the day they reintroduce prohibition and ban tobacco I'll
>>gladly hand over my guns.
>
>You still can't seem to see that alcohol and tobacco are dfiferent and
>are used in a different way from firearms. (Hope you don't invite me
>round for a drink!)
Well I suspect we'll forever have to agree to disagree on this one but
here's what I see to be the equivalences and differences between them:
Equivalences:
Firearms:
* dangerous if misused or abused
* mostly (almost universally) used for recreational purposes
* 99% of users have no real NEED to own or use
Alcohol (ie: beer, wine, spirits)
* dangerous if misused or abused
* mostly (almost universally) used for recreational purposes
* 99% of users have no real NEED to own or use
Tobacco
* dangerous if misused or abused (almost any use is dangerous)
* mostly (almost universally) used for recreational purposes
* 99% of users have no real NEED to own or use
Differences:
Firearms:
* Annual death toll < 50
* Strictly controlled by individual user licensing
* NZ is disproportionately well represented in world rankings for
gun-sports.
Alcohol (ie: beer, wine, spirits)
* Annual death toll > 1000
* Almost uncontrolled except by age
Tobacco
* Annual death toll > 4000
* Uncontrolled except by age
Bruce Simpson
Clemance) wrote:
>For a start it is basically illegal to use a firearm in a built-up
>area but basically legal to use a car. So why should firearms be
>"allowed" to be in built-up areas if they cannot be legally used?
For the same reason that it's illegal to drink alcohol on licensed
premises outside of licensed hours - but we still store the booze
their 24/7 don't we?
The logistics of banning the storage of guns in private homes makes
such a suggestion somewhat impractical.
>Sure we can trust people not to use them as we do at the moment.
>But why have them there in first place?!
They have to be somewhere - just like the alcohol.
>But to me the fact that at the moment civilians are allowed to have
>MILITARY style firearms in itself is "wrong".
Why? We can go out and buy military styled clothing, vehicles, knives
and a raft of other stuff. As many people here are given to reminding
us - all guns can kill (as can landrovers, knives, etc) so why
single-out MSSAs? There (to my knowledge) has still only been *ONE*
instance of a mass-shooting with an MSSA and SINCE THEN our gun laws
have been tightened considerably. I think the fact that there has
been no recurrance of such an event (despite the fact that other
countries have had such problems) is clear indication that our laws
are already more than adequate.
>Firearms are used (or there is a threat of use) in far more "bad" ways
>than in mass murders - there are the threats etc. in domestic
>situations, bank robberies etc. - so to me, mass murders are really
>pretty irrelevant i.e Even if there were none and had never been any
>in New Zealand I think we should have firearm control!
So let's ban Teletubby toys in case someone shoves one down the necks
of some innocent bystanders and suffocates them! Can't be too careful
you know :-)
Of course that's silly - but my point is we have to weigh the risk
against the rights of the individual. We do this every day with the
laws that control drinking and smoking (remember more than 4,000
people die every year from smoking-related illness and passive smoking
is a known risk to innocent parties such as kids).
Compare 4000 deaths from smoking, something that has no redeeming
virtues (it doesn't control pest species, win us gold medals or
anything) with last year's death-toll from MSSA rifles (ZERO) and I
think you'd have to agree that society faces far greater dangers than
that represented by these guns.
Before the public gets all zealous about stamping on the rights (yes
the rights) of others, maybe they should weigh up the true risks such
things pose to society.
Richard Clemance
>On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 23:27:54 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>Clemance) wrote:
>>For a start it is basically illegal to use a firearm in a built-up
>>area but basically legal to use a car. So why should firearms be
>>"allowed" to be in built-up areas if they cannot be legally used?
>For the same reason that it's illegal to drink alcohol on licensed
>premises outside of licensed hours - but we still store the booze
>their 24/7 don't we?
I am sorry but I don't think you cannot compare the two.
It is legal to use alcohol in those premises at certain times of the
day. That is the reason for the alcohol being there. If it was
ALWAYS illegal then is there a need for alcohol there - NO!
Firearms are NEVER allowed to be used by civilians in built-up areas
at any time, so it could be said that there is no reason for civilians
to have firearms in built-up areas.
>The logistics of banning the storage of guns in private homes makes
>such a suggestion somewhat impractical.
Once something is "allowed' to happen then it can be very difficult to
stop it by making it illegal unless people want to stop it
voluntarily.
In our society basically people can do what they like unless there is
a reason for them not to be allowed to do it. But that can create
problems - we might not know something is "bad" until people have
been allowed to do it for some time (e.g smoking). Once people have
been allowed to do something in some people's minds it becomes a
"right".
I don't know enough about the reason, if any, for the introduction of
MSSA's in New Zealand. I have been reading a book and it seems some
of the other firearms sold in the past to civilians were ex-army stock
so perhaps the army had some they wanted to get rid of!
But I am mainly concerned with stopping the introduction of more
powerful weapons into civilian hands.
I am pleased there is no need for most people to have firearms in New
Zealand and I want to keep it that way.
>>Sure we can trust people not to use them as we do at the moment.
>>But why have them there in first place?!
>They have to be somewhere - just like the alcohol.
Yes, where is the question! Actually there is another possiblity -
they can be destroyed!
>>But to me the fact that at the moment civilians are allowed to have
>>MILITARY style firearms in itself is "wrong".
>Why? We can go out and buy military styled clothing, vehicles, knives
>and a raft of other stuff.
You are still saying that clothing, vehicles, knives are the same as
firearms but there are many many differences in the way they are used,
what they can be used for etc.
They ARE different which is why I think we need to continue to have
firearm control and basically not controls on those other things. If
people think firearms are the same as other things then they might
think there is no need for firearm control.
> As many people here are given to reminding
>us - all guns can kill (as can landrovers, knives, etc) so why
>single-out MSSAs?
The reason why MSSA's (and firearms in general) are singled out is
because they are firearms!
Practicing shooting at a target developes a skill which can be
DIRECTLY transferable to shooting at and killing animals, humans etc.
That is why the military practice shooting at targets.
But for example driving a vehicle well is not directly transferable
since the idea is NOT to hit anything while driving a car! Similarly
most knives are not used for killing but for cutting etc.
Also most people "need" to use a car and a knive just about every day
and it is perfectly legal for them to do so.
Basically all I am saying it that it just as easy to use a firearm for
"good" as to use it for "bad". As far as firearms in the city go it
is probably EASIER to use them for "bad" given that there are few deer
and other game animals, possums, rabbits and other pests in the city
and a lot of humans.
Firearms are basically used by the military to kill humans. Which is
why military style firearms can be objected to in civilian hands.
>There (to my knowledge) has still only been *ONE*
>instance of a mass-shooting with an MSSA and SINCE THEN our gun laws
>have been tightened considerably. I think the fact that there has
>been no recurrance of such an event (despite the fact that other
>countries have had such problems) is clear indication that our laws
>are already more than adequate.
I haven't really any great problems with the current laws, except you,
in some of your other postings, have said they are not enforced.
Surely it is better to have laws which are enforced, or better still
people want to "obey" because they see the merit in them.
But I have some questions about the current laws e.g. to get a MSSA
you have to prove a NEED. I wonder what they police accept as a need.
It seems the police themselves decided what features would make a
firearm a MSSA.
>>Firearms are used (or there is a threat of use) in far more "bad" ways
>>than in mass murders - there are the threats etc. in domestic
>>situations, bank robberies etc. - so to me, mass murders are really
>>pretty irrelevant i.e Even if there were none and had never been any
>>in New Zealand I think we should have firearm control!
>So let's ban Teletubby toys in case someone shoves one down the necks
>of some innocent bystanders and suffocates them! Can't be too careful
>you know :-)
But some toys/pushchairs etc. are banned for unsafe design etc.
Surely it is possible for firearms to be unsafely designed.
>Of course that's silly - but my point is we have to weigh the risk
>against the rights of the individual. We do this every day with the
>laws that control drinking and smoking (remember more than 4,000
>people die every year from smoking-related illness and passive smoking
>is a known risk to innocent parties such as kids).
Smoking is really another subject with its own special circumstances.
>Compare 4000 deaths from smoking, something that has no redeeming
>virtues (it doesn't control pest species, win us gold medals or
>anything) with last year's death-toll from MSSA rifles (ZERO) and I
>think you'd have to agree that society faces far greater dangers than
>that represented by these guns.
I basically agree with the dangers of smoking etc. but have firearms
been able to control pest species? As far as rabbits go I don't think
so, that is why rabbit calicivirus was brought in. (which is an
interesting subject in itself). Rather unfortunate for your "side"!
I am not saying firearms haven't their virtues.
>Before the public gets all zealous about stamping on the rights (yes
>the rights) of others, maybe they should weigh up the true risks such
>things pose to society.
But before civilians were legally allowed to own MSSA's no-one had the
" right" to own one. So there won't be the "right" IF the law is
changed and they are make illegal. Just as I haven't the "right" to
own a "live' hand grenade, bomb etc.
Getting back to the subject we are supposed to be talking about did
you read what I posted about the item in the Northern Advocate.
One of the charges the man pleaded guilty to was unlawfully possessing
a MILITARY STYLE rifle. So it seems it is quite possible that MSSA's
were found in his possession.
Richard Clemance
G Merryweather
Clemance) wrote:
>
>Firearms are NEVER allowed to be used by civilians in built-up areas
>at any time, so it could be said that there is no reason for civilians
>to have firearms in built-up areas.
They are allowed - on approved ranges. I used to shoot indoor small
bore rifle shooting in a local hall (targets were under the stage)
Geoff
G Merryweather
Clemance) wrote:
>You are still saying that clothing, vehicles, knives are the same as
>firearms but there are many many differences in the way they are used,
>what they can be used for etc.
You are quite correct - they all rate considerably higher than
firearms in death rates. Knives and "blunt instruments" are at the top
of hte favoured murder weapon list. Hnging is the most common (and
effective) method of suicide (Thorpe report figures)
Richard Clemance
>On Sat, 03 Oct 1998 03:26:39 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>Clemance) wrote:
>>You are still saying that clothing, vehicles, knives are the same as
>>firearms but there are many many differences in the way they are used,
>>what they can be used for etc.
> You are quite correct - they all rate considerably higher than
>firearms in death rates. Knives and "blunt instruments" are at the top
>of hte favoured murder weapon list. Hnging is the most common (and
>effective) method of suicide (Thorpe report figures)
Clothing causes more deaths than firearms?!
I was talking about EVERY use and the whole history and the role in
society of the above items and not the death rates etc. But even the
ways and the reason for the deaths associated with the items are
different i.e whether they are "accidents" or deliberate etc.
Do you happen to know which would be more likely to kill you or do
serious damage - a bullet or a stab from a knife or blunt instrument?
Is hanging the most effective method of suicide? There are different
types of hanging causing different causes of death.
Richard Clemance
Richard Clemance
>On Sat, 03 Oct 1998 03:26:39 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>Clemance) wrote:
>>
>>Firearms are NEVER allowed to be used by civilians in built-up areas
>>at any time, so it could be said that there is no reason for civilians
>>to have firearms in built-up areas.
>They are allowed - on approved ranges. I used to shoot indoor small
>bore rifle shooting in a local hall (targets were under the stage)
>Geoff
Yes, Bruce Simpson has already told me that. I am sorry for my
mistake. I thought that might be the case but didn't know.
But my point is why, if they are only allowed to be used in certain
places, can they not be kept at those places permanently?
Richard Clemance
Jerry
Richard Clemance wrote in message <>
>>They are allowed - on approved ranges. I used to shoot indoor small
>>bore rifle shooting in a local hall (targets were under the stage)
>>Geoff
>
>Yes, Bruce Simpson has already told me that. I am sorry for my
>mistake. I thought that might be the case but didn't know.
>
>But my point is why, if they are only allowed to be used in certain
>places, can they not be kept at those places permanently?
>
>Richard Clemance
>
permanently?
Jerry
Keith Davidson
> Clothing causes more deaths than firearms?!
In the period 1980 to 1993 that is absolutely correct !!
During that period, 50% of all deaths by accident in NZ were from
vehicle accidents. 20% from falls, 5% from drowning, 3% from boating,
2.8% from suffocation, 2.5% from flying, 2.3% from fire, .68% from
MEDICAL MISADVENTURE and .63% from bullets.
Given that 73% of all firearms deaths are suicide, you can therefore
assume you are more than 1,000 times more likely to die in a car
accident than be shot dead by someone other than yourself. You are 20
times more likely to die in a plane accident.
The risk of dying by bullets in NZ is MINISCULE ! Ban all motor
vehicles, high places, poisons, gases, water, planes, fires and doctors
and you will save a significant number of lives. Ban firearms and you
will save very very few lives, in fact potentially you may find more
lives are lost.
Even when looking at suicide, 30.5% of suicides use hanging or
suffocation, 23% use vapour or gases, and 18% use firearms.
> I was talking about EVERY use and the whole history and the role in
> society of the above items and not the death rates etc. But even the
> ways and the reason for the deaths associated with the items are
> different i.e whether they are "accidents" or deliberate etc.
Read the Thorpe report to get some relativity and balance in the matter.
In the past 50 years in NZ the incidence of death and injury caused by
firearms is miniscule when compared to the total, or practically any
other method.
> Do you happen to know which would be more likely to kill you or do
> serious damage - a bullet or a stab from a knife or blunt instrument?
Would you rather die from a well placed bullet or being chopped up with
a knife or beaten with a blunt instrument ? If someone is determined to
kill me, I hope they chose a well placed bullet in preference to a slow
and painful death.
On the other hand, there are vastly more people who do attack other
people using knives or blunt instruments than those who use firearms.
Only 1.7% of ALL violent crime in NZ involves the use of firearms.
> Is hanging the most effective method of suicide? There are different
> types of hanging causing different causes of death.
No, explosives are the most "successful" form of suicide. But hanging is
by far the most "popular" successful means of suicide, followed by gases
and vapours. Around 83% of attempted firearms suicides are successful.
Between 1980 and 1993 1,211 kiwis used firearms to attempt suicide, of
which 1,035 were successful. 31,270 attempted suicide by poisoning and
814 suceeded. 2,003 tried hanging/suffocation of which 1,758 succeeded.
1,859 used gases and vapours and 1,310 succeeded.
Your desire to ban firearms is based on media hype, irrational personal
fear of firearms and/or ignorance, rather than any basis in fact.
Keith Davidson
Bruce Simpson
Clemance) wrote:
>Check.my.si...@l.address (Bruce Simpson) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 23:27:54 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>>Clemance) wrote:
>
>>For the same reason that it's illegal to drink alcohol on licensed
>>premises outside of licensed hours - but we still store the booze
>>their 24/7 don't we?
>
>I am sorry but I don't think you cannot compare the two.
You are entitled to your opinion.
>It is legal to use alcohol in those premises at certain times of the
>day. That is the reason for the alcohol being there. If it was
>ALWAYS illegal then is there a need for alcohol there - NO!
>
>Firearms are NEVER allowed to be used by civilians in built-up areas
>at any time,
BZZZT -- wrong! Perhaps this kind of inaccuracy is why your
argument's don't stand up well to scrutiny and seem more based on
emotion than reality. It is quite legal for a civilian to use a
firearm in a built-up area providing they do so in an approved
shooting range - and there are a number of them in Auckland I know
that much.
>so it could be said that there is no reason for civilians
>to have firearms in built-up areas.
Yes, that could be said - but to simply say it doesn't make it the
truth.
>>The logistics of banning the storage of guns in private homes makes
>>such a suggestion somewhat impractical.
>
>Once something is "allowed' to happen then it can be very difficult to
>stop it by making it illegal unless people want to stop it
>voluntarily.
So you agree then that changing the law to make MSSA ownership by
civilians is a pretty futile gesture - especially considering how much
resistance there appears to be towards such a move amongst those who
own such rifles.
>In our society basically people can do what they like unless there is
>a reason for them not to be allowed to do it.
And one multiple murder in NZ involving an MSSA in the past 30 years
is "enough reason"? During the same time, many more people were
killed with lowly .22 calibre rifles, iron pipes, knives and other
objects.
>But I am mainly concerned with stopping the introduction of more
>powerful weapons into civilian hands.
Hey, me too! But that's no reason to penalise those law-abiding,
licensed gun owners who can suddenly be made into criminals overnight
simply because other, uninformed individuals make uninformed decisions
about things they have little experience or knowledge of.
>I am pleased there is no need for most people to have firearms in New
>Zealand and I want to keep it that way.
You keep using the word "need" but then you deny that alcohol and
tobacco should fall into the same category as guns. I really don't
understand why you draw the distinction.
Guns "can" kill if abused
Tobacco "does" kill if USED
Alcohol "can" kill if abused
Nobody has a "need" for tobacco, or alcohol. I know of nobody who
would die for lack of either substance and I know of no benefit either
substance brings to society - whereas guns do have a number of
benefits:
1. Pest control (such as pigs, goats, deer - where they've proven to
be very effective)
2. Good, healthy, safe recreation for over 200,000 NZers who never
pose any threat to themselves or others and who go on to win
commonwealth and olympic medals for their skills.
3. Export dollars. Yes, there's a surprisingly healthy export-earning
industry associated with guided hunting tours provided for "rich"
overseas (primarily US) hunters.
Please show me *any* equivalent benefit that tobacco or alcohol offer
society in return for the huge toll they extract from those who use
them and the other innocents who are also killed as a result of their
use by others.
>>>Sure we can trust people not to use them as we do at the moment.
>>>But why have them there in first place?!
>>They have to be somewhere - just like the alcohol.
>
>Yes, where is the question! Actually there is another possiblity -
>they can be destroyed!
Why? - because YOU don't like them?
>>>But to me the fact that at the moment civilians are allowed to have
>>>MILITARY style firearms in itself is "wrong".
>
>>Why? We can go out and buy military styled clothing, vehicles, knives
>>and a raft of other stuff.
>
>You are still saying that clothing, vehicles, knives are the same as
>firearms but there are many many differences in the way they are used,
>what they can be used for etc.
I don't think very many people, certainly not those who live in a
built-up area, have a use for cammo clothing or 12" combat knives.
>They ARE different which is why I think we need to continue to have
>firearm control and basically not controls on those other things. If
>people think firearms are the same as other things then they might
>think there is no need for firearm control.
There *IS* a need for firearm control, just as we need to control
alcohol and tobacco to reduce the risk to society. My point is that
we already have laws which, despite lax enforcement, have already
proven to reduce the risk from MSSA rifles to a very, very low level
whereas the risks from alcohol and tobacco is huge by comparison.
Don't you think it's just a little stupid to spend your time mending
a dripping tap in the kitchen while the toilet is busy overflowing in
the bathroom?
>> As many people here are given to reminding
>>us - all guns can kill (as can landrovers, knives, etc) so why
>>single-out MSSAs?
>
>The reason why MSSA's (and firearms in general) are singled out is
>because they are firearms!
That's not a reason - it's a classification.
>Practicing shooting at a target developes a skill which can be
>DIRECTLY transferable to shooting at and killing animals, humans etc.
The keyword there is "can" - the reality is that this potential is
very, very, seldom realised. The vast majority of firearms owners use
the time spent with their rifles to develop skills which have nothing
to do with shooting people.
Are you also planning to ban boxing and all martial arts -- after all,
the skills learnt there are clearly (outside of sporting purposes, as
with guns), have only one use - for the injuring or killing of other
people. I have never seen anyone use boxing or karate skills to
destroy pests but I'm pretty sure that there are far more people badly
injured or killed in NZ as a result of fights involving fists than
there are who have been injured or killed as a result of MSSAs.
>That is why the military practice shooting at targets.
But civilians are not the military and the civilian use of firearms is
not about killing people - its about hunting and target-shooting. The
MSSA makes a fine rifle for pest eradication and creates new
dimensions of challenge in some target-shooting contests.
More people are killed each year while fishing than as a result of
MSSA shooting contests or pest eradication - should we buy-back all
fishing rods and boats then destroy them?
>But for example driving a vehicle well is not directly transferable
>since the idea is NOT to hit anything while driving a car! Similarly
>most knives are not used for killing but for cutting etc.
And the whole idea of sports shooting is NOT to shoot anyone - I see
no difference. In New Zealand, despite the fact that we are presently
legally allowed to own MSSAs, we are far more likely to kill someone
through passive smoking, drink-driving, speeding or falling asleep at
the wheel than we are from shooting them. Let's address the REAL
problems first shall we?
>Also most people "need" to use a car and a knive just about every day
>and it is perfectly legal for them to do so.
But there are quite literally tens or hundreds of thousands of people
who do NOT need to use a car every day. In fact, in Auckland the fact
that so many people who don't NEED to use a care do use a car is
posing a very real problem for the motorway system and inner-city
parking. It's funny isn't it how so many other countries have far
lower levels of private vehicle ownership and much more stringent
licensing requirements than NZ - yet how many NZers would consider
such restrictions to be an unbearable imposition on their personal
rights?
>Basically all I am saying it that it just as easy to use a firearm for
>"good" as to use it for "bad".
Ditto for a vehicle - the 500+ road-deaths we see every year,
including the hundreds that include alcohol and/or excessive speed are
testimony to that. Makes last year's death toll from MSSA abuse
(ZERO) look pretty small by comparison doesn't it?
>As far as firearms in the city go it
>is probably EASIER to use them for "bad" given that there are few deer
>and other game animals, possums, rabbits and other pests in the city
>and a lot of humans.
Why then aren't the streets full of gunshot victims? You're thousands
of times more likely to see someone injured in a car accident or
someone spewing their ring out after abusing alcohol, or coughing
their lungs up because of smoking than you are to see a gunshot victim
in our urban and suburban centres. Let's address address the REAL
problems first shall we?
I think you'll find that most parents who send their kids off to
school each day are far more worried that they'll be run over by a car
than that they'll be shot with an MSSA.
>Firearms are basically used by the military to kill humans. Which is
>why military style firearms can be objected to in civilian hands.
Even the number of people actually killed by the NZ military over the
past 30 years pales into insignificance against the toll produced by
alcohol, tobacco and the motor car and - despite what you say, private
ownership and use of these things is NO different to the private
ownership and use of guns.
>>There (to my knowledge) has still only been *ONE*
>>instance of a mass-shooting with an MSSA and SINCE THEN our gun laws
>>have been tightened considerably. I think the fact that there has
>>been no recurrance of such an event (despite the fact that other
>>countries have had such problems) is clear indication that our laws
>>are already more than adequate.
>
>I haven't really any great problems with the current laws, except you,
>in some of your other postings, have said they are not enforced.
>Surely it is better to have laws which are enforced, or better still
>people want to "obey" because they see the merit in them.
So why all this talk of banning MSSAs and no justification for private
ownership of guns?
You'd have to agree that laws themselves do not work when you're
dealing with the unlawful - only enforcement works. Our existing gun
laws are a very good balance of public safety and individual rights.
At present the police have the support of the vast majority of
licensed gun owners and that means, despite poor enforcement, the laws
are followed by that vast majority. If the police or government
decide to abuse the goodwill of some gun owners by turning law-abiding
gun owners into potential criminals overnight then they may not find
such a wide level of cooperation. Do you really think that's going to
improve things? Of course not - as predicted - it will simply drive
the problem underground and increase the difficulty associated with
tracking and controlling things such as MSSAs.
Let's face it - recent events have shown that this government has very
little common-sense and I'd hate to see this stupidity cause the
current (very safe) firearms environment destroyed by incompetent
legislation and a small (but significant) campaign of disobedience by
some owners.
>But I have some questions about the current laws e.g. to get a MSSA
>you have to prove a NEED. I wonder what they police accept as a need.
>It seems the police themselves decided what features would make a
>firearm a MSSA.
Again, you're using the word "need" -- to which I say - prove to me
that any 16 year old has a "need" for tobacco or that any adult has a
"need" for alcohol. Also, what if the government decided that you
couldn't drive or own a car unless you could prove the "need" to do
so. If you lived in a built-up area then you'd probably be out of
luck - after all, there are busses and taxis -- so while it may be
"convenient" or "desirable" to have your own car - there's no real
"need."
I can't see the average kiwi accepting this kind of restriction - so
why should firearms owners?
>>So let's ban Teletubby toys in case someone shoves one down the necks
>>of some innocent bystanders and suffocates them! Can't be too careful
>>you know :-)
>
>But some toys/pushchairs etc. are banned for unsafe design etc.
>Surely it is possible for firearms to be unsafely designed.
There are very few "unsafe" firearms. In fact on only has to look at
the statistics to see that guns are intrisically far safer than cars,
chain saws, tractors, motorcycles, boats and a raft of other seemingly
"safer" devices. This says much about the maturity and common-sense
that the vast majority of firearms owners exhibit when handling and
using their guns. If only the average driver were as sensible and
careful!
>Smoking is really another subject with its own special circumstances.
And those special circumstances are????
>>Compare 4000 deaths from smoking, something that has no redeeming
>>virtues (it doesn't control pest species, win us gold medals or
>>anything) with last year's death-toll from MSSA rifles (ZERO) and I
>>think you'd have to agree that society faces far greater dangers than
>>that represented by these guns.
>
>I basically agree with the dangers of smoking etc. but have firearms
>been able to control pest species?
Yes... goat, deer, pig - all pest species which have been very
effectively controlled through the use of firearms.
>As far as rabbits go I don't think
>so, that is why rabbit calicivirus was brought in. (which is an
>interesting subject in itself). Rather unfortunate for your "side"!
Rabbits and possum - through the simple mass of their numbers are
impractical to control in an effective way through the use of guns -
but then again, you wouldn't expect guns to be much use against an
ants-nest either.
That doesn't mean that a night's possum or rabbit shooting isn't
without its redeeming virtues. Certainly around here the numbers are
small enough that one night's shooting every couple of months keeps
these pesky critters under control without the need to abuse the
environment through the use of poisons or some virus with debatable
long-term effects.
>I am not saying firearms haven't their virtues.
It sounds like you are ;-)
>Getting back to the subject we are supposed to be talking about did
>you read what I posted about the item in the Northern Advocate.
No.
>One of the charges the man pleaded guilty to was unlawfully possessing
>a MILITARY STYLE rifle. So it seems it is quite possible that MSSA's
>were found in his possession.
If this is the same incident that was shown on TV, the fact still
remains that the gun which was described as a "restricted military
styled" rifle was in fact an A-category "sporterised" gun which could
legally be owned by anyone with a standard gun license.
Richard Clemance
I am sorry but perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I was not
suggesting as a general principle that things be kept only where they
can be used.
I was saying that perhaps FIREARMS should only be kept in a place
where they can be LEGALLY be used.
People don't WANT and CANNOT use surfboards anywhere else but at the
beach. Firearms can be used just about anywhere.
Richard Clemance
>Jerry
Richard Clemance
>> Clothing causes more deaths than firearms?!
>In the period 1980 to 1993 that is absolutely correct !!
I am sorry but perhaps you didn't read that the word was clothing. As
far as I can the list below doesn't mention clothing.
>During that period, 50% of all deaths by accident in NZ were from
>vehicle accidents. 20% from falls, 5% from drowning, 3% from boating,
>2.8% from suffocation, 2.5% from flying, 2.3% from fire, .68% from
>MEDICAL MISADVENTURE and .63% from bullets.
>Given that 73% of all firearms deaths are suicide, you can therefore
>assume you are more than 1,000 times more likely to die in a car
>accident than be shot dead by someone other than yourself. You are 20
>times more likely to die in a plane accident.
I have never said anyone is more likely to die by a bullet than by
those other methods you mentioned. I am fairly sure I have never
talked about the death rates AT ALL.
There are many laws involving cars and planes to do with safety etc.
Also racing cars etc. are not ALLOWED on public roads. In a similar
way I am asking why military rifles are allowed in non-military areas
and in civilian hands? If military rifles are allowed then why not
other military weapons?
>The risk of dying by bullets in NZ is MINISCULE ! Ban all motor
>vehicles, high places, poisons, gases, water, planes, fires and doctors
>and you will save a significant number of lives. Ban firearms and you
>will save very very few lives, in fact potentially you may find more
>lives are lost.
I am not disputing your figures or calling for a ban on firearms. But
could you explain why MORE lives would be lost IF firearms are banned?
>Would you rather die from a well placed bullet or being chopped up with
>a knife or beaten with a blunt instrument ? If someone is determined to
>kill me, I hope they chose a well placed bullet in preference to a slow
>and painful death.
Of course using a bullet CAN be quicker but isn't that the whole
point. The very reason that a death by other means can be SLOW means
there is more chance for action and so the live can possibly be saved.
Also most stabbings are relatively minor with only surface wounds.
>On the other hand, there are vastly more people who do attack other
>people using knives or blunt instruments than those who use firearms.
>Only 1.7% of ALL violent crime in NZ involves the use of firearms.
>> Is hanging the most effective method of suicide? There are different
>> types of hanging causing different causes of death.
>No, explosives are the most "successful" form of suicide. But hanging is
>by far the most "popular" successful means of suicide, followed by gases
>and vapours. Around 83% of attempted firearms suicides are successful.
>Between 1980 and 1993 1,211 kiwis used firearms to attempt suicide, of
>which 1,035 were successful. 31,270 attempted suicide by poisoning and
>814 suceeded. 2,003 tried hanging/suffocation of which 1,758 succeeded.
>1,859 used gases and vapours and 1,310 succeeded.
Thanks for posting those figures.
>Your desire to ban firearms is based on media hype, irrational personal
>fear of firearms and/or ignorance, rather than any basis in fact.
I am sorry but I am not in favour of banning firearms in general and
never have been. I don't know where you got that from. In fact I
have several very good reasons NOT to ban them!
All I want is firearm control in a similar way as at present. But I
also question the wisdom of allowing MSSA's in civilian hands. The
reason I am concerned has NOTHING to do with any death rates or crime
figures to do with them. I have already said that even if there were
no crimes involving firearms I would still be in favour of control.
In a similar way just because knives (or blunt instruments) are used
for killing and crimes I am not in favour of controls on or banning
knives (except general controls which can apply to any offensive
weapon and control on certain types of knives)( or cars etc.)
Richard Clemance
>Keith Davidson
Richard Clemance
>>Getting back to the subject we are supposed to be talking about did
>>you read what I posted about the item in the Northern Advocate.
>No.
>>One of the charges the man pleaded guilty to was unlawfully possessing
>>a MILITARY STYLE rifle. So it seems it is quite possible that MSSA's
>>were found in his possession.
>If this is the same incident that was shown on TV, the fact still
>remains that the gun which was described as a "restricted military
>styled" rifle was in fact an A-category "sporterised" gun which could
>legally be owned by anyone with a standard gun license.
Bruce I will try to answer the rest of the points you raised later but
I am reposting what I wrote about the Northern Advocate reports about
the incident you complained about since you seem to have missed it.
Richard Clemance
Check.my.si...@l.address (Bruce Simpson) wrote:
Richard Clemance
Jerry
>>Surfboards are only used at the beach, can they not be kept there
>>permanently?
>
>I am sorry but perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I was not
>suggesting as a general principle that things be kept only where they
>can be used.
>
>I was saying that perhaps FIREARMS should only be kept in a place
>where they can be LEGALLY be used.
>
>People don't WANT and CANNOT use surfboards anywhere else but at the
>beach. Firearms can be used just about anywhere.
>
>Richard Clemance
>
legally. They are not restricted to gun clubs.
A firearm owner is not restricted to just one club, so why should he be
forced to keep his equipment in one place? Where is a hunter suppose to
keep his rifle or shotgun? He may wish to hunt in a number of different
places, all of which are legal.
Surfers, golfers, cricket players, softball players and other sportsmen are
free to take their equipment home. I could tee up a golf ball in my back
yard and hit it 200 meters with my driver, but I don't believe the
neighbours would appreciate it! There is no one (to my knowledge)
advocating a law forcing me to leave my clubs at a golf club to keep me from
acting in such an irresponsible fashion though.
I think that there are enough laws regulating firearms now. Passing more
unenforceable regulations will not gain anything.
G Merryweather
Clemance) wrote:
>Do you happen to know which would be more likely to kill you or do
>serious damage - a bullet or a stab from a knife or blunt instrument?
Would you only be "a little bit dead" if one option was chosen over
others? In terms of effectiveness or "efficiency" (which is what I
think you are refering to), explosives (91,7% fatality rate) and
hanging/suffocation (87.8%) rate ahead of firearms (85%) in terms of
suicide. I can't find the figures by breakdown of type for violent
crime in the Thorpe report - a curious oversight.
Firearms make up 0.63% of accidental deaths in NZ
Thorpe says " firearms were involved in only 0.51 percent of
attempted suicides over the same period." (1980-93)
>Is hanging the most effective method of suicide? There are different
>types of hanging causing different causes of death.
See above (from http://www.govt.nz/police/misuse.html#proportion) -
explosives are the most effective (albiet with a population size of
2), with hanging second. Suffocation is included in the hanging
figures, but I don't have any further detail on it. Hanging makes up
30% of all suicides, with "gases and vapours" second.
Geoff
"Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the
bodies of the people who pissed me off."
Radar detector FAQ and Forte Agent automation FAQ both at
G Merryweather
Clemance) wrote:
>There are many laws involving cars and planes to do with safety etc.
>Also racing cars etc. are not ALLOWED on public roads. In a similar
>way I am asking why military rifles are allowed in non-military areas
>and in civilian hands? If military rifles are allowed then why not
>other military weapons?
Indeed, why not? There are privately owned tanks in NZ, as well as
armoured cars. There are a number of fully automatic guns in NZ, owned
by collectors. The last machine gun I recall used in crime was by
Jorgenson (?) in the Bassett Road killings ~1950. It was a souvenier
of the war IIRC (a Reisling, for the trainspotters amongst you) and
hence illegal and unregistered. The job could as easily been done with
some other gun or a knife. I don't know the details of it - it was
before my time.
Privatley owned military type guns are not a problem in NZ
Geoff
--
Radar detector FAQ, Forte Agent automation FAQ, bathroom fan FAQ
and THE WORLDS BEST CHRISTMAS PUDDING RECIPE
are at http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~geoff/
Richard Clemance
>On Sat, 03 Oct 1998 20:07:42 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>Clemance) wrote:
>>There are many laws involving cars and planes to do with safety etc.
>>Also racing cars etc. are not ALLOWED on public roads. In a similar
>>way I am asking why military rifles are allowed in non-military areas
>>and in civilian hands? If military rifles are allowed then why not
>>other military weapons?
> Indeed, why not? There are privately owned tanks in NZ, as well as
>armoured cars. There are a number of fully automatic guns in NZ, owned
>by collectors. The last machine gun I recall used in crime was by
>Jorgenson (?) in the Bassett Road killings ~1950. It was a souvenier
>of the war IIRC (a Reisling, for the trainspotters amongst you) and
>hence illegal and unregistered. The job could as easily been done with
>some other gun or a knife. I don't know the details of it - it was
>before my time.
> Privatley owned military type guns are not a problem in NZ
>Geoff
As as general principle I don't think civilians should be allowed to
own ANY military weapon they may desire or can afford WITHOUT control.
They might not be problem at the moment but if we allowed ownership
based solely on desire then I think we might have problems which would
be much harder to deal with.
The fact seemingly we cannot even get rid of MSSA's IF we wanted to
should be enough to make us think careful about allowing any more
military weapons into civilian hands even WITH controls. There may be
a strong desire for them by some people but I simply think they
shouldn't be in civilian hands. There is no NEED for them to be in
civilian hands.
It might seem "cruel" not to let people "play" with bomb's, hand
grenades, firearms with infra-red sights etc. and be interfering with
their "rights" but the potential they MAY be used for "ill" (i.e. in
the way they are designed to be used which would usually be "ill" in a
civilian situation but not in a military) is too great, in my
opinion, to make them available.
Richard Clemance
Richard Clemance
>On Sat, 03 Oct 1998 07:39:26 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>Clemance) wrote:
>>Do you happen to know which would be more likely to kill you or do
>>serious damage - a bullet or a stab from a knife or blunt instrument?
> Would you only be "a little bit dead" if one option was chosen over
>others?
I wasn't thinking about death but injury. I am sorry if I didn't make
myself clear.
>In terms of effectiveness or "efficiency" (which is what I
>think you are refering to), explosives (91,7% fatality rate) and
>hanging/suffocation (87.8%) rate ahead of firearms (85%) in terms of
>suicide. I can't find the figures by breakdown of type for violent
>crime in the Thorpe report - a curious oversight.
> Firearms make up 0.63% of accidental deaths in NZ
> Thorpe says " firearms were involved in only 0.51 percent of
>attempted suicides over the same period." (1980-93)
Thanks for posting those figures.
Richard Clemance
Richard Clemance
>>Firearms are NEVER allowed to be used by civilians in built-up areas
>>at any time,
>BZZZT -- wrong! Perhaps this kind of inaccuracy is why your
>argument's don't stand up well to scrutiny and seem more based on
>emotion than reality. It is quite legal for a civilian to use a
>firearm in a built-up area providing they do so in an approved
>shooting range - and there are a number of them in Auckland I know
>that much.
Sorry, that is the second time at least I have make that mistake! I
meant to say that as far as I am aware it is illegal to use firearms
in or near a dwelling house and in or near a public place. I wrongly
shortened that to a built-up area but I will use the full description
in future.
>>Once something is "allowed' to happen then it can be very difficult to
>>stop it by making it illegal unless people want to stop it
>>voluntarily.
>So you agree then that changing the law to make MSSA ownership by
>civilians is a pretty futile gesture - especially considering how much
>resistance there appears to be towards such a move amongst those who
>own such rifles.
I think it is a really "poor" reason to let people do something ONLY
because they will get upset if we try to stop them, or that they see
nothing wrong with it and it will be too hard to stop them.
I have never supported a ban and buy-back on MSSA's but my reasons are
not as above. What I question is the wisdom of letting them into
civilian hands in the first place. Not because I think all people
with MSSA's or any other type of weapon are using them illegally but
more on the general principle that military WEAPONS of any type should
be only in military hands. I don't want the potential for them to be
used illegally to be there.
>>But I am mainly concerned with stopping the introduction of more
>>powerful weapons into civilian hands.
>Hey, me too!
Good to hear it.
>>I am pleased there is no need for most people to have firearms in New
>>Zealand and I want to keep it that way.
>You keep using the word "need" but then you deny that alcohol and
>tobacco should fall into the same category as guns. I really don't
>understand why you draw the distinction.
Yes, as far as there being no "need" goes they fall into the same
category. But then there is no "need" for red lipstick, country
music, cauliflowers and many other things but I wouldn't compare
firearms with cauliflowers so why compare them with alcohol and
tobacco?
>Guns "can" kill if abused
>Tobacco "does" kill if USED
>Alcohol "can" kill if abused
Sure as far as people being killed by alcohol and tobacco and also
with firearms, yes, there is a link. But their whole history, the way
they are used, their role society etc. are completely different and it
would be "off topic' to go into it here.
>Nobody has a "need" for tobacco, or alcohol. I know of nobody who
>would die for lack of either substance and I know of no benefit either
>substance brings to society - whereas guns do have a number of
>benefits:
>1. Pest control (such as pigs, goats, deer - where they've proven to
>be very effective)
>2. Good, healthy, safe recreation for over 200,000 NZers who never
>pose any threat to themselves or others and who go on to win
>commonwealth and olympic medals for their skills.
I agree more or less with what you are saying but there is no way for
you to know that NONE of the 200,000 have NEVER posed a threat ot will
never pose a threat to themselves or others. Also there are plenty of
other ways to win gold medals.
>3. Export dollars. Yes, there's a surprisingly healthy export-earning
>industry associated with guided hunting tours provided for "rich"
>overseas (primarily US) hunters.
Because it is possible to make lots of money by doing something is no
real reason to support it.
>Please show me *any* equivalent benefit that tobacco or alcohol offer
>society in return for the huge toll they extract from those who use
>them and the other innocents who are also killed as a result of their
>use by others.
As I said above tobacco and alcohol are "off topic". I would be quite
pleased to talk about them but is this the right newsgroup to do it
in?
>>>>Sure we can trust people not to use them as we do at the moment.
>>>>But why have them there in first place?!
>>>They have to be somewhere - just like the alcohol.
>>
>>Yes, where is the question! Actually there is another possiblity -
>>they can be destroyed!
>Why? - because YOU don't like them?
My likes or dislikes having nothing to do with it. I only mentioned
if because you said they had to be somewhere but do they have to BE at
all?
They are man-made after all and can be man-unmade!
>>Practicing shooting at a target developes a skill which can be
>>DIRECTLY transferable to shooting at and killing animals, humans etc.
>The keyword there is "can" - the reality is that this potential is
>very, very, seldom realised.
I know it is very seldom realised but it is still there. That is why
we have firearm controls in the first place. I don't think I am
saying anything new. I am only saying that we need firearm control
(and not red lipstick, cauliflower etc.) because firearms ARE
different and potentially more dangerous than most other things there
isn't a need for.
Many, many thousands of people have been killed deliberately in wars
and in peace etc. by firearms. That is a fact.
>Are you also planning to ban boxing and all martial arts -- after all,
>the skills learnt there are clearly (outside of sporting purposes, as
>with guns), have only one use - for the injuring or killing of other
>people. I have never seen anyone use boxing or karate skills to
>destroy pests but I'm pretty sure that there are far more people badly
>injured or killed in NZ as a result of fights involving fists than
>there are who have been injured or killed as a result of MSSAs.
I am not interested in banning boxing or martial arts on that basis.
You don't need to have training to be able to hit someone.
>>That is why the military practice shooting at targets.
>But civilians are not the military and the civilian use of firearms is
>not about killing people - its about hunting and target-shooting. The
>MSSA makes a fine rifle for pest eradication and creates new
>dimensions of challenge in some target-shooting contests.
I am well aware than civilians do not have firearms mainly to kill
people. But that doesn't alter the fact that they can easily kill
people and some were designed to do just that. Once again I don't
think I am saying anything new but only restating the reason people
should be safety conscious around firearms and the reason we have
firearm control in the first place!
>>Also most people "need" to use a car and a knive just about every day
>>and it is perfectly legal for them to do so.
>But there are quite literally tens or hundreds of thousands of people
>who do NOT need to use a car every day.
So because some don't need to use a car no-one needs to! I am not
saying that because some people don't need firearms no-one needs to.
>In fact, in Auckland the fact
>that so many people who don't NEED to use a care do use a car is
>posing a very real problem for the motorway system and inner-city
>parking. It's funny isn't it how so many other countries have far
>lower levels of private vehicle ownership and much more stringent
>licensing requirements than NZ - yet how many NZers would consider
>such restrictions to be an unbearable imposition on their personal
>rights?
I have already commented on the general principle that once something
is introduced or people are allowed to do something it is harder to
take it away even if there is a good reason to do so.
>>As far as firearms in the city go it
>>is probably EASIER to use them for "bad" given that there are few deer
>>and other game animals, possums, rabbits and other pests in the city
>>and a lot of humans.
>Why then aren't the streets full of gunshot victims? You're thousand
>of times more likely to see someone injured in a car accident or
>someone spewing their ring out after abusing alcohol, or coughing
>their lungs up because of smoking than you are to see a gunshot victim
>in our urban and suburban centres. Let's address address the REAL
>problems first shall we?
So because there are problems with alcohol and tobacco we shouldn't do
anything about any other problems!?
>>Firearms are basically used by the military to kill humans. Which is
>>why military style firearms can be objected to in civilian hands.
>Even the number of people actually killed by the NZ military over the
>past 30 years pales into insignificance against the toll produced by
>alcohol, tobacco and the motor car and - despite what you say, private
>ownership and use of these things is NO different to the private
>ownership and use of guns.
You seem to be concentrating only on the death rate caused by those
things and seem to be saying that the way it kills/injures, the reason
it kills, the reason/need (if any) we have cars, alcohol, firearms and
tobacco at all and what they are used for in society don't matter.
The only thing that matters is the number of people killed/injured.
I disagree.
>>
>>I haven't really any great problems with the current laws, except you,
>>in some of your other postings, have said they are not enforced.
>>Surely it is better to have laws which are enforced, or better still
>>people want to "obey" because they see the merit in them.
>So why all this talk of banning MSSAs and no justification for private
>ownership of guns?
If there has been talk about the banning of the CURRENT models of
MSSA's in civilian hands and there being no justication for private
ownership of guns it hasn't come from me.
At the most I have questioned why ALL types of firearms OWNED by
licenced owners are allowed in or near dwelling houses and yet cannot
LEGALLY be used there.
>You'd have to agree that laws themselves do not work when you're
>dealing with the unlawful - only enforcement works. Our existing gun
>laws are a very good balance of public safety and individual rights.
>At present the police have the support of the vast majority of
>licensed gun owners and that means, despite poor enforcement, the laws
>are followed by that vast majority. If the police or government
>decide to abuse the goodwill of some gun owners by turning law-abiding
>gun owners into potential criminals overnight then they may not find
>such a wide level of cooperation.
I don't see how threatening not to co-operate is helping your cause.
It should not only be up to you or other would-be firearm owners to
say what firearms you should be allowed to have.
>>But I have some questions about the current laws e.g. to get a MSSA
>>you have to prove a NEED. I wonder what they police accept as a need.
>>It seems the police themselves decided what features would make a
>>firearm a MSSA.
>Again, you're using the word "need" --
That is the way it is worded in the book "(The New Zealand Firearm
Handbook" by Lynn Harris) I have with information about the firearm
laws
"..Apply for the special E endorsement of the basic licence which will
require you to convice the Police that you need (in bold type) the
firearm..."
Richard Clemance
Richard Clemance
>>>Surfboards are only used at the beach, can they not be kept there
>>>permanently?
>>
>>I am sorry but perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I was not
>>suggesting as a general principle that things be kept only where they
>>can be used.
>>
>>I was saying that perhaps FIREARMS should only be kept in a place
>>where they can be LEGALLY be used.
>>
>>People don't WANT and CANNOT use surfboards anywhere else but at the
>>beach. Firearms can be used just about anywhere.
>>
>>Richard Clemance
>>
>Firearms can be used in the bush, on farms and a number of other places
>legally. They are not restricted to gun clubs.
>A firearm owner is not restricted to just one club, so why should he be
>forced to keep his equipment in one place? Where is a hunter suppose to
>keep his rifle or shotgun? He may wish to hunt in a number of different
>places, all of which are legal.
Yes, actually I basically agree with you! But should we treat all
firearms in the same way or should we take into account what they will
be used for?
>Surfers, golfers, cricket players, softball players and other sportsmen are
>free to take their equipment home. I could tee up a golf ball in my back
>yard and hit it 200 meters with my driver, but I don't believe the
>neighbours would appreciate it! There is no one (to my knowledge)
>advocating a law forcing me to leave my clubs at a golf club to keep me from
>acting in such an irresponsible fashion though.
But the same type of firearm WITHOUT modification can be a piece of
sporting equipment, a weapon of war, a collector's piece etc.
depending on the way it is used. That's what makes them different.
I know just about anything can be used as a weapon but the military do
not use just about anything if they can help it, but firearms (among
other weapons).
It is possible to practice your golf putting and your swing, practice
hitting a cricket ball safely at home and it isn't illegal to do so.
But I think that it should remain illegal to use a firearm in and near
a dwelling house and in and near a public place which is the present
law even though it is possible to do target practice with a firearm in
the back yard etc.
>I think that there are enough laws regulating firearms now. Passing more
>unenforceable regulations will not gain anything.
I don't think there should be ANY unenforcable regulations unless we
can't help it.
Richard Clemance
Bruce Simpson
Clemance) wrote:
>All I want is firearm control in a similar way as at present. But I
>also question the wisdom of allowing MSSA's in civilian hands. The
>reason I am concerned has NOTHING to do with any death rates or crime
>figures to do with them. I have already said that even if there were
>no crimes involving firearms I would still be in favour of control.
So you want MSSAs banned from private ownership but you can provide no
justification for that call?
Doesn't that sound like an unreasonable request?
Bruce Simpson
Clemance) wrote:
>I have checked the Northern Advocate for 23/9/98. It says the
>following weapons were found out of sight either at the house or in
>the car of the accused
>
>pipebomb
>two Norinio 7.62mm MSSA's
What I saw was a sporterised Norinco SKS 7.62mm rifle. It is NOT
classified as an MSSA under NZ firearms laws because it has *none* of
the following:
* a folding or telescopic butt/stock
* a magazine which holds, or looks like it is capable of holding,
more than fifteen .22 rimfire cartridges or more than seven cartridges
of any other calibre.
* a military pattern free standing pistol grip
* a flash supressor
(the above information was taken directly from the police booklet
titled "What you need to know abot the new Firearms Laws."
>12 gauge sem-automatic shotgun
It's not illegal for a licensed gun owner to have this
>Military style semi-automatic Sterling .22 rifle
Chuckle... I don't know of *any* military forces, anywhere in the
world that use a cheap Philipine-made .22 sporting rifle for combat
purposes ;-)
>(plus two other un-named firearms)
Gosh .. didn't the police know what they were - sounds pretty likely
given the apparent ignorance over what constitutes an MSSA.
>capsicum spray
>ammunition
It's not illegal for a licensed gun owner to have this.
>So all those could be justly described as a cache of arms or perhaps
>more properly a cache of weapons. (It seems the word cache means
>hidden articles)
Hell - then *I* have a cache of arms (I don't use the term "weapon" --
a weapon is defined in my diction ary as "an instrument to fight with"
and I have no intention of using my guns to engage in a fight with
*anyone*. Indeed, unless the offender had actually engaged in a fight
using his rifles then I don't think it's reasonable to classify them
as "weapons."
>In the Northern Advocate on 23/9/98 it says some of the weapons were
>in a "specially built concrete block bunker". In the court report in
>the same newspaper on 24/9/98 it is described as a "large steel and
>concrete safe" in the basement.
Why are they grizzling about this? The law demands that firearms are
stored safely and securely. Apart from a A-category license, you are
required by law to have a safe in which to store your rifles -- now
the police want to "spin" safe gun storage by using emotive terms such
as "bunker"??
>So the use of the word "bunker" seems justified.
So all pistol owners, collectors and MSSA owners are now automatically
labeled as maniacs with "caches" of arms stored in "bunkers". Boy,
have the police and media done a beautiful spin job on this -- it's
little wonder that the public are being scared into believing we need
more draconian gun laws.
>>In that item they featured someone who held a sporterised SKS
>>semi-automatic rifle. The rifle had clearly had its bayonet lugs
>>filed off and had an internal 7 round magazine.
>>It was stated that this was an assault rifle and required a special
>>license endorsement to own.
>>What a load of CRAP!
>>The gun concerned had clearly been sporterised and therefore qualified
>>as an A category (standard firearms license) rifle.
>
>I am sorry but I don't know enough about firearms to tell which of the
>firearms listed above as being found is likely to be the one you are
>talking about as having been shown on TV (except not the shotgun).
Well it is a 7.62mm rifle made by Norinco and they called it an MSSA
on TV so I think it's pretty clear what they CLAIM it to be.
>Since that seems to be your main complaint it hasn't been very
>helpful. The man was charged with 18 offenses the ones listed being
>unlawfully possessing a military style rifle, explosives and
>ammunition, unlawfully possessing a firearm in a public place and
>possessing offensive weapons.
What public place? In a concrete bunker in his basement? Those
damned tour parties must be a pain! :-)
>But isn't it really only a detail whether the firearm was a E-type one
>or not? Unless you are trying to say that there are none of that type
>illegally in New Zealand i.e. ALL are held legally.
Did the article say whether the guy was a licensed gun owner? If he
wasn't then *any* firearm in his possession would be illegal. I
suspect that was the situation and the police merely took the
opportunity to further push their anti-MSSA propoganda by inventing a
few facts (as they have been known to do in the past).
>>The guy making the statement appeared to be associated with the police
>>- do they not know their own gun laws or are they simply more
>>interested in crawling up GunSafe's back passage I wonder?
>
>Can you remember his name? There are two police officers mentioned in
>the North Advocate - Dave Clement as officer in charge of the case,
>and pictured with the weapons etc. is Constable Steve Duckmanton.
I don't know whether the guy's name was shown - anonymity is an asset
when you're in "spin mode".
G Merryweather
Clemance) wrote:
>
>I am sorry but I don't know enough about firearms to tell which of the
>firearms listed above as being found is likely to be the one you are
>talking about as having been shown on TV (except not the shotgun).
He was refering to (one of) the "two Norinio 7.62mm MSSA's". Which
neatly brings us back to the report being inaccurate.
Geoff
Richard Clemance
>Richard Clemance wrote:
>>
>> Keith Davidson <ke...@times-age.co.nz> wrote:
>> >> Clothing causes more deaths than firearms?!
>>
>> >In the period 1980 to 1993 that is absolutely correct !!
>>
>> I am sorry but perhaps you didn't read that the word was clothing. As
>> far as I can the list below doesn't mention clothing.
>No, I read the word clothing, and I said it was correct that more people
>died from clothing than from bullets.
Could you please tell me where clothing is mentioned in the list
below? You have highlighted medical misadventure but unless I am
stupid I don't see how that includes clothing.
Perhaps you have other info or could tell us what you mean?
Richard Clemance
>
>> >During that period, 50% of all deaths by accident in NZ were from
>> >vehicle accidents. 20% from falls, 5% from drowning, 3% from boating,
>> >2.8% from suffocation, 2.5% from flying, 2.3% from fire, .68% from
>> >MEDICAL MISADVENTURE and .63% from bullets.
>
>Keith Davidson
Richard Clemance
>On Sat, 03 Oct 1998 20:07:42 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>Clemance) wrote:
>>All I want is firearm control in a similar way as at present. But I
>>also question the wisdom of allowing MSSA's in civilian hands. The
>>reason I am concerned has NOTHING to do with any death rates or crime
>>figures to do with them. I have already said that even if there were
>>no crimes involving firearms I would still be in favour of control.
>So you want MSSAs banned from private ownership but you can provide no
>justification for that call?
Since I have already said I am not in favour of banning MSSA's from
private ownership please explain why I should have to provide
justification for something I DON'T want to happen.
The words firearm control mean just that. Control on firearms. No
firearm control means any type of firearm available to anyone who
wants it.
Richard Clemance
>Doesn't that sound like an unreasonable request?
>---------------------------------
Richard Clemance
>On Sat, 03 Oct 1998 21:12:11 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>Clemance) wrote:
>>I have checked the Northern Advocate for 23/9/98. It says the
>>following weapons were found out of sight either at the house or in
>>the car of the accused
>>
>>pipebomb
>>two Norinio 7.62mm MSSA's
>What I saw was a sporterised Norinco SKS 7.62mm rifle. It is NOT
>classified as an MSSA under NZ firearms laws because it has *none* of
>the following:
But since there seem to have been two why couldn't one have been
modified and one not? I have no interest either way.
But I am interested to know why someone who should know guns should
describe a firearm as a MSSA if clearly it was not. Just as I would
be it a vet called a cow a deer!
If the mistake didn't happen at the film editing stage, or if you are
seeing what you wanted to see e.g. they could have been talking about
one firearm but showing film of another, I want to know more.
>>12 gauge sem-automatic shotgun
>It's not illegal for a licensed gun owner to have this
>>Military style semi-automatic Sterling .22 rifle
>Chuckle... I don't know of *any* military forces, anywhere in the
>world that use a cheap Philipine-made .22 sporting rifle for combat
>purposes ;-)
I was only writing what was reported in the newspaper. Are you saying
that rifle isn't military style? I wasn't aware that the words
military style implied that the firearm was in use by the military in
New Zealand or anywhere.
>>(plus two other un-named firearms)
>Gosh .. didn't the police know what they were - sounds pretty likely
>given the apparent ignorance over what constitutes an MSSA.
There were six firearms in the photo and only four named in the
article which makes two un-named. Perhaps because it suits your
purpose, without any reason to do so at all, you are reading into it
that the police didn't know what they were.
I added the words about two other un-named firearms in case you were
wondered why I had only listed the names of four of the six. Because
clearly any one of the other two could've been a MSSA.
>>capsicum spray
>>ammunition
>>So all those could be justly described as a cache of arms or perhaps
>>more properly a cache of weapons. (It seems the word cache means
>>hidden articles)
>Hell - then *I* have a cache of arms (I don't use the term "weapon" --
>a weapon is defined in my diction ary as "an instrument to fight with"
>and I have no intention of using my guns to engage in a fight with
>*anyone*. Indeed, unless the offender had actually engaged in a fight
>using his rifles then I don't think it's reasonable to classify them
>as "weapons."
I used the word weapons to include the capsicum spray and the pipebomb
which I didn't think could be called firearms. (Also I am sorry but
there were knives found also which I forgot to mention).
The legal definition of weapons as in the phrase "offensive weapons"
I think could cover many different items and as far as I know it is
NOT necessary to actually use the item in a fight before it can be
called a weapon.
>>In the Northern Advocate on 23/9/98 it says some of the weapons were
>>in a "specially built concrete block bunker". In the court report in
>>the same newspaper on 24/9/98 it is described as a "large steel and
>>concrete safe" in the basement.
>Why are they grizzling about this? The law demands that firearms are
>stored safely and securely. Apart from a A-category license, you are
>required by law to have a safe in which to store your rifles -- now
>the police want to "spin" safe gun storage by using emotive terms such
>as "bunker"??
It wasn't me but you who seemed to be complaining about the TV item
using the word "bunker". All I was doing was saying what was
described in the newspaper reports.
>>So the use of the word "bunker" seems justified.
>So all pistol owners, collectors and MSSA owners are now automatically
>labeled as maniacs with "caches" of arms stored in "bunkers". Boy,
>have the police and media done a beautiful spin job on this -- it's
>little wonder that the public are being scared into believing we need
>more draconian gun laws.
Who has used the word maniac? Who has said that all pistol owners,
collectors and MSSA owners have caches of arms stored in bunkers?
You and you alone!
You complain about sensationalism and emotionalism used by others and
then seem to do the same thing youself.
>>Since that seems to be your main complaint it hasn't been very
>>helpful. The man was charged with 18 offenses the ones listed being
>>unlawfully possessing a military style rifle, explosives and
>>ammunition, unlawfully possessing a firearm in a public place and
>>possessing offensive weapons.
>What public place? In a concrete bunker in his basement? Those
>damned tour parties must be a pain! :-)
No, he was arrested in his car on a public road, at gun point south
of Whangerei with firearms and other weapons in the car. It seems
only two of the firearms were found in the concrete and steel safe in
his house and the other four in the car.
But I thought you knew all about the incident in question already from
the TV report you saw.
>>But isn't it really only a detail whether the firearm was a E-type one
>>or not? Unless you are trying to say that there are none of that type
>>illegally in New Zealand i.e. ALL are held legally.
>Did the article say whether the guy was a licensed gun owner? If he
>wasn't then *any* firearm in his possession would be illegal. I
>suspect that was the situation and the police merely took the
>opportunity to further push their anti-MSSA propoganda by inventing a
>few facts (as they have been known to do in the past).
No he didn't have a licence. But according to the North Advocate he
pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a military style rifle among
other charges.
Please make a formal complaint about the police inventing a few facts.
If you know that I don't see how you cannot take the matter any
further. It is a serious crime and shows the policeman or policemen
concerned have put a 'political agenda" ahead of the law.
I cannot make a complaint because I didn't see the news item and don't
know enough about firearms. But unless you are prepared to make a
complaint and so hopefully find out exactly what happened I don't how
you can "use" this incident any further.
Richard Clemance
Keith Davidson
>
> Keith Davidson <ke...@times-age.co.nz> wrote:
> >> Clothing causes more deaths than firearms?!
>
> >In the period 1980 to 1993 that is absolutely correct !!
>
> I am sorry but perhaps you didn't read that the word was clothing. As
> far as I can the list below doesn't mention clothing.
No, I read the word clothing, and I said it was correct that more people
died from clothing than from bullets.
> >During that period, 50% of all deaths by accident in NZ were from
> >vehicle accidents. 20% from falls, 5% from drowning, 3% from boating,
> >2.8% from suffocation, 2.5% from flying, 2.3% from fire, .68% from
> >MEDICAL MISADVENTURE and .63% from bullets.
>
> >Given that 73% of all firearms deaths are suicide, you can therefore
> >assume you are more than 1,000 times more likely to die in a car
> >accident than be shot dead by someone other than yourself. You are 20
> >times more likely to die in a plane accident.
>
> I have never said anyone is more likely to die by a bullet than by
> those other methods you mentioned. I am fairly sure I have never
> talked about the death rates AT ALL.
>
> There are many laws involving cars and planes to do with safety etc.
> Also racing cars etc. are not ALLOWED on public roads. In a similar
> way I am asking why military rifles are allowed in non-military areas
> and in civilian hands? If military rifles are allowed then why not
> other military weapons?
For the same reason we allow people to purchase vehicles that are
capable of travelling in excess of 100kmh. By compulsorily fitting
governors to all vehicles to restrict maximum speeds to 100kmh, hundreds
of lives would be saved. To ban MSSA's may not save any lives.
> >The risk of dying by bullets in NZ is MINISCULE ! Ban all motor
> >vehicles, high places, poisons, gases, water, planes, fires and doctors
> >and you will save a significant number of lives. Ban firearms and you
> >will save very very few lives, in fact potentially you may find more
> >lives are lost.
>
> I am not disputing your figures or calling for a ban on firearms. But
> could you explain why MORE lives would be lost IF firearms are banned?
I said potentially you may find more lives are lost. If firearms were
banned, criminals may figure they have less chance of being shot by home
owners, potential rape victims etc, and may kill more people feeling
safer.
> >Would you rather die from a well placed bullet or being chopped up with
> >a knife or beaten with a blunt instrument ? If someone is determined to
> >kill me, I hope they chose a well placed bullet in preference to a slow
> >and painful death.
>
> Of course using a bullet CAN be quicker but isn't that the whole
> point. The very reason that a death by other means can be SLOW means
> there is more chance for action and so the live can possibly be saved.
> Also most stabbings are relatively minor with only surface wounds.
Apart from the fatal ones, nobody ever dies from knife wounds...
> >On the other hand, there are vastly more people who do attack other
> >people using knives or blunt instruments than those who use firearms.
> >Only 1.7% of ALL violent crime in NZ involves the use of firearms.
>
> >> Is hanging the most effective method of suicide? There are different
> >> types of hanging causing different causes of death.
>
> >No, explosives are the most "successful" form of suicide. But hanging is
> >by far the most "popular" successful means of suicide, followed by gases
> >and vapours. Around 83% of attempted firearms suicides are successful.
> >Between 1980 and 1993 1,211 kiwis used firearms to attempt suicide, of
> >which 1,035 were successful. 31,270 attempted suicide by poisoning and
> >814 suceeded. 2,003 tried hanging/suffocation of which 1,758 succeeded.
> >1,859 used gases and vapours and 1,310 succeeded.
>
> Thanks for posting those figures.
>
> >Your desire to ban firearms is based on media hype, irrational personal
> >fear of firearms and/or ignorance, rather than any basis in fact.
>
> I am sorry but I am not in favour of banning firearms in general and
> never have been. I don't know where you got that from. In fact I
> have several very good reasons NOT to ban them!
>
> All I want is firearm control in a similar way as at present. But I
> also question the wisdom of allowing MSSA's in civilian hands. The
> reason I am concerned has NOTHING to do with any death rates or crime
> figures to do with them. I have already said that even if there were
> no crimes involving firearms I would still be in favour of control.
>
> In a similar way just because knives (or blunt instruments) are used
> for killing and crimes I am not in favour of controls on or banning
> knives (except general controls which can apply to any offensive
> weapon and control on certain types of knives)( or cars etc.)
Oh good, your writings tend to suggest you have a major problem with
continued firearms ownership. Pleased you clarified it.
Keith Davidson
Richard Clemance
>On Sat, 03 Oct 1998 21:12:11 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>Clemance) wrote:
>>
>>I am sorry but I don't know enough about firearms to tell which of the
>>firearms listed above as being found is likely to be the one you are
>>talking about as having been shown on TV (except not the shotgun).
>He was refering to (one of) the "two Norinio 7.62mm MSSA's". Which
>neatly brings us back to the report being inaccurate.
>Geoff
I am trying to establish whether six firearms found were MSSA's.
Clearly if no MSSA's were found then none found would need the
E-endorsement on a firearm licence so the error supposedly made
(saying that a firearm found needed the E-endorsement) on the TV item
would only seem to have been able to be made by the person making that
claim.
But if one or more of the firearms were MSSA's then the error, if
there was one, could've been at the editing, reporting stage, or the
viewing stage etc.
So are you telling me that the two Norinco 7.62mm's were MSSA's?
Richard Clemance
Keith Davidson
> Since I have already said I am not in favour of banning MSSA's from
> private ownership please explain why I should have to provide
> justification for something I DON'T want to happen.
>
> The words firearm control mean just that. Control on firearms. No
> firearm control means any type of firearm available to anyone who
> wants it.
Do you know and understand what controls are already in place (and have
been since 1993) for MSSA owners ? Can you explain in what way these
controls are inadequate or in need of any review ?
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
> Could you please tell me where clothing is mentioned in the list
> below? You have highlighted medical misadventure but unless I am
> stupid I don't see how that includes clothing.
I was not referring to the list below, but to a recent television
documentary that stated more than 50 children died last year in NZ every
year due to suffocation and strangling from clothing, or by clothing
catching fire beacuse children were standing too close to heaters or
fires. I guess that under the tables quoted those figures are
incorporated in the sections for suffocation/hanging and fire
categories.
Keith Davidson
Bruce Simpson
Clemance) wrote:
>Check.my.si...@l.address (Bruce Simpson) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Oct 1998 20:07:42 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>>Clemance) wrote:
>
>>>All I want is firearm control in a similar way as at present. But I
>>>also question the wisdom of allowing MSSA's in civilian hands. The
>>>reason I am concerned has NOTHING to do with any death rates or crime
>>>figures to do with them. I have already said that even if there were
>>>no crimes involving firearms I would still be in favour of control.
>
>>So you want MSSAs banned from private ownership but you can provide no
>>justification for that call?
>
>Since I have already said I am not in favour of banning MSSA's from
>private ownership please explain why I should have to provide
>justification for something I DON'T want to happen.
>
>The words firearm control mean just that. Control on firearms. No
>firearm control means any type of firearm available to anyone who
>wants it.
Well you're in luck - because that's exactly the situation we
currently have under existing gun laws.
G Merryweather
Clemance) wrote:
>So are you telling me that the two Norinco 7.62mm's were MSSA's?
Given the description, no, as they had been converted so that all the
nasty evil baby kiling features :-) had been removed, such as the
bayonet lug, etc
Geoff
Richard Clemance
>>The words firearm control mean just that. Control on firearms. No
>>firearm control means any type of firearm available to anyone who
>>wants it.
>Well you're in luck - because that's exactly the situation we
>currently have under existing gun laws.
I am well aware that there are firearm laws. The question is what
those laws should be. I have been saying I think allowing MSSA's in
civilian hands WAS a mistake. (I know you disagree if only for the
reason that you "like" using a MSSA.) But I am stopping well short of
saying a law should be passed banning them. They are already in
civilian hands and passing a law won't get rid of them.
While the situation is very different I think introducing rabbits into
New Zealand was a mistake but don't think we should pass a law banning
rabbits on farmland and expect it to work!
You started off this thread by more or less saying the police, at
least in Whangarei, either do not know those laws or deliberately took
no notice of them by saying someone had a military style firearm which
needed a special endorsement on a licence. You then accused the
anti-gun lobby as being behind the mis-information.
But whether a MSSA was found at Whangerei or not seems to be minor
compared to the WHOLE situation there. As far as can see the police
were enforcing the firearm laws and other laws. That is what they are
paid to do and what I, at least, want them to do. The fact that a
pipebomb was found as well as six firearms etc. seems to makes it
slightly out of the ordinary and so perhaps it warranted a TV news
item.
I am as concerned as you SEEM to be about sensationalism and
emotionalism in or out of the media but at least I try not to use the
same tactics myself.
Next you said that because of what happened in Whangarei you were
"worried" that the police would arrrive at your house, declare your
office a bunker, and your firearms a cache of arms.
But unless your office is a concrete and steel safe or specially built
out of concrete blocks and is in the basement, as in Whangarei, it
seems unlikely it would be declared a bunker using the incident at
Whangarei a precedent. As far as I know having a bunker is legal. it
is what is in the bunker or what it is used for that matters!
Have you got a pipebomb, capsicum spray, knives, several firearms
whether military style or not, and ammunition and do NOT have a
firearm licence? If so from what happened at Whangarei you will
likely be charged with having a cache of arms if caught. But if your
situation is not similar you would seem to have little to worry about.
But perhaps you are worried about the police "inventing a few facts"
which you claim happened in Whangarei. But I have already told you
the man pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a MILITARY style
rifle. Of course if is very possible either the man himself and his
lawyer(s) don't know what makes a rifle military style. Or they did
but didn't "bother" to do anything about it for other reasons. (Such
as if wouldn't make any difference to the possible sentence etc.)
(Also it is very possible that the reporter from the North Advocate
got the info that MSSA's were found from the same person who appeared
on the TV item. Also the same person decided what the charges were.)
Under the thread "The thin edge of another wedge.." several weeks ago
you were "complaining" that the police haven't come to your place to
check that you have your firearms stored according to the law.
(But as with most laws the police only act when they find out/see they
have been broken.)
Now you are "complaining" that from the "evidence" your saw on TV
about an incident in Whangarei, they will come to your place and
arrest you charging you with storing a cache of arms in a bunker!
But from what you have told us it seems the police have no interest in
you at all!
Richard Clemance
Roberta G
>But should we treat all
>firearms in the same way or should we take into account what they will
>be used for?
Do you mean what they *may* be used for, what they *might* be used for, or are
you clairvoyant?
Roberta
Roberta G
>
>Check.my.si...@l.address (Bruce Simpson) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Oct 1998 21:12:11 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>>Clemance) wrote:
>
>>>I have checked the Northern Advocate for 23/9/98. It says the
>>>following weapons were found out of sight either at the house or in
>>>the car of the accused
>>>
>>>pipebomb
>>>two Norinio 7.62mm MSSA's
>
>>What I saw was a sporterised Norinco SKS 7.62mm rifle. It is NOT
>>classified as an MSSA under NZ firearms laws because it has *none* of
>>the following:
>But I am interested to know why someone who should know guns should
>describe a firearm as a MSSA if clearly it was not. Just as I would
>be it a vet called a cow a deer!
>
>If the mistake didn't happen at the film editing stage, or if you are
>seeing what you wanted to see e.g. they could have been talking about
>one firearm but showing film of another, I want to know more.
Are you saying that you expect the Police to be able to recognise each and
every type of firearm that they might come across? That would take years of
study, and is quite unrealistic for the few weeks that recruits train...
The Police frequently get it wrong. In a TV report last year, a young constable
showed a firearm to the camera and pronounced it to be an AK47. Nice try -
wrong calibre, wrong manufacturer and wrong type of gun - it was a .22 knock
off of another type of firearm altogether.
Reporters generally have even less knowledge, and it shows. They frequently
refer to a handgun when they mean a shotgun, for instance. I once rang TV3 to
comment on this. They said that as the story was about a firearm [a
shotgun] and they had shown a firearm [a pistol] they were OK - *All firearms,
you know*. I asked if they would show a picture of a ship sinking when they
were talking about a plane crash - *It is all mass transportation, you know!*
Roberta
Roberta G
Check.my.si...@l.address (Bruce Simpson) wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Oct 1998 03:26:39 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>Clemance) wrote:
>>As far as rabbits go I don't think
>>so, that is why rabbit calicivirus was brought in. (which is an
>>interesting subject in itself). Rather unfortunate for your "side"!
Rabbits used to be controlled by hunters employed by the *Rabbit Boards*. [The
uncle of a close friend was such a person.] In once of those flashes of
intelligence that Govts are known for, it was decided that as the rabbits were
*under control*, the Boards could be disbanded. The rest, as they say, it
history!
Roberta
Roberta G
>
>Check.my.si...@l.address (Bruce Simpson) wrote:
>
>
>>>Firearms are NEVER allowed to be used by civilians in built-up areas
>>>at any time,
>
>>BZZZT -- wrong! Perhaps this kind of inaccuracy is why your
>>argument's don't stand up well to scrutiny and seem more based on
>>emotion than reality. It is quite legal for a civilian to use a
>>firearm in a built-up area providing they do so in an approved
>>shooting range - and there are a number of them in Auckland I know
>>that much.
>
>Sorry, that is the second time at least I have make that mistake! I
>meant to say that as far as I am aware it is illegal to use firearms
>in or near a dwelling house and in or near a public place. I wrongly
>shortened that to a built-up area but I will use the full description
>in future.
Hmmm - you might want to think a little longer about what you mean to say. At
least two ranges in Wellington City are in very built up places, backing on to
a most public of places - the zoo.
Roberta
Richard Clemance
>On Mon, 05 Oct 1998 03:52:40 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>Clemance) wrote:
>>So are you telling me that the two Norinco 7.62mm's were MSSA's?
> Given the description, no, as they had been converted so that all the
>nasty evil baby kiling features :-) had been removed, such as the
>bayonet lug, etc
>Geoff
The description by Bruce Simpson, which I suppose is the one you are
referring to, described what the firearm did NOT have and not what it
did. It was described as having NONE of the features which make a
firearm a MSSA. That is why Bruce Simpson said it wasn't one.
But what, if anything, was there about the description that makes you
think it was a Norinco 7.62 mm firearm he was describing?
What colour is this firearm by the way - black or brown?
(I should let the baby killing comment pass but I can't resist! I
think you know perfectly well that a firearm without bayonet lugs is
perfectly capable of killing/injuring a baby or anything else, so why
"pretend" otherwise.)
Richard Clemance
Richard Clemance
>Are you saying that you expect the Police to be able to recognise each and
>every type of firearm that they might come across? That would take years of
>study, and is quite unrealistic for the few weeks that recruits train...
It wasn't me who was complaining about the TV news item and police
(and media) knowledge or lack of it, but Bruce Simpson. How long have
you been following the debate under this thread?
But I would expect the police to know which was a MSSA and which was
not when they were, for example, laying charges against someone for
possessing a MSSA without having the necessary endorsement on their
firearm licence.
Richard Clemance
Richard Clemance
>Richard Clemance wrote:
>> But it isn't what you (or I) think is "good" for us but what is "good"
>> for society as a whole.
>Society as a whole eh?
>How do the figures stack up for alcohol, tobacco and guns, as far as the
>number of deaths go.
>Surely the one that will lessen the greatest number of debts will make for a
>great candidate as far as 'removal for the good of society as a whole' - eh?
>Paul Wilkins (Disk Daemon)
There are plenty of "bad" things in society besides death which in
itself is not "bad" but natural.
If you have read my other postings you should know I have not been
talking about removal of all firearms from society or the number of
deaths which have already been caused by firearms in civilian hands
compared to other causes.
Also I have not been talking about alcohol or tobacco so I would be
interested to know how you know what I think of them in society and
what I think would be for the greater "good".
Richard Clemance
G Merryweather
>think it was a Norinco 7.62 mm firearm he was describing?
and the calibre is correct. The odds are that it is the gun in
question.
>What colour is this firearm by the way - black or brown?
the metalwork is a black (ish) parkerised type finish. The stock is
usually a tan hardwood of unknown parentage, unless it has been
replaced with an aftermarket plastic one (like mine).
>(I should let the baby killing comment pass but I can't resist! I
>think you know perfectly well that a firearm without bayonet lugs is
>perfectly capable of killing/injuring a baby or anything else, so why
>"pretend" otherwise.)
It was a sarcastic comment on the addition of some cosmetic features
suddenly makes a type of firearm more deadly than any other, and it's
owner more likely to commit mayhem. John Banks must certainly have
been under that impression when he introduced the current "E" catagory
legislation.
Geoff
Paul Wilkins
Richard Clemance
>> I am not disputing your figures or calling for a ban on firearms. But
>> could you explain why MORE lives would be lost IF firearms are banned?
>I said potentially you may find more lives are lost. If firearms were
>banned, criminals may figure they have less chance of being shot by home
>owners, potential rape victims etc, and may kill more people feeling
>safer.
I think you are on pretty shakey ground here! To argue that more
lives might be lost isn't it necessary to say either how lives are
saved by firearms at the moment or how the changes in society which
would occur IF firearms were banned might bring about more deaths?
In the area of pest control, if more poisons had to be used could that
cause more human and non-pest animals deaths? Also in the area of
"sport" - hunters might be "forced" to use knives which might be more
"dangerous" to themselves since they are not as easy to control, or
they might give up hunting and try mountaineering etc. Also target
shooters might take up more "dangerous" sports.
I think very few people, at the moment, are "put off" committing the
type of crimes you mentioned for fear that a firearm MIGHT be on the
premises and they will be shot.
But I am not in favour of banning firearms.
>Do you know and understand what controls are already in place (and have
>been since 1993) for MSSA owners ? Can you explain in what way these
>controls are inadequate or in need of any review ?
>Keith Davidson
I have a little bit of knowledge about the firearms laws. But
knowledge is one thing and understanding another!
I have the book " The New Zealand Firearm Handbook" 1994 edition by
Lynn Harris which includes some of the laws. In the book he says that
the present arms laws are "badly flawed" but unfortunately doesn't say
in what way.
For what it is worth I think the changes made in 1983 as far as only
licencing the owner and not the firearms were a mistake. But one
which cannot be easily corrected.
I will stick my neck out and say that in 1993 the law should have been
changed so NO MORE firearms with the five features which meant a
firearm was a MSSA should have been able to be sold in New Zealand.
(It seems the five features were determined by the Police. As far as
I can work out all five features are to do with killing humans)
Either "we" want civilians to have military style firearms which have
features in their design for military use (i.e. basically features
which are needed and used to kill humans), or we do not. If it is a
mistake to allow people to have them why continue with the mistake
under the mistaken, in my view, belief that if we only let "good"
people have them all will be well. "Good" people are just as CAPABLE
of doing "bad" things with firearms ( admittedly of any type and
anything else) either because of mental illness, emotional "problems"
(i.e. failed personal relationships, business/cash flow problems etc.)
or the sudden desire to do so. But I think"bad" things consist of a
lot more than deliberate injury and death which are only the "worse".
I think the very fact that the firearm is military in style and has
specific human killing features as part of its design MAY make a few
people try them out on humans!
(It is similar to what you said about the lack of governors on motor
vehicles to limit speed e.g. if something is capable of being used
illegal we shouldn't be "suprised" if it is used illegally. Just as
it isn't surprising that people would want to drive cars fast, neither
should it be surprising that some should want to kill or hurt others
(with firearms or by any other method).
I have already said it seems strange that while it is illegal to use a
firearm in or near a dwelling house they are allowed to be stored
there. They are perfectly capable of being used there and it is
understandable that some people would want to use them there.
I am not really sure about the solution to that, if any.
In 1993 nothing should've been done about the existing MSSA type
firearms held by licenced owners in New Zealand, except to encourage
the destruction of any unwanted or unsafe (because of rust etc.)
firearms of any type, through amnesties etc. (I wonder what the
effect would be on the second-hand price of MSSA type firearms, and
the way they are used and treated etc., if no more new ones (once the
current stock is exhausted), at least legally, could be sold)
It seems that people had the five features which made a MSSA a MSSA
removed mainly for economic reasons i..e it saved them the expense of
paying for the E-endorsement and extra storage costs which were more
than the cost of the firearm and the modifications. So why do some of
them, and others, pretend it was for safety or other reasons. Didn't
most people have no use for those features anyway?
There are plenty of other types of firearms (most of which would of
course be able to kill and injure people) able to be bought and used
for hunting, for sports like target shooting, controlling pests etc.
If more firepower is needed e.g. for culling animals then why can't
the military themselves do it, or suitable firearms be "borrowed" from
them by trained state-paid people etc.?
A sport CAN be made out of just about any activity and it shouldn't be
too hard to imagine a sport being invented which could involve hand
grenades, bazooka, motars, recoilless rifles etc. and other military
equipment. But just like them military style rifles should stay in
the military. They are not treating as sports equipment in the
military so why should they be in civilian life. So the fact that
they are used in sport is irrelevant by itself!!
Was there more ex-military or military style firearms available to the
public in the 1970's and 1980's? Was it TOO EXPENSIVE for the
manufactures to make different types of firearms for the civilian
market or to remove the military features before they were sold?
Richard Clemance
G Merryweather
>In 1993 nothing should've been done about the existing MSSA type
>firearms held by licenced owners in New Zealand, except to encourage
>the destruction of any unwanted or unsafe (because of rust etc.)
>firearms of any type, through amnesties etc. (I wonder what the
>effect would be on the second-hand price of MSSA type firearms, and
>the way they are used and treated etc., if no more new ones (once the
>current stock is exhausted), at least legally, could be sold)
banned their importation around 4-5 years ago. So what you are wishing
for has already been in place for some time.
Prices rose briefly, before settling back slightly. Prices are
currently low (in the words of one dealer - you can't give them away)
thanks to the Thorpe report and uncertainty as to whether they would
be banned. Pistols were banned in the UK around 2 years ago (firearms
crime has risen to record heights since...) and the shooters are still
waiting for payments. Ironically, many UK shooters go to France or
Jersey to shoot - the French government trusts them more than their
own...
>It seems that people had the five features which made a MSSA a MSSA
>removed mainly for economic reasons i..e it saved them the expense of
>paying for the E-endorsement and extra storage costs which were more
>than the cost of the firearm and the modifications. So why do some of
>them, and others, pretend it was for safety or other reasons. Didn't
>most people have no use for those features anyway?
guns as well for that matter), but it is also pretty harmless.
The free standing stock allows a straight line design like most
military guns since WW2. It noticeably reduces felt recoil and muzzle
lift, as the stock is inline with the barrel - the recoil acts
directly backwards without a turning moment.
The IMAS and IPSC shooters certainly use the larger magazine
capacity.
>There are plenty of other types of firearms (most of which would of
>course be able to kill and injure people) able to be bought and used
>for hunting, for sports like target shooting, controlling pests etc.
>If more firepower is needed e.g. for culling animals then why can't
>the military themselves do it, or suitable firearms be "borrowed" from
>them by trained state-paid people etc.?
The government phased out the bounty on rabbits and possums as a
cost saving measure. Similarly, rabbit boards are a piece of NZ
history. Instead, DOC carpet bombs the forests with 1080 poison - very
eco friendly!
NZ sport shooters account for the majority of rabbits killed (by
people) in NZ. For example, a couple of years ago, the annual "easter
bunny shoot" near Taupo bagged 12,000 rabbits and some possums. Not
bad for 3 days work, and all at ZERO cost to the taxpayer.
>
>A sport CAN be made out of just about any activity and it shouldn't be
>too hard to imagine a sport being invented which could involve hand
>grenades, bazooka, motars, recoilless rifles etc. and other military
>equipment. But just like them military style rifles should stay in
>the military. They are not treating as sports equipment in the
>military so why should they be in civilian life. So the fact that
>they are used in sport is irrelevant by itself!!
Of course, swords and archery are all "military weapons". Indeed, it
used to be compulsory to train with them in order to be prepared for
war at all times. The battle of Argincourt was largely won by the
british archers.
On a more modern note, Switzerland has the largest per capita number
of firearms in civilian hands in the world. Everyone under 45 is in
the military reserve and has a SIG assault rifle and ammunition at
home. They are encouraged to train with them, and ranges are
relatively common.
Switzerland has, of course, one of the lowest rates of firearms crime
in the world, which does imply other factors at work, eg mental health
services (lack of), etc
>Was there more ex-military or military style firearms available to the
>public in the 1970's and 1980's? Was it TOO EXPENSIVE for the
>manufactures to make different types of firearms for the civilian
>market or to remove the military features before they were sold?
Many of what are now called military style firearms were available
before this time. However, it was more a result of political changes
that has increased the number.
The "transitional" guns (H&K G3, Colt AR15, Armalite AR10, FN FAL)
are expensive and always have been so. The current price is around
$2500-3000 each in good condition, and has been for as long as I can
remember.
Traditional guns are more expensive to make than MSSA's (usually),
which are designed with low cost production in mind, based on metal
stampings, plastic furniture and with fit and finish a low priority.
An example is when the Chinese flooded the market with cheap SKS and
AK clones, which both increased the numbers and brought the price to
within reach of more shooters. The Chinese used their existing tooling
and large production volumes (for the Chinese Police and army) to
churn out cheap guns for (mainly) the US market
Arguably, if the Chinese hadn't done so, then we would not be having
this discussion, as the guns in question would still be very rare. An
additional factor was the NZ government, who sold off many of the
surplus Vietnam era L1A1 SLR rifles when they changed over to the new
Styr. Although they were generlly well worn, they went for around $400
at the time (~1988).
Roberta G
>Either "we" want civilians to have military style firearms which have
>features in their design for military use, or we do not. <snip>
>"Good" people are just as CAPABLE of doing "bad" things
<snip>
>I think the very fact that the firearm is military in style and has
>specific human killing features as part of its design MAY make a few
>people try them out on humans!
Richard - this sounds very like the old radical feminist line of *Castrate all
men so that they cannot rape*. If they have testicles and a penis, they MAY be
tempted to use them improperly!
I think it is an error to base your concepts of firearms on the *potential* use
of those firearms, in the same way that I think the feminists were in error
basing their views of men on those men being potential rapists.
In either case, as I am sure you can see, the determining factor is the *will*
to harm [or to use violence] that is the problem.
Roberta
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
>In article <6v8oj4$2el$1...@supernews.com>, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz says...
>>
>>Check.my.si...@l.address (Bruce Simpson) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 03 Oct 1998 21:12:11 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>>>Clemance) wrote:
>>
>>>>I have checked the Northern Advocate for 23/9/98. It says the
>>>>following weapons were found out of sight either at the house or in
>>>>the car of the accused
>>>>
>>>>pipebomb
>>>>two Norinio 7.62mm MSSA's
>>
>>>What I saw was a sporterised Norinco SKS 7.62mm rifle. It is NOT
>>>classified as an MSSA under NZ firearms laws because it has *none* of
>>>the following:
>
>>But I am interested to know why someone who should know guns should
>>describe a firearm as a MSSA if clearly it was not. Just as I would
>>be it a vet called a cow a deer!
>>
>>If the mistake didn't happen at the film editing stage, or if you are
>>seeing what you wanted to see e.g. they could have been talking about
>>one firearm but showing film of another, I want to know more.
>
>Are you saying that you expect the Police to be able to recognise each and
>every type of firearm that they might come across? That would take years of
>study, and is quite unrealistic for the few weeks that recruits train...
Um... it only requires the identification any one of five key points
to identify and classify a gun as an MSSA. I don't think that's
beyond the abilities of even the most dullard police officer. One
might also expect that if they're going to have someone talking to the
cameras about a firearms-related incident, they're going to choose an
officer who understands just a little about them.
Bruce Simpson
Clemance) wrote:
>
>>Well you're in luck - because that's exactly the situation we
>>currently have under existing gun laws.
>
>I am well aware that there are firearm laws. The question is what
>those laws should be. I have been saying I think allowing MSSA's in
>civilian hands WAS a mistake. (I know you disagree if only for the
>reason that you "like" using a MSSA.)
But - under the current firearms laws - I don't have an MSSA - I have
a sporterised A category SKS semi-automatic 7.62mm rifle with
seven-shot magazine.
Personally I don't have the time to engage in military-rifle shooting
as a sport so I don't have an MSSA. My SKS is used partly for fun
"plinking" at cans and water-filled coke bottles, and partly for deer
hunting in the gulley adjacent to my house.
I have no burning desire to own an MSSA - just as I have no burning
desire to own a machine gun or a pipe bomb.
Of course I do support the rights of those MSSA owners who have bought
their guns with the full approval of the law and currently own, use
and store them in full compliance with the law.
I do not support any move that would see them forced to surrender
their rifles or become criminals since there is absolutely no proof
(by way of deaths associated with MSSA ownership or use) that they
pose any measurable level of risk to the public.
>But I am stopping well short of
>saying a law should be passed banning them. They are already in
>civilian hands and passing a law won't get rid of them.
But the problem is that our legislators and (seemingly) the police
aren't smart enough to see this. It would appear that they honestly
believe that those criminals who currently posess illegal firearms are
suddenly going to get an attack of consience and register them with
the police just because the laws are going to be changed - how smart
is that?
>You started off this thread by more or less saying the police, at
>least in Whangarei, either do not know those laws or deliberately took
>no notice of them by saying someone had a military style firearm which
>needed a special endorsement on a licence. You then accused the
>anti-gun lobby as being behind the mis-information.
Who else had the motive and opportunity?
>But whether a MSSA was found at Whangerei or not seems to be minor
>compared to the WHOLE situation there. As far as can see the police
>were enforcing the firearm laws and other laws. That is what they are
>paid to do and what I, at least, want them to do. The fact that a
>pipebomb was found as well as six firearms etc. seems to makes it
>slightly out of the ordinary and so perhaps it warranted a TV news
>item.
It *IS* important that the media and the police present the *facts*
accurately and without bias or prejudice being applied by any
individual or group. If either is to become the puppet of "special
interest groups" then we can no longer trust them to be honest and
that's a far bigger danger than guns in private hands.
>Next you said that because of what happened in Whangarei you were
>"worried" that the police would arrrive at your house, declare your
>office a bunker, and your firearms a cache of arms.
Not necessarily me - but I do know a number of gun owners who have
very secure storage facilities for their guns that could easily be
described as a "bunker". On the one hand we have the police saying
"you must store your guns safely and securely" and then calling what
was clearly a very safe storage room a "bunker". They can't have it
both ways can they?
>But unless your office is a concrete and steel safe or specially built
>out of concrete blocks and is in the basement, as in Whangarei, it
>seems unlikely it would be declared a bunker using the incident at
>Whangarei a precedent. As far as I know having a bunker is legal. it
>is what is in the bunker or what it is used for that matters!
Lots of people keep their guns locked inside a room in a
concrete-block basement - they are also "bunkers?" And.. if they
are, is that not a GOOD thing rather than something for the media to
spin into a "survivalist - militia" type slant.
>Have you got a pipebomb, capsicum spray, knives, several firearms
>whether military style or not, and ammunition and do NOT have a
>firearm licence?
I do have a firearms license - I have numerous aerosol cans that
*could* be used as weapons (or I could fill a water-pistol with
amonia) and I'm sure that if I looked around I could find the parts to
build a pipe bomb - but I'm too busy and have better things to do with
my time ;-) I admit though that in my youth (long gone) I did make
such things as pipe bombs, explosives etc. Does that make me a
criminal?
>But perhaps you are worried about the police "inventing a few facts"
>which you claim happened in Whangarei. But I have already told you
>the man pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a MILITARY style
>rifle.
You'll have to be very careful about the words used in the charge
sheet. Was it a "military styled" rifle or an MSSA they were talking
about. Even the trusty old Le Enfield .303 could be called a
"military style" rifle - as it was issued to most kiwi footsoldiers
during WW2.
>Of course if is very possible either the man himself and his
>lawyer(s) don't know what makes a rifle military style. Or they did
>but didn't "bother" to do anything about it for other reasons. (Such
>as if wouldn't make any difference to the possible sentence etc.)
>
>(Also it is very possible that the reporter from the North Advocate
>got the info that MSSA's were found from the same person who appeared
>on the TV item. Also the same person decided what the charges were.)
Perhaps we'd need to know if the charges actually included "illegal
possession of an E-category MSSA rifle" or just "illegal posession of
a military styled rifle.
The TV segment definitely stated that the rifle was an MSSA and which
required a special license, I suspect the charges he faced may have
been different.
>Under the thread "The thin edge of another wedge.." several weeks ago
>you were "complaining" that the police haven't come to your place to
>check that you have your firearms stored according to the law.
I still think it's pretty slack that they haven't. Let's face it - if
I stored my guns loaded and leaning up against the laundry door then
you can bet that if someone stole one and went on a rampage, the
anti-gun lobby, police and media would say "the laws are inadequate" -
yet if the existing laws had been enforced and those guns were safely
stored, locked in a cabinet or gun rack - the offender could not have
simply wandered off with them and nobody would have ever been hurt.
It's not the fault of the laws - its the fault of a lack of
enforcement.
Homosexuality was illegal not so long ago in NZ - did that mean it
didn't exist or no acts of same-sex intimacy ever took place?
>(But as with most laws the police only act when they find out/see they
>have been broken.)
And that's the problem - by the time they discover that laws relating
to the safe storage of firearms have been broken it's likely to be way
too late.
We have the same problem with our health system - the focus is always
on sorting out the mess at the end rather than preventing the event
that creates the mess. How stupid is that?
>But from what you have told us it seems the police have no interest in
>you at all!
It's true... I'm just a boring old fart! :-)
Bruce Simpson
Clemance) wrote:
>ge...@ihug.co.nz.DELETE-THIS-PART(G Merryweather) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Oct 1998 03:52:40 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>>Clemance) wrote:
>
>>>So are you telling me that the two Norinco 7.62mm's were MSSA's?
>
>> Given the description, no, as they had been converted so that all the
>>nasty evil baby kiling features :-) had been removed, such as the
>>bayonet lug, etc
>>Geoff
>
>The description by Bruce Simpson, which I suppose is the one you are
>referring to, described what the firearm did NOT have and not what it
>did. It was described as having NONE of the features which make a
>firearm a MSSA. That is why Bruce Simpson said it wasn't one.
>
>But what, if anything, was there about the description that makes you
>think it was a Norinco 7.62 mm firearm he was describing?
Because the sporterised SKS rifle shown was of 7.62mm calibre and
manufactured by Norinco. There are two primary manufacturers of the
SKS, Russia and China. The two versions are quite different in
several areas such as the type of wood used for the stock and the lack
of hard-chrome-plating in the Russian units.
>What colour is this firearm by the way - black or brown?
It was blued steel (receiver, barrel, gas-tube) with a hard-chrome
bolt carrier and the typical light-brown Chinese stock-wood.
>(I should let the baby killing comment pass but I can't resist! I
>think you know perfectly well that a firearm without bayonet lugs is
>perfectly capable of killing/injuring a baby or anything else, so why
>"pretend" otherwise.)
"Evil Baby-killing Assault Rifle" is a cliche amongst those who know
about MSSAs.
Richard Clemance
>In article <6vegdh$aa2$1...@supernews.com>, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz says...
>>Either "we" want civilians to have military style firearms which have
>>features in their design for military use, or we do not. <snip>
>>"Good" people are just as CAPABLE of doing "bad" things
><snip>
>>I think the very fact that the firearm is military in style and has
>>specific human killing features as part of its design MAY make a few
>>people try them out on humans!
>Richard - this sounds very like the old radical feminist line of *Castrate all
>men so that they cannot rape*. If they have testicles and a penis, they MAY be
>tempted to use them improperly!
And you complained when I talked about firearms being phallic symbols
under the heading "Thin edge of another wedge..."!!!!!
>I think it is an error to base your concepts of firearms on the *potential* use
>of those firearms, in the same way that I think the feminists were in error
>basing their views of men on those men being potential rapists.
Firearms all have the potential to be used improperly. That is why we
have control of firearms. Since I think you are in favour of firearm
control could you explain why?
Richard Clemance
Paul Wilkins
> Also I have not been talking about alcohol or tobacco so I would be
> interested to know how you know what I think of them in society and
> what I think would be for the greater "good".
You've got me there. I was unfairly laying some pre-assumptions about you into
my post.
But now that you come to mention it, what _are_ your thoughts about alcohol
and tobacco as compared to the danger of guns?
Paul Wilkins (Disk Daemon)
Roberta G
>
>gled...@no-spam.ihug.co.nz (Roberta G) wrote:
>
>>In article <6vegdh$aa2$1...@supernews.com>, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz says...
>
>>>I think the very fact that the firearm is military in style and has
>>>specific human killing features as part of its design MAY make a few
>>>people try them out on humans!
>
>
all
>>men so that they cannot rape*. If they have testicles and a penis, they MAY
be
>>tempted to use them improperly!
>And you complained when I talked about firearms being phallic symbols
>under the heading "Thin edge of another wedge..."!!!!!
I am interested in why you think firearms are phallic symbols...
The issues of tarring all members of a group with the acts of a few, and,
taking extreme action that will not cure the problem, remain.
>>I think it is an error to base your concepts of firearms on the *potential*
use
>>of those firearms, in the same way that I think the feminists were in error
>>basing their views of men on those men being potential rapists.
>Firearms all have the potential to be used improperly.
Yes - just like all men have the **potential** to rape...
>Since I think you are in favour of firearm
>control could you explain why?
I would be keen to see that people who have access to firearms, are *fit and
proper* persons to have that access.
Note, however, that it is the *person* that should be checked, as the current
legislation provides.
I differ from the current legislation slightly, as I believe that if a person
is fit and proper to own *a* firearm - that is, they fully understand the
safety, handling and storage requirements - then they should be equally safe to
have *any* firearm or any number of firearms.
The problem, as always, is that those who are not fit and proper and should not
have access, neverthless *can* have access - illegally. No law will or can ever
prevent that.
Roberta
Roberta G
<3417333E9D6DF713.2866A736...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Check.my.si...@l.address says...
>>>But I am interested to know why someone who should know guns should
>>>describe a firearm as a MSSA if clearly it was not. Just as I would
>>>be it a vet called a cow a deer!
>>Are you saying that you expect the Police to be able to recognise each and
>>every type of firearm that they might come across? That would take years of
>>study, and is quite unrealistic for the few weeks that recruits train...
>
>Um... it only requires the identification any one of five key points
>to identify and classify a gun as an MSSA. I don't think that's
>beyond the abilities of even the most dullard police officer.
I think I know what you are saying, but I think we ask a lot of our police
sometimes - they are supposed to *know* all the laws, all makes of
car/truck/van/4WD/motorcycle, all types of drugs, all types of firearms, etc,
etc, etc - and how long do we let them train before we put them onto the
streets??
Will be interesting to see how they get on with verification issues should
registration go ahead! ;-)
>One
>might also expect that if they're going to have someone talking to the
>cameras about a firearms-related incident, they're going to choose an
>officer who understands just a little about them.
*That* would be nice! Just for once! But I fear that the only officers that
know much about firearms would not be *allowed* to talk to the media just in
case the officer accidently said something neutral or positive about firearms.
I have seen a number of officers being interviewed, holding a firearm and
failing to identify it correctly. On one occasion, I seem to recall, mistaking
a shotgun for a rifle. oops!
Roberta
Richard Clemance
>But - under the current firearms laws - I don't have an MSSA - I have
>a sporterised A category SKS semi-automatic 7.62mm rifle with
>seven-shot magazine.
Sorry. I remembered after I posted the message that you didn't have a
MSSA. Sometimes you write as if you do!
>Of course I do support the rights of those MSSA owners who have bought
>their guns with the full approval of the law and currently own, use
>and store them in full compliance with the law.
No-one has the "right" to break any law. So if any law is changed
then the "rights" of the individual change. Changes can be in any
direction - more "liberal", more "conservative" etc. Very few
'rights" are constant e.g. the right to life (but even that can be
"taken away" or altered depending on cirumstances)
>I do not support any move that would see them forced to surrender
>their rifles or become criminals since there is absolutely no proof
>(by way of deaths associated with MSSA ownership or use) that they
>pose any measurable level of risk to the public.
There are many more ways something can be a "risk" and "bad" without
causing deaths. Death is only the ultimate "risk".
Sometimes the fact that someone has something or knows something can
be "risky" in itself and can cause problems in itself without anything
else having to occur.
But just about everything has its "good" side and its "bad" side.
>>But I am stopping well short of
>>saying a law should be passed banning them. They are already in
>>civilian hands and passing a law won't get rid of them.
>But the problem is that our legislators and (seemingly) the police
>aren't smart enough to see this. It would appear that they honestly
>believe that those criminals who currently posess illegal firearms are
>suddenly going to get an attack of consience and register them with
>the police just because the laws are going to be changed - how smart
>is that?
The police (and through them the legislators) aren't as naive as that!
What do you mean by illegal firearms? A firearm which no civilian is
ever entitled to own?
It is possible that some people (which is what ALL criminals are) who
posses firearms illegally will register them IF there is an amnesty
system. Anyone who comes forward and who ALREADY has a (non-MSSA)
firearm (and not a licence) can be "given" a licence. Either those
people have been using/storing firearms safely/illegally or they have
not. If they have not, at least as far as robberies using firearms,
injury and death etc. go, then they would already have likely been of
interest to the police.
So we would be creating less "criminals" and the police would have
more information. The REALITY (as far as the number of firearms in
society etc.) would not alter.
Given the lack of serial numbers/registration will the police be able
to tell whether the firearms are possessed illegally or not? In cases
where the person hasn't a licence then as you have said any firearms
in their possession would be possessed illegally. But there must be
some licenced firearm owners who have firearms illegally
(through theft etc.) and would welcome the chance to get legal
ownership of them by registration!
>>You started off this thread by more or less saying the police, at
>>least in Whangarei, either do not know those laws or deliberately took
>>no notice of them by saying someone had a military style firearm which
>>needed a special endorsement on a licence. You then accused the
>>anti-gun lobby as being behind the mis-information.
>Who else had the motive and opportunity?
You talk as if a crime has been committed. But there is no proof of
that, and it seems to been a mistake at most. From what Roberta G
wrote it is common for police to mistake one firearm for another.
>>But whether a MSSA was found at Whangerei or not seems to be minor
>>compared to the WHOLE situation there. As far as can see the police
>>were enforcing the firearm laws and other laws. That is what they are
>>paid to do and what I, at least, want them to do. The fact that a
>>pipebomb was found as well as six firearms etc. seems to makes it
>>slightly out of the ordinary and so perhaps it warranted a TV news
>>item.
>It *IS* important that the media and the police present the *facts*
>accurately and without bias or prejudice being applied by any
>individual or group. If either is to become the puppet of "special
>interest groups" then we can no longer trust them to be honest and
>that's a far bigger danger than guns in private hands.
It is obvious at least which would be the bigger physical danger!
Also I want SOME of the media SOME of the time to be biased and
prejudical and present the side of special interest groups! There is
no problem IF it is CLEARLY an opinion and isn't presented as fact.
To expect the NZ Sport Shooting Association to carry the so-called
anti-gun view-point would be expecting too much! Also there is an
interesting cartoon to do with self-defence on their site which is
open to many "negative" interpretations.
>>Next you said that because of what happened in Whangarei you were
>>"worried" that the police would arrrive at your house, declare your
>>office a bunker, and your firearms a cache of arms.
>Not necessarily me - but I do know a number of gun owners who have
>very secure storage facilities for their guns that could easily be
>described as a "bunker". On the one hand we have the police saying
>"you must store your guns safely and securely" and then calling what
>was clearly a very safe storage room a "bunker". They can't have it
>both ways can they?
But who has said there is something wrong with having a bunker! It is
a neutral term. Either something is a bunker (a fortified underground
structure) or it is not. The man wasn't charged with having a bunker
but for what was found in the bunker. Just as he wasn't charged with
having a car but for what was found in the car.
> I admit though that in my youth (long gone) I did make
>such things as pipe bombs, explosives etc. Does that make me a
>criminal?
A criminal is a PERSON who commits a crime. If you have committed a
crime then, yes, you are a criminal!
>>But perhaps you are worried about the police "inventing a few facts"
>>which you claim happened in Whangarei. But I have already told you
>>the man pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a MILITARY style
>>rifle.
>You'll have to be very careful about the words used in the charge
>sheet. Was it a "military styled" rifle or an MSSA they were talking
>about. Even the trusty old Le Enfield .303 could be called a
>"military style" rifle - as it was issued to most kiwi footsoldiers
>during WW2.
I checked in the Northern Advocate at the library again the words used
at least in the newspaper were " semi-automatic military style rifle".
I looked at the photo of the six firearms again and only two seem the
same so they would probably be the two Norinco 7.62mm's. One looks
like a shotgun. What colour would the Sterling .22 rifle likely be?
At the back there is a completely black firearm (with perhaps a little
yellow) which looks the most military at least to my completely
ignorant eyes! Unfortunately the butt isn't visible or really the
grip but it seems to have a large magazine type "thing", at least
compared to the other firearms - all of which have "ordinary" triggers
etc.
None of the other firearms seem to have what I would call a pistol
grip or telescopic butt. Flash suppressors and bayonet lugs are quite
small aren't they so not easily spotted.
>Perhaps we'd need to know if the charges actually included "illegal
>possession of an E-category MSSA rifle" or just "illegal posession of
>a military styled rifle.
as I said above "semi-automatic military style".
>The TV segment definitely stated that the rifle was an MSSA and which
>required a special license, I suspect the charges he faced may have
>been different.
Could you tell us more about what was shown/said in that TV item?
Apart from the pipebomb and the capsicum spray as far as I know the
other weapons (or arms if you insist although my dictionary defines
arms as weapons) he was found with would've been legal IF he had a
licence.
I still don't really see why you are complaining. It IS the law that
you need an E-endorsement to have a MSSA so that information is
correct. The only mistake you have said occured is that a firearm was
stated to be a MSSA when it wasn't. Unless you are worried that
people who saw that item would remember what the firearm looked like,
see someone without an E-dorsement on their licence with such a
firearm and so make a complaint to the police that they didn't have
the right licence!
I have already asked how is that helping the so-called anti-gun lobby?
And I think only G Merryweather has replied saying that it is showing
that criminals have MSSA's so it is laying support for calling them to
be banned!
Why would those people, who know little about firearms, and watched
the TV item think it was showing anything more than the firearm laws
being enforced perfectly well. It IS against the law to have firearms
without a licence. Seeing laws enforced, especially without violence,
is likely to make them feel more secure and not less, and so less
likely to call for law changes.
>I still think it's pretty slack that they haven't. Let's face it - if
>I stored my guns loaded and leaning up against the laundry door then
>you can bet that if someone stole one and went on a rampage, the
>anti-gun lobby, police and media would say "the laws are inadequate" -
>yet if the existing laws had been enforced and those guns were safely
>stored, locked in a cabinet or gun rack - the offender could not have
>simply wandered off with them and nobody would have ever been hurt.
>It's not the fault of the laws - its the fault of a lack of
>enforcement.
You are SELF-enforcing those laws which is much better for society
than anyone else enforcing them, because YOU see the merit in them.
Unless you want NZ to become more of a police-state with people being
too frightened to not "obey" the smallest law, it will always be that
way.
Generally no-one says a law is inadequate because it is broken but
only that the law wasn't followed.
>Homosexuality was illegal not so long ago in NZ - did that mean it
>didn't exist or no acts of same-sex intimacy ever took place?
Luckily that law wasn't really enforced or self-enforced! At least
unless (other) illegal activity came into it.
Richard Clemance
Richard Clemance
> They cannot be imported now. The police commissioner (unilaterallY)
>banned their importation around 4-5 years ago. So what you are wishing
>for has already been in place for some time.
So are you saying that MSSA's cannot be bought new from firearm
dealers?
> Prices rose briefly, before settling back slightly. Prices are
>currently low (in the words of one dealer - you can't give them away)
>thanks to the Thorpe report and uncertainty as to whether they would
>be banned.
Since no firearm owner really "needs" a MSSA and can buy other
firearms for their purposes, good news! Unless, of course, you happen
to be a dealer with unsaleable stock on your hands.
When you say low what price range do you mean?
>Pistols were banned in the UK around 2 years ago (firearms
>crime has risen to record heights since...) and the shooters are still
>waiting for payments. Ironically, many UK shooters go to France or
>Jersey to shoot - the French government trusts them more than their
>own...
Firearms crime involving pistols or all firearm crime? It would be
interesting to see the precise figures and details about the type of
firearm offenses.
If this increase is only crimes MAINLY to do with the new laws banning
pistols then it is obviously to be expected. Since it is now illegal
to do something which was once legal then there are simply more crimes
capable of being committed! It is evidence confirming that by making
something illegal which was once legal you create more "criminals' and
not less. I agree with that. It is obvious isn't it?
In the opposite way if we passed laws making it legal to own a firearm
without a licence (unless, say, you wanted a MSSA) then ALL those
cases which didn't involve a MSSA (unless the police make a mistake
in identifying the firearm!!!!) wouldn't go to court so the firearm
crime rate would SEEM to drop. But the "reality" (i.e. those people
without firearm licences) would be more or less the same, at least to
start with.
There might not be a direct link between the banning and the increase.
A war could've started in the UK! ( I know it hasn't)
Naturally people will go to another country to do something they
cannot do in their own, whether because of the laws or other reasons.
e.g. people from the UK go to France/Switzerland etc.for ski-ing.
Since by definition it can only be firearm owners who are committing
more firearm crimes SHOULD they be trusted? If someone doesn't have a
firearm it would be impossible for them to commit a firearm crime!
> The government phased out the bounty on rabbits and possums as a
>cost saving measure. Similarly, rabbit boards are a piece of NZ
>history. Instead, DOC carpet bombs the forests with 1080 poison - very
>eco friendly!
Some farmers said that rabbits could not be controlled with firearms.
So RCV was needed.
I am sure I don't have to tell you that rabbits and possums are quite
different! It seems, apart from the spread of TB, possums have little
effect on the farming industry (except for some orchards ) and are
mainly found in the publicly-owned bush (where few rabbits are found).
So it could be said that the control of possums should be basically a
"public" expense and the control of rabbits a 'private" business
expense.
It was a pity that the fur industry collapsed because of the collapse
of the fur coat market etc.
> NZ sport shooters account for the majority of rabbits killed (by
>people) in NZ. For example, a couple of years ago, the annual "easter
>bunny shoot" near Taupo bagged 12,000 rabbits and some possums. Not
>bad for 3 days work, and all at ZERO cost to the taxpayer.
But the taxpayer should not have to finance all private sporting
activities! Also "cost" should be and is measured in more ways than
simply in financial terms. There could be other "costs".
What is and isn't a sport is another subject, but I don't think
culling animals and pest control can be called a sport but a
necessity, done for "good" reason.
But I suppose it is good, if possible, to combine the two. But I
doubt whether having a rabbit shoot at EASTER is good PR.
The Christians are mourning and celebrating a death/rebirth (and the
non-Christian the Easter bunny etc). The death part in the "bunny
shoot" is obvious but where is the rebirth? Is it only the grass on
the land which is "reborn"?
What is done with the dead rabbits? If they are turned into
fertilizer or used in a "good" way it doesn't seem to be "getting
through" to the public.
Basically I believe all animals have the right to life. Unless there
are "good" reasons for any animal, or type of animal, to be killed
then they should be "allowed" to live. It is arrogance for humans to
think any differently.
> On a more modern note, Switzerland has the largest per capita number
>of firearms in civilian hands in the world. Everyone under 45 is in
>the military reserve and has a SIG assault rifle and ammunition at
>home. They are encouraged to train with them, and ranges are
>relatively common.
Yes, TRAIN, with them. Train to use them if necessary for military
purposes i.e. killing humans. It would be interesting to know what
they are allowed to use them for e.g. are they allowed to use them for
hunting etc.?
You have said that in Switzerland everyone under 45 are in the
military reserve, but that isn't the case in New Zealand. Also I
suppose once they reach the age of 45 "their" firearms are taken away
from them without the "outcry" of loss of "rights" which would likely
occur in New Zealand from some people!
(In New Zealand I presume there are strict rules in the military
concerning firearms e.g. I suppose they are usually not allowed to
have a firearm in the sleeping/living quarters. But couldn't it
happen that civilians are allowed to have the same type of firearm in
their living quarters (dwelling houses)! So military control of
firearms is stricter than civilian)
> The "transitional" guns (H&K G3, Colt AR15, Armalite AR10, FN FAL)
>are expensive and always have been so. The current price is around
>$2500-3000 each in good condition, and has been for as long as I can
>remember.
Would most of these firearms be used, or would they be mainly
collector's items and not used? But I suppose most firearm are
designed to be knocked around quite a bit without damage.
> Traditional guns are more expensive to make than MSSA's (usually),
>which are designed with low cost production in mind, based on metal
>stampings, plastic furniture and with fit and finish a low priority.
>An example is when the Chinese flooded the market with cheap SKS and
>AK clones, which both increased the numbers and brought the price to
>within reach of more shooters. The Chinese used their existing tooling
>and large production volumes (for the Chinese Police and army) to
>churn out cheap guns for (mainly) the US market
> Arguably, if the Chinese hadn't done so, then we would not be having
>this discussion, as the guns in question would still be very rare. An
>additional factor was the NZ government, who sold off many of the
>surplus Vietnam era L1A1 SLR rifles when they changed over to the new
>Styr. Although they were generlly well worn, they went for around $400
>at the time (~1988).
>Geoff
Thanks for the information.
When you said that the guns in question would still be very rare I
suppose you meant in civilian hands, as I suppose there were/are
thousands/millions in military hands. I think that, at least in NZ,
in civilian hands, the rarer any military weapons are the better.
Richard Clemance
Bruce Simpson
Clemance) wrote:
>Also I want SOME of the media SOME of the time to be biased and
>prejudical and present the side of special interest groups! There is
>no problem IF it is CLEARLY an opinion and isn't presented as fact.
Perhaps this is true - so long as (and even the Broadcasting Standards
Authority demands this) the overall result is balanced.
There was nothing on the news item concerned that would lead any
viewer to believe that what was being said wasn't the absolute truth.
>>Not necessarily me - but I do know a number of gun owners who have
>>very secure storage facilities for their guns that could easily be
>>described as a "bunker". On the one hand we have the police saying
>>"you must store your guns safely and securely" and then calling what
>>was clearly a very safe storage room a "bunker". They can't have it
>>both ways can they?
>
>But who has said there is something wrong with having a bunker! It is
>a neutral term. Either something is a bunker (a fortified underground
>structure) or it is not. The man wasn't charged with having a bunker
>but for what was found in the bunker. Just as he wasn't charged with
>having a car but for what was found in the car.
I don't think bunker was an apt term to use - it was clearly designed
to elicit fear and emotion in the viewer. I looked up the noun
"bunker" on the WWWebster dictionary site
(http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) and here's what it said:
"a protective embankment or dugout; especially : a fortified chamber
mostly below ground often built of reinforced concrete and provided
with embrasures"
Just in case you don't know what an "embrasure" is:
"an opening with sides flaring outward in a wall or parapet of a
fortification usually for allowing the firing of cannon"
Now unless this guy's concrete storage room was built primarily as a
defense rather than a storage room, and unless it had holes through
which he could fire his guns then I think the use of the word bunker
was impropper and a clear indicator of bias and a lack of objectivity
on the part of the police or the broadcaster. This adds further
weight to my assertion that they also misinformed the audience with
regards to the classification of the rifles shown.
>> I admit though that in my youth (long gone) I did make
>>such things as pipe bombs, explosives etc. Does that make me a
>>criminal?
>
>A criminal is a PERSON who commits a crime. If you have committed a
>crime then, yes, you are a criminal!
As are 99 percent of NZers who have ever exceeded the speed limit,
watched TV without paying their broadcasting fee, driven an
unregistered or unwarranted vehicle (for even just a second), etc,
etc.
>>You'll have to be very careful about the words used in the charge
>>sheet. Was it a "military styled" rifle or an MSSA they were talking
>>about. Even the trusty old Le Enfield .303 could be called a
>>"military style" rifle - as it was issued to most kiwi footsoldiers
>>during WW2.
>
>I checked in the Northern Advocate at the library again the words used
>at least in the newspaper were " semi-automatic military style rifle".
Did they say it was "an E-category" rifle?
>I looked at the photo of the six firearms again and only two seem the
>same so they would probably be the two Norinco 7.62mm's. One looks
>like a shotgun. What colour would the Sterling .22 rifle likely be?
Dark stained wood stock, black/blued metalwork - or it could have had
a synthetic stock which would be black.
>
>>The TV segment definitely stated that the rifle was an MSSA and which
>>required a special license, I suspect the charges he faced may have
>>been different.
>Could you tell us more about what was shown/said in that TV item?
>
>Apart from the pipebomb and the capsicum spray as far as I know the
>other weapons (or arms if you insist although my dictionary defines
>arms as weapons) he was found with would've been legal IF he had a
>licence.
If that's the case then the TV programme, and the person (allegedly a
police officer) were telling lies when they said the gun was an MSSA.
>I still don't really see why you are complaining. It IS the law that
>you need an E-endorsement to have a MSSA so that information is
>correct.
No, from memory, they claimed the gun that was shown (a sporterised
SKS) was an E category MSSA - the very kind that the anti-gun lobby
are trying to use to justify their thin-end-of-the-wedge changes to
firearms laws.
>>I still think it's pretty slack that they haven't. Let's face it - if
>>I stored my guns loaded and leaning up against the laundry door then
>>you can bet that if someone stole one and went on a rampage, the
>>anti-gun lobby, police and media would say "the laws are inadequate" -
>>yet if the existing laws had been enforced and those guns were safely
>>stored, locked in a cabinet or gun rack - the offender could not have
>>simply wandered off with them and nobody would have ever been hurt.
>>It's not the fault of the laws - its the fault of a lack of
>>enforcement.
>
>You are SELF-enforcing those laws which is much better for society
>than anyone else enforcing them, because YOU see the merit in them.
>Unless you want NZ to become more of a police-state with people being
>too frightened to not "obey" the smallest law, it will always be that
>way.
But if the police are happy to trust me to follow the existing
firearms laws without policing NOW - why are they bothering to change
those laws when, it is very clear that by following the existing laws,
I pose no danger to any member of the public.
If they don't trust me to act responsibly with my guns then why aren't
they checking to make sure I'm not breaking the law?
Keith Davidson
>
> Since no firearm owner really "needs" a MSSA and can buy other
> firearms for their purposes, good news! Unless, of course, you happen
> to be a dealer with unsaleable stock on your hands.
Since no-one "needs" a car that will exceed 100kmh perhaps all cars
capable of exceeding 100kmh should be banned. That would save tens, if
not hundreds more lives than "controlling" MSSA firearms in NZ. No-one
"needs" alcohol in NZ. Banning alcohol would save hundreds more lives
than controlling or banning MSSA firearms.
> Since by definition it can only be firearm owners who are committing
> more firearm crimes SHOULD they be trusted? If someone doesn't have a
> firearm it would be impossible for them to commit a firearm crime!
You miss several important points here. Firstly very few of all firearms
crimes are committed by licensed firearms owners. Secondly, the
percentage of firearms violence to total violent crimes is miniscule.
Thirdly, there are significant numbers of illegal firearms in NZ
already, and if all firearms were made illegal, many many more firearms
would be imported illegally, allowing criminals a constant and assured
access to their needs, but depriving the hundreds of thousands of
legitimate firearms owners their right.
> Some farmers said that rabbits could not be controlled with firearms.
> So RCV was needed.
Since RCV has done its rounds, and lots of rabbits have dies, there is
now a generation of RCV resistant rabbits bounding around those same
farms. What do you propose to do with them ?
> I am sure I don't have to tell you that rabbits and possums are quite
> different! It seems, apart from the spread of TB, possums have little
> effect on the farming industry (except for some orchards ) and are
> mainly found in the publicly-owned bush (where few rabbits are found).
> So it could be said that the control of possums should be basically a
> "public" expense and the control of rabbits a 'private" business
> expense.
What utter bollocks. Possums have major impact on forestry blocks, open
farmlands, horticulture, vineyards, orchards, floriculture and domestic
gardens. There are an estimated 75 million shitbag possums in NZ, and
while not common on Auckland motorways, it is not that rare you see one
squashed there. Possums are everywhere you look. They do not have any
respect of your concept of boundaries between bush, open farmland or
suburban sections, or whether the land is private or public.
> But the taxpayer should not have to finance all private sporting
> activities! Also "cost" should be and is measured in more ways than
> simply in financial terms. There could be other "costs".
The cost of damage by possums is a cost to all NZ'ers. It is a cost to
our total environment, and a threat to our total economy (via the spread
of TB and its threat to our major income source in the primary sector).
If some folk choose to hunt the blighters for sport, then the least the
rest of NZ could do is pay for the bullets, as these guys are doing us
all a favour. The only good possum is a dead one, and if 75 million of
them could be killed (or rounded up and sent back to Australia) then
whatever the cost to NZ, I reckon its money well spent.
Dont kid yourself either, that a few farmers incomes are all that might
be affected by a major TB outbreak. If this were to occur, the great
30's depression would be a mere blip on the scale compared to the
economic disaster that would be caused by our inablility to export dairy
, beef and venison products.
> Basically I believe all animals have the right to life.
So if an introduced possum kills a native NZ bird, then that is OK by
you, but if a man kills a possum thats not ok ??
Any introduced wild animals, including possums, rabbits, hares, goats,
pigs, deer, wallaby, stoats, ferrets, weasels, cats, dogs, horses,
chamois, thar, cattle or sheep (not to mention introduced bird species)
have no rights and are available to be shot, and should be shot,
particularly when their numbers threaten the environment of NZ's native
species, or the value of our export primary producing market.
> Unless there
> are "good" reasons for any animal, or type of animal, to be killed
> then they should be "allowed" to live. It is arrogance for humans to
> think any differently.
What a bizarre concept. All those packets of meat in the supermarket
came from animals, which are killed and neatly packed for our pleasure.
What is the difference between shooting an animal yourself (or catching
a fish) and eating it ? Since rabbits have been riddled with peculiar
viruses, who is going to want to eat one now ? You believe these little
scumbuckets deserve a right to live ?
> > On a more modern note, Switzerland has the largest per capita number
> >of firearms in civilian hands in the world. Everyone under 45 is in
> >the military reserve and has a SIG assault rifle and ammunition at
> >home. They are encouraged to train with them, and ranges are
> >relatively common.
>
> Yes, TRAIN, with them. Train to use them if necessary for military
> purposes i.e. killing humans. It would be interesting to know what
> they are allowed to use them for e.g. are they allowed to use them for
> hunting etc.?
Yes they are able to hunt with them, although its very difficult to find
places to hunt in Switzerland, let alone animals to shoot. Switzerland
has an extraordinarily high ownership of firearms in private hands.
> You have said that in Switzerland everyone under 45 are in the
> military reserve, but that isn't the case in New Zealand. Also I
> suppose once they reach the age of 45 "their" firearms are taken away
> from them without the "outcry" of loss of "rights" which would likely
> occur in New Zealand from some people!
No, they get to keep their firearms, until they want to sell them.
> (In New Zealand I presume there are strict rules in the military
> concerning firearms e.g. I suppose they are usually not allowed to
> have a firearm in the sleeping/living quarters. But couldn't it
> happen that civilians are allowed to have the same type of firearm in
> their living quarters (dwelling houses)!
You dont understand the laws relating to the safe and proper storage of
firearms, particularly MSSA firearms in NZ.
> I think that, at least in NZ,
> in civilian hands, the rarer any military weapons are the better.
Why better ? The threat posed by those weapons to you are so minimal as
to be laughable, compared to all the other very real threats you face
every day.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
> Note, however, that it is the *person* that should be checked, as the current
> legislation provides.
>
> I differ from the current legislation slightly, as I believe that if a person
> is fit and proper to own *a* firearm - that is, they fully understand the
> safety, handling and storage requirements - then they should be equally safe to
> have *any* firearm or any number of firearms.
>
> The problem, as always, is that those who are not fit and proper and should not
> have access, neverthless *can* have access - illegally. No law will or can ever
> prevent that.
As usual Roberta, your logic is compelling. While the Thorpe report and
the Alpers anti-gun mob slowly pervade the normally highly rational and
logical thoughts of our politicians (lol) and further changes are made
to the Arms Act, the outcome will be:
1. Legitimate firearms owners will suffer considerably more hassles to
continue to own firearms.
2. Legitimate firearms owners will pay considerably more money to
continue to have a right of ownership.
3. Criminals who want to commit crimes utilising firearms will still
have access to firearms and still commit crimes.
Keith Davidson
Richard Clemance
>As usual Roberta, your logic is compelling. While the Thorpe report and
>the Alpers anti-gun mob slowly pervade the normally highly rational and
>logical thoughts of our politicians (lol) and further changes are made
>to the Arms Act, the outcome will be:
Could you please say where my thoughts are not logical?
>2. Legitimate firearms owners will pay considerably more money to
>continue to have a right of ownership.
If you need a firearm for your job etc. then I agree that exemptions/
a cheaper licence rate could be looked at for people like you, but for
the majority of people it is a choice.
When doing/being something is a choice and not a necessity then can it
be called a right?
Richard Clemance
>Keith Davidson
Richard Clemance
>Since no-one "needs" a car that will exceed 100kmh perhaps all cars
>capable of exceeding 100kmh should be banned. That would save tens, if
>not hundreds more lives than "controlling" MSSA firearms in NZ. No-one
>"needs" alcohol in NZ. Banning alcohol would save hundreds more lives
>than controlling or banning MSSA firearms.
Since I have never mentioned the words banned and deaths in relation
to firearms most of what you say is irrelevant.
But I believe that firearm (and MSSA) laws (and controls on many other
things) in New Zealand DO make a difference and I want to see some
firearm control continue.
I would be interested to know why you seem to think that there should
be no controls on who can own a MSSA?
Are you in favour of banning cars which can exceed the speed limit(s),
banning alcohol and banning MSSA firearms? I am not in favour of any
of those things.
>> Since by definition it can only be firearm owners who are committing
>> more firearm crimes SHOULD they be trusted? If someone doesn't have a
>> firearm it would be impossible for them to commit a firearm crime!
>You miss several important points here. Firstly very few of all firearms
>crimes are committed by licensed firearms owners.
Of course since the crime of possessing a firearm without a licence
CANNOT be comitted by a firearm licence holder that could be the
reason why. Have you got the figures to back up your claims? I don't
know the figures but it would be interesting to know them when the
(basically technical) crime of possessing a firearm without a licence
is NOT included.
That is what this debate is more or less about. The man in Whangarei
would have faced very much less charges and it seem no FIREARMS
charges AT ALL (apart from unlawfully possessing firearms in a public
place) if he had a licence!
I am not really worried whether someone has a firearm licence or not.
The main concern is what CAN be and IS done with the firearm. A
licence or lack of it makes little difference. What difference would
it make to a person threatened by a firearm? Or to the firearm itself
and what it is capable of? (apart from having some features removed so
it isn't a MSSA)
>Secondly, the
>percentage of firearms violence to total violent crimes is miniscule.
Why is that?
>Thirdly, there are significant numbers of illegal firearms in NZ
>already, and if all firearms were made illegal, many many more firearms
>would be imported illegally, allowing criminals a constant and assured
>access to their needs, but depriving the hundreds of thousands of
>legitimate firearms owners their right.
Most of that is irrelevant to what I have been saying. What types of
firearms are all these illegal firearms and how do you know the
numbers? Why would MORE firearms be imported IF they were made
illegal (which I say again I am NOT in favour of) if there are already
large numbers legal or otherwise here?
From what I have been told it is illegal to import MSSA's now. Why
are there not large numbers being imported now? I have been told that
there is little market for them.
>> Some farmers said that rabbits could not be controlled with firearms.
>> So RCV was needed.
>Since RCV has done its rounds, and lots of rabbits have dies, there is
>now a generation of RCV resistant rabbits bounding around those same
>farms. What do you propose to do with them ?
Since I was not in favour of the introduction of RCV why blame me! It
was obvious that RCV would be, at best, a short term solution.
>>> I am sure I don't have to tell you that rabbits and possums are quite
>> different! It seems, apart from the spread of TB, possums have little
>> effect on the farming industry (except for some orchards ) and are
>> mainly found in the publicly-owned bush (where few rabbits are found).
>> So it could be said that the control of possums should be basically a
>> "public" expense and the control of rabbits a 'private" business
>> expense.
>What utter bollocks. Possums have major impact on forestry blocks, open
>farmlands, horticulture, vineyards, orchards, floriculture and domestic
>gardens. There are an estimated 75 million shitbag possums in NZ, and
>while not common on Auckland motorways, it is not that rare you see one
>squashed there. Possums are everywhere you look. They do not have any
>respect of your concept of boundaries between bush, open farmland or
>suburban sections, or whether the land is private or public.
Did I say they were ONLY found in the bush? No, I said they were
MAINLY found there.
I admit I know little about their effect on the forestry industry but
from what I can see, the effect is NOT as devastating as the effect of
rabbits on the farming industry in some areas .
>> But the taxpayer should not have to finance all private sporting
>> activities! Also "cost" should be and is measured in more ways than
>> simply in financial terms. There could be other "costs".
>The cost of damage by possums is a cost to all NZ'ers. It is a cost to
>our total environment, and a threat to our total economy (via the spread
>of TB and its threat to our major income source in the primary sector).
>If some folk choose to hunt the blighters for sport, then the least the
>rest of NZ could do is pay for the bullets, as these guys are doing us
>all a favour. The only good possum is a dead one, and if 75 million of
>them could be killed (or rounded up and sent back to Australia) then
>whatever the cost to NZ, I reckon its money well spent.
I more or less agree.
>Dont kid yourself either, that a few farmers incomes are all that might
>be affected by a major TB outbreak. If this were to occur, the great
>30's depression would be a mere blip on the scale compared to the
>economic disaster that would be caused by our inablility to export dairy
>, beef and venison products.
I you re-read what I wrote you will find I didnt say TB was not
serious but that it was the only thing associated with possums which
affects the farming industry (apart from orchards).
>> Basically I believe all animals have the right to life.
>So if an introduced possum kills a native NZ bird, then that is OK by
>you, but if a man kills a possum thats not ok ??
I don't know how you can say the sentence I wrote can imply anything
like that!. By animals I included birds etc.
>Any introduced wild animals, including possums, rabbits, hares, goats,
>pigs, deer, wallaby, stoats, ferrets, weasels, cats, dogs, horses,
>chamois, thar, cattle or sheep (not to mention introduced bird species)
>have no rights and are available to be shot, and should be shot,
>particularly when their numbers threaten the environment of NZ's native
>species, or the value of our export primary producing market.
I disagree that those animals have no rights and so can be shot
without reason. It is never been legal for anyone to shoot most of
those animals on sight in New Zealand WITHOUT good REASON.
You are not one of those, thankfully rare, people who go around
shooting just about all animals on sight WITHOUT reason are you?
>> Unless there
>> are "good" reasons for any animal, or type of animal, to be killed
>> then they should be "allowed" to live. It is arrogance for humans to
>> think any differently.
>What a bizarre concept. All those packets of meat in the supermarket
>came from animals, which are killed and neatly packed for our pleasure.
>What is the difference between shooting an animal yourself (or catching
>a fish) and eating it ? Since rabbits have been riddled with peculiar
>viruses, who is going to want to eat one now ? You believe these little
>scumbuckets deserve a right to live ?
There is nothing bizzare about the concept which is the one most
people have lived by for many years.
A good reason why an animal is killed could be that someone is hungry
and wants to eat it. That is why most farm animals ARE killed.
Are you saying that possums have no right to live? In Australia they
have the right to live for very good REASONS. Are you saying that is
wrong?
There is a difference between shooting an animal yourself and buying
one already killed. If there was not, then no-one would DESIRE or
WANT to go hunting and eating the game and get satisfaction and
pleasure from it!
It is not the rabbits "fault" they are a pest. From their point of
view they are doing nothing wrong.
I said that animals should not be killed without a reason, don't you
think a good reason is that they are a pest and cause economic,
environmental problems etc.? I think that is a good reason but IF for
some reason the rabbit no longer caused problems then I think they
should not be killed. The reason and therefore the need would not be
there.
> Switzerland
>has an extraordinarily high ownership of firearms in private hands.
Do the Swiss OWN these SIG rifles which I have been told are
compulsory for a lot of people under 45 to have in their houses i.e.
do they HAVE to pay for them themselves? If so then that is why they
have a high ownership of firearms in private hands - because it is
compulsory by law. But perhaps are you talking about other types of
firearms owned by the Swiss for other reasons.
I don't think it should be compulsory by law for many (or really ANY)
civilians to own firearms in New Zealand.
>>> (In New Zealand I presume there are strict rules in the military
>> concerning firearms e.g. I suppose they are usually not allowed to
>> have a firearm in the sleeping/living quarters. But couldn't it
>> happen that civilians are allowed to have the same type of firearm in
>> their living quarters (dwelling houses)!
>You dont understand the laws relating to the safe and proper storage of
>firearms, particularly MSSA firearms in NZ.
The point I was making was that in the military as far as I know
firearms are stored in certain buildings which do not include
buildings mainly used for eating, relaxing and sleeping etc..
Sorry but I am fairly sure civilians ARE allowed to store firearms in
buildings (dwelling houses) in which they live and sleep.
>> I think that, at least in NZ,
>> in civilian hands, the rarer any military weapons are the better.
>Why better ? The threat posed by those weapons to you are so minimal as
>to be laughable, compared to all the other very real threats you face
>every day.
I think the threat is minimal MAINLY because, unlike you, I think that
there are not many military weapons in civilian hands. In other words
the more firearms and military weapons held by civilians, in greater
number with more firepower etc., the more likely the threat will
become.
Richard Clemance
>Keith Davidson
Richard Clemance
>I would be keen to see that people who have access to firearms, are *fit and
>proper* persons to have that access.
>Note, however, that it is the *person* that should be checked, as the current
>legislation provides.
I basically agree but the firearm should be checked also, at least at
point of sale, to see that it is "fit and proper".
The big difference is that I KNOW that people can change and someone
"fit and proper" is not always "fit and proper". That is why we
have many, many laws stating the situations which mean people are NO
LONGER "fit and proper" - e.g. drunk in charge or a vehicle or firearm
and their driver's licence or firearm licence can be taken away.
Those laws and ones like them are, I think, very necessary even if
they are not able to be enforced.
Because we are not clairvoyant we can never really KNOW who these
people are likely to be, which is basically why I think we should not
allow a lot of ordinary civilians to have weapons used by the
military. The military have weapons for a reason, or should have them
for a reason. Civilians should not be able to have the SAME weapons
for different reasons.
Also just because someone is "fit and proper" to use one item or do
one thing it does not mean "fit and proper" they are fit and proper to
do all things.
>I differ from the current legislation slightly, as I believe that if a person
>is fit and proper to own *a* firearm - that is, they fully understand the
>safety, handling and storage requirements - then they should be equally safe to
>have *any* firearm or any number of firearms.
Just because someone understands the safety, handling and storage
requirements of one type of firearm DOES NOT mean they will be
AUTOMATICALLY safe to handle ANY other type of firearm. They will
have to learn about a new TYPE of firearm if it has features not
present on the first type.
You have said yourself that some members of the police, who ALL get
SOME firearm training and can I suppose handle those firearms safely,
don't know one type of firearm from another, so presumably don't know
things like the numbers of rounds a firearm is capable of firing which
surely is a safety factor.
What do you mean by "any" firearm? Any firearm used by the military?
>The problem, as always, is that those who are not fit and proper and should not
>have access, neverthless *can* have access - illegally. No law will or can ever
>prevent that.
So people should not do illegal things with firearms or have firearms
illegally. Just about everyone agrees with that!
The question, if we are all agreed that there should be firearm laws,
is what those laws should be. If you think there can ever be a law
both necessary and yet which CANNOT be broken you are very much
mistaken. It is not possible and can never be possible.
Richard Clemance
>Roberta
Richard Clemance
>Will be interesting to see how they get on with verification issues should
>registration go ahead! ;-)
They can always call on people like you with wide knowledge of types
of firearms to help to get things right.
>>One
>>might also expect that if they're going to have someone talking to the
>>cameras about a firearms-related incident, they're going to choose an
>>officer who understands just a little about them.
>*That* would be nice! Just for once! But I fear that the only officers that
>know much about firearms would not be *allowed* to talk to the media just in
>case the officer accidently said something neutral or positive about firearms.
As far I know most of the police have no problem with the fact that
THEY themselves are allowed to use firearms. They think THEY
themselves are "fit and proper" to own/use firearms but that some
others are not and should not be allowed. I wonder where I have heard
that before!
Richard Clemance
Richard Clemance
following fax to the lawyer in Whangarei handling the case we have
been talking about .
**************************************************************************************
ATTN: Lucy Postlewaight
CONCERNING: Wayne Peter Sharp
Following a TV One news item on 23/9/89 about the seizure of firearms
and other weapons in and near
Whangerei, someone expressed doubt (via the internet newsgroup
nz.general) that contrary to what was
said in the news item, by someone who was taken to be a police
officer, NONE of the type of firearm
called in general terms military style semi-automatic (MSSA) (and need
a special E-endorsement on a
firearm licence to own) were found.
From what I have read about the case in the Northern Advocate it seems
that Wayne Peter Sharp has been
charged with three counts of possessing semi-automatic military style
rifles, but I am concerned that there
MIGHT have been a error in fact which MAY affect the sentence to the
disadvantage of your client.
Because Mr Sharp has pleaded guilty perhaps nothing can be done IF a
mistake has been made or there
might be good reasons that nothing SHOULD be done.
I do not know Mr Sharp and have no interest in the matter besides
wanting “justice” to be done.
Richard Clemance
(In orginal my street address)
Christchurch
Phone (in original my phone number)
Please reply via e-mail to
r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz
For a firearm to be legally a MSSA it seems it has to have at least
ONE of the following
a) a folding or telescopic butt
b) A magazine which holds, or looks like it is capable of holding,
more than fifteen .22 rimfire cartridges or more than seven cartridges
of any other calibre.
c) Bayonet lugs
d) A military pattern free standing pistol grip.
e) A flash suppressor.
There is doubt about whether any of the firearms found in the
possession of your client had any of those features.
******************************************************************************
This afternoon I had a phone call from her saying that she is trying
to get her client to drop his plea of guilty because she wants to
challenge the charges. She already seemed to have doubts about
whether there were MSSA's found.
According to the Northern Advocate he is due to appear again on
12/10/98.
Richard Clemance
Roberta G
>
>ge...@ihug.co.nz.DELETE-THIS-PART(G Merryweather) wrote:
>
>>Pistols were banned in the UK around 2 years ago (firearms
>>crime has risen to record heights since...)
>
>Firearms crime involving pistols or all firearm crime? It would be
>interesting to see the precise figures and details about the type of
>firearm offenses.
*Violent* crime involving pistols has increased. This same increase in gun
violence has occurred in Australia since their law change, but was perhaps most
obvious in Mexico. Following the ban of private ownership of firearms, the use
of illegal firearms in crimes of violence soared.
Pretty simple really. With no opposition, the violent offenders were pretty
much assured that they had the upper hand in *any* engagement.
In the same vein, in those states of the US where *shall issue* laws have been
passed [allowing concealed carry if there is no lawful reason to deny it],
violent crime has *decreased*. Equally simple - few crims would be stupid
enough to attack someone who may be more heavily armed than the crim
him/herself. Crime loses some of its glamour when the the prospect of being
*killed* raises its head. Simpler to go elsewhere, were the citizens are not
routinely armed!
Let me know if you want references for the research papers.
>Since by definition it can only be firearm owners who are committing
>more firearm crimes SHOULD they be trusted?
You are using *firearm owner* here to indicate *firearm possessor* - without
indicating whether the possessor is legally entitled to that possession. The
use of the term *firearm owner* has previously been used in this discussion to
refer to licensed owners.
>If someone doesn't have a
>firearm it would be impossible for them to commit a firearm crime!
This is *logically* true; however, one does not have to *own* a firearm to
*have* it on the occasion of committing a crime. A certain murder committed
during a bank robbery in Naenae proves that.
Your argument is *still* close the the feminist *castrate 'em all* argument,
BTW!! How very strange! Seems you find the logic train compelling...
>Some farmers said that rabbits could not be controlled with firearms.
>So RCV was needed.
Whoa! Really? SOME farmers think something, so RCV was needed - end of story?
Gee, does that mean you would support *some* people who want compulsory
euthanasia for the over 70s?
I hope that this country never experiences the situation that would arise if
rabbit calici virus jumped species to sheep!
Take some time to think about this, Richard. The escape of the calici virus
presents a picture far scarier for this country than if every single person in
this country was armed to and beyond their own teeth. If you need to fear
something, fear the destruction of this country's economic structure by the
actions of a small number of selfish individuals.
Roberta
Roberta G
>
>Keith Davidson <ke...@times-age.co.nz> wrote:
>The main concern is what CAN be and IS done with the firearm.
Richard - take a good look at this statement. Are you really still worried
about *potential*? Don't you know that you face numerous perils every day of
your life? Why do firearms frighten you so much?
<major snip....thread change>
>There is a difference between shooting an animal yourself and buying
>one already killed.
Yes - the difference is that by buying the nice clean plastic-wrapped package
in the supermarket, you don't have to *think* about what it really is or how it
really got there. From my experience, hunters respect and consider their quarry
far more than supermarket purchasers respect or consider the
cattle/sheep/chicken, etc that have been slaughtered and cleaned for them.
Buying meat in a supermarket, one does not have to acknowledge that it came
from a living breathing *animal* - it is just another commodity.
> I said that animals should not be killed without a reason, don't you
>think a good reason is that they are a pest and cause economic,
>environmental problems etc.? I think that is a good reason but IF for
>some reason the rabbit no longer caused problems then I think they
>should not be killed. The reason and therefore the need would not be
>there.
This latter statement is the sort of logic that got the Rabbit Boards
disbanded. Does the term *reproduction* mean anything to you? It
obviously didn't to the people who made that rather ill-consider decision.
>I think the threat is minimal MAINLY because, unlike you, I think that
>there are not many military weapons in civilian hands.
Oh, dear! Do you realise that a large number of the basic, ordinary, A
category, bolt action rifles in this country are *ex* military? All those
wonderful old Lee Enfields, etc. All sourced from the military as the military
upgraded to newer technology. The military moved on to semi-autos. Of course,
when the military subsequently replaced the semi autos with newer, higher tech
semi autos, the obsolete rifles were sold to civilians, just as the bolt
actions before them have been.
Do you fear the **military** bolt actions, Richard?
Roberta
Roberta G
says...
>
>gled...@no-spam.ihug.co.nz (Roberta G) wrote:
>
>>I would be keen to see that people who have access to firearms, are
*fit and
>>proper* persons to have that access.
>
>>Note, however, that it is the *person* that should be checked, as the
current
>>legislation provides.
>
>I basically agree but the firearm should be checked also, at least at
>point of sale, to see that it is "fit and proper".
Hmmm - bad news for the historians then. They wouldn't be able to buy a
firearm in relic condition to restore it...and more of our heritage
would be lost.
>The big difference is that I KNOW that people can change and someone
>"fit and proper" is not always "fit and proper".
That is why there is a re-licensing programme.
Personally, I would advocate the development and implementation of a
system whereby a member of the public can raise concerns about a
behaviour change in a firearms licensee. Providing there were the
appropriate protections against vexatious complaints, it shouldn't be
much of a problem, and then the public could take action if they were
worried that a licensee was no longer *fit and proper* for some reason.
>I think we should not
>allow a lot of ordinary civilians to have weapons used by the
>military. The military have weapons for a reason, or should have them
>for a reason. Civilians should not be able to have the SAME weapons
>for different reasons.
So in your world, no object can be used for more than one purpose. I
see. I guess that your bed is used only for sleeping, with reading,
talking, making love all done elsewhere. I guess that you would *never*
use a wood screwdriver on a machine screw. I guess that you would never
drive a 4WD vehicle in town, but only off road...You must be very
wealthy to afford to have a unique object for each specific use.
>Also just because someone is "fit and proper" to use one item or do
>one thing it does not mean "fit and proper" they are fit and proper to
>do all things.
I have not advocated that they be deemed *fit and proper* for *all*
things. I don't believe that a licence holder would be fit and proper to
do brain surgery on the basis that they are fit and proper to own
firearms.
However, for a person who is truly *fit and proper*, who understands
safety, responsbile use and storage of one firearm - that knowledge is
directly transferable. If they can be *trusted* with one, having more
should not make a difference.
>Just because someone understands the safety, handling and storage
>requirements of one type of firearm DOES NOT mean they will be
>AUTOMATICALLY safe to handle ANY other type of firearm. They will
>have to learn about a new TYPE of firearm if it has features not
>present on the first type.
Yes, there are things to learn, just like one has to learn about the new
features of a car - particularly the operation of the brakes and
steering, when one gets in a different car. However, a fit and proper
person knows this, and learns what needs to be learnt, in the same way
that a responsible drvier learns the idiosyncracies of a different car.
However, being unable to quote a particular firearm's model and make
does not make the person unsafe to handle/use the firearm, because the
same safety rules apply to all. A fit and proper person understands and
abides by these safety rules.
>You have said yourself that some members of the police, who ALL get
>SOME firearm training and can I suppose handle those firearms safely,
>don't know one type of firearm from another
1. The police get negligible firearms training as recruits and little
maintenance training through their career, unless they are members of a
special squad like AOS, DPS, etc. Maintenance training is, AFAIK, 50
[fifty] rounds a year. Most Olympic pistol matches are at least 60
[sixty] rounds [plus sighters], so a person shooting an Olympic pistol
discipline shoots more in ONE match than the police do all year.
2. There have been a number of injury accidents with the police as they
have changed from using revolvers to using semi-auto pistols. As far as
I am aware, some of these involved the instructors. These don't get
widely reported. I wonder why?
See above about not being able to recognise make and model. It does
annoy me that they tend to call ANY semi-auto an *MSSA*. It is not true,
they know it is not true, but they persist in doing it. I wonder why?
>What do you mean by "any" firearm? Any firearm used by the military?
What is this issue with *military* things, Richard? As I have said
elsewhere, many A Cat bolt action rifles are ex-military. Every year the
military sell off items that are surplus to requirements. These items
include spanners, files, etc - do you object to them too, because they
have been tainted by association with the military?
>The question, if we are all agreed that there should be firearm laws,
>is what those laws should be.
That those who have access to firearms are fit and proper to have that
access. I am willing to put up with the fact that some crims will avoid
the system and have firearms illegally, because the *overall risk* is so
minute.
Roberta
TarlaStar
>I am interested in why you think firearms are phallic symbols...
Uh...because they're shaped like a dick and balls and something is
propelled out of them?
*****
"We gutted surrealism a long time ago, and stitched the
salvageable parts onto the ass end of Dada. It's not pretty,
but it makes a hell of a tampon." -- T.Gibson
*****
TarlaStar
>>> Basically I believe all animals have the right to life.
>>So if an introduced possum kills a native NZ bird, then that is OK by
>>you, but if a man kills a possum thats not ok ??
>I don't know how you can say the sentence I wrote can imply anything
>like that!. By animals I included birds etc.
Then how do you propose to stop animals from killing other animals?
Possum Police? "Step away from the bird and put your paws in the air!"
>>Any introduced wild animals, including possums, rabbits, hares, goats,
>>pigs, deer, wallaby, stoats, ferrets, weasels, cats, dogs, horses,
>>chamois, thar, cattle or sheep (not to mention introduced bird species)
>>have no rights and are available to be shot, and should be shot,
>>particularly when their numbers threaten the environment of NZ's native
>>species, or the value of our export primary producing market.
>I disagree that those animals have no rights and so can be shot
>without reason. It is never been legal for anyone to shoot most of
>those animals on sight in New Zealand WITHOUT good REASON.
He stated a good reason: if they threaten the environment of NZ's
native species etc.
>You are not one of those, thankfully rare, people who go around
>shooting just about all animals on sight WITHOUT reason are you?
What reason would be good enough for you? Hunger? Is that the only
reason to kill another animal?
>A good reason why an animal is killed could be that someone is hungry
>and wants to eat it. That is why most farm animals ARE killed.
>Are you saying that possums have no right to live? In Australia they
>have the right to live for very good REASONS. Are you saying that is
>wrong?
He's not discussing Australia. He's discussing NZ. What purpose do
possums serve in NZ?
>There is a difference between shooting an animal yourself and buying
>one already killed. If there was not, then no-one would DESIRE or
>WANT to go hunting and eating the game and get satisfaction and
>pleasure from it!
There's absolutely no difference to the animals that are killed.
They're still dead as dead can be. The only difference is that
namby-pamby "right to lifers" can eat a steak without actually getting
blood on their hands.
Richard Clemance
>>The main concern is what CAN be and IS done with the firearm.
>Richard - take a good look at this statement. Are you really still worried
>about *potential*? Don't you know that you face numerous perils every day of
>your life? Why do firearms frighten you so much?
By "main concern" I mean the main concern when talking about firearms
and what the firearm laws should be. It does NOT imply that firearms
are the main concern in my life or in society.
I give firearms little thought unless I am thinking about the firearm
laws, or I see one being carried by someone.
Also there are people in circumstances and/or countries other than
yours or mine who HAVE to think about them every day, whether by
choice or not.
Unlike you, I don't want them to become a more common sight or to be
THOUGHT they were NEEDED by civilians for self-protection to reduce
the crime rate.
I think it would matter if firearms become as common as knives, cars
etc. and needed to be used, or threatened to be used, just as often
(for self-defence etc.). I can't understand why you would not be
concerned about that happening.
>> I said that animals should not be killed without a reason, don't you
>>think a good reason is that they are a pest and cause economic,
>>environmental problems etc.? I think that is a good reason but IF for
>>some reason the rabbit no longer caused problems then I think they
>>should not be killed. The reason and therefore the need would not be
>>there.
>This latter statement is the sort of logic that got the Rabbit Boards
>disbanded. Does the term *reproduction* mean anything to you? It
>obviously didn't to the people who made that rather ill-consider decision.
Did I mention any reason why rabbits might not need to be killed? No!
But only that there might be a GOOD reason. People might decide to
farm rabbits if they bring in more money than sheep. Then the fact
that they can reproduce would be an good thing and not a bad.
>>I think the threat is minimal MAINLY because, unlike you, I think that
>>there are not many military weapons in civilian hands.
>Oh, dear! Do you realise that a large number of the basic, ordinary, A
>category, bolt action rifles in this country are *ex* military? All those
>wonderful old Lee Enfields, etc. All sourced from the military as the military
>upgraded to newer technology. The military moved on to semi-autos. Of course,
>when the military subsequently replaced the semi autos with newer, higher tech
>semi autos, the obsolete rifles were sold to civilians, just as the bolt
>actions before them have been.
I think that you knew by military weapons I meant weapons currently
used by the military and not weapons which have been used in the whole
of history by the military in all parts of the world. The term for
them is ex-military weapons, antique weapons or historic weapons etc.
How many of the type of weapons currently used by the military are in
civilians hands?
But in general I am against weapons no longer used by the military, or
the police etc, STILL having "dangerous" features either not wanted
or needed and so not legally able to be used by civilians, being sold
to individual civilians. Museums etc. serve an educational purpose so
they are different.
Those features should be removed before sale. It seems it is only for
economic reasons they are not removed. Just as economic reasons are
the reason for the sale in the first place.
>>>Pistols were banned in the UK around 2 years ago (firearms
>>>crime has risen to record heights since...)
>>
>>Firearms crime involving pistols or all firearm crime? It would be
>>interesting to see the precise figures and details about the type of
>>firearm offenses.
>*Violent* crime involving pistols has increased. This same increase in gun
>violence has occurred in Australia since their law change, but was perhaps most
>obvious in Mexico. Following the ban of private ownership of firearms, the use
>of illegal firearms in crimes of violence soared.
What sort of violence and who were the victims of this violence - the
police or private citizens? If people are afraid of having something
illegal found in their possession ONE of the ways to try to escape is
to turn violent. Is this the sort of violent crime you are talking
about - resisting arrest etc.?
Are these crimes where ACTUAL violence occured? What happened to the
crime rate NOT involving violence but involving firearms?
>Pretty simple really. With no opposition, the violent offenders were pretty
>much assured that they had the upper hand in *any* engagement.
Unlike you I think it would be a bad if we get the stage when most of
the people in New Zealand are forced to have a firearm for reasons of
self-defence and to prevent crime.
New Zealand is not Mexico, Switzerland or the USA etc.
>In the same vein, in those states of the US where *shall issue* laws have been
>passed [allowing concealed carry if there is no lawful reason to deny it],
>violent crime has *decreased*. Equally simple - few crims would be stupid
>enough to attack someone who may be more heavily armed than the crim
>him/herself. Crime loses some of its glamour when the the prospect of being
>*killed* raises its head. Simpler to go elsewhere, were the citizens are not
>routinely armed!
This is where we disagree.
I think the crime rate will go down for a short time but after a while
it is quite possible, unless other measures are taken, that any person
who wants to use a firearm in a crime would simply make sure they were
as heavily armed as possible so that they would likely be more heavily
armed than the victim.
In turn everyone else would be forced to heavily-arm themselves and a
possibly never ending and costly ARMS-RACE would begin.
COSTLY both in financial terms with people on either side of the law
"forced" to buy the latest weapons, or costly in the increased crime
rate of people "forced" to steal the latest weapons, or steal money to
buy them or make money in illegal ways.
In my opinion it would be a race which would be never-ending and would
have no winners except the arms manufactures.
It is very irresponsible and selfish of you to take the attitude you
seem to have. I DO care if people go elsewhere to commit crimes.
Admitted I haven't really always felt that way.
>>Since by definition it can only be firearm owners who are committing
>>more firearm crimes SHOULD they be trusted?
>You are using *firearm owner* here to indicate *firearm possessor* - without
>indicating whether the possessor is legally entitled to that possession. The
>use of the term *firearm owner* has previously been used in this discussion to
>refer to licensed owners.
I have fogotten the "slogan" but in law ownership often means the same
as possession.
>Your argument is *still* close the the feminist *castrate 'em all* argument,
>BTW!! How very strange! Seems you find the logic train compelling...
Please explain how thinking civilians should be limited in the choice
of the type of firearms and other weapons (all man-made) they can be
allowed to own in any way compares to thinking that ALL men should be
deprived of a body part which just about all men, by definition, own
without having any choice in the matter!?
>>Some farmers said that rabbits could not be controlled with firearms.
>>So RCV was needed.
>Whoa! Really? SOME farmers think something, so RCV was needed - end of story?
>Gee, does that mean you would support *some* people who want compulsory
>euthanasia for the over 70s?
Sorry, I didn't write that clearly enough. The second sentence above
carried on from the first so what I really meant was "So some farmers
said RCV was needed". They went further than thinking it was needed,
they introduced it illegally!
I don't think RCV should've been introduced.
>>
>>I basically agree but the firearm should be checked also, at least at
>>point of sale, to see that it is "fit and proper".
>Hmmm - bad news for the historians then. They wouldn't be able to buy a
>firearm in relic condition to restore it...and more of our heritage
>would be lost.
So you want firearms with design/construction faults, making them
clearly unsafe and unable to be safely used, sold?
Still I suppose all that matters to you is that YOU can recognize an
unsafe firearm and too bad if others can't.
>>The big difference is that I KNOW that people can change and someone
>>"fit and proper" is not always "fit and proper".
>That is why there is a re-licensing programme.
And it would just be too bad if the change doesn't happen just before
the time of re-licence?!!
>Personally, I would advocate the development and implementation of a
>system whereby a member of the public can raise concerns about a
>behaviour change in a firearms licensee. Providing there were the
>appropriate protections against vexatious complaints, it shouldn't be
>much of a problem, and then the public could take action if they were
>worried that a licensee was no longer *fit and proper* for some reason.
But there is a system like that that already in place. Bruce Simpson
has already mentioned that it, in his experience, it is not enforced.
>
>>I think we should not
>>allow a lot of ordinary civilians to have weapons used by the
>>military. The military have weapons for a reason, or should have them
>>for a reason. Civilians should not be able to have the SAME weapons
>>for different reasons.
>So in your world, no object can be used for more than one purpose. I
>see. I guess that your bed is used only for sleeping, with reading,
>talking, making love all done elsewhere. I guess that you would *never*
>use a wood screwdriver on a machine screw. I guess that you would never
>drive a 4WD vehicle in town, but only off road...You must be very
>wealthy to afford to have a unique object for each specific use.
Under the thread "Thin edge of another wedge.." you complained that I
used the phrase "Firearms are versatile". You seemed to imply that
they could only be used for one purpose. Now you are saying they can
be used for more than one purpose, making them versatile! Make up
your mind.
If the firearm CAN be used in such a way as the military used or
planned to use it and for the same REASON the military had the firearm
CLEARLY that makes them a danger. Unless you are saying that military
firearms are not dangerous.
>>Just because someone understands the safety, handling and storage
>>requirements of one type of firearm DOES NOT mean they will be
>>AUTOMATICALLY safe to handle ANY other type of firearm. They will
>>have to learn about a new TYPE of firearm if it has features not
>>present on the first type.
>Yes, there are things to learn, just like one has to learn about the new
>features of a car - particularly the operation of the brakes and
>steering, when one gets in a different car. However, a fit and proper
>person knows this, and learns what needs to be learnt, in the same way
>that a responsible drvier learns the idiosyncracies of a different car.
But firearm design and features can vary quite widely. Just because
someone can drive a car safely does it mean they can drive a truck, a
racing car, a front-end loader etc.?
But I agree with you that someone who has shown an ability to use one
thing in most cases should be able to learn to use a similar thing.
>2. There have been a number of injury accidents with the police as they
>have changed from using revolvers to using semi-auto pistols. As far as
>I am aware, some of these involved the instructors. These don't get
>widely reported. I wonder why?
So are the police, in your view, "fit and proper" people to own
firearms? If the police are not then who can be?
>See above about not being able to recognise make and model. It does
>annoy me that they tend to call ANY semi-auto an *MSSA*. It is not true,
>they know it is not true, but they persist in doing it. I wonder why?
I agree that things should be called what they are but why should it
worry you so much? Are the police forcing people to pay to have an
E-endorsement on their licence unnecessarily, wrongly charging A LOT
of people for having a MSSA illegally etc. What practical difference
is it making?
>What is this issue with *military* things, Richard? As I have said
>elsewhere, many A Cat bolt action rifles are ex-military. Every year the
>military sell off items that are surplus to requirements. These items
>include spanners, files, etc - do you object to them too, because they
>have been tainted by association with the military?
I want to know whether you think people holding a firearm licence
should be allowed to have any military type of firearm including
motars, coilless rifles, bazooka etc. in a number only limited by
their budget?
You are right, I have been talking too much about military weapons.
Do you think people who hold a firearm licence should be able to have
handguns in unlimited type and number?
Unlike some, I know, and have constantly said, that firearms are
different from other tools and items ( such as alcohol, cars, tobacco
etc.) so why should I object to the military selling those tools you
mentioned?!
Richard Clemance
Richard Clemance
>On Thu, 08 Oct 1998 03:20:08 GMT, r.cle...@netaccess.co.nz (Richard
>Clemance) wrote:
>There was nothing on the news item concerned that would lead any
>viewer to believe that what was being said wasn't the absolute truth.
I understand that. The only thing I don't understand is why the
mistake made is this case matters so much.
>I don't think bunker was an apt term to use - it was clearly designed
>to elicit fear and emotion in the viewer. I looked up the noun
>"bunker" on the WWWebster dictionary site
>(http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) and here's what it said:
>"a protective embankment or dugout; especially : a fortified chamber
>mostly below ground often built of reinforced concrete and provided
>with embrasures"
>Just in case you don't know what an "embrasure" is:
>"an opening with sides flaring outward in a wall or parapet of a
>fortification usually for allowing the firing of cannon"
I have an embrasure so do know what it is!! (NOT) Far enough. I
haven't seen pictures of the place so can't really comment. I have
already said that the newspaper report called it a "bunker' in the
front page story but a "safe" in the court report.
In the English language there are many ways to say the same thing and
of course some words are more emotional, sensational, provocative than
others. I am sure I don't need to tell you that!!! - "maniacs",
"crawling up Gunsafe's back passage", "puppet", "lobby", "draconian",
"abuse of power"
>Now unless this guy's concrete storage room was built primarily as a
>defense rather than a storage room, and unless it had holes through
>which he could fire his guns then I think the use of the word bunker
>was impropper and a clear indicator of bias and a lack of objectivity
>on the part of the police or the broadcaster. This adds further
>weight to my assertion that they also misinformed the audience with
>regards to the classification of the rifles shown.
I am not sure whether the primary purpose something is built comes
into it all the time. A church can become a house or shop and visa
versa.
Because a mistake was made in the description of one item does NOT
imply that a mistake is likely to be made in the description of ALL or
any other item. It certainly does not imply that the mistake would be
made for the same reason.
>
>>A criminal is a PERSON who commits a crime. If you have committed a
>>crime then, yes, you are a criminal!
>As are 99 percent of NZers who have ever exceeded the speed limit,
>watched TV without paying their broadcasting fee, driven an
>unregistered or unwarranted vehicle (for even just a second), etc,
>etc.
Yes, I know and that is what I meant to imply. That is why I try to
avoid using the word "criminal" and prefer to use "person" etc. and to
describe the type of crime i.e. "a person who stole cheques" rather
than "a criminal who stole cheques"
>>I checked in the Northern Advocate at the library again the words used
>>at least in the newspaper were " semi-automatic military style rifle".
>Did they say it was "an E-category" rifle?
No, the words E-category rifle were not mentioned in the newspaper.
But I haven't seen the charge sheet. Are the words " E-category
rifle" always used and not " MSSA"?
I would like to know more about MSSA's!
Which of the five features which make a firearm a MSSA are ONLY found
on semi-automatics?
I would GUESS that bayonet lugs are found on many non semi-automatics
and magazines as described ONLY on semi-automatics but I am not sure
about flash suppressors, telescopic butts and pistol grips.
>>Apart from the pipebomb and the capsicum spray as far as I know the
>>other weapons (or arms if you insist although my dictionary defines
>>arms as weapons) he was found with would've been legal IF he had a
>>licence.
>If that's the case then the TV programme, and the person (allegedly a
>police officer) were telling lies when they said the gun was an MSSA.
There you go jumping the gun again (wonder what type of gun?!)! A
licence with an E-endorsement is still a licence is it not? That is
what I meant by licence.
>>I still don't really see why you are complaining. It IS the law that
>>you need an E-endorsement to have a MSSA so that information is
>>correct.
>No, from memory, they claimed the gun that was shown (a sporterised
>SKS) was an E category MSSA - the very kind that the anti-gun lobby
>are trying to use to justify their thin-end-of-the-wedge changes to
>firearms laws.
I was talking about what was said APART from saying that the type of
rifle shown was a MSSA. It IS the law that you need an E-endorsement
to have a MSSA. If that was said that PART of what was said was
correct.
>But if the police are happy to trust me to follow the existing
>firearms laws without policing NOW - why are they bothering to change
>those laws when, it is very clear that by following the existing laws,
>I pose no danger to any member of the public.
>If they don't trust me to act responsibly with my guns then why aren't
>they checking to make sure I'm not breaking the law?
But that is what it means to be allowed to have a firearm licence!
You are likely to be the type of person who CAN be TRUSTED to "obey"
any firearm laws (and most other laws) .
I have seldom had the police come to my flat to check I am not
breaking the law either and I haven't got a firearm licence, so could
be deemed a person of "unknown trustworthiness"!
Richard Clemance
Richard Clemance
>>>So if an introduced possum kills a native NZ bird, then that is OK by
>>>you, but if a man kills a possum thats not ok ??
>>I don't know how you can say the sentence I wrote can imply anything
>>like that!. By animals I included birds etc.
>Then how do you propose to stop animals from killing other animals?
>Possum Police? "Step away from the bird and put your paws in the air!"
But I don't want to stop ALL animals killing other animals. UNLESS
there is a reason there is no need to try to stop it and would be
impossible to stop it anyway.
>>I disagree that those animals have no rights and so can be shot
>>without reason. It is never been legal for anyone to shoot most of
>>those animals on sight in New Zealand WITHOUT good REASON.
>He stated a good reason: if they threaten the environment of NZ's
>native species etc.
I agree he stated a good reason. But that is the point there has to
be a reason.
>>You are not one of those, thankfully rare, people who go around
>>shooting just about all animals on sight WITHOUT reason are you?
>What reason would be good enough for you? Hunger? Is that the only
>reason to kill another animal?
Are you saying that a good reason to kill an animal is because they
exist?
>>A good reason why an animal is killed could be that someone is hungry
>>and wants to eat it. That is why most farm animals ARE killed.
>>Are you saying that possums have no right to live? In Australia they
>>have the right to live for very good REASONS. Are you saying that is
>>wrong?
>He's not discussing Australia. He's discussing NZ. What purpose do
>possums serve in NZ?
He was discussing possums. I was asking him about the possums in
Australia. That is the same subject. If I asked about koala in
Australia, I agree that would've been of topic.
The question is not what purpose posssums serve but what harm they do.
>>There is a difference between shooting an animal yourself and buying
>>one already killed. If there was not, then no-one would DESIRE or
>>WANT to go hunting and eating the game and get satisfaction and
>>pleasure from it!
>There's absolutely no difference to the animals that are killed.
>They're still dead as dead can be. The only difference is that
>namby-pamby "right to lifers" can eat a steak without actually getting
>blood on their hands.
We were talking about the difference between shooting an animal and
buying meat from the supermarket from the point of view of the person
doing those two things and not the animal which I agree would be dead
in both cases.
Meat sold in supermarkets still has blood in it.
Richard Clemance
Roberta G
says...
>
>gled...@no-spam.ihug.co.nz (Roberta G) wrote:
>
>
>>I am interested in why you think firearms are phallic
symbols...
>Uh...because they're shaped like a dick and balls and something
is
>propelled out of them?
My word! Perhaps you should see a doctor if that is the shape
your parts are in! ;-)
Roberta
Keith Davidson
>
> Keith Davidson <ke...@times-age.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >Since no-one "needs" a car that will exceed 100kmh perhaps all cars
> >capable of exceeding 100kmh should be banned. That would save tens, if
> >not hundreds more lives than "controlling" MSSA firearms in NZ. No-one
> >"needs" alcohol in NZ. Banning alcohol would save hundreds more lives
> >than controlling or banning MSSA firearms.
>
> Since I have never mentioned the words banned and deaths in relation
> to firearms most of what you say is irrelevant.
You have said you see no need for people to have MSSA's. Probably
because you personally don't have a need for one. I have merely
reflected that there are many other things in life that are far more
dangerous to your health than MSSA's.
I fail to understand what logic you are trying to present here.
> But I believe that firearm (and MSSA) laws (and controls on many other
> things) in New Zealand DO make a difference and I want to see some
> firearm control continue.
I don't think anyone has argued for any reduction of firearms control.
What, specifically, in your opinion is inadequate with the 1993 Arms Act
?
> I would be interested to know why you seem to think that there should
> be no controls on who can own a MSSA?
Nowhere have I advocated for any reduction or removal of the existing
controls for MSSA ownership. I believe the current controls (in law) are
more than adequate. I think it is a pity that some semi-crazed loons
with assistance from trendy civil-libertarian lawyers are able to
legally purchase MSSA's and these people do pose some potential threat.
I also think it is a pity that the Police do not always enforce the
exisiting laws particularly well on occassions.
> Are you in favour of banning cars which can exceed the speed limit(s),
> banning alcohol and banning MSSA firearms? I am not in favour of any
> of those things.
Nope, just merely making the point that people think banning MSSA's will
have any significant impact on lives lost in NZ are just dreaming, and
there are many other things that could be done to save huge numbers of
lives that these same people choose to ignore. Probably because they do
drink and drive, speed etc, and would feel it an infringement of their
rights to have cars incapable of exceeding 100kmh.
> >> Since by definition it can only be firearm owners who are committing
> >> more firearm crimes SHOULD they be trusted? If someone doesn't have a
> >> firearm it would be impossible for them to commit a firearm crime!
>
> >You miss several important points here. Firstly very few of all firearms
> >crimes are committed by licensed firearms owners.
>
> Of course since the crime of possessing a firearm without a licence
> CANNOT be comitted by a firearm licence holder that could be the
> reason why. Have you got the figures to back up your claims? I don't
> know the figures but it would be interesting to know them when the
> (basically technical) crime of possessing a firearm without a licence
> is NOT included.
Yes, I have quoted the figures to you in the past ad-nuseum. Re-read the
thread.
> That is what this debate is more or less about. The man in Whangarei
> would have faced very much less charges and it seem no FIREARMS
> charges AT ALL (apart from unlawfully possessing firearms in a public
> place) if he had a licence!
>
> I am not really worried whether someone has a firearm licence or not.
> The main concern is what CAN be and IS done with the firearm. A
> licence or lack of it makes little difference. What difference would
> it make to a person threatened by a firearm? Or to the firearm itself
> and what it is capable of? (apart from having some features removed so
> it isn't a MSSA)
So what's your point ? What are you trying to say ? For arguments sake,
my argument is that cars CAN and ARE used by drunken drivers and
speedsters, who kill 300 people per year, and hospitalise thousands
every year. So if we are worried about REAL risk to humans, we should
look at this problem, not at the IMAGINARY threat posed by firearms in
society.
> >Secondly, the
> >percentage of firearms violence to total violent crimes is miniscule.
>
> Why is that?
How would I know ? I dont commit crimes of violence, either with or
without my firearms.
> >Thirdly, there are significant numbers of illegal firearms in NZ
> >already, and if all firearms were made illegal, many many more firearms
> >would be imported illegally, allowing criminals a constant and assured
> >access to their needs, but depriving the hundreds of thousands of
> >legitimate firearms owners their right.
>
> Most of that is irrelevant to what I have been saying. What types of
> firearms are all these illegal firearms and how do you know the
> numbers? Why would MORE firearms be imported IF they were made
> illegal (which I say again I am NOT in favour of) if there are already
> large numbers legal or otherwise here?
Go and read the Thorpe report where some fairly acceptable assumptions
on numbers of illegal firearms, and methods of importation (e.g. from
Asian fishing boats) are widely discussed.
> From what I have been told it is illegal to import MSSA's now. Why
> are there not large numbers being imported now? I have been told that
> there is little market for them.
Why would anyone want an imported MSSA ? Criminals who want illegal arms
are more likely to want handguns and sawn off pump action shotguns.
> >> Some farmers said that rabbits could not be controlled with firearms.
> >> So RCV was needed.
>
> >Since RCV has done its rounds, and lots of rabbits have dies, there is
> >now a generation of RCV resistant rabbits bounding around those same
> >farms. What do you propose to do with them ?
>
> Since I was not in favour of the introduction of RCV why blame me! It
> was obvious that RCV would be, at best, a short term solution.
I am not blaming you.
> >>> I am sure I don't have to tell you that rabbits and possums are quite
> >> different! It seems, apart from the spread of TB, possums have little
> >> effect on the farming industry (except for some orchards ) and are
> >> mainly found in the publicly-owned bush (where few rabbits are found).
> >> So it could be said that the control of possums should be basically a
> >> "public" expense and the control of rabbits a 'private" business
> >> expense.
>
> >What utter bollocks. Possums have major impact on forestry blocks, open
> >farmlands, horticulture, vineyards, orchards, floriculture and domestic
> >gardens. There are an estimated 75 million shitbag possums in NZ, and
> >while not common on Auckland motorways, it is not that rare you see one
> >squashed there. Possums are everywhere you look. They do not have any
> >respect of your concept of boundaries between bush, open farmland or
> >suburban sections, or whether the land is private or public.
>
> Did I say they were ONLY found in the bush? No, I said they were
> MAINLY found there.
Thats still cobblers.
> I admit I know little about their effect on the forestry industry but
> from what I can see, the effect is NOT as devastating as the effect of
> rabbits on the farming industry in some areas .
The threat to the primary industry from TB is greater from possums. The
threat to native flora and fauna is also greater from possums, as they
are more widespread in distribution than rabbits.
> >> But the taxpayer should not have to finance all private sporting
> >> activities! Also "cost" should be and is measured in more ways than
> >> simply in financial terms. There could be other "costs".
>
> >The cost of damage by possums is a cost to all NZ'ers. It is a cost to
> >our total environment, and a threat to our total economy (via the spread
> >of TB and its threat to our major income source in the primary sector).
> >If some folk choose to hunt the blighters for sport, then the least the
> >rest of NZ could do is pay for the bullets, as these guys are doing us
> >all a favour. The only good possum is a dead one, and if 75 million of
> >them could be killed (or rounded up and sent back to Australia) then
> >whatever the cost to NZ, I reckon its money well spent.
>
> I more or less agree.
> >Dont kid yourself either, that a few farmers incomes are all that might
> >be affected by a major TB outbreak. If this were to occur, the great
> >30's depression would be a mere blip on the scale compared to the
> >economic disaster that would be caused by our inablility to export dairy
> >, beef and venison products.
>
> I you re-read what I wrote you will find I didnt say TB was not
> serious but that it was the only thing associated with possums which
> affects the farming industry (apart from orchards).
Which is an incorrect assertion by you.
> >> Basically I believe all animals have the right to life.
>
> >So if an introduced possum kills a native NZ bird, then that is OK by
> >you, but if a man kills a possum thats not ok ??
>
> I don't know how you can say the sentence I wrote can imply anything
> like that!. By animals I included birds etc.
You missed the point entirely - re-read.
> >Any introduced wild animals, including possums, rabbits, hares, goats,
> >pigs, deer, wallaby, stoats, ferrets, weasels, cats, dogs, horses,
> >chamois, thar, cattle or sheep (not to mention introduced bird species)
> >have no rights and are available to be shot, and should be shot,
> >particularly when their numbers threaten the environment of NZ's native
> >species, or the value of our export primary producing market.
>
> I disagree that those animals have no rights and so can be shot
> without reason. It is never been legal for anyone to shoot most of
> those animals on sight in New Zealand WITHOUT good REASON.
It has always been legal for any licensed firearm owner to shoot most of
those animals on sight (providing they have permission from the
land-owner or are the landowner). No reason is required.
> You are not one of those, thankfully rare, people who go around
> shooting just about all animals on sight WITHOUT reason are you?
Never shot an animal without a reason. But then I dont have to justify
my reasoning to you or anyone else. I have never "illegally" shot an
animal.
> >> Unless there
> >> are "good" reasons for any animal, or type of animal, to be killed
> >> then they should be "allowed" to live. It is arrogance for humans to
> >> think any differently.
>
> >What a bizarre concept. All those packets of meat in the supermarket
> >came from animals, which are killed and neatly packed for our pleasure.
> >What is the difference between shooting an animal yourself (or catching
> >a fish) and eating it ? Since rabbits have been riddled with peculiar
> >viruses, who is going to want to eat one now ? You believe these little
> >scumbuckets deserve a right to live ?
>
> There is nothing bizzare about the concept which is the one most
> people have lived by for many years.
>
> A good reason why an animal is killed could be that someone is hungry
> and wants to eat it. That is why most farm animals ARE killed.
>
> Are you saying that possums have no right to live? In Australia they
> have the right to live for very good REASONS. Are you saying that is
> wrong?
In Australia possums are relatively rare, and they are a native animal.
They are predated on by many of the other animals, and the Aussie
environment is not so conducive to high numbers. In NZ they were
introduced, breed like flies, destroy our native plant and animal
species. So the Aussies are right to protect them, and NZ is right for
wanting to kill every single one of them. Possums have no place in NZ.
> There is a difference between shooting an animal yourself and buying
> one already killed. If there was not, then no-one would DESIRE or
> WANT to go hunting and eating the game and get satisfaction and
> pleasure from it!
>
> It is not the rabbits "fault" they are a pest. From their point of
> view they are doing nothing wrong.
Who cares ? They are a pest. Do you spray flies ? Do you trap mice if
they come into your house ? Do you leave food out to feed the poor
hungry cockroaches ?
> I said that animals should not be killed without a reason, don't you
> think a good reason is that they are a pest and cause economic,
> environmental problems etc.? I think that is a good reason but IF for
> some reason the rabbit no longer caused problems then I think they
> should not be killed. The reason and therefore the need would not be
> there.
>
> > Switzerland
> >has an extraordinarily high ownership of firearms in private hands.
>
> Do the Swiss OWN these SIG rifles which I have been told are
> compulsory for a lot of people under 45 to have in their houses i.e.
> do they HAVE to pay for them themselves? If so then that is why they
> have a high ownership of firearms in private hands - because it is
> compulsory by law. But perhaps are you talking about other types of
> firearms owned by the Swiss for other reasons.
You are missing the point or being deliberately obtuse. The fact that
Switzerland has large numbers of firearms and very low crime rates
involving firearms clearly indicate that it is people and their attitude
that are at fault. Doing anything about numbers of firearms doesnt
adjust attitude.
> I don't think it should be compulsory by law for many (or really ANY)
> civilians to own firearms in New Zealand.
Nor do I.
> >>> (In New Zealand I presume there are strict rules in the military
> >> concerning firearms e.g. I suppose they are usually not allowed to
> >> have a firearm in the sleeping/living quarters. But couldn't it
> >> happen that civilians are allowed to have the same type of firearm in
> >> their living quarters (dwelling houses)!
>
> >You dont understand the laws relating to the safe and proper storage of
> >firearms, particularly MSSA firearms in NZ.
>
> The point I was making was that in the military as far as I know
> firearms are stored in certain buildings which do not include
> buildings mainly used for eating, relaxing and sleeping etc..
Likewise for MSSA owners in civilian life. I dont think 3mm steel
cabinets in which MSSA firearms must be stored are particularly
attractive in rooms in houses used for eating, relaxing and sleeping in.
> Sorry but I am fairly sure civilians ARE allowed to store firearms in
> buildings (dwelling houses) in which they live and sleep.
Read the Arms Act 1993 re storage requirements for MSSA.
> >> I think that, at least in NZ,
> >> in civilian hands, the rarer any military weapons are the better.
>
> >Why better ? The threat posed by those weapons to you are so minimal as
> >to be laughable, compared to all the other very real threats you face
> >every day.
>
> I think the threat is minimal MAINLY because, unlike you, I think that
> there are not many military weapons in civilian hands. In other words
> the more firearms and military weapons held by civilians, in greater
> number with more firepower etc., the more likely the threat will
> become.
The threat to what ?? The threat to who ? WHat exactly are you trying to
say ?
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
> By "main concern" I mean the main concern when talking about firearms
> and what the firearm laws should be. It does NOT imply that firearms
> are the main concern in my life or in society.
>
> I give firearms little thought unless I am thinking about the firearm
> laws, or I see one being carried by someone.
You have a concern when you see a firearm being carried by someone ? WHy
? What is the problem with someone carrying a firearm ??
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
>
> bmy...@ionet.net (TarlaStar) wrote:
> >>I disagree that those animals have no rights and so can be shot
> >>without reason. It is never been legal for anyone to shoot most of
> >>those animals on sight in New Zealand WITHOUT good REASON.
>
> >native species etc.
>
> I agree he stated a good reason. But that is the point there has to
> be a reason.
Oh, at last a break through. You have finally agreed that the only good
possum is a dead possum (in NZ) then ? How shall we kill the 75million
of them ?? SHall we dump 7,500,000 kilos of 1080 poison over NZ to do it
? That will kill most of the dogs cats and birds in the country, and
probably cause a major ecological problem by getting into water, being
drunk by humans. Or shall be go shoot the little shits ??
> Are you saying that a good reason to kill an animal is because they
> exist?
Any introduced species of animal in NZ has no rights. Do you not agree
that because the animal doesn't belong here, it should be killed ? What
do you do with flies or mice in your house ?
> The question is not what purpose posssums serve but what harm they do.
You are not aware of what harm possums do in NZ ? You feel there is a
need to even ask that question ??
Keith Davidson
Roberta G
says...
>
>gled...@no-spam.ihug.co.nz (Roberta G) wrote:
>
>>>The main concern is what CAN be and IS done with the firearm.
>
>>Richard - take a good look at this statement. Are you really still
worried
>>about *potential*?
>By "main concern" I mean the main concern when talking about firearms
>and what the firearm laws should be.
But you haven't answered my question - you still seem to be hung up on
*potential* risk and what *might* happen, rather than what does happen.
>Unlike you, I don't want them to become a more common sight or to be
>THOUGHT they were NEEDED by civilians for self-protection to reduce
>the crime rate.
I do not believe that I have ever advocated that either guns become a more
common *sight* or that they be used *in this country* for self-defence.
>I think it would matter if firearms become as common as knives, cars
>etc. and needed to be used, or threatened to be used, just as often
>(for self-defence etc.). I can't understand why you would not be
>concerned about that happening.
Because there is research that *disproves* the *more guns = more crime*
theory and plenty of research that shows that even banning all guns does
not by itself lower the firearms-related violent crime rate. I am much
more concerned about the rapid increase in violent crime in this country
and what that says about NZ society.
>>>I think the threat is minimal MAINLY because, unlike you, I think that
>>>there are not many military weapons in civilian hands.
>
>>Oh, dear! Do you realise that a large number of the basic, ordinary, A
>>category, bolt action rifles in this country are *ex* military? All
those
>>wonderful old Lee Enfields, etc.
>I think that you knew by military weapons I meant weapons currently
>used by the military and not weapons which have been used in the whole
>of history by the military in all parts of the world. The term for
>them is ex-military weapons, antique weapons or historic weapons etc.
Only collectors [who cannot ever legally fire those firearms that they
hold on their collectors licence] should refer to them as *weapons*. For
anyone else, the firearms are not held as *weapons* - they are pieces of
sporting equipment!
>How many of the type of weapons currently used by the military are in
>civilians hands?
Are we talking *all* militaries and *all* civilians? If so, then there are
a vast number of types of rifles, pistols and shotguns that are also owned
an used by civilians. Civilians *in this country* may own machine guns,
provided that they do not fire them. Civilians in some other countries may
own *and fire* them, providing they are somewhere safe to do that.
Many militaries around the world are short of funds, and so have not
upgraded to the flashest gear. Also, of course, many military and
police sniper units use *bolt-action* firearms.
>But in general I am against weapons no longer used by the military, or
>the police etc, STILL having "dangerous" features either not wanted
>or needed and so not legally able to be used by civilians, being sold
>to individual civilians. Museums etc. serve an educational purpose so
>they are different.
1. To which *dangerous features* do you refer?
2. The dreaded military style semi auto can be used legally by those who
are specifically licensed for them.
3. Few museums in this country would be able to acquire firearms if those
arms were not first collected and maintained by a private citizen and then
bequeathed to the museums.
>Those features should be removed before sale. It seems it is only for
>economic reasons they are not removed.
For a person interested in the authenticity of the firearm, removal of its
*standard* features means that the firearm is no longer what it is
supposed to be. For either collectors or those specifically interested in
military firearms, removal of those features *instantly* renders the item
useless.
>>>>Pistols were banned in the UK around 2 years ago (firearms
>>>>crime has risen to record heights since...)
>>>
>>>Firearms crime involving pistols or all firearm crime? It would be
>>>interesting to see the precise figures and details about the type of
>>>firearm offenses.
>
>>*Violent* crime involving pistols has increased. This same increase in
gun
>>violence has occurred in Australia since their law change, but was
perhaps most
>>obvious in Mexico. Following the ban of private ownership of firearms,
the use
>>of illegal firearms in crimes of violence soared.
>What sort of violence
Are you referring to the difference between shooting and something like
bashing a person using a rifle butt? Still violence as far as I am
concerned...
>and who were the victims of this violence - the police or private
citizens?
The largest proportion of the victims were private citizens.
>Are these crimes where ACTUAL violence occured? What happened to the
>crime rate NOT involving violence but involving firearms?
I don't think that a crime is ever registered as being *almost* committed.
Therefore I doubt whether a crime of violence can occur *without*
violence.
>>Pretty simple really. With no opposition, the violent offenders were
pretty
>>much assured that they had the upper hand in *any* engagement.
>
>Unlike you I think it would be a bad if we get the stage when most of
>the people in New Zealand are forced to have a firearm for reasons of
>self-defence and to prevent crime.
Please show me where I have advocated this.
>>In the same vein, in those states of the US where *shall issue* laws
have been
>>passed [allowing concealed carry if there is no lawful reason to deny
it],
>>violent crime has *decreased*. Equally simple - few crims would be
stupid
>>enough to attack someone who may be more heavily armed than the crim
>>him/herself. Crime loses some of its glamour when the the prospect of
being
>>*killed* raises its head. Simpler to go elsewhere, were the citizens are
not
>>routinely armed!
>
>This is where we disagree.
Show me your proof - I have already said that I am happy to present you
with the research studies that support my contention.
>>>Since by definition it can only be firearm owners who are committing
>>>more firearm crimes SHOULD they be trusted?
>
>>You are using *firearm owner* here to indicate *firearm possessor* -
without
>>indicating whether the possessor is legally entitled to that possession.
The
>>use of the term *firearm owner* has previously been used in this
discussion to
>>refer to licensed owners.
>
>I have fogotten the "slogan" but in law ownership often means the same
>as possession.
This is semantics. A person who *unlawfully possesses* a firearm is not
the same as a person who *lawfully owns* a firearm. Can you see the
difference? This discussion has, up until this point, used the term
*owner* to mean a licensed owner. Possession is not the same!
>>Your argument is *still* close the the feminist *castrate 'em all*
argument,
>>BTW!! How very strange! Seems you find the logic train compelling...
>
>Please explain how thinking civilians should be limited in the choice
>of the type of firearms and other weapons (all man-made) they can be
>allowed to own in any way compares to thinking that ALL men should be
>deprived of a body part which just about all men, by definition, own
>without having any choice in the matter!?
The point is that in each case some people demand an unrealistic solution
for a perceived problem - based solely on *potential*. Not on actual
occurence, not on statistics, but just because they *feel* that action
*should be taken*.
>>>I basically agree but the firearm should be checked also, at least at
>>>point of sale, to see that it is "fit and proper".
>
>>Hmmm - bad news for the historians then. They wouldn't be able to buy a
>>firearm in relic condition to restore it...and more of our heritage
>>would be lost.
>
>So you want firearms with design/construction faults, making them
>clearly unsafe and unable to be safely used, sold?
You don't understand the term *relic*, do you? However, I don't want
a firearm to *not* be sold to someone who can repair it and make it safe,
or those who wish to restore it to maintain an example of our heritage.
Remember, collectors are not legally entitled to shoot any firearm held on
their collectors licence. In that case it does not matter if the firearm
is technically unsafe to shoot, as it will not *be* shot!
>Still I suppose all that matters to you is that YOU can recognize an
>unsafe firearm and too bad if others can't.
On what basis do you make this claim? You seem to infer a great deal that
I have not intended to imply.
>>Personally, I would advocate the development and implementation of a
>>system whereby a member of the public can raise concerns about a
>>behaviour change in a firearms licensee. Providing there were the
>>appropriate protections against vexatious complaints, it shouldn't be
>>much of a problem, and then the public could take action if they were
>>worried that a licensee was no longer *fit and proper* for some reason.
>
>But there is a system like that that already in place. Bruce Simpson
>has already mentioned that it, in his experience, it is not enforced.
No, there isn't a *system*. A person can contact the police and comment,
but when last I discussed it with them, there is no system in place to
assist the police to verify and act on that comment. Therefore there is a
wide range of response, with the subsequent range of quality.
>>>I think we should not
>>>allow a lot of ordinary civilians to have weapons used by the
>>>military. The military have weapons for a reason, or should have them
>>>for a reason. Civilians should not be able to have the SAME weapons
>>>for different reasons.
>
>>So in your world, no object can be used for more than one purpose.
>Under the thread "Thin edge of another wedge.." you complained that I
>used the phrase "Firearms are versatile". You seemed to imply that
>they could only be used for one purpose. Now you are saying they can
>be used for more than one purpose, making them versatile! Make up
>your mind.
Look carefully at your comment. As I stated before - firerarms are *not*
versatile in and of themselves, because they have no way of acting by
themselves. They can be *used* for different purposes, but *use* requires
a user. That has been my point all along.
You are the one who does not appear to comprehend that firearms used
correctly as *weapons* by the military can have civilian sporting
application.
>If the firearm CAN be used in such a way as the military used or
>planned to use it and for the same REASON the military had the firearm
>CLEARLY that makes them a danger. Unless you are saying that military
>firearms are not dangerous.
Look at your comment - you are looking at *potential* again. Just because
something CAN be used in a particular way, doesn't mean that it WILL be.
My care is capable of 160kph, but it won't be doing that while under my
control.
Once again, Richard, the *use* to which an item is put by one user, does
not mean that another user will use the item in the same way. I am frankly
astonished that you are unclear on this.
>But firearm design and features can vary quite widely.
In the engineering sense, this might be true. But in basic operation -
there is not that much variation.
>>2. There have been a number of injury accidents with the police as they
>>have changed from using revolvers to using semi-auto pistols.
>
>So are the police, in your view, "fit and proper" people to own
>firearms? If the police are not then who can be?
I believe that their training is inadequate. For a civilian who already
holds an *A* licence, there is a mandatory 6 month training period before
that person is entitled to even apply for a pistol licence. During that 6
month period, the person is required to attend a club for training/active
participation on at least 12 occasions. If his/her club then agrees that
the individual has learned what he/she is required to learn, and is a
safe, fit and proper person to own pistols, an application goes to the
national body. If the Pistol Association also agrees, then an application
goes to the police. If the individual's four referees also agree that the
person is fit and proper, and the police agree - *then* and only then, is
a licence likely to be issued. The police have no such requirements.
Also, you seem to be saying that by the very nature of a person being a
police officer, he/she cannot have any physical/mental/emotional problems
that would make him/her unfit. Given the number of police officers, it is
unlikely that every single one of them would be *fit and proper* at any
given time [as during a relicensing]. They are just people, after all.
>>See above about not being able to recognise make and model. It does
>>annoy me that they tend to call ANY semi-auto an *MSSA*. It is not true,
>>they know it is not true, but they persist in doing it. I wonder why?
>
>I agree that things should be called what they are but why should it
>worry you so much? <snip> What practical difference is it making?
It worries me for two reasons. The first is that if the police and the
media are making so many mistakes on this issue, how can we hope to trust
them on any other issue? The second is that misinformation and
sensationalism have led people like you to have deep concerns over
something which is truly an insignificant problem.
>>What is this issue with *military* things, Richard?
>
>I want to know whether you think people holding a firearm licence
>should be allowed to have any military type of firearm including
>motars, coilless rifles, bazooka etc. in a number only limited by
>their budget?
Actually, if they are correctly licensed and obey the law, they can have
all these things now. In most cases, they are not able to use them. As I
have said before, I believe that in a free society there should be no
restriction on any person owning anything that they want, providing that
they want it for a lawful purpose. To save you asking me, there is no
lawful purpose for having a nuclear bomb, so I wouldn't agree with that.
>You are right, I have been talking too much about military weapons.
>Do you think people who hold a firearm licence should be able to have
>handguns in unlimited type and number?
If they hold the correct licence endorsement, and hold pistols
acceptable under the terms of that endorsement, then I do not see any
problem. If they are safe with *one*, then they are safe to hold as many
as they wish.
>Unlike some, I know, and have constantly said, that firearms are
>different from other tools and items ( such as alcohol, cars, tobacco
>etc.)
Why do you think they are different, Richard? Each of things you mentioned
can be used or misused/abused. The same is true for firearms. In
practical terms, you are at far greater risk of harm from others' misuse
of alcohol/cars/tobacco.
Roberta
Keith Davidson
> >the Alpers anti-gun mob slowly pervade the normally highly rational and
> >logical thoughts of our politicians (lol) and further changes are made
> >to the Arms Act, the outcome will be:
>
> Could you please say where my thoughts are not logical?
I don't think this newsgroup would permit a posting of such a length !!
> >2. Legitimate firearms owners will pay considerably more money to
> >continue to have a right of ownership.
>
> If you need a firearm for your job etc. then I agree that exemptions/
> a cheaper licence rate could be looked at for people like you, but for
> the majority of people it is a choice.
Hell, my job ? I am Company Secretary/Assistant General Manager of a
daily newspaper, and Manager of an ISP. I don't think it is in my job
description that I am required to use firearms as part of my job !
> When doing/being something is a choice and not a necessity then can it
> be called a right?
The right to bear arms is a basic human right extending (at least) from
the Magna Carta. Even in the USA this right is enshrined in its
constitution.
Firearms ownership in NZ is at least an equal right to the right of
vehicle ownership.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
>
> gled...@no-spam.ihug.co.nz (Roberta G) wrote:
>
> >I am interested in why you think firearms are phallic symbols...
>
> Uh...because they're shaped like a dick and balls and something is
> propelled out of them?
Ummmm hell, my masculine parts must be a very unusual shape then, as
they in no way resemble my firearms. I just wish I had a longer
barrel... lol ;-)
Keith Davidson