Police frustrations

[Young Thrash Driver 1020]

How many terrorists and gang members hold a FAL in NZ?

How many firearms offences are committed by FAL holders yearly? 

How many firearms offences are committed by gang members yearly?

Perhaps we can reflect on how licenced firearms owners must be one of the most law abiding segments of society. And how, just maybe, targeting them with more legislation and restrictions will change none of society's problems... Because they cause none of them.

[Herbmiester 923]

I had an endorsed licence for 27 years and had a number of rifles, machine guns and pistols on that licence, I had/have a strong room, wireless alarm and two dogs that dont like strangers. My security is/was top notch. I have been through 2 lots of vetting, and my background and who I associate with has been reviewed in depth. I have also worked as an advisor to Police for the past 5 years on appointment by members of the Law & Order Select Committee. I also worked on the team that priced all the firearms for buyback and am a registered police valuer and  range inspector.  I can tell you Police management of the Arms act is very poor. When road policing stats look bad the district commanders raid the Arms budget  so they can try and bump up the road statistics. Arms Officers are overworked and vetting officers are paid a pittance. 

An incident like Christchurch was a tragedy, but if Tarrant didn't have a licence this would not have happened. He had no underworld connections to get guns  so he would have really struggled to find what he wanted. Police were slack at Aramoana, they did not follow up when  the Napier Gunman lost his licence and one of their own was killed as a consequence and they have failed to deal with gangs and guns. Saying that MSSA firearms are a bad look for Gun owners is a joke, it's like saying high performance cars are bad look for SUV drivers. 

I sold back well over $150k worth of WW2 collectible firearms in the buyback, the Govt trampled over democratic process and vilified firearms owners so they could promote the buyback (Paid confiscation). They banned ammunition that is far less lethal than many readily available hunting rounds and refused to pay for it, worse still they could not even clearly define what was actually banned. They worked on appearance and  hyperbole rather than fact and rushed it so no once could argue. They are typical socialists who hate firearms on principle and I can tell you that some of the regulations (not subject to democratic process) are draconian, have been dreamed up by people who have no idea what they are doing and are totally ineffective. 

What you should worry about is when they turn their eye towards vehicles especial if there is a Labour/Green coalition. You can bet a tax on the type of cars we like will be in there somewhere and dont bet that they wont ban some things outright. 

[Contrails 317]

On 8/12/2020 at 10:16 PM, Young Thrash Driver said:

How many terrorists and gang members hold a FAL in NZ?

How many firearms offences are committed by FAL holders yearly? 

How many firearms offences are committed by gang members yearly?

Perhaps we can reflect on how licenced firearms owners must be one of the most law abiding segments of society. And how, just maybe, targeting them with more legislation and restrictions will change none of society's problems... Because they cause none of them.

September 11 was the first and only time Terrorists used Flight training to train for their mission. But it highlighted a major loop hole as to who was deemed fit to receive Flight training (even recreational).  Only after Sept 11, background checks became mandatory for flight training. How many law abiding citizens take up flight training? They still have to put up with the new rules and legislations (at an extra cost).

Airport security became a pain to deal with and go through after Sept 11. But it was necessary. How many terrorists have airport security managed to catch/stop so far? None, but every law abiding passenger has to be screened the same way. 

Same way this was a first  'White Supremacist/Terrorist' committing an act of Terrorism in NZ (the Christchurch shooter was not known to Authorities prior to the attack. Some might argue that he was a Law abiding citizen then).

The Christchurch attack exposed the fact that the Gun laws were way too relaxed in NZ. Yes, it is a pain for you law abiding folks to have to put up with the new rules and legislations (just like dealing with the security screening at an airport). But it is helping to add another filter to make it harder for Terrorists/Gang members to get hold of weapons so easily here in NZ. 

These are only reactive measures to make it harder for the next guy. The Terrorists will always come up with new ways to cause harm.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Contrails

[kwhelan 241]

35 minutes ago, Contrails said:

 

The Christchurch attack exposed the fact that the Gun laws were way too relaxed in NZ.

think the point went straight over your head

the existing gun laws, if followed correctly by police would have stopped him obtaining those weapons

it was human error not a law issue

[Contrails 317]

1 hour ago, kwhelan said:

think the point went straight over your head

the existing gun laws, if followed correctly by police would have stopped him obtaining those weapons

it was human error not a law issue

That's debatable.  One can easily argue that even if his application was processed correctly, he could have still obtained the licence - especially considering that he did not have prior convictions or was known to the authorities.

Secondly, the Terrorist himself was interviewed by the Police and was still granted a licence. If that sentence doesn't highlight the flaws in the system to obtain a Gun licence, then I am wasting my time posting here.

It was indeed a Human error to have missed the prevention of the Massacre. A Gun range owner had warned the Police about the terrorist, yet they failed to check up on him. The problem is not one officer making an error of judgement but the Terrorist managed to slip through quite a few cracks in the system. Revision of the Gun laws is just tightening one of the cracks for the next guy.

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Contrails

[Olaf 3317]

No.  He'd not have obtained a license, for starters.

[kwhelan 241]

2 hours ago, Contrails said:

2 hours ago, Contrails said:

That's debatable.  One can easily argue that even if his application was processed correctly, he could have still obtained the licence -
 

sorry but your first line is completely wrong, he was never legally entitled, fullstop, you obviously have not understood all the criteria for a license, reread the entire thread, its all been covered , quite specific and simple laws weren't followed, pure human error hence the thread title.

also the gun range owner story has been fact checked and was discredited

the law changes have not made a bit of difference to public safety, there were no cracks to tighten in the law, only the execution of it

[Olaf 3317]

19 hours ago, Contrails said:

That's debatable.  One can easily argue that even if his application was processed correctly, he could have still obtained the licence - especially considering that he did not have prior convictions or was known to the authorities.

Secondly, the Terrorist himself was interviewed by the Police and was still granted a licence. If that sentence doesn't highlight the flaws in the system to obtain a Gun licence, then I am wasting my time posting here.

It was indeed a Human error to have missed the prevention of the Massacre. A Gun range owner had warned the Police about the terrorist, yet they failed to check up on him. The problem is not one officer making an error of judgement but the Terrorist managed to slip through quite a few cracks in the system. Revision of the Gun laws is just tightening one of the cracks for the next guy.

 

Yes, you are wasting your time posting here.  As I posited earlier, you’re not displaying any understanding of firearms legislation or practice in NZ.  Hell, you’re still referring to firearms as guns.  Are rifles beyond the scope of your discussion, or is it that you just don’t recognise any difference?

Read the laws.  Read the stats.  Read the submissions to the select committee.  Then return and contribute meaningfully to the discussion.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Olaf
Grammar

[M3AN 4016]

1 hour ago, Olaf said:

...Hell, you’re still referring to firearms as guns.  Are rifles beyond the scope of your discussion, or is it that you just don’t recognise any difference?...

I think I get the point you're making ("all firearms are guns but not all guns are firearms"?) but rifles are both firearms and guns so there is no difference in this case.

Unless you're using the original (and long forgotten) definition of "guns" to mean old-school "big guns" like artillery? But that would be silly.

If I'm wrong about your point, what distinction are you making between a rifle and a gun?

[Olaf 3317]

Dave, go and do the reading, draw yourself a Venn diagram.  Guns have no rifling.  We have firearms laws - not gun laws.  It's an important distinction.  

All guns are Firearms.  All rifles are Firearms.  Not all Firearms are guns.  

Handguns have a special distinction in New Zealand as they are (appropriately) very heavily controlled, and the privelige of ownership is extended to very few.  

There's a great deal of precision required around Firearms handling and use, and this is a *good thing*.  You want precision, and safety.  You wouldn't want eejits handling firearms without having taken the trouble to learn, be examined (and vetted) as to their capability to handle and use firearms safely and responsibly. 

Sadly, there are many with opinions (usually informed by One News or Stuff (or worse), who've not bothered to investigate or learn, or understand; and yet continue to advance ill-informed and irrational (and emotive) positions on Firearms in New Zealand.  

If we applied this thinking to other areas, the consequences are lessened.  If a wowser doesn't get the difference between a Lager, an IPA, and an RTD, who cares?  With Firearms, there's personal safety at stake.  Imagine a repeated rant from a Prius-hugging greenie that all modified cars are bad, LVVTA should be abolished, and all non-standard cars should be crushed immediately cos they're unsafe and driven by lunatics.  You'd hope to nudge these people in the direction of learning and understanding. 

[M3AN 4016]

15 hours ago, Olaf said:

Dave, go and do the reading, draw yourself a Venn diagram.  Guns have no rifling.  We have firearms laws - not gun laws.  It's an important distinction.  

No need to be condescending, I was just trying to understand why you don't think rifles are guns when they are indeed guns. I did do my reading before I posted because I thought it odd that you were being so precise with your language (and requiring that precision of others) yet chose the example you did.

Rifles are guns Olaf, the original term is actually "rifled gun". But certainly, not all guns are rifles, or rifled.

I have no opinion on the rest of your position, I was just pointing out an inconsistency in your argument.

Edited August 18, 2020 by M3AN

[Olaf 3317]

Dave, I'm sorry you've interpreted my explanation as condescension, that was not my intent.

[E30 325i Rag-Top 2956]

7 hours ago, Olaf said:

Imagine a repeated rant from a Prius-hugging greenie that all modified cars are bad, LVVTA should be abolished, and all non-standard cars should be crushed immediately cos they're unsafe and driven by lunatics.  You'd hope to nudge these people in the direction of learning and understanding. 

Get ready for this, especially if the Greens end up in any sort of position of power after the election. Luckily Winston shot down their initial half-baked cut and paste ideas about controlling cars and their emissions. It won't take long for the areas of Motorsport and modified and/or performance cars to get the spotlight shone onto them.

[HalfJobHarry 106]

On 6/24/2020 at 5:03 PM, B.M.W Ltd said:

Back in the day when I got my fire arms licence your guns were registered against that licence. Your property was inspected and all firearms were sold with a transfer against that licence to another holding a licence. This included private and commercial sales This system should be brought back in and policed appropriately. Online sales  should be made illegal. Pick up only after all the paper work is carried out and registered..... My opinion

I was genuinely surprised when moving to NZ how relatively lax the ownership laws are around anything other than pistols. Each firearm in the UK (along with quantities of ammunition) are registered against an individuals Firearms Certificate, and changes and transfers are tracked. Additionally membership to a gun club must be maintained. (for non agricultural owners, but agricultural licenses have. 

However in the Christchurch case something seems to have come unstuck somewhere in terms of the process. 

More generally, this highlights an issue with any legal licensing system, those who would pass whatever checks and don't have a history of violence etc will tend to be granted licenses. Systems that typically work well (and I think the UKs does/did) have stringent followup throughout your entire time of being licensed (spot checks on your gun storage, clubs must report lapsed memberships or even members that never attend). If you let any of the requisite conditions for  licensing lapse you'll lose your license. 

Also I'll share my position which is usually unfathomable by those who have not owned firearms or been around them (I'm an ex British Army soldier and shot target rifle as a civvie for many many years). The TYPE of weapon is largely irrelevant to the risk it poses. This has been demonstrated numerous times worldwide and holds out in the numbers. Terms like "assault weapons" are made up terms that originated it seems from the US anti-gun lobby. It's the training that makes the difference, and in the Christchurch case there seemed to be a degree of effective training either received or self taught (?). 

[kwhelan 241]

self taught? you don't get those disciplined habits as easily seen in the video footage playing call of duty,  he was well trained in combat 

More generally, this highlights an issue with any legal licensing system, those who would pass whatever checks and don't have a history of violence etc will tend to be granted licenses.

not sure thats correct in this case, the history checks and sponsor checks just weren't done but yes the type of weapon is irrelevant. Most terrorism in UK is now done in trucks not with assault weapons. can't ban trucks

[jom 98]

2 hours ago, HalfJobHarry said:

I was genuinely surprised when moving to NZ how relatively lax the ownership laws are around anything other than pistols. Each firearm in the UK (along with quantities of ammunition) are registered against an individuals Firearms Certificate, and changes and transfers are tracked.

 

Just to put things in perspective, it was Dunblane that triggered (sic) the complete removal of pistols in the UK, even though the guy illegally owned rifles.  If we want to maintain a realistic firearms community in  NZ we need to support the police 100% - or as has been suggested, get an independent licensing authority. The police have proved several times that they just can't do it.

[M3AN 4016]

The Police problem is that they continue to be expected to do more but can't even afford to do what they're doing now.

They haven't been resourced to respond to burglaries for nearly 20 years... I'd say guns, until it really matters (i.e. too late), are way down on their priority list. I don't blame the cops.

What they could do though is take all the twats that are assigned to sit on the side of the road all day snagging people for doing 105-111 and reassign them to something that'll actually make a difference.

 

 

[HalfJobHarry 106]

2 hours ago, jom said:

Just to put things in perspective, it was Dunblane that triggered (sic) the complete removal of pistols in the UK, even though the guy illegally owned rifles.  If we want to maintain a realistic firearms community in  NZ we need to support the police 100% - or as has been suggested, get an independent licensing authority. The police have proved several times that they just can't do it.

The removal of pistols in private ownership yes...but the controls were tight even prior to that. 

[HalfJobHarry 106]

3 hours ago, kwhelan said:

self taught? you don't get those disciplined habits as easily seen in the video footage playing call of duty,  he was well trained in combat 

More generally, this highlights an issue with any legal licensing system, those who would pass whatever checks and don't have a history of violence etc will tend to be granted licenses.

not sure thats correct in this case, the history checks and sponsor checks just weren't done but yes the type of weapon is irrelevant. Most terrorism in UK is now done in trucks not with assault weapons. can't ban trucks

Self taught...as in reading manuals, looking at videos etc. You could pick up a lot of the basics and then drill yourself on it. What little I saw was of somebody who had perhaps had some weapons handling training etc, but very little/no operational/training experience (especially if you consider the before and after). I wont dive deeper on this medium. 

My point is, that even if sponsor checks etc are done, somebody of previous good character who goes rogue, can't be guarded against easily. This is where I think the UK gun club membership thing and that you must actually attend the club can help...you just can't get licensed and disappear off with your arsenal never to be seen again. 

[kwhelan 241]

pick up the basics  from reading manuals, and then apply them calmly,routinely, in a high stress "assumed first and only time situation" are two different things, but yes ,not to be discussed in public so ending it now

agree with you on the rogue aspect, plenty of very young angry school shooters in USA and that culture is what is aspired/copied here so its only a matter of time I guess and who doesn't know how to get into their dads gun cabinet. The job prospects of the  future and the destructive nature of our race baiting press, are going to make a lot of disenfranchised youth for sure but I still don't think you can legislate the problem away or it was justified at the time.

Agree entirely  with posts above it just needs an independent body that sole job is to control that, not the police who move funds around as needed and have become political assets to be abused by gvnmts

[jom 98]

12 hours ago, HalfJobHarry said:

The removal of pistols in private ownership yes...but the controls were tight even prior to that. 

I know the controls were tight, I owned some. Interestingly pistols were not banned in Northern Ireland.

What I was getting at is that governments always knee-jerk in the direction of the biggest lobby. We nned to be completely on-side with the rulemakers to avoid these reactions. They come out of left field after an incident and nobody is properly prepared to argue the case.

[HalfJobHarry 106]

That's always my major frustration. The knee jerk changes that get brought in in response to an event + the anti gun lobby are often woefully ineffective at tackling the issue.