The Great Media Gun purchace Beatup

Forums › Off topic › The Great Media Gun purchace Beatup

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1413400 25-Oct-2015 10:11

Geektastic:
hashbrown:
Geektastic: It is not a matter about which the public required information. It is, if anything, a matter which government and the police required information, which could easily have been supplied without actually carrying out the illegal purchase.

ahem.

Geektastic:
Mark:
Geektastic:

Fly one over our house and I will accidentally mistake it for a magpie...

No you wouldn't, you're just being a keyboard warrior at the moment, I'm sure in reality you are like 99.999% of people and will just look at it and wonder why it's there.

Oh no - my Beretta would be out of the cupboard very quickly if someone was flying one over my house.

Irrelevant to the discussion to be honest. We are discussing whether breaking the law by obtaining firearms by deception is a matter of public interest.

I agree with you here.

Drones, personal privacy etc.. are clearly a separate issue.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413401 25-Oct-2015 10:16

JWR:
Geektastic:
itxtme:
Geektastic:

Whether this is 'enough' or or not is a matter for Parliament to decide, not Gun City or a second-rate 'news' program populated by mediocre journalists....

Because this would be the first time ever a news program informing people has lead to the government/company/anyone reconsidering the way they do something.... Its what news agencies do, inform the public.

It is not a matter about which the public required information. It is, if anything, a matter which government and the police required information, which could easily have been supplied without actually carrying out the illegal purchase.

But, that is not really the way things work.

You can provide all the information you want. But, generally government institutions will not respond to unsought information.

They want to appear in control of any situation. New information tends to undermine that view.

I think you can use terms like 'second-rate', 'mediocre' etc. to describe TV3 in this instance.

However, there have been changes in the Police process for handling online gun purchases.

I don't believe those would have occurred without the TV3 Story program.

Could have run the story up to the point where the order was accepted, then revealed it as a story so that the firearm was never actually out of the control of a licenced person.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413402 25-Oct-2015 10:17

hashbrown:
Geektastic:
hashbrown:
Geektastic: Irrelevant to the discussion to be honest. We are discussing whether breaking the law by obtaining firearms by deception is a matter of public interest.

As opposed to breaking the law by damaging property using your firearm, and then attempting to deceive the police by claiming you identified the target as a magpie?

Defending your property against spying and illegal intrusion into private airspace, I think you meant.

Chuck "Illegaly" on the front of that sentence and sure. Now justify you plans to subsequently lie to the police as anything but self-interest.

No need to do so.

nakedmolerat

4629 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413405 25-Oct-2015 10:23

Geektastic: Could have run the story up to the point where the order was accepted, then revealed it as a story so that the firearm was never actually out of the control of a licenced person.

Do you actually read/listen and understand what really happen?

They were very clear on this issue. They have someone with gun license when the gun was delivered until it was returned to the police.

The only contentious/debated issue is on signing the form with fake police details.

All gun dealership should have a mean to access police database and compare the signature, just like how the pharmacy has the database details for doctor's signature.

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1413414 25-Oct-2015 10:54

Geektastic:
JWR:
Geektastic:
itxtme:
Geektastic:

Whether this is 'enough' or or not is a matter for Parliament to decide, not Gun City or a second-rate 'news' program populated by mediocre journalists....

Because this would be the first time ever a news program informing people has lead to the government/company/anyone reconsidering the way they do something.... Its what news agencies do, inform the public.

It is not a matter about which the public required information. It is, if anything, a matter which government and the police required information, which could easily have been supplied without actually carrying out the illegal purchase.

But, that is not really the way things work.

You can provide all the information you want. But, generally government institutions will not respond to unsought information.

They want to appear in control of any situation. New information tends to undermine that view.

I think you can use terms like 'second-rate', 'mediocre' etc. to describe TV3 in this instance.

However, there have been changes in the Police process for handling online gun purchases.

I don't believe those would have occurred without the TV3 Story program.

Could have run the story up to the point where the order was accepted, then revealed it as a story so that the firearm was never actually out of the control of a licenced person.

Wouldn't the powers just say the system was still working?

I think they needed to prove the system wasn't working.

hashbrown

463 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1413498 25-Oct-2015 13:46

JWR:
Geektastic: Irrelevant to the discussion to be honest. We are discussing whether breaking the law by obtaining firearms by deception is a matter of public interest.

I agree with you here.

Drones, personal privacy etc.. are clearly a separate issue.

Vigilantism and making false statements to the police are entirely relevant.

gzt

17127 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1413510 25-Oct-2015 14:11

hashbrown:
JWR:
Geektastic: Irrelevant to the discussion to be honest. We are discussing whether breaking the law by obtaining firearms by deception is a matter of public interest.

I agree with you here.

Drones, personal privacy etc.. are clearly a separate issue.

Vigilantism and making false statements to the police are entirely relevant.

Imho that discussion will add little to this topic and it is starting to look personal and silly. Create a new topic about legality of shooting drones if you feel strongly about it please.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

michael001

160 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#1413780 26-Oct-2015 03:20

Geektastic:
hashbrown:
Geektastic: Irrelevant to the discussion to be honest. We are discussing whether breaking the law by obtaining firearms by deception is a matter of public interest.

As opposed to breaking the law by damaging property using your firearm, and then attempting to deceive the police by claiming you identified the target as a magpie?

Defending your property against spying and illegal intrusion into private airspace, I think you meant.

You sound dangerous. Can you let me know which area you live in please so I can insure my children are not shot and killed by you for sneaking over your fence and pinching apples off your tree?

MikeAqua

7782 posts

Uber Geek

#1415618 28-Oct-2015 17:12

If I was the owner of Gun City, I would be annoyed at being the target of fraud aiming to lift TV ratings of a show.

If HdPA has impersonated a police officer then I think they should throw the book at her.

Mike

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1415824 28-Oct-2015 22:40

michael001:
Geektastic:
hashbrown:
Geektastic: Irrelevant to the discussion to be honest. We are discussing whether breaking the law by obtaining firearms by deception is a matter of public interest.

As opposed to breaking the law by damaging property using your firearm, and then attempting to deceive the police by claiming you identified the target as a magpie?

Defending your property against spying and illegal intrusion into private airspace, I think you meant.

You sound dangerous. Can you let me know which area you live in please so I can insure my children are not shot and killed by you for sneaking over your fence and pinching apples off your tree?

I'd probably worry more about the livestock than me if you come to steal our fruit, as well as the 38 beehives....

MikeAqua

7782 posts

Uber Geek

#1416032 29-Oct-2015 11:06

Michael001: You should teach your kids not to pick fruit of other people's trees - you don't know when it was last sprayed ...

Mike

hangon

397 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1416187 29-Oct-2015 15:33

From what I've gathered, the reporters are not being honest and up front with how/what they were actually doing.

It's a loophole - retailers unable to verify police signatures on order form on the fly.

But that loophole only applies to legit firearm license holders who had provided licence details and ordered from the same retailer before, and haven't changed his/her address.

In the rare situation someone moved into said firearm license holder's address, knowing his/her firearm license number, could have ordered a firearm, but then it could easily trace back to them in the audit.

And that loophole hasn't been exploited by TV3. The legit firearm license holder was present signing off the package.

Ideally the retailers could verify police signatures on order form upon receiving it. Police took an easy route (for them) that all order forms have to be sent from the police after this, that could cause some delay in terms of ordering/receiving firearms but I think that's an acceptable trade off for a (slightly) more secure process.

It's a very rare loophole and frankly it's a media beatup. It's very likely someone recently preparing for retirement provided the insider knowledge to TV3 and directed the whole thing. Police audit hasn't identified any similar purchases before.

gzt

17127 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1416207 29-Oct-2015 16:01

Your summary implies that the delivery address matched the licence holder id provided. Based on what I have read I would be very surprised if that was the case.

hangon

397 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1416225 29-Oct-2015 16:26

gzt: Your summary implies that the delivery address matched the licence holder id provided. Based on what I have read I would be very surprised if that was the case.

if that's not the case, then there would be another flow in GC's system. I know of some shops verify the address for any existing customers for online/mail orders.

police do verify home address of license holders, and even requires that of the seller in case of private sales.

the alleged license holder who provided the license details, had B and E endorsement. the story implied they made up the name AND the license number (just lucky) and we now knew that's not true, and frankly, a bit disgusting.

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1424 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1416239 29-Oct-2015 16:54

hangon:
gzt: Your summary implies that the delivery address matched the licence holder id provided. Based on what I have read I would be very surprised if that was the case.

if that's not the case, then there would be another flow in GC's system. I know of some shops verify the address for any existing customers for online/mail orders.

police do verify home address of license holders, and even requires that of the seller in case of private sales.

the alleged license holder who provided the license details, had B and E endorsement. the story implied they made up the name AND the license number (just lucky) and we now knew that's not true, and frankly, a bit disgusting.

You can change the delivery address per purchase, for example I have had some stuff delivered home and some to work. They don't ask you to resend them the copy of your licence. Why would they? its not like your home address is on it.

Matthew

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7