Does NZ need better gun laws?

Forums › Off topic › Does NZ need better gun laws?

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 16

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1121063 3-Sep-2014 11:54

Geektastic:
jeffnz:
sdav:
DravidDavid: And if you are a hunter, your target isn't always stationary either, haha :) I don't hunt, but moving around targets shooting at them as quick as possible gets the blood pumping and adrenalin runs high.

I've resisted staying out of this thread... All I want to say is that is not a good pro gun example.

well said, its one thing running around shooting at things that don't shoot back to people that choose their own time to attack and usually when no one is ready for it.

Allowing people to have concealed weapons doesn't mean they will be able to react to stop anything happening although if they get over the initial shock they may limit what could happen. Even so giving the wider public this type of access to weapons will mean we are on the the same track as the States and whilst most shootings seem to be gangs shooting each other it will mean the those with weapons are more likely to use them in arguments when they would normally back down now.

Not really.

In the US, you do not need a licence to own a pistol or any other firearm (with some exceptions we will ignore) and you can buy them as easily as buying milk - they are just another item for sale.

If NZ allowed concealed carry, first you would have to actually have a firearms licence. Then you'd need a concealed carry permit, which I expect you would have to pass a test in order to get.

Whilst crims do not obey laws so no gun law will affect their behaviour in this respect, law abiding citizens who have satisfied the police that they are fit holders of a pistol licence will not resort to using them in arguments, any more than they do now. There are 6000 licence holders for pistols who can have up to 12 pistols on their licence. When was the last instance one of them was used in an argument?

I must admit I do pistol whip my b*tch if she gets lippy :)

FYI legally buying firearms in USA you still have to go through a felony check and cooling period, you still need a CCW or OCP to carry, but yes its certainly easier than New Zealand.

Geektastic

18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1121079 3-Sep-2014 12:21

heylinb4nz:
Geektastic:
jeffnz:
sdav:
DravidDavid: And if you are a hunter, your target isn't always stationary either, haha :) I don't hunt, but moving around targets shooting at them as quick as possible gets the blood pumping and adrenalin runs high.

I've resisted staying out of this thread... All I want to say is that is not a good pro gun example.

well said, its one thing running around shooting at things that don't shoot back to people that choose their own time to attack and usually when no one is ready for it.

Allowing people to have concealed weapons doesn't mean they will be able to react to stop anything happening although if they get over the initial shock they may limit what could happen. Even so giving the wider public this type of access to weapons will mean we are on the the same track as the States and whilst most shootings seem to be gangs shooting each other it will mean the those with weapons are more likely to use them in arguments when they would normally back down now.

Not really.

In the US, you do not need a licence to own a pistol or any other firearm (with some exceptions we will ignore) and you can buy them as easily as buying milk - they are just another item for sale.

If NZ allowed concealed carry, first you would have to actually have a firearms licence. Then you'd need a concealed carry permit, which I expect you would have to pass a test in order to get.

Whilst crims do not obey laws so no gun law will affect their behaviour in this respect, law abiding citizens who have satisfied the police that they are fit holders of a pistol licence will not resort to using them in arguments, any more than they do now. There are 6000 licence holders for pistols who can have up to 12 pistols on their licence. When was the last instance one of them was used in an argument?

I must admit I do pistol whip my b*tch if she gets lippy :) FYI legally buying firearms in USA you still have to go through a felony check and cooling period, you still need a CCW or OCP to carry, but yes its certainly easier than New Zealand.

However none of those controls apply when buying at Gun Fairs etc in many states in the US.

Many states also have what they call a 'Must Issue' policy for concealed carry permits where the state authority must issue a permit when requested unless they can show a valid reason (e.g. criminal conviction) why they should not do so.

hangon

398 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 41

#1121080 3-Sep-2014 12:21

back to topic

does NZ need better gun laws - define better. if you mean stricter, probably not. the back ground check requires 2 witness one not a family. no civilians can get functioning automatic firearms - stop bs that , cat b requires regular club participation or be invoked.

caliber restriction doesn't even work as one might have imagined.

the current laws are pretty solid imho. one thing could be done better is regularly inspect storage say every 3 or 5 years, instead of just when you move houses (and notify the police), and possibly raise the bar a bit - currently a cat is a bit too easy to pass. you can build something yourself with mdf and it would pass.

personally I'd rather not go down the path of concealed carry. yes typical police may not receive enough firearms training, and sometimes do not respond quick enough. partly that reflects the relative low gun crime rate (per gun owned by civilian) in NZ. In most cases, I'd prefer police to use taser and put the alleged offender through a trial.

there have been an increase of violent crimes in certain parts in recent years though, and the police resources have lagged behind - that's an issue to be addressed by more and focused resourcing an other means, and having say 3000 civilians conceal carry glocks running around would probably do more harm.

with current code, firearm owners can't anticipate to use firearm for self defense. but that's not to say, when life under threatening, they can't use everything at their disposal to protect themselves, families and other members of the society. I hope the situation here never gets that bad and desperate.

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 305

#1121084 3-Sep-2014 12:35

hangon: back to topic
personally I'd rather not go down the path of concealed carry. yes typical police may not receive enough firearms training, and sometimes do not respond quick enough. partly that reflects the relative low gun crime rate (per gun owned by civilian) in NZ. In most cases, I'd prefer police to use taser and put the alleged offender through a trial.

there have been an increase of violent crimes in certain parts in recent years though, and the police resources have lagged behind - that's an issue to be addressed by more and focused resourcing an other means, and I wouldn't say having say 3000 civilians conceal carry glocks running around would probably do more harm.

Could you expand on how trained civilians with the same or more experience with a firearm as a police officer could do more harm? I'm curious as to why you think that might be the case. :)

Interesting you brought up tasers. Currently they are similarly classified in the sense that if you are found carrying one on your person, you are in BIG trouble. Guns are one thing, but getting in to trouble for possetion of a non-lethal weapon is pretty silly. A hand held taser or concealed taser might be a good starting point to test a new conceal carry law if ever one was introduced. It would be interesting to see exactly what kind of impact it might have on crime and of course look at the statistics behind how often a civilian used their taser in self defense, who otherwise would not have been able to defend themselves.

Just a note...I'm well aware tasers are more than capable of killing someone. But it's significantly less likely than a gunshot wound.

I ask those strictly opposed to concealing a firearm, are you also strictly opposed to concealing what would be classed as a non-lethal weapon such as a taser?

EDIT: Smiley added for mood lightening. Maybe it's just my mood, but I felt as if I sounded dickish with my first sentence.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1121088 3-Sep-2014 12:42

hangon: back to topic

one thing could be done better is regularly inspect storage say every 3 or 5 years

This already happens annually for pistol holders (B-cat) and is also a waste of time. Unless a safe is moved why would re-inspecting do anything to ensure safety ?

with current code, firearm owners can't anticipate to use firearm for self defense

Code is not law (the arms code is a safety manual, the arms act is law), you cannot prohibit someone from using a firearm in self defence (that's against human rights). You can however force someone to break another law in doing so.

eg. I shoot someone invading my home. I get done for discharging a pistol outside of a club range. The act of self defence is legal, but they get me on another law.

This is a deliberate conundrum put in place by police in NZ to discourage the use of a firearm for self defence. But at the end of the day it creates victims of crime, and punishes victims who defend themseleves under what I would deem a higher law (the right to defend ones life).

Case in point

Ricky Beckham walks into Penrose gun store with a Machete and threatens to kill staff if they don't give him a gun. Store owner after repeated warning reluctantly shoot Ricky in stomach (justified self defence).

The police launch vicious case to prosecute store owner, ie Victim (ended up costing him $30,000 and his health to defend) + untold tax payer money. Meanwhile long before the store owners name is cleared....the criminal is out on parole...the criminal who got tax payer legal aid to defend his crime.

Dont ever forget the fact that the police would rather pursue the victim who dares to use a firearm in clear self defence, than to punish the real criminal.

Glassboy

851 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 251

ID Verified

Trusted

#1121091 3-Sep-2014 12:48

heylinb4nz:
The police launch vicious case to prosecute store owner, ie Victim (ended up costing him $30,000 and his health to defend) + untold tax payer money. Meanwhile long before the store owners name is cleared....the criminal is out on parole...the criminal who got tax payer legal aid to defend his crime. Dont ever forget the fact that the police would rather pursue the victim who dares to use a firearm in clear self defence, than to punish the real criminal.

The Police's approach come from failures elsewhere in the Justice System. They've basically stopped evaluating appropriate force and just send everything to trial. There's no further victimisation by the Police.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1121092 3-Sep-2014 12:52

DravidDavid:
hangon: back to topic
personally I'd rather not go down the path of concealed carry. yes typical police may not receive enough firearms training, and sometimes do not respond quick enough. partly that reflects the relative low gun crime rate (per gun owned by civilian) in NZ. In most cases, I'd prefer police to use taser and put the alleged offender through a trial.

there have been an increase of violent crimes in certain parts in recent years though, and the police resources have lagged behind - that's an issue to be addressed by more and focused resourcing an other means, and I wouldn't say having say 3000 civilians conceal carry glocks running around would probably do more harm.

Could you expand on how trained civilians with the same or more experience with a firearm as a police officer could do more harm? I'm curious as to why you think that might be the case. :)

Interesting you brought up tasers. Currently they are similarly classified in the sense that if you are found carrying one on your person, you are in BIG trouble. Guns are one thing, but getting in to trouble for possetion of a non-lethal weapon is pretty silly. A hand held taser or concealed taser might be a good starting point to test a new conceal carry law if ever one was introduced. It would be interesting to see exactly what kind of impact it might have on crime and of course look at the statistics behind how often a civilian used their taser in self defense, who otherwise would not have been able to defend themselves.

Just a note...I'm well aware tasers are more than capable of killing someone. But it's significantly less likely than a gunshot wound.

I ask those strictly opposed to concealing a firearm, are you also strictly opposed to concealing what would be classed as a non-lethal weapon such as a taser?

EDIT: Smiley added for mood lightening. Maybe it's just my mood, but I felt as if I sounded dickish with my first sentence.

Correction, taser is classed as LTL (Less than lethal).

I think alot of people think of guns as esclating a situation which is actually incorrect, a taser for certain will still invite a would be attacker to have a go anyway..after all its not likely to kill him....you remove the risk and just add incentive.

The simple act of lasering someone, racking a slide, pumping a pump, or chambering a round, in many cases is enough to send a would be atttacker running, or to cease his illegal activity or intentions.

Tasers are toys in comparison, and are far more open to escalating a situation and even worse not protecting the person who is using it. The were invented with morals and liberal feel good unicorns and rainbows in mind....not for self defence.

When your life is on the line its not the time to be playing with toys and pandering to a small section of society who think they are morally superior to you and are content playing political games and moral point scoring with YOUR life.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1121098 3-Sep-2014 12:58

Glassboy:
heylinb4nz:
The police launch vicious case to prosecute store owner, ie Victim (ended up costing him $30,000 and his health to defend) + untold tax payer money. Meanwhile long before the store owners name is cleared....the criminal is out on parole...the criminal who got tax payer legal aid to defend his crime. Dont ever forget the fact that the police would rather pursue the victim who dares to use a firearm in clear self defence, than to punish the real criminal.

The Police's approach come from failures elsewhere in the Justice System. They've basically stopped evaluating appropriate force and just send everything to trial. There's no further victimisation by the Police.

I know the store owner personally and believe me they (The Police) were hell bent on making an example of him at any cost to him (the victim) and us (the taxpayer). The case itself was NZ Police vs Greg Carvell.

Not alot of people know but NZ Police have no qualms wasting tax payer $$$ trying to stick it legal firearms owners....even when they arent shooting people in self defence they are spending $100,000 plus trying (outside of law) to say that certain rifles are MSSA becuase they had a thumbhole stock...then when they had their balls handed to them on a plate (R Lincoln vs NZ Police) they just launch Arms Bill 3 and change the law to suit their own misguided vandetta against legal owners.

NZ Police would do well to realise who the true criminals in society are rather than focusing on people who have passed their strict vetting procedures and amongst the most law abiding in society.

hangon

398 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 41

#1121102 3-Sep-2014 13:02

DravidDavid:
Could you expand on how trained civilians with the same or more experience with a firearm as a police officer could do more harm? I'm curious as to why you think that might be the case. :)

police officers are sworn, aos do it for a living. also most of them do not carry a gun on their belt all the time.

civilians, even the best trained and competition champions, are not burdened with the 24/7 duties to serve and protect. yes it may save a civilian every once in a while - provided one carrier is in close range, gun chambered or quickly loaded, accurately aimed and fired, disabled the offender and not any bystanders - that's a really tough test. but having thousands more handguns carried around the society day in and day out would significantly increase the risks of say, losing a gun, misfire or thieves/children got their hands on it?

there isn't even a law for citizen arrest afaik, say if a dairy is being robbed, do you call 111 or yell "who has a gun, shoot the bastard coming out of the dairy"? and if you have a gun, do you aim and ask the alleged offender to stop? what if he starts running away with a bag of chips in hand, do you shoot? and later finds out he's just an innocent kid that got scared? I don't think any pistol competitions train ppl for stopping and arresting people - and if new ones do, now who's police and who's civilian?

I ask those strictly opposed to concealing a firearm, are you also strictly opposed to concealing what would be classed as a non-lethal weapon such as a taser?

EDIT: Smiley added for mood lightening. Maybe it's just my mood, but I felt as if I sounded dickish with my first sentence.

while I'm not strictly opposed to conceal carry, if it's allowed I'd apply the next day. I just hope we don't go down that path, which would only mean the violent crime is getting out of control and in chaos.

I'm undecided on taser. On one hand I'd hope my family could have something to protect them, on the other hand it's too easy to be used to the offender's advantage. If proper licencing and training is put into place, I guess probably yes.

Also different ppl respond to taser and say pepper spray differently, it's hard to implement something non lethal, causing no permanent damages yet powerful enough to stop the physically more intimidating offenders.

There is probably no easy answer, the the means normal civilian have are not enough to protect themselves in the extreme situations.

I felt blessed kiwi don't need to worry too much about this in the past, apparently the wind has changed a bit, something needs to be done soon if not right now, tightening gun law is probably not one of them, but neither is concealed carry imho.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1121106 3-Sep-2014 13:12

looks like normal where there are those ardently for and against and neither going to change their opinions.

In my case i don't feel threatened enough to want to arm myself but would feel threatened if I knew their were untrained people not in Police carrying concealed weapons.

To infer that the Police are less trained than some self professed experts is ludicrous and shows this thread is going around in circles and achieving little.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1121108 3-Sep-2014 13:20

hangon: police officers are sworn, aos do it for a living. also most of them do not carry a gun on their belt all the time.

Actually only main centre AOS do it full time, smaller towns \ cities either don't have AOS or simply just use existing beat cops. Being sworn doesn't automatically make you procifient to defend someone else, or even yourself. They simply dont train as much as you think they do.

civilians, even the best trained and competition champions, are not burdened with the 24/7 duties to serve and protect.

Neither are cops, they have no legal obligation to defend you, only to stop \ prevent crime, most of the time they are issuing traffic notices and attending domestics. In contrast 100% of a trained person \ CCW training time is spent mastering the art of self defence.

yes it may save a civilian every once in a while - provided one carrier is in close range, gun chambered or quickly loaded, accurately aimed and fired, disabled the offender and not any bystanders - that's a really tough test. but having thousands more handguns carried around the society day in and day out would significantly increase the risks of say, losing a gun, misfire or thieves/children got their hands on it?

Sometimes you only need to draw on a person to make them stop, firing isnt a given in every situation. Note: it is really hard to lose a gun or let it get into kids hands when it is holstered on your person, misfires are rare and usually the realm of undertrained people (mainly cops).

there isn't even a law for citizen arrest afaik, say if a dairy is being robbed, do you call 111 or yell "who has a gun, shoot the bastard coming out of the dairy"? and if you have a gun, do you aim and ask the alleged offender to stop? what if he starts running away with a bag of chips in hand, do you shoot? and later finds out he's just an innocent kid that got scared? I don't think any pistol competitions train ppl for stopping and arresting people - and if new ones do, now who's police and who's civilian?

Putting all those things aside, you dont need special training to recognise when your life is under threat, or to know that someone is breaking the law in a really bad way that would necessiate you using some force to stop them.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1121122 3-Sep-2014 13:27

jeffnz: looks like normal where there are those ardently for and against and neither going to change their opinions.

In my case i don't feel threatened enough to want to arm myself but would feel threatened if I knew their were untrained people not in Police carrying concealed weapons.

To infer that the Police are less trained than some self professed experts is ludicrous and shows this thread is going around in circles and achieving little.

Ludicrous how ??

I have personally witnessed many police and AOS training sessions to draw well formed, fact based conclusions. I know my own shooting skill, I have witnessed first hand god like skills in competition shooters.

Sure they call it IPSC in New Zealand instead of IDPA, but at the end of the day the principals all have their roots in combat training (just like shot put, archery, most martial arts, boxing).

Situational awareness is the easy part, weapon handling, agility, accuracy all the tacit stuff is where the majority of the skill comes in.....and people that shoot competition have way better tacit skills than any Police Officer could hope to achieve with their 2 range sessions per year.

hangon

398 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 41

#1121127 3-Sep-2014 13:36

heylinb4nz:
Putting all those things aside, you dont need special training to recognise when your life is under threat, or to know that someone is breaking the law in a really bad way that would necessiate you using some force to stop them.

while I agree to that in principle, #1 conceal carry is going to be very hard for the public to swallow (atm), #2 things haven't gotten that bad.

I do want to see a change of attitude from the law, in terms how the SAI shop owner and that northland farmer were treated and dragged through legal proceedings, when they had to step up and protect themselves.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1121140 3-Sep-2014 13:49

hangon:
heylinb4nz:
Putting all those things aside, you dont need special training to recognise when your life is under threat, or to know that someone is breaking the law in a really bad way that would necessiate you using some force to stop them.

while I agree to that in principle, #1 conceal carry is going to be very hard for the public to swallow (atm), #2 things haven't gotten that bad.

I do want to see a change of attitude from the law, in terms how the SAI shop owner and that northland farmer were treated and dragged through legal proceedings, when they had to step up and protect themselves.

For sure, we aren't that bad yet for certain and yes the general public may never agree to it (always citing USA as an example). I think it could work in NZ due to our attitudes and vetting system, and easily be rolled back at the sign of any trouble.

CCW aside at minimum a person needs to feel safe and be able to defend their home and business, the law needs to realise this and for clear cut cases of self defence (regardless of weapon) they need to be prepared to let people walk after brief investigation.

The only person able to defend you is you...and justified force should be not be equivalent force, but overwhelming force if you are the victim.

A punch or a stab can just as much kill you as a gunshot....the law needs to recognize this and focus on the initiator of the attack and the intention behind it....not the weapons used.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1121148 3-Sep-2014 13:58

heylinb4nz:

A punch or a stab can just as much kill you as a gunshot....the law needs to recognize this and focus on the initiator of the attack and the intention behind it....not the weapons used.

That's not true, a gun shot is far more likely to kill you than a punch or a stabbed. Also it depends where you are shot or stabbed or punched, but rarely will a punch kill you, unless it is exactly in a weak area of the body. A gunshot in many parts of the body however could kill you, especially in areas that will suffer high blood loss. Also the infection from a gun wound and shot can kill you over time, espeically if the bullet is in a very difficult area to be removed.

The fact is if we don't have any easily accessible guns, then we would have less of these type so shootings. The crazies have to get their guns from somewhere, they can't make them.

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 16