Does NZ need better gun laws?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 16

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#1119706 1-Sep-2014 16:11

mattwnz: Maybe we need more police then, or different levels of police. The current policing system is probably out of date anyway, as society has changed a lot.

More Police would help. With the current system, they don't respond fast enough.

We alerted them to children being beaten in the back yard when we lived in Mt Roskill. It took then 35 minutes to arrive. When they did, there were 4 fully loaded patrol cars, a station wagon with two dogs and 3 other footmen that jumped the fence that we could not see. I thought to myself "If only they had two show up first, they might have been able to save some time". I didn't report 20 offenders, I reported 2!

Police do have access to a semi-automatic rifle if required, but need the permission to use it. All good and well. But they need to show up before first before that is going to be of any use to me or my family.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1119712 1-Sep-2014 16:15

DravidDavid:
mattwnz: Maybe we need more police then, or different levels of police. The current policing system is probably out of date anyway, as society has changed a lot.

More Police would help. With the current system, they don't respond fast enough.

We alerted them to children being beaten in the back yard when we lived in Mt Roskill. It took then 35 minutes to arrive. When they did, there were 4 fully loaded patrol cars, a station wagon with two dogs and 3 other footmen that jumped the fence that we could not see. I thought to myself "If only they had two show up first, they might have been able to save some time". I didn't report 20 offenders, I reported 2!

Police do have access to a semi-automatic rifle if required, but need the permission to use it. All good and well. But they need to show up before first before that is going to be of any use to me or my family.

Or maybe a Gendarmerie. Seems our military spend most of their time being support services around the world anyway.

mattwnz

19389 posts

Uber Geek

#1119713 1-Sep-2014 16:16

DravidDavid:
mattwnz: Maybe we need more police then, or different levels of police. The current policing system is probably out of date anyway, as society has changed a lot.

More Police would help. With the current system, they don't respond fast enough.

We alerted them to children being beaten in the back yard when we lived in Mt Roskill. It took then 35 minutes to arrive. When they did, there were 4 fully loaded patrol cars, a station wagon with two dogs and 3 other footmen that jumped the fence that we could not see. I thought to myself "If only they had two show up first, they might have been able to save some time". I didn't report 20 offenders, I reported 2!

Police do have access to a semi-automatic rifle if required, but need the permission to use it. All good and well. But they need to show up before first before that is going to be of any use to me or my family.

Yes your case shows that possibily something like an initial high priority police unit could be an idea, with lots of small offices dotted around. The only time I have needed to call 111 due to finding someone dead in a house, it was actually the fire dept that turned up first after about 5 minutes, then the ambulance, and then the police.

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#1119714 1-Sep-2014 16:19

Glassboy:
DravidDavid:
mattwnz: Maybe we need more police then, or different levels of police. The current policing system is probably out of date anyway, as society has changed a lot.

More Police would help. With the current system, they don't respond fast enough.

We alerted them to children being beaten in the back yard when we lived in Mt Roskill. It took then 35 minutes to arrive. When they did, there were 4 fully loaded patrol cars, a station wagon with two dogs and 3 other footmen that jumped the fence that we could not see. I thought to myself "If only they had two show up first, they might have been able to save some time". I didn't report 20 offenders, I reported 2!

Police do have access to a semi-automatic rifle if required, but need the permission to use it. All good and well. But they need to show up before first before that is going to be of any use to me or my family.

Or maybe a Gendarmerie. Seems our military spend most of their time being support services around the world anyway.

That definitely sounds like a good idea. But I'm not sure how the general population would like the idea of of military vehicles and patrols kitted in DPM roaming the streets taking the police roll.

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1119715 1-Sep-2014 16:19

mattwnz:

Yes your case shows that possibily something like an initial high priority police unit could be an idea, with lots of small offices dotted around. The only time I have needed to call 111 due to finding someone dead in a house, it was actually the fire dept that turned up first after about 5 minutes, then the ambulance, and then the police.

Sounds like a better argument for Google's drones :-) Drop in a drone, assess the situation, send the right responder.

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#1119716 1-Sep-2014 16:23

mattwnz:
DravidDavid:
mattwnz: Maybe we need more police then, or different levels of police. The current policing system is probably out of date anyway, as society has changed a lot.

More Police would help. With the current system, they don't respond fast enough.

We alerted them to children being beaten in the back yard when we lived in Mt Roskill. It took then 35 minutes to arrive. When they did, there were 4 fully loaded patrol cars, a station wagon with two dogs and 3 other footmen that jumped the fence that we could not see. I thought to myself "If only they had two show up first, they might have been able to save some time". I didn't report 20 offenders, I reported 2!

Police do have access to a semi-automatic rifle if required, but need the permission to use it. All good and well. But they need to show up before first before that is going to be of any use to me or my family.

Yes your case shows that possibly something like an initial high priority police unit could be an idea, with lots of small offices dotted around. The only time I have needed to call 111 due to finding someone dead in a house, it was actually the fire dept that turned up first after about 5 minutes, then the ambulance, and then the police.

A family member had a similar experience recently with their infant in Palmerston North. The baby had breathing problems and a fire truck with oxygen showed up first, then the ambulance followed to take him to hospital.

That works then. But I'm not sure how a fire crew would help in a violent domestic abuse case with potential weapons out back. I guess they could deal with it physically, but from what I understand, police and military outfits have different training.

BruceHamilton

77 posts

Master Geek

#1119723 1-Sep-2014 16:40

I suspect the person above offering a bet about unlicenced users would lose, but can't be bothered chasing the data to confirm my suspicion. Unless something dramatic has happened recently, most deaths from firearms in NZ have been suicides ( used to be ~ 70+% ).

To the original poster, I think the law needs to change. We should license guns as well as owners. Then the govt could charge an annual licence fee to cover having a gun and owner registry, just like we do for cars. It could be administered by a separate entity to the police ( but easily accessible to all police, and perform inspections, and offer 5 yearly owner relicensing. Those of us with firearms and licences would pay an annual fee, and would learn about current best practice handling/storing firearms every five years.

As long as the penalties for non-compliance are made much higher, and the ability to relicense easy, then honest people will participate. An awful lot of people have mental health issues during their lives, and an improved mechanism to remove guns from them for that time, and at the first warning signs of stress issues, could also be helpful.

The above doesn't cope with criminals, but why should they define our lives?. Just ensure serious firearm crimes have serious penalties, long jail tiems, no driver's licence, no passport, etc.,

Stupid trivia - in many states in the USA blind people are allowed to own guns and carry them concealed.

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#1119755 1-Sep-2014 16:59

BruceHamilton: Stupid trivia - in many states in the USA blind people are allowed to own guns and carry them concealed.

That's pretty funny. Some states have pretty relax gun laws which should be looked in to as well. I'm not suggesting we go about like cowboys and indians with our assult rifles and pistols...I'm suggesting people that fly the straight an narrow that abide by the law and comply with appropriate restrictions have the ability to carry a firearm for self defense when required.

I know in the United States, the statistics say home invasions are less likely in states where open/concealed carry is legal and prominent.

Keep in mind, the same level of inquiry would be held upon those who used a firearm in a public area against another person, the same way it would be held upon an police officer. There must be suitable investigation in to whether or not deadly force was necessary in the various situations, again the same as there would be for police. This is in my little "gun crazy world" I guess.

I wonder how hard it would be to gain support for getting it changed. I'm sure those who rely on the state to keep them safe far outnumber those who are willing to take defensive action themselves on the spot.

hangon

397 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1119757 1-Sep-2014 16:59

BruceHamilton: I suspect the person above offering a bet about unlicenced users would lose, but can't be bothered chasing the data to confirm my suspicion. Unless something dramatic has happened recently, most deaths from firearms in NZ have been suicides ( used to be ~ 70+% ).

i only bet $5 to be safe ;)

but since when suicide is classified as "crime"?

BruceHamilton

77 posts

Master Geek

#1119775 1-Sep-2014 17:20

hangon:
i only bet $5 to be safe ;)

but since when suicide is classified as "crime"?

Attempted suicide was a crime until 1961, since then you can be detained by order of the courts for assessment, but it's no longer a crime - I think. I was assuming that successful suicides before 1961 were considered crimes, but haven't checked numbers before/after decriminalisation. Your $5 might be very safe. :-)

mattwnz

19389 posts

Uber Geek

#1119782 1-Sep-2014 17:30

I thought I should add about people saying that it is the people , and not guns that kill. The thing is that guns were invented to kill, cars weren't, and today they have a wide range of uses, including killing animals. There are also many restrictions of things that are less dangerous. Restricting does work to a certain degree, but people can find work arounds, although this is possibly more difficult with guns. eg they may use a nail gun instead. If you look at graffiti, the government solution was to ban easy access to spray cans, which only inconvenienced legitimate users. But there is still just as much graffiti, they now use things like shoe polish.
If you look at airlines, since 911 and restricting potentially dangerous material onto a plane, such as knives, there has been a huge decrease in problems on planes. The same crazy people would be on the plane, but if they don't have the tools to cause problems, then they can't do anything to cause much harm. We certainly don't want to become like the US, where they have school and university shootings, and pupils have to go through metal detectors. Banning pistols could be an idea so guns can't be illegally concealed in the first place.

MileHighKiwi

782 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1119784 1-Sep-2014 17:32

DravidDavid: I think the ability to lawfully conceal carry a firearm should be allowed in this country at the very least. It should be strict as hell, but we should be able to do it. Family from military/ex-police backgrounds conceal carry illegally already. They and many others have been doing it for years without an issue. One has only ever considered drawing on his pistol once however he decided against it as he felt the situation could be diffused by other means. SANE non-violent people are capable of making proper decisions. However, if the other violent person had a firearm and was willing to use it, where would that have left the good guy? CQB does not always cut it!

I don't see any reason why someone shouldn't be able to legally carry a concealed firearm. This kind of situation could have been diffused before any shots by the criminal were fired.
A few years ago I would have totally disagreed with conceal carrying a firearm, but times are changing...Some people are crazy, and I'd rather not be the one worse off in a deadly situation and would deal with whatever consequences this pussyfoot government could dish out any day.

This is New Zealand, not Nevada.

I've been in a few violent situations in my life, such as seeing a friend stabbed at a concert, and in that situation a gun would have been the worst thing to have available. I understand your 'sane' comment, but in a situation like that you're running on emotion and having a gun available would increase the chance of innocent people being shot by accident. I'm not Jason Bourne or Jack Reacher. Neither are you.

I highly doubt the situation in Ashburton would have been diffused if someone in the WINZ office, say a staff member or member of the public, had a gun. It would have happened so fast that before you could comprehend what was happening gunshots would be ringing out, people screaming and terrified, the gunman running from the building. Over in a matter of seconds.

I really hope we never make it legal for people to carry firearms in public. I mean, look at the USA; liberal gun laws where citizens can protect themselves yet gun crime is rampant. If it is supposed to deter people from committing crimes it doesn't look to be working.

sir1963

2275 posts

Uber Geek

#1119791 1-Sep-2014 17:58

mattwnz: With what has happened today http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/10446709/Live-Police-hunt-gunman-in-Ashburton and all the similar tragedies in recent past , I am in the belief that NZ gun laws could do with a lot of updating. I am kind of sick about hearing these sorts of stories and how they keep happening. I believe NZ has one of the biggest gun ownership rates in the world, but it is relatively easy for people to get a license. I believe laser ownership is now even more restricted than gun ownership. What are other peoples thoughts?

Well the BIG difference between the USA and NZ is attitude.

New Zealanders can not own a gun for self defence.
The USA, well not only can you get a gun to shoot people, you are encouraged to do so with laws like "Stand your ground".

This brings the cultural difference where in NZ, killing another human being is still repugnant, in the USA, its perfectly acceptable.

Then we come to law enforcement, in NZ police have a lot of hoops to jump through to be armed and to use those arms. In the USA, well they are practically poorly trained paramilitary with access to armoured cars etc etc etc, and it seems little over sight.

Being able to own a gun is NOT a sign of freedom, if you need a gun to feel safe in your own home, neighbourhood, town/city.... well you are NOT free.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1119792 1-Sep-2014 18:00

DravidDavid:

I don't see any reason why someone shouldn't be able to legally carry a concealed firearm. This kind of situation could have been diffused before any shots by the criminal were fired.

.

What a stupid statement to make how would you even know that carrying firearms would have stopped this happening, who knows what would have happened, anyway its totally irrelevant.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

networkn

Networkn
30223 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1119794 1-Sep-2014 18:02

sir1963:
mattwnz: With what has happened today http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/10446709/Live-Police-hunt-gunman-in-Ashburton and all the similar tragedies in recent past , I am in the belief that NZ gun laws could do with a lot of updating. I am kind of sick about hearing these sorts of stories and how they keep happening. I believe NZ has one of the biggest gun ownership rates in the world, but it is relatively easy for people to get a license. I believe laser ownership is now even more restricted than gun ownership. What are other peoples thoughts?

Well the BIG difference between the USA and NZ is attitude.

New Zealanders can not own a gun for self defence.
The USA, well not only can you get a gun to shoot people, you are encouraged to do so with laws like "Stand your ground".

This brings the cultural difference where in NZ, killing another human being is still repugnant, in the USA, its perfectly acceptable.

Then we come to law enforcement, in NZ police have a lot of hoops to jump through to be armed and to use those arms. In the USA, well they are practically poorly trained paramilitary with access to armoured cars etc etc etc, and it seems little over sight.

Being able to own a gun is NOT a sign of freedom, if you need a gun to feel safe in your own home, neighbourhood, town/city.... well you are NOT free.

Generalise much? Spent any time in the US?

It is not to "most" people in the USA, "perfectly acceptable" to kill someone. I deal with Americans every single day, and whilst like in every culture you will find people who have more extreme views, the US is no exception, but I deal with people every day who think that gun laws are too lax or that killing someone would be completely repugnant.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 16