Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
2515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 541
Inactive user


  Reply # 1220038 22-Jan-2015 12:54
Send private message

1152 post actually.

834 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 260

Trusted

  Reply # 1220223 22-Jan-2015 16:41
Send private message

DravidDavid:
Glassboy:
heylinb4nz: 

LOL Oh yes you would be wouldn't you :)
Disarm the population give all control to the government :) sounds like an awesome idea, history has no bad examples of where that model went wrong.



Two things

- Show as a good example of an armed population

- What's your opinion on 1080?


Switzerland.  From what I understand, they have the highest gun ownership in the world and the lowest crime rate.  Probably because, errr.  They are all packing!
Robberies where the offender was arrested dropped 20% compared to previous years when Chicago legalised concealed carry permits last year in August.  From what I remember, the local police department could not keep up with all the applications.



It's a fallacy.  Switzerland has in first world nation terms a high rate of murder by firearm.  Very easy to murder your annoying wife when you have a service rifle in the cupboard.

834 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 260

Trusted

  Reply # 1220246 22-Jan-2015 17:05
Send private message

heylinb4nz:

You don't need to go back as far as 1775, and what makes you think that people in power today are any different ? the methods may have changed but they are still fallible to taking advantage of their population. 



You don't need to go back to 1775, he was just exposing your ignorance of history as well as parliamentary process.

Oh and for everyone who keeps saying the Police don't make legislation.  If you you actually look at the Arms Act 1983, it says "This Act is administered by the New Zealand Police."  The Police have a policy branch, and obviously have a part to play in the drafting of legislation.

 



659 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 144
Inactive user


  Reply # 1220253 22-Jan-2015 17:07
Send private message

Glassboy:
DravidDavid:
Glassboy:
heylinb4nz: 

LOL Oh yes you would be wouldn't you :)
Disarm the population give all control to the government :) sounds like an awesome idea, history has no bad examples of where that model went wrong.



Two things

- Show as a good example of an armed population

- What's your opinion on 1080?


Switzerland.  From what I understand, they have the highest gun ownership in the world and the lowest crime rate.  Probably because, errr.  They are all packing!
Robberies where the offender was arrested dropped 20% compared to previous years when Chicago legalised concealed carry permits last year in August.  From what I remember, the local police department could not keep up with all the applications.



It's a fallacy.  Switzerland has in first world nation terms a high rate of murder by firearm.  Very easy to murder your annoying wife when you have a service rifle in the cupboard.


If it was so easy why don't we have more firearm murders in NZ ? surely some  250,0000 rifle\shotgun and 6000 pistol owners have annoying wives. And besides shooting is sooooo overated, neighbors can hear it, it spreads DNA all over the place, ruins your carpet, leaves holes in walls, and god have you seen the price of ammo !!!! nearly 65 cents a round for .223.

13091 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6153

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1220254 22-Jan-2015 17:08
2 people support this post
Send private message

Glassboy:
heylinb4nz:

You don't need to go back as far as 1775, and what makes you think that people in power today are any different ? the methods may have changed but they are still fallible to taking advantage of their population. 



You don't need to go back to 1775, he was just exposing your ignorance of history as well as parliamentary process.

Oh and for everyone who keeps saying the Police don't make legislation.  If you you actually look at the Arms Act 1983, it says "This Act is administered by the New Zealand Police."  The Police have a policy branch, and obviously have a part to play in the drafting of legislation.

 


Administer the act yes, MSD administers the SSA, IRD the Taxation Acts, they also will draft changes etc and make recommendations to their Ministers but at the end of the day it is the Minister that decides to table legislative changes and Parliament legislates




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


13091 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6153

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1220256 22-Jan-2015 17:16
Send private message

Glassboy:
DravidDavid:
Glassboy:
heylinb4nz: 

LOL Oh yes you would be wouldn't you :)
Disarm the population give all control to the government :) sounds like an awesome idea, history has no bad examples of where that model went wrong.



Two things

- Show as a good example of an armed population

- What's your opinion on 1080?


Switzerland.  From what I understand, they have the highest gun ownership in the world and the lowest crime rate.  Probably because, errr.  They are all packing!
Robberies where the offender was arrested dropped 20% compared to previous years when Chicago legalised concealed carry permits last year in August.  From what I remember, the local police department could not keep up with all the applications.



It's a fallacy.  Switzerland has in first world nation terms a high rate of murder by firearm.  Very easy to murder your annoying wife when you have a service rifle in the cupboard.


As a % or murders firearm murders in Switzerland is circa 72%





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


834 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 260

Trusted

  Reply # 1220259 22-Jan-2015 17:25
Send private message

heylinb4nz:
Glassboy: 

It's a fallacy.  Switzerland has in first world nation terms a high rate of murder by firearm.  Very easy to murder your annoying wife when you have a service rifle in the cupboard.


If it was so easy why don't we have more firearm murders in NZ ? surely some  250,0000 rifle\shotgun and 6000 pistol owners have annoying wives. And besides shooting is sooooo overated, neighbors can hear it, it spreads DNA all over the place, ruins your carpet, leaves holes in walls, and god have you seen the price of ammo !!!! nearly 65 cents a round for .223.


Your statement is a non sequitur.  That's Latin.  It means what you wrote is irrelevant.  It has nothing to do with exposing that Switzerland is not a high fire-arm possession, low crime country. 

834 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 260

Trusted

  Reply # 1220267 22-Jan-2015 17:34
2 people support this post
Send private message

KiwiNZ: 

Administer the act yes, MSD administers the SSA, IRD the Taxation Acts, they also will draft changes etc and make recommendations to their Ministers but at the end of the day it is the Minister that decides to table legislative changes and Parliament legislates


Well that's a simplistic view ( but still probably too complicated or our little friends ).  I'm merely making the point that the Police are involved in drafting leg. and regs because it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise.  Arguing they don't make law is sophism, which given the collection of fallacies on the other site I don't think we need to stoop to.

TLD

687 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 152


  Reply # 1220273 22-Jan-2015 17:48
4 people support this post
Send private message

heylinb4nz:  surely some  250,0000 rifle\shotgun and 6000 pistol owners have annoying wives.


I suspect one or two wives married to certain geekzoners have annoying husbands. wink




Trevor Dennis
Rapaura (near Blenheim)

11887 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3854

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1220452 23-Jan-2015 00:02
Send private message

heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz: 


You don't need to go back as far as 1775, and what makes you think that people in power today are any different ? the methods may have changed but they are still fallible to taking advantage of their population. 

RE: Police legislating, they may not write \ sign off the legislation themselves but they are the ones that come up with the basis and for it to serve their agenda, and how quickly you forget the MSSA thumbhole stock saga, or the hand in policy, police policy sold to the public as law, even used our own money to advertise it. The judge in the case even quoted Police are there to enforce law not to make it.


       


honestly, you are just writing fantasy, unless I am missing the action of our totalitarian regime we have here.

As for military style rifles?  the only place for them is in the hands of the military.  


Oh hear we go. "My son was in the army so I know all about firearms" . Dont even get me started on NZ Police definition of MSSA and the misguided legislation they have forced onto us trying to control these so called "Evil Guns". 


 



Dont misquote.

And again for the last time  The Police DO NOT LEGISLATE that is done by the fine folks that occupy the fine buildings on Bowen and Molesworth streets



Read the case LINCOLN vs NZ Police and tell me that police didn't try to pass off policy as law (legislation).







From first hand experience I can say that the Police do in fact attempt to do this all the time when firearms are involved.

For example, they recently attempted to introduce a requirement that if travelling with a pistol (say to a match 200km away) you have to get a permit to do that. You don't. You already have one - it's called a Firearms Licence. They also claim you have to shoot 12 times a year at a pistol club to keep a B licence but the law actually says only that you have to be a member of a club.







659 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 144
Inactive user


  Reply # 1220561 23-Jan-2015 09:22
Send private message

Geektastic:
heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz: 


You don't need to go back as far as 1775, and what makes you think that people in power today are any different ? the methods may have changed but they are still fallible to taking advantage of their population. 

RE: Police legislating, they may not write \ sign off the legislation themselves but they are the ones that come up with the basis and for it to serve their agenda, and how quickly you forget the MSSA thumbhole stock saga, or the hand in policy, police policy sold to the public as law, even used our own money to advertise it. The judge in the case even quoted Police are there to enforce law not to make it.


       


honestly, you are just writing fantasy, unless I am missing the action of our totalitarian regime we have here.

As for military style rifles?  the only place for them is in the hands of the military.  


Oh hear we go. "My son was in the army so I know all about firearms" . Dont even get me started on NZ Police definition of MSSA and the misguided legislation they have forced onto us trying to control these so called "Evil Guns". 


 



Dont misquote.

And again for the last time  The Police DO NOT LEGISLATE that is done by the fine folks that occupy the fine buildings on Bowen and Molesworth streets



Read the case LINCOLN vs NZ Police and tell me that police didn't try to pass off policy as law (legislation).







From first hand experience I can say that the Police do in fact attempt to do this all the time when firearms are involved.

For example, they recently attempted to introduce a requirement that if travelling with a pistol (say to a match 200km away) you have to get a permit to do that. You don't. You already have one - it's called a Firearms Licence. They also claim you have to shoot 12 times a year at a pistol club to keep a B licence but the law actually says only that you have to be a member of a club.


Unfortunately the licence application process is administered by police and covered by police policy, they can make "conditions" on the endorsement. No doubt when you fill out and sign the application you are agreeing to these conditions.

What is wrong however, and some ignorant people here dont seem to get is that police extend some of these policies beyond licence conditions and start dabbling in the relm of interpreting law to the point where they are changing it to suit themselves.

Case in point a thumbhole stock = pistol grip thus MSSA. 

As for minister of police putting forth legislation, people are dumb to think she "Ms Tolley" comes up with it or even understands it, the num nuts at police HQ advise (tell) her what they want, she puts it forth. Effectively they do make the legislation, just because they dont hold the pen that signs it into law doesnt mean they are no the primary driver behind some of the trollop they sign into law.








2 posts

Wannabe Geek


  Reply # 1220601 23-Jan-2015 10:14
Send private message

heylinb4nz:
dejadeadnz:
heylinb4nz: I think you'll find it WAS them laying the charges.


Although I agree (based on professional knowledge and experience) that the police can/do decide alone to lay charges, especially on lower level charges, your Greg Carvell rant is just bizarre and based on crappy logic. That guy wasn't ever charged for shooting the robber. He was charged with unlawfully possession of a gun, the elements of which involve the man having physical possession of a gun, intending to have physical possession AND lacking a legal justification for having the gun at the relevant time. Now I don't know the timeframes involved for the charge but if, for example, he was charged with unlawfully having the gun in his possession for time periods BEFORE the shooting (which can certainly happen), the fact that he found it necessary to shoot the robber subsequently is just irrelevant at worst or significantly irrelevant at best for the man.

That he might have been justified in shooting someone does not mean he was for ever justified in having a gun in his possession. You can't just link these two things together. Again, people, for the love of all things good and holy: try not to comment on the specifics of charges, actual legal practice, and the like unless you actually know some law.


I was meaning the secondary charge that they pursued months later after dropping the first charge. Thats the problem with NZ law though


a) you can legally use a firearm to enact self defence (provide force justified) b) they get you on firearms charges


Laws are wrong if they contradict each other, defending ones life legally should not line you up for a lesser charge on the flip side.


Notice to how the law (Arms Act) doesn't explicitly prohibit a firearm for self defence (its only mentioned in The Code which is essentially police policy not law). It does however contain a pile of other gotchas.


FYI you cannot deny people the right to self defence (its a breech of human rights). Police will just keep trying for case law on the lower charges to make people think twice.


The law doesn't contradict itself, they are two seperate agendas.

If the gun was legally possessed then there would have been no issue.

Using illegal means to defend yourself from death does not mean you won't get prosecuted because you still broke the law.



659 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 144
Inactive user


  Reply # 1220618 23-Jan-2015 10:49
Send private message

jsw11984:
heylinb4nz:
dejadeadnz:
heylinb4nz: I think you'll find it WAS them laying the charges.


Although I agree (based on professional knowledge and experience) that the police can/do decide alone to lay charges, especially on lower level charges, your Greg Carvell rant is just bizarre and based on crappy logic. That guy wasn't ever charged for shooting the robber. He was charged with unlawfully possession of a gun, the elements of which involve the man having physical possession of a gun, intending to have physical possession AND lacking a legal justification for having the gun at the relevant time. Now I don't know the timeframes involved for the charge but if, for example, he was charged with unlawfully having the gun in his possession for time periods BEFORE the shooting (which can certainly happen), the fact that he found it necessary to shoot the robber subsequently is just irrelevant at worst or significantly irrelevant at best for the man.

That he might have been justified in shooting someone does not mean he was for ever justified in having a gun in his possession. You can't just link these two things together. Again, people, for the love of all things good and holy: try not to comment on the specifics of charges, actual legal practice, and the like unless you actually know some law.


I was meaning the secondary charge that they pursued months later after dropping the first charge. Thats the problem with NZ law though


a) you can legally use a firearm to enact self defence (provide force justified) b) they get you on firearms charges


Laws are wrong if they contradict each other, defending ones life legally should not line you up for a lesser charge on the flip side.


Notice to how the law (Arms Act) doesn't explicitly prohibit a firearm for self defence (its only mentioned in The Code which is essentially police policy not law). It does however contain a pile of other gotchas.


FYI you cannot deny people the right to self defence (its a breech of human rights). Police will just keep trying for case law on the lower charges to make people think twice.


The law doesn't contradict itself, they are two seperate agendas.

If the gun was legally possessed then there would have been no issue.

Using illegal means to defend yourself from death does not mean you won't get prosecuted because you still broke the law.



True, but given the choice between life and prosecution a rational human would always choose life (or to defend someone else life). One would think our laws should be structured in such a way as to allow the defense of ones life or another without limitation (within reason) and without fear of prosecution.

The current system 


a) limits your options by both method and level of force

b) victimizes further the victim

c) forces law abiding citizens to become criminals in the event they need to defend themselves


Sure police are governed by the same laws, but they do have a head start over the public where by 


a) they have and are allowed to use firearms for self defence

b) they have the protection and support of the police association

c) they have tax payer funded legal aid via crown law

 



Does a police officer have a greater right to life than a regular citizen ? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gzt

10173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1558


  Reply # 1220654 23-Jan-2015 11:30
Send private message

It seems to me the biggest problem here may be transparency.

Why did the Police decide not to charge? We don't know.

I suspect this is the case for any decision not to charge. Why is this so? Should it be different? Should it be different in the case of police members?




659 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 144
Inactive user


  Reply # 1220662 23-Jan-2015 11:41
Send private message

gzt: It seems to me the biggest problem here may be transparency.

Why did the Police decide not to charge? We don't know.

I suspect this is the case for any decision not to charge. Should it be different? Should it be different for police only?



I always thought all case law was published into annualized journals so that lawyers (and judges) were able to access. Perhaps only certain "key \ landmark cases" are published which essentially means the court\justice system can control what gets seen.

It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't want such cases published as it would set a very strong precedent that would also have to be applied \ taken into account when prosecuting members of the public committing similar acts.

I have encountered this behavior first hand in our justice system in a case where legally I was in the right but to recognize this in court of law would have set a precedent that the system was not prepared to have happen, so instead I was given the run around to the point where it was a diliberate dead end \ brick wall. 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.