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
10069 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3082

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1411498 23-Oct-2015 08:30
2 people support this post
Send private message

MaxLV:
mdooher: Well well well, I wondered how they did it.

Heather du Plessis-Allen would have us believe she "made up" a firearms licence number and sent it to Gun City on the from and they just sent her a gun.

No she didn't, she used the name, firearms licence and credit card of a person who already had their details and firearms licence registered with Gun City and had the Gun sent to her.

So, so far no problem. But the naughty bit was to fill out the "police" section of the form and forge those details.

The end result is the person whose firearm licence they used got the gun (he was there) so he is in legal possession but the way he got it was illegal.



You dont see any problem with Gun City sending a firearm without knowing or verifying who it was actually sent to?

What checks do they (Gun City) have to verify their online orders go to the licensed gun owner who the order is (supposedly) from? I wonder how many crims have used this 'method' to get firearms illegally? 


Gun City are not required to do more than request the appropriate form, signed by an authorised person. There is no onus on them to carry out further checks on the bona fides of the recipient.

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....







958 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 476

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1411503 23-Oct-2015 08:43
2 people support this post
Send private message

Geektastic:
MaxLV:
mdooher: Well well well, I wondered how they did it.

Heather du Plessis-Allen would have us believe she "made up" a firearms licence number and sent it to Gun City on the from and they just sent her a gun.

No she didn't, she used the name, firearms licence and credit card of a person who already had their details and firearms licence registered with Gun City and had the Gun sent to her.

So, so far no problem. But the naughty bit was to fill out the "police" section of the form and forge those details.

The end result is the person whose firearm licence they used got the gun (he was there) so he is in legal possession but the way he got it was illegal.



You dont see any problem with Gun City sending a firearm without knowing or verifying who it was actually sent to?

What checks do they (Gun City) have to verify their online orders go to the licensed gun owner who the order is (supposedly) from? I wonder how many crims have used this 'method' to get firearms illegally? 


Gun City are not required to do more than request the appropriate form, signed by an authorised person. There is no onus on them to carry out further checks on the bona fides of the recipient.

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....


True, but they do go further by viewing firearms licences on first purchases and requiring the official police stamp on their form

In this case however there is no police stamp in the form, I'm not sure why they accepted it.

Don't get me wrong they were completely within the law to accept it

In fact earlier on Wednesday their lawyers had been in contact with Police national HQ because the Police were insisting that Gun City must use the Police form. The Police were incorrect, the act allows either the prescribed form or a form substantially the same (the Gun City one).

My feeling is Greg O'Conner set this up by telling HdPA how to do it. The Police knew what was about to happen  so they (illegally and belatedly) prevented the use of Gun City form to stop it.






Matthew


 
 
 
 


1516 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 228

Subscriber

  Reply # 1411508 23-Oct-2015 09:06
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

5106 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2366


  Reply # 1411810 23-Oct-2015 13:38
2 people support this post
Send private message

That gun store owner really creeps me out.
Shootin' for Jesus - with a criminal past (not just in the US).

"I'm ready for the battle," he told the New Zealand Herald.
"She's going down 100 per cent."

Hmmmm....


10069 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3082

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1411822 23-Oct-2015 13:44
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.





438 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 123

Subscriber

  Reply # 1413130 24-Oct-2015 11:25
Send private message

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.






10069 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3082

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1413238 24-Oct-2015 17:57
Send private message

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.





10139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1622

Trusted

  Reply # 1413266 24-Oct-2015 18:26
Send private message

Fred99: That gun store owner really creeps me out.
Shootin' for Jesus - with a criminal past (not just in the US).

"I'm ready for the battle," he told the New Zealand Herald.
"She's going down 100 per cent."

Hmmmm....



David has a colourful past. I used to buy reloading supplies way back in the day when he had a teeny shop in ChCh. He's done well. But, this issue isn't him being a tard,
he's going after what is just another stunt by the news creators, I mean reporters. 

10139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1622

Trusted

  Reply # 1413268 24-Oct-2015 18:30
Send private message

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.


It is. With the regular shootings in the US, and again here in our news this morning, stunts with guns and gun laws is in poor taste. Had they raised this on their show (I used the word Show intentionally) with a discussion with Tipple on the issue of firearms purchases, and weaknesses in the purchase laws, it would have been a topical, current, and informative news item. Deserving the term, news item. But no, the journo's stooped yet agin to news-tainment

438 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 123

Subscriber

  Reply # 1413324 24-Oct-2015 23:03
Send private message

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?

10069 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3082

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1413326 24-Oct-2015 23:15
Send private message

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.





gzt

9159 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1290


  Reply # 1413328 25-Oct-2015 03:56
Send private message

I have not watched any of the items but I am finding it hard to understand why the retail owner is so upset. The retailer followed the police/govt mandated procedure exactly. The weakness was in the mandated procedure and that fault has now been fixed.

Without the investigative reporting of the reality of this issue this change would not have occurred.

I'm guessing the retailer might be more concerned with some hypothetical future restriction of mail order / internet sales, or a possible technical prosecution for being slack on licence verification. Verification remains in the hands of police and is now prior to delivery instead of after delivery. It will not affect the business at all.

The possibility of private prosecution looks like a lot of huffing and puffing to generate some smoke. It is hard to see anything except a discharge without conviction being the final result.


438 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 123

Subscriber

  Reply # 1413340 25-Oct-2015 07:15
Send private message

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.

jmh

446 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 140

Subscriber

  Reply # 1413354 25-Oct-2015 08:13
Send private message

gzt: I have not watched any of the items but I am finding it hard to understand why the retail owner is so upset. The retailer followed the police/govt mandated procedure exactly. The weakness was in the mandated procedure and that fault has now been fixed.

Without the investigative reporting of the reality of this issue this change would not have occurred.

I'm guessing the retailer might be more concerned with some hypothetical future restriction of mail order / internet sales, or a possible technical prosecution for being slack on licence verification. Verification remains in the hands of police and is now prior to delivery instead of after delivery. It will not affect the business at all.

The possibility of private prosecution looks like a lot of huffing and puffing to generate some smoke. It is hard to see anything except a discharge without conviction being the final result.



True.  So few people watch the show that the story would have died if not given the oxygen of publicity by the retailer which then led to it being in the Herald which is read by a few more.  He should have just kept his head down.

JWR

730 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 236


  Reply # 1413397 25-Oct-2015 10:00
Send private message

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.

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





News »

UFB connections pass 460,000
Posted 11-Dec-2017 11:26


The Warehouse Group to adopt IBM Cloud to support digital transformation
Posted 11-Dec-2017 11:22


Dimension Data peeks into digital business 2018
Posted 11-Dec-2017 10:55


2018 Cyber Security Predictions
Posted 7-Dec-2017 14:55


Global Govtech Accelerator to drive public sector innovation in Wellington
Posted 7-Dec-2017 11:21


Stuff Pix media strategy a new direction
Posted 7-Dec-2017 09:37


Digital transformation is dead
Posted 7-Dec-2017 09:31


Fake news and cyber security
Posted 7-Dec-2017 09:27


Dimension Data New Zealand strengthens cybersecurity practice
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:27


Epson NZ launches new Expression Premium Photo range
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:26


Eventbrite and Twickets launch integration partnership in Australia and New Zealand
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:23


New Fujifilm macro lens lands in New Zealand
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:16


Cyber security not being taken seriously enough
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:13


Sony commences Android 8.0 Oreo rollout in New Zealand
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:08


Revera partners with Nyriad to deliver blockchain pilot to NZ Government
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:01



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.