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

JWR

730 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 236


  Reply # 1413400 25-Oct-2015 10:11
One person supports this post
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.


I agree with you here.

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

9388 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2829

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1413401 25-Oct-2015 10:16
Send private message

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.





 
 
 
 


9388 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2829

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1413402 25-Oct-2015 10:17
Send private message

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. 





4308 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 801

Trusted

  Reply # 1413405 25-Oct-2015 10:23
One person supports this post
Send private message

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

730 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 236


  Reply # 1413414 25-Oct-2015 10:54
2 people support this post
Send private message

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.

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 118

Subscriber

  Reply # 1413498 25-Oct-2015 13:46
Send private message

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

8888 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1187


  Reply # 1413510 25-Oct-2015 14:11
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

161 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 64
Inactive user


  Reply # 1413780 26-Oct-2015 03:20
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.


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?


2832 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1008


  Reply # 1415618 28-Oct-2015 17:12
One person supports this post
Send private message

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

9388 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2829

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1415824 28-Oct-2015 22:40
Send private message

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....





2832 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1008


  Reply # 1416032 29-Oct-2015 11:06
Send private message

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

372 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 38


  Reply # 1416187 29-Oct-2015 15:33
Send private message

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

8888 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1187


  Reply # 1416207 29-Oct-2015 16:01
Send private message

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.

372 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 38


  Reply # 1416225 29-Oct-2015 16:26
Send private message

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.



951 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 457

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1416239 29-Oct-2015 16:54
Send private message

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
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 »

How Oppo shakes New Zealand’s phone market
Posted 22-Aug-2017 18:32


Recognition for top small business advisors
Posted 22-Aug-2017 17:23


OPPO R11 dual 20MP camera phone debuts in New Zealand
Posted 22-Aug-2017 15:45


Intel introduces new 8th Generation processors
Posted 21-Aug-2017 19:02


Trend Micro launches Home Network Security
Posted 21-Aug-2017 18:38


Avondale College students at top of Microsoft Office Specialist World Championship
Posted 21-Aug-2017 14:11


Garmin introduces inReach SE+ and inReach Explorer+
Posted 21-Aug-2017 14:05


Public Wi-Fi plus cloud file sharing
Posted 18-Aug-2017 11:20


D-Link NZ launches professional Wireless AC Wave 2 Access Point for businesses
Posted 17-Aug-2017 19:25


Garmin introduces the Rino 700 five-watt two-way handheld radio
Posted 17-Aug-2017 19:04


Garmin announces the Foretrex 601 and Foretrex 701 Ballistic Edition for outdoor and tactical use
Posted 17-Aug-2017 19:02


Brightstar announces new distribution partnership with Samsung Knox platform in Australia
Posted 17-Aug-2017 17:07


Free gig-enabled WiFi network extends across Dunedin
Posted 17-Aug-2017 17:04


Samsung expands with connect Gear S3 Frontier
Posted 17-Aug-2017 15:55


Fact-checking Southern Cross Next cable is fastest to USA
Posted 17-Aug-2017 13:57



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.