Tuesday, 18 August 2009

POLICE HAVE RAMBOS IN THEIR SIGHTS - Part Deux

Wow - there are a few gun nuts out there who are pretty pissed about the police tightening up the regs around gangsta guns..

We seriously considered printing some of the emails. There are still some pretty wacky gun worshipping wankers inhabiting some big cracks in the pavement of NZ society.

So can anyone tell me why these particular types of guns are so good and what they are good for apart from spraying a room full of Headhunters?

We are , so to speak , sticking to our guns, they should be treated as guns designed to specifically kill people.We don't have a gun licence but have grown up with them and I know how to use one to hunt food to eat.

So we continue to support the police on this one. Its a mother thing....

7 comments:

Redbaiter said...

"Its a mother thing"

Guns are what help good men defend their families from bad men. Your faith in government's ability to do this is simplistic and naive.

You are living in a fragile democracy where things can change in an instant.

Government has no right to decide what arms I might have as long as I conduct myself lawfully.

The simplistic view that "guns are bad" is one that has arisen by means of a long period of security and stability. Comfortable urban liberals have forgotten or are completely ignorant of what can happen.

All such periods inevitably come to an end, and in most cases where socialism or other leftist political constructs are concerned, an end that results in considerable blood shed.

Don't let complacency make you (and your family) easy prey.

bustedblonde said...

redbaiter - i come from a family who will never be easy prey.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps because what the police propose is unlawful

Perhaps because the shape of the stock does nothing to affect the functionality of a semi automatic weapon?

Perhaps because the proposed change is Cops feeling they need to be "seen" to do something in the wake of a stuff-up in Napier.

For lots of people a thumbhole stock is more comfortable when sighting.

Personally I don't much care either way, but its yet another questionable attempt by the police to push the boundaries of legal interpretation, and I am pretty sick of being nannied and ordered around by them on the roads and on my TV, so I am quite happy that they bugger off and go back to dealing with criminals.

As you yourself noted, they were three fifths of bugger all useless at getting your car back, but can afford to take out big adds in the paper telling legal gunowners porkies.

Then this week they decided that publishing the names of convicted criminals was in breach of their "privacy". Something not demonstrated in law, nor by the Privacy Commissioner.

Where's the priorities?

MikeE said...

Again BB, I think you've got it way wrong here.

How many lives would be saved by banning a firearm with a pistol grip?

How on earth does a flash suppressor or half the other mods on a MSSA make it any more dangerous than a .22.

How does (as proposed in the arms amendment act #3) making someone require a firearms dealers licence fro importing the barrel of a paintball marker prevent a single dangerous crime?

You are judging firearms based on their looks, and it appears a bit of motherly ignorance on the matter.

How is a semi automatic .223 with a standard stock any less dangerous than a modified .223 assault rifle with the same magzine capacity locked into semi auto?

They both do the exact same thing, fire a projectile, at the same speed, in the same direction when you pull the trigger with the same effect.

There is absolutely no difference to this proposal and the dog microchipping legislation. Both achieve absolutely zero impact in public safety, both add massive compliance costs and treat non compliance as a criminal behaviour.

Please explain how supporting this legislation will save a single life. If anything its more likely to drive legal firearms underground, as people hide them to avoid registration or confiscation.

And thats how firearms actually end up in the hands of gangs such as the ehadhunders you despise.

Anonymous said...

Redbaiter - if you have that much concern about the fragility of our deomcracy'; move to Montana. I don't.

Mike E - You give lots of reason why this is wrong. Tell me then:
How do you stop guns falling into the wrong hands?
Why does a hunter need a semi-auto with a large mag and looks and behaves like a military weapon?
How does a member of the public or a police officer tell the difference between a high-powered military styled semi-auto, a rifle that just looks like one, or a plastic air-rifle?

Farmer Baby Boomer said...

I dont have any E class firearms but I believe it should a right for law abiding citizens of any democracy. Why? Gun laws only disarm law abiding citizens and not criminals who of course ignore them. Most killing sprees in the U S of A have been in areas where guns are banned. Mass murderers seem to be deterred by the possibility of being shot before they are ready to use their gun on themselves

Anonymous said...

to the 10:31 anonymous.

1. A gun is a gun, the same things stop hunting rifles getting into the wrong hands, no change is being proposed to the rules around ownership.

2. Class A semi automatics have a 7 round magazine, the same as many ruger hunting semis. A follow-up shot is often required. If hunting a pack of goats, you may get several shots in. An old bolt action 303 had a 10 shot magazine and they have been hunted with for generations.

3. A gun is a gun. You wave one at a cop, and live (or not) with the consequences. brown wooden stocked hunting rifles are not less lethal than a military .223. In fact typically a hunting rifle hits harder, more accurately over much longer ranges.

4. Why should anyone care if a gun used lawfully is black or brown? Just because YOU seem to be scared of them is not a cause to punish others. A gun is a tool.