Nowhere in the draft amendments did it mention "762mm" or "minimum overall length".
Printable View
I think I mentioned "before all the facts of what was proposed were known".
And, as you pointed out, it was a draft. Which being a draft is subject to revision to clarify exactly what is intended or proposed.
You would have to be pretty stupid to fly off the handle before knowing exactly what was proposed.
You would have to be pretty stupid to really believe that the idea was ever to restrict guns with any shortening, not just below 762mm.
You know you don't make it easy to think that you're a fit and proper person when you literally advocate for the death penalty for recidivism. Murder and rape I get but recidivism is a different kettle of fish.
The money you'd spend on killing NZ citizens would be better spent elsewhere.
Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk
Yes, what was proposed in the DRAFT. Which was then changed to be more specific and reference 762mm.
Only a retard would seriously think that making illegal the fitting a thinner recoil pad, or scraping 0.00002mm off by rubbing on concrete was the intention of this proposal.
I hope all those who sent in abusive or half cocked emails sent another to apologise and congratulate him on seeking heavier penalties for those found with cut down guns.
Intention is worthless when it comes to writing arms amendments. Apparently some think the intention of previous arms amendments, was to limit the import of modern semi automatic rifles into the country. But I don't see that written in the arms act? Oh but it's common sense right?
Also needing a permit to cut down a firearm? Up to 5 years in prison, so probably next to nothing in reality, served concurrently? Man that'll scare them!
Attachment 92321
you calling me a retard? @systolic
Folks get your popcorn ready.
Think you need to look more carefully at what I've suggested: we outsource our corrections system - this will cost a lot less than our current spend on rehabilitating those who have proven to be incapable of rehabilitation and reintegration into society; which is what recidivism is (at the extreme end). Not everyone gets into this system - it's graduated.... :ORLY:
How is it bleeding heart shit to actually propose changes that have actual evidence of reducing crime rates? Suppose I should stick to coming up with half cocked fantasy about imprisoning criminals on the moon or somthing.
I get that being mean to bad people gives you the warm fuzzies. It just doesn't work. The whole point of the justice system is to deter people from committing crime in the first place. How long one guy is in jail for said crime is irrelevant. What matters is how many people don't commit the crime for worry of the consequence.
Studies show that the most effective way to reduce this is to increase the chance of getting caught rather than the length of sentence. If you think the sentences are to weak that's fine, it's just a separate issue to preventing crime.
I'm arguing the point that, it is often said on here that harsher sentencing will reduce the occurrence of gun crime, evidence shows it isn't true. Increasing the likelihood of getting caught will. So if your true intent is to deter criminals that's where your money is best spent
....missed a critical element in my argument: if you outsource to Saudi Arabia, China or North Korea the consequences will be severe...and it hasn't been tried, so any reference to "studies" are moot - this is a solution that fits with our capitalism mindset that has not been tried or studied. Warm fuzzies(WTF?) don't come into it: I feel nothing for people who victimise others - often repeatedly.
I also get your need to highlight that harsher sentencing doesn't work - you want to reference the USA example where they have the highest incarceration rate in the world, and higher recidivism than any other country; it also fits neatly when juxtaposed against the Scandinavian countries who have a greater focus on rehabilitation. You conveniently ignore the underlying backgrounds and cultural factors of both examples....
I get it - the US system creates a culture of criminality where there is "nothing to lose" - and my example is extreme; but what we are doing at the moment isn't working, and we have an issue with people getting caught more than once (definition of recidivist) - so it's not a fear of getting caught driving behaviour. We have a situation where the potential benefit outweighs any potential consequence (which is weak at best).
Happy to be proven wrong, but I don't believe our current crop of officials are willing to actually look at the problems - so we are left with assessing consequences....:O_O:
I'm sorry man but outsourcing draconian prison and torture as a form of punishment is
1. Entirely unrealistic
2. Absolutely not a new idea. It's been the way things have happened for the majority of our civilised history.
You are claiming causation based entirely on your oppinion and not on evidence. I get that it seems logical but humans are not logical creatures. It isn't a matter of weighing up benifits vs consequence.
Recidivism is a complex issue. But again in the context of this discussion (firearms and firearms law) not really relevant.
In the 1st world there is no harsher recidivism policy than the 3 strikes laws. Yet people still repeat offend.
It's all about the psychology of prevention. Imagine you are a kiwi bloke who likes to drive at 115. Now you have road a and road b. Road a has a $500 fine for driving 115. However you drive road a all the time, you never see a cop or speed camera on there.
Road b only has a $200 fine for going 115, but you see cops on there all the time. At least a couple times a week. You see people pulled over and getting tickets. Hell your mate got pinged last week.
Which road are you more likely to slow down on?
Really? If it wasn't for the fact hardly anyone seems to trust the police hierarchy anymore nor vote seeking pollies who may mean well and think they are doing the right thing by listening to aforementioned police with coming up with these then maybe it wouldn't happen.
Politicians need to be abused and often otherwise they kowtow to the vocal minority and the apathetic majority is screwed.
I've seen what an agenda can do to firearms ownership in Australia which was strongarmed in by Johnny H, we don't want them to ever, ever think we are soft enough to let it happen here.
He should also only get congratulations if it doesn't turn out bad and why should he get an apology?
Its not the fact that it was the intention of the proposal to infer all shortening would make them illegal, the fact it wasn't excluded give a copper with an attitude to enforce if he see's fit, much like they do now. @systolic, you weren't a politician in an earlier life were you? Cant be as you aren't that diplomatic.
With you on that, csmiffy. Precisely the opposite of what Nick-D was claiming.
I have. You're suggesting that criminals have less human rights than you and I. And that you are perfectly comfortable with others doing the dirty work.
If you think the government would stop at actual criminals and leave us alone then you're naïve at best.
Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk
Never even suggested that the government would ever leave us alone - nice if they would, but it will never happen.
As for human rights: we already remove the rights of criminals via incarceration. As part of living in society, if you break the social contract you forfeit some of those rights. We can disagree until the cows come home as to where to draw the line of just what rights are forfeit; but I suggest we remember the victims before putting the rights of criminals above them.
If you believe I'm that naive - you are stupid at best... I can do false equivalency too - and suggest you grow up a bit.
Never denied that we do remove rights or that the social contract requires it to function.
Nice. Conflating victims and criminals into one. I never mentioned victims and criminals getting more help or anything like that.
Since you had to stoop to calling me stupid and immature if wager that you never read much of an argument anyway.
Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk
now my old muttongun -how does this effect it .If I goes to the doc to get its hood removed ,is me friendly copper gonna demand a short arm inspection. i think it may be under 762mm but due ti my fat guts cant see it to measure??:o:cool:
From what you are saying I can hazard a guess that you have no even said so much as hello to a Crim .
t
The current system is focused on box ticking and if you parrot their drivel , you get to go past the fence to freedom . What is needed is the stick and then the carrot , if there is no punishment then their is no consequence .
Already a restricted length maybe...? Go the crusaders
@systolic you clearly aren't picking up what people are putting down. I do agree with on a small point...the INTENT as you put it isn't to make every rifle with a worn muzzle, pad or otherwise illegal. The fact that they didn't specifically say it doesn't make it open for interpretation and we don't need anti gun coppers with a bad attitude using it to screw us over.
Stop calling people retards just because you don't agree with them. You are allowed an opinion as we all are. There is no need for abuse although you do seem to have a bit of a knack for it. You aren't Australian are you?
You know what they say about assumptions....
You miss the point entirely. I'm not arguing about sentencing at all. Just refuting the point that harsher sentencing will meaningfully reduce the occurrence of crime.
At no point did I say we should abolish or reduce sentences. Just that more police resource and a higher probability of getting caught is more effective at preventing crime from happening in the first place. Which is after all the best possible outcome and the entire point of the system.
Everyone can argue their emotionally based opinion till they are blue in the face, but that won't change the facts.
How?
The vast majority of crime goes unpunished. That's why preventing people from committing crime in the first place is so important. Can't be a 50 times repeat offender if you don't offend in the first place
Everything I have said is backed by real evidence and studies. So unless you think you know more than the experts and have a comprehensive scientific study. Google it.
bring back public flogging. a massive deterrent to the crim and anyone watching.
That's what I'm saying man. It seems like common sense. But it just doesnt work that way. For whatever physiological reason increasing the size of the stick doesn't seem to deter criminals in a meanfull way. This is back by shit loads of actual data.
I'm going to bow out of this conversation now, as tbh none of us are law makers, nor criminal physcologists so are all unqualified to comment.
I do however encourage anyone who has a genuine interest in the reduction of crime and improvement of our awesome country, to spend an hour or 2 on Google and look at what some of the studies have shown. Challenge your bias, you might be surprised what you learn
This is a misconstrued myth. Anyone who votes is effectively a law maker in the Westminster system. We get to vote for policies and to have our input into the laws through our elected members, or to become an elected member if we so desire and our views get backing.