https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...un-owners-poll
Printable View
Course they do.
Well we know some people on this very forum who do....
Because there's so many police and public being wounded or killed on a daily basis by firearm wielding assailants that ... more laws are necessary.
Why attempt to control something that is non-existential? Jesus, if he did exist.. would have wept.
yes but then the "sheeple", media and politicians are also crying "foul" that the you chap only got a light sentence when he bashed a POLICE OFFICER like that means its is somehow much worse than bashing a "regular person".
While police should expect not to be bashed at work we should also expect the same.
Both are equally bad and should have be appropriately dealt with. Assault is assault end of storey
Of the 83% who are in favor of stricter controls on gun owners, I wonder how many actually know what the current restrictions are? I wonder if the target demographic was carefully selected, and asked questions in a way that was likely to result in TVNZ's desired answers?
I'd really actually like to see, first-hand, how this "poll" that was conducted.
You know, actually look at the questions posed and the responses because if not, how then can a surreptitious poll really hold weight as a reliable gauge of public opinion? Particularly if it's then peddled by the state broadcaster as being factual?
Unless you have money and a good lawyer,
I would like to see the answer to question: "How many of the 83% who want great gun controls are gun owners?"
Personally I feel that the opinions of licence holders should hold more weight. I also believe it would be nice if these polls were unbiased enough to at least ask enough questions to provide some meaningful results. Ringing up Joe Public while he's eating dinner or watching the news, asking random questions then throwing in - "... and do you believe we need tighter gun laws...?" - WTF do you think the answer is going to be?
I'm also very dismayed with the Mountain Safety Council situation. I believe their management is on a self-serving mission to disrupt the current process in order to introduce their own qualification system which we, the license-holders will have to pay dearly for. Think ISO9000. Think about a private entity who is contracted to provide unit standards for firearms testing. Think about the Directors of this business earning huge coin at our expense... all justified by "public opinion demanding that we have a rigorous and sustainable process with accountability... blah, blah, blah..."
I'm almost prepared to bet my right testicle that's where these guys are heading. Their actions, their discussions, their involvement in the current review is far to well orchestrated to be happening by chance. Bet your bottom dollar there is a plan... and it's going to be at our expense.
Maybe we should run a poll on this forum to see who is for tougher gun laws? :-)
That's not a bad idea however the problem is you need to define "tougher"... because that word alone is too subjective. Your idea of tougher will be different to mine... and his... and his. First give some limitations, then run a poll that will give meaningful results, not a simple yes or no.
Personally, I'd really like to have a civil dialogue, devoid of emotion with people whose views are for or opposed without it denigrating into a bun fight or a quest for one-upmanship.
Stricter storage requirements for a cat is about all I would want changed. I have a safe bolted to the floor so not worried personally but know some that use the old bike lock... Sure this has come up in the past
I think tougher to me means more stringent (and maybe scientific) back ground checks on suitability, purpose and mental stability. Also maybe more thorough training and testing. I honestly don't know enough about it, but thats my gut feeling based on my experiences and observations. I personally know people who shouldn't in my view have a gun license.
I would also like to see far tougher penalties for illegal gun ownership or dealing.
A good point tahr, some people tempered,end change over time and they no longer become a fiit and proper person in my eyes. May even you get licence renewed every 10years you should get an interview, eye test and general once over by police. Means a lot more work for police though, therefore increased costs
People temper and they change, certainly. Some don't. Some just get old (physically). But do they all suddenly commit crimes with firearms?
Nobody can predict what can happen with the human personality. We can monitor what happens but that in itself brings another intrusion to bear - i.e. should a person, because he has firearms, is automatically perceived as a threat and should receive increased scrutiny from the state?
Firearms owners are the most vetted people in New Zealand society. Given the amount of overzealous security inspections recently, not to mention the glaring inconsistencies in the interpretation of the law - that - combined with the low incidence of firearm crime in this country - I see no reason to suddenly grant increase powers of surveillance to those who are not suitably aware of the existing laws that they are attempting to administer.
I am in Oz at the moment and have to put up with this crap. My bro ranted about the neo liberal feminists infringing on his right to have a penis and is in favor of gun control cos it works so well in Oz. When i asked him if he would accept mass surveillance of all his emails in order to prevent some theoretical terrorist attack he said no as long as there was only a small number of attacks??? And then complained about the stricter drinking laws killing the night life in King's Cross. Apparently it's only the freedoms that he enjoys that matter.
Australia is beyond repair.
I can't justify "tougher" restrictions. It's not like people are getting shot, robbed or threatened by licensed gun owners every day of the week.
I think A cat registration is a pending cluster fuck. I'm not saying it from the point of view of somebody who wants to hide his gun from the government. They already claim to know about all of my favourite rifles anyway. I'm looking at it from a cost to benefit analysis.
The title of of the poll itself is misleading. It should read " 83% of people who visit our website support stricter controls on firearms owners."
That's cool and all, but do the people who visit that website form an indicative portion of the population? I'm a late 20s, European, male and I've probably never visited that website. I would like to see the demographic breakdown of people who frequent that site. Are a greater portion of them in an older age bracket than me? Do they actually represent the population?
Welcome to journalism. Publish any headline you like.
For all we know it could be '83% of staff members in the TVNZ cafeteria support stricter controls on firearms owners'
There is a consensus amongst most licensed firearms owners (note I haven't used the word 'gun' - it's has a horribly 'emotional' inference), is that our current licensing system is quite strict enough.
Going back a few years (like @Tahr, I'm retired - and the same age), the license holder was vetted by the local AO.
If he thought you were a pretty 'sound looking bloke', you got your firearms license, i.e. you were licensed to own firearms and were required to keep a record of purchase/sale of these on your license (the little Red Book).
The training/vetting system now is much stricter and is wholly aimed at law-abiding citizens.
What is missing IMO, is severe penalties for using firearms - or any weapon (including 'king hit' punches), capable of inflicting fatal injuries - in the commission of a crime.
I'd like to think that the punishment - I'd recommend automatic life imprisonment, with no parole period - is so draconian, that even a 'fit of temper' or 'crime of passion' (gotta love the French), does not exempt the perpetrator.
That violence in the family unit (refer to TV the last couple of nights), will almost assuredly draw automatic penalties for the 'beater' or violation of restraining orders, bringing similar retribution from the courts.
Time for COLFO, NZDA, NZCTA and other shooter organisations to get together and present a united face to the Gov't, media and the public, regarding the current biased results that are aired so willingly by our so-called 'Free Press'.
I see no benefit in us talking to each other on this and other shooter/firearms owners forums.
The message needs to get out into the public arena that the law-abiding firearms owners are not the problem, it's the use of our 'toys' by criminals in the execution of their lawbreaking.
Because we're reasonably sensible people (in the main), and responsible firearms owners, we are 'painted' with the same brush as the criminals - who have illegally acquired firearms in their criminal behaviour - this is what irks me personally.
To be classified in the same group of people that are practicing illegal behaviour, yet I'm complying with the firearms law, as it stands, in every way, really rubs me up the wrong way - gets me really angry.
My 2c worth.
Nothing is perfect @Tussock mate.
Refer your PM and what I've replied to you.
At least there's a few people on this forum who see it for what it really is.
10000 FAL holders were outside with there guns/rifles/ knifes hunting or on the range on Sunday and no one got shot OR Police raid recovers 7 guns from gang headquarters. What story will be in the media. A lot of people think that your gun is unsafe, can go off at any time and fires hundreds of bullets per second like on the movies, and your shot deer has 30+ bullet holes in it. Guns are made out to be bad, movies media, ect. Joe public wants tougher laws, they have no idea what it is currently but it needs to be tougher. The government has a idea that pricing it out of the market is the best way (like smokes). Lots of media coverage over the last few months regarding FAL, mountain safety council is going to sort the mess out (no real mess or problem) and I cant see a pretty ending to this.
I think ....only I should be allowed any kind of firearms at all ..... its the same with driving , your all idiots ...... but on a more actual serious note, I don't know what the answer is for any of this ... I want more serious repercussions to people who commit crime with a firearm . I want crims to THINK (yeah I know) before they use a firearm for a crime that "shit if I get caught im in real big trouble"... but they don't think , and they don't care .... and where do I sit on all this ??? .... well this is my opinion and mine alone , but I want the ability to have concealed carry ..so im at the 2nd amendment style end of the spectrum ... don't think this has helped the nature of this post .... but I just like to be included
Ever hear of the saying "if you can't saying something nice, stfu?"
People are allowed to disagree.
This forum is turning into a stupid fucking shitfight where differing opinions aren't tolerated without upsetting people and open discussion becomes a stupid name calling school yard taunt.
Maybe tinfoil hat wearers are right after all?