Thread: Cahill gone

Well I can't say I'm sorry to see him gone.
Certainly did firearms owners no favour's in his tenure.
We shall see who takes over

dont let the door slam you in the butt on your way out ......

Originally Posted by fawkes

dont let the door slam you in the butt on your way out ......

because we care for the door..

I bet RNZ will still interview him as ex police voice representative

The worrying bit is where is he going.
I wouldn't celebrate too quickly.

https://www.policeassn.org.nz/news/t...chris-cahill#/

Well his predecessor was just as bad, so don’t expect the next one to be much different

i bet he will be back as a politician

In reality the job he had was to advocate for the members of his organisation - which he did somewhat ruthlessly and without much worry about who he stepped on in the process. The unfortunate thing with the Police, is that they deal with crims and crims don't really want to deal with the Police. That means that certain elements of the criminal world are willing to go to extreme measures to dissuade the Police from doing their jobs - and we as firearms licence holders are jammed right in the crossfire of that.

It's worth noting that Police by their doctrine are a paramilitary organisation - they use weapons with the intention of presenting them at humans not firearms for the peaceful purpose of sporting use target shooting or for hunting or animal husbandry purposes as firearms licence holders do. This "weapons vs firearms" mindset seems to roll into everything Police do around firearms regime management. It's the core reason why a lot of us have formed the opinion that Police are not a good fit as firearms regime administrators, and it would be more comfortable with a fully standalone organisation tasked in this role. It seems to align with the role Cahill performed, and would explain why his actions in doing so offended so many firearms licence holders (the interpretation of firearms vs weapons).

Originally Posted by erniec

https://www.policeassn.org.nz/news/t...chris-cahill#/

“What’s something about you that might surprise people?

The firearms community would be surprised that I think recreational hunters have an important part to play in pest control in New Zealand and the government should start looking at putting a bounty on deer and pigs, which are out of control.”

That part of the article did surprise me. Whether I believe it or not is another matter as he’s been known to tell the odd porky or misrepresent the facts at times. Just my opinion though, others may think otherwise.

Originally Posted by woods223

“What’s something about you that might surprise people?

The firearms community would be surprised that I think recreational hunters have an important part to play in pest control in New Zealand and the government should start looking at putting a bounty on deer and pigs, which are out of control.”

That part of the article did surprise me. Whether I believe it or not is another matter as he’s been known to tell the odd porky or misrepresent the facts at times. Just my opinion though, others may think otherwise.

And the award for understatment of the year goes to...... @woods223.... But Yes, I was also surprised to read that bit.

Originally Posted by No.3

In reality the job he had was to advocate for the members of his organisation - which he did somewhat ruthlessly and without much worry about who he stepped on in the process. The unfortunate thing with the Police, is that they deal with crims and crims don't really want to deal with the Police. That means that certain elements of the criminal world are willing to go to extreme measures to dissuade the Police from doing their jobs - and we as firearms licence holders are jammed right in the crossfire of that.

It's worth noting that Police by their doctrine are a paramilitary organisation - they use weapons with the intention of presenting them at humans not firearms for the peaceful purpose of sporting use target shooting or for hunting or animal husbandry purposes as firearms licence holders do. This "weapons vs firearms" mindset seems to roll into everything Police do around firearms regime management. It's the core reason why a lot of us have formed the opinion that Police are not a good fit as firearms regime administrators, and it would be more comfortable with a fully standalone organisation tasked in this role. It seems to align with the role Cahill performed, and would explain why his actions in doing so offended so many firearms licence holders (the interpretation of firearms vs weapons).

I suspect this has quite a bit of truth to it....It would certainly explain a few things...

Originally Posted by gonetropo

i bet he will be back as a politician

There will always be an opening in the circus for another clown.

Originally Posted by No.3

In reality the job he had was to advocate for the members of his organisation - which he did somewhat ruthlessly and without much worry about who he stepped on in the process. The unfortunate thing with the Police, is that they deal with crims and crims don't really want to deal with the Police. That means that certain elements of the criminal world are willing to go to extreme measures to dissuade the Police from doing their jobs - and we as firearms licence holders are jammed right in the crossfire of that.

It's worth noting that Police by their doctrine are a paramilitary organisation - they use weapons with the intention of presenting them at humans not firearms for the peaceful purpose of sporting use target shooting or for hunting or animal husbandry purposes as firearms licence holders do. This "weapons vs firearms" mindset seems to roll into everything Police do around firearms regime management. It's the core reason why a lot of us have formed the opinion that Police are not a good fit as firearms regime administrators, and it would be more comfortable with a fully standalone organisation tasked in this role. It seems to align with the role Cahill performed, and would explain why his actions in doing so offended so many firearms licence holders (the interpretation of firearms vs weapons).

I think the reason Cahill offended so many of us is because he was a lying bag of shit that wanted to take our firearms off us.

The truth finally surfaces