There were only three homicide incidents involving five staff. Homicide charges include murder, manslaughter and attempted murder. :wtfsmilie:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
Printable View
There were only three homicide incidents involving five staff. Homicide charges include murder, manslaughter and attempted murder. :wtfsmilie:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
....ONLY...Quote:
Originally Posted by 300CALMAN
I just read that. 3 events, 5 staff, means the was some form of collaboration in at least one event
Higher standards and all that??
not necessarily...... 1 could have shot the others in 3 different events....Quote:
Originally Posted by ROKTOY
3 staff may have done something bad and 2 may have been victums of the badness
you could twist this many ways...
But let's be honest there is no good way of reading this. Wonderful to think some of these people will have access to the register. But hey it will be all good right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
I'd say it'd be this one https://www.nzherald.co.nz/stratford...6LJZAVO7ZN2GM/Quote:
Originally Posted by ROKTOY
A sad event for all involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeyMod
One of the things we need to be aware of is that there is a "natural" level of crime, including gun crime. There are often short-term spikes in a particular type of offending, always has been always will be.
It is very easy for the media to manipulate the normal level of crime and start to report every incident to create a perception with the public that there is some form of crime wave or epidemic of a particular type of offending.
We see it with ram raids and to bolster this they started to report burglaries. Burglary is a very common ever day crime, which the Police have deemed to be of low priority as in general this type of offending is not against the person, but is s property related crime, hence the level of offending.
Ram raids are not new have been around for many years.
Gun crime is the same, there are many incident involving firearms where the AOS are called out, most not even reported, unless there is a focus by the media to do so.
Gang related shootings have been a reasonably common occurrence for many years, the recent spate being in Auckland were highly visible and attracted a lot of media attention.
At present gun crime is a focus of the Government and the head of the Police association, both of whom benefit from the increased reporting from the media.
It's very easy to be reactive to negative media reporting, which as we well know is often lacking in fact with a lot of content being taken from social media posts without any form of checking.
Interesting that burglary is one of the most common ways criminals obtain firearms, but not a police priority.
Irrespective of whether I agree with the legislation or not, I ensure that I do my best to comply, the reason being I don't want to give the state any more ammunition (no pun intended) for their anti-gun stance.
My understanding is one of the reasons the Government want a register is that they believe that firearms used by criminals come from licenced firearm owners and that if they can maintain a record of these will prevent or limit the supply. The major flaw in this is that there are many firearms which will never be registered, and it will do very little if anything to prevent gun crime or prevent criminals having access to firearms. We all know this, and I suggest so do the Government, but they have an agenda and an objective.
Be interesting to see how much of the basis of this tread is factual and occurs.
Source of supply in my belief has nothing to do with the establishment of a registry, if source of supply was a concern then every transaction that required a mail order purchase form, permit to procure or import slip over the previous years would be being followed up and verified as correct. It's arguable that the basics aren't being done prior to the establishment of a registry - and the question has to be asked "why?". One can only make assumptions on this as the questions I've seen asked as to what happened to and where are these records have appeared to have been either avoided or deflected (information not available etc etc). If the information isn't available, what was the point of the importation forms for one as these should have largely given the majority of the lifecycle (import, sale, disposal) for firearms imported since the requirement came into being.Quote:
Originally Posted by gmm
It would seem that at this stage the only possible benefit (and that is of no proveable and realisable benefit to licence holders themselves) for a registry is increasing the cost of the ownership of firearms. The claimed benefits have already been debunked by the overseas experience, and the idea that it will stop criminals who have been given firearms licences from passing firearms onto other criminals is incorrect. The flaws in the idea are many and blatantly obvious, and everywhere else that's tried it has found nothing but difficulties, which include no real reduction in firearms crime that can be related to the existence of the registry but several crimes that can be directly linked to it.
Second thing against the registry in it's current form, is that of the list of NZ Govt departments who have a really rough record of technology project implementation - the top two or three of that list from anyone you care to ask would invariably include the NZ Police. Better chance of success if any other department was running it based purely on previous performance.
Yes it could go both ways. It may actually prove that the majority of criminal firearms do not come LFAOs.
If you think about it there are two sources of firearms from LFAOs, those who willingly onsell to the likes of gangs, and those whos firearms are stolen.
In the onselling situation as firearms sales are now recorded, those firearms are traceable and as we have seen over the last couple of years that leads to those selling them being prosecuted. But there have been less than a handful of cases indicating this is not widespread.
With regards to the stolen firearms, most LFAOs will report stolen firearms (at the very least for insurance claims if nothing else). We have never seen police put out stats around recovered stolen firearms - and you can guarantee if these were showing a correlation the police would've published the numbers. But at the end of the day a register is not going change this if it was a source of firearms for crims anyway.
What will be interesting is after 1 year doing an OIA for recovered firearms statistics, e.g. how many stolen firearms were recovered and traceable in the register. In fact it may be more revealing about how effective the police are, and potentially customs (e.g. if they start recovering firearms that have no NZ 'trail' of ownership).
As LFAOs there is an opportunity here to use the register to prove what we are saying, to reveal the truths and shut down the lies. It's coming whether we like or not, so lets make the best of it.
Re your comment re licensed owners giving firearms, remember that your FAL is for 10 years and things happen in peoples lives where some get hooked into drugs, start moving into or associating with gangs after obtaining their FAL and they use their FAL to buy guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by small_caliber
People who have a FAL, marriage goes to shit and they shoot their wife/partner. There’s even the eye surgeon in Christchurch Ian Dallison who attempted to murder his ex landlord and he showed up with 9 guns to do the deed… I guess the police need to fix their magic ball to foresee the future.
Still ALOT of unrecovered pistols out in the community from the likes of John Mabey yet to be recovered or how about another collector Dale Jenner selling illegal guns and even explosives, there’s also another collector currently before the courts for selling guns to gangs!
Most guns recovered by police aren’t able to be traced back to their last known owner, sure you can contact the importer who will tell you they supplied it to that shop unless it was parallel imported or bought into the country by an overseas hunter and left here, the shop will tell you they supplied it to that FAL holder, that FAL holder will tell you they sold it to someone, don’t remember their name but they had a FAL… end of enquiry as to who last had it and the circumstances of it ending up where it ended up.
Most firearms reported stolen aren’t reported with their serial numbers as the owners don’t know or don’t keep records of the serial numbers. How many people honestly keep a record of all their property which has serial numbers… very, very few!Quote:
Originally Posted by vulcannz
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favour of a register as it WON’T prevent guns from being stolen but it will help identify where guns have come from IF they still have their serial numbers.
You don’t need to hack into a register to steal info, just steal the sign in book from you local pistol range as that’s been done and match it up with a phone book as that’s been recently done or sit outside a pistol club and note down regos as that happened to my old club 25 years ago… I can even cruise around my town and see everyone who has guns based on their hunting/shooting decals they have in the back windows of their vehicles as that’s a proven tool for some burglars.
[QUOTE=Seventenths;1401024]Most firearms reported stolen aren’t reported with their serial numbers as the owners don’t know or don’t keep records of the serial numbers. How many people honestly keep a record of all their property which has serial numbers… very, very few!
A good point - I have put on my weekend list the task of setting up a spreadsheet and adding the new guns in with numbers
Re this point
Yes it could go both ways. It may actually prove that the majority of criminal firearms do not come LFAOs.
If you think about it there are two sources of firearms from LFAOs, those who willingly onsell to the likes of gangs, and those whos firearms are stolen.
In the onselling situation as firearms sales are now recorded, those firearms are traceable and as we have seen over the last couple of years that leads to those selling them being prosecuted. But there have been less than a handful of cases indicating this is not widespread.
With regards to the stolen firearms, most LFAOs will report stolen firearms (at the very least for insurance claims if nothing else). We have never seen police put out stats around recovered stolen firearms - and you can guarantee if these were showing a correlation the police would've published the numbers. But at the end of the day a register is not going change this if it was a source of firearms for crims anyway.
What will be interesting is after 1 year doing an OIA for recovered firearms statistics, e.g. how many stolen firearms were recovered and traceable in the register. In fact it may be more revealing about how effective the police are, and potentially customs (e.g. if they start recovering firearms that have no NZ 'trail' of ownership).
As LFAOs there is an opportunity here to use the register to prove what we are saying, to reveal the truths and shut down the lies. It's coming whether we like or not, so lets make the best of it.
I understand the idea but do not accept that a registry will be better as it is my belief that registration will, like the confiscations, cause more firearms to go "dark"
I believe that when faced with the prospect of registering and especially if this new authority show any sign of charging more for how many rifles you have, good ol' kiwi tightness will kick in and people won't register large proportions of what they have
Also factoring in laziness/inertia it is my belief that a lot of people don't keep up with govt legislation and largely don't care so just won't bother
If a register does become law (and I will fight it tooth and nail) then there has got to be a way to get dark guns onto the register which is smooth, easy and with little cost or consequence to the person bringing them in to the fold or people just won't bother and we will end up with a situation where people have got unregistered guns that cost them say x amount of dollars, the cops will say you can hand it in and we will destroy it but we'll prosecute you if you don't so there will be some people who look at it as 'well the cops will give me nothing and the mongrel mob will give me 2 grand so fuck it'
I could well be wrong but I have a bad feeling that we are going to find out...
Yes & No, Mabey had on sold all his restricted firearms (130 +) to a gang and reported them stolen, Jenner converted E cat to A cat and sold them, the other collector before the courts i mention has sold A cat firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7mmwsm
I agree with you in people being corrupt as there are plenty of studies to show that, one study showed me that 70% of people would steal if they knew they could get away with it, another example is look at insurance data re cars being hit/damaged by other motorists parking their vehicles in shopping centres etc, how many motorists leave a note with their details admitting fault... extremely small percentage.
Can you point me in the direction of the source of this information?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seventenths
It's pretty simple and something none of the advocates for the register here have answered. So please inform us?Quote:
Originally Posted by small_caliber
If not you can always organise a break in and theft. As far as I can remember it's been done by more than one with B/C cat.
Also, of course, to legally own or have in your possession a firearm.Quote:
Originally Posted by small_caliber
I remember back in the registration days that it was often that recovered stolen firearms had their serial numbers removed. Don't know if our current lot of criminals would bother to do that unless they want to cover up that it was an illegal import.
Your joking right?Quote:
Originally Posted by 10-Ring
If the firearm is already stolen what sense is there in removal of serial number? Regardless of if it is marked or removed it is still unlawfully in possession for probably 99.9% of firearms offences
hows a bouts the stuff report on the incident in chch where someone caught young kids shooting at ducks in jellie park with a BB gun ,then a parrie found with a crossbow bolt through its neck.Police response typically vague.WHAT ABOUT SOME EARNEST APPROACHES TO HOLDS ADULTS RESPONSIBLE FOR KIDS BEHAVIOUR ????????????-oh i forgot you cant make headlines/political advantage over childrens antsocial behaviour can we-- tuis anyone???
Half joking, it was just a random thought. They couldn't care less I would think.Quote:
Originally Posted by 300CALMAN
I agree totally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Preacher
No don't go Short Sword go Denis the Menis hand full of pebbles in pocket and a SlingShotQuote:
Originally Posted by Cordite
A point not discussed (that I’ve noticed):
Gun is registered and police have details of registered gun.
Gun gets illegally sold to criminal
Later police decide to conduct a random audit a persons firearms
“Where’s the shotgun registered xxxyyy, I don’t see it in your safe”
Suddenly some creative explaining is needed.
"Well I went online and reported it lost off a boat and removed it from my chit - why is it still on my record?".Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnwolf
Some of you would make terrible criminals...Quote:
Originally Posted by 10-Ring
1. It traces the FA back to it's theft so an instant "Receiving" charge guarantee to be added.
2. Ties you to the people who stole it as possible associates if they were caught later.
3. It may have been used in a previous crime and could be tied back to this (see above) and then implicate you.
4. Most importantly if you were an unscrupulous FAL holder selling on the black market you will definitely remove the numbers.
5. If they are illegally imported the number can be used to trace your supplier.
If you don't care and of course No 4 doesn't apply then the register well only assist returning the gun to it's former owner if stolen. Most likely in a bubberised state so probably not much help.
How? If the supplier is off shore they have no legal requirement to supply information to the NZP. And given privacy laws in some regions it may be easier for that supplier not to supply the information.Quote:
Originally Posted by 300CALMAN
[/QUOTE]I would say the police have recovered, in the last year, more firearms from criminals than the ones you mentioned sold to the criminals and given the number of guns recovered if they were coming from licensed firearms owners then there would clearly be a marked increase in prosecutions, yet we don't see many prosecuted for supplying the criminals with firearms, why is that?[/QUOTE]
Over the past year there have been a lot of LFO's caught and prosecuted for selling to gangs, its just not reported on Stuff or the likes. I always though Cahill was talking shit when he said crims got guns from LFO's, sadly it appears that he was correct.
I would say the police have recovered, in the last year, more firearms from criminals than the ones you mentioned sold to the criminals and given the number of guns recovered if they were coming from licensed firearms owners then there would clearly be a marked increase in prosecutions, yet we don't see many prosecuted for supplying the criminals with firearms, why is that?[/QUOTE]
Over the past year there have been a lot of LFO's caught and prosecuted for selling to gangs, its just not reported on Stuff or the likes. I always though Cahill was talking shit when he said crims got guns from LFO's, sadly it appears that he was correct.[/QUOTE]
I’ve heard anecdotal stories that the ‘buy back’ accentuated that.
A bit of ‘I can’t keep this rifle and the gangs are prepared to pay more for it than the Government will’ sort of thing
NZ has also signed up to the convention that if a firearm is involved in a crime it is to be destroyed. So why bother with serial numbers or a register? The victim is involved in a crime. In that way a stolen firearm is involved in a crime (it was stolen- theft is a crime) therefore it will not be returned to the owner but is to be destroyed. Or am I misreading the situation?
[QUOTE=308;1401043]I suspect that this is far scloser to the truth that we want to accept. Another point is that with the current paperwork for mail order sale of firearms making it such a huge pain in the arse to get processed, I know a number of situations where people wont bother. The uptake in peer to peer transport has effectively meant the police have now cut themselves out of most of the transactions. It has also pushed peple away from sites like trade me and back into word of mouth / I know a guy...(think pub conversations of old) which will actually make the police job even harder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seventenths
Their knee jerk reactions will have long term ramifications that will achieve the very opposite of what they wanted. I know this because I used to use the Police forms easily and with confidence, but in 2019 when they changed the system to what it is now (before Tarrant) I saw flaws in the process. The Police form is meant as a way for the seller to be able to verify the buyer has a FAL by getting the Police to check it for the seller. This new system needs the sellers address and licence number to be given to the buyer BEFORE the buyer goes to the police. Thus if a gang member signs up to trade me and buys a rifle online, the seller HAS to send his address and firearm serials FAL number etc to the buyer so he can get the police form. With this buyer being a gang member - no police form in needed so they dont go to the police- instead they go directly to the address provided by the seller and pick it up along with everything else in the locker for free.....And the police wonder why I prefer NOT to use their system.
And the best part....WHY does the seller need their own address and FAL details on the form? As a seller, if I need to know what my address is I will go and look at my letter box and if I need my FAL details I will open my wallet and look at it!
You need to have a current FAL to use Trademe to buy firearms. They have a system where you put in your FAL#, full name and maybe address? Not too sure on last one. If they don't 100% match what the Police have on file then it comes back as a "NO" and you can't do anything on any listing requiring a FAL.Quote:
Originally Posted by 308
So it's not as if any random person can just sign up to Trademe and click buy now on a firearm and then know your address.
I’m not sure that’s actually the case as TM require you to initially enter your F/lic which is then kept against your profile so each time you ask a question or go to buy a firearm you need to re enter those details to match up with what they have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coop
Why would police or a government department share personal information with a privately owned business?
A mate of mine saw an ornamental miniature cannon on RetardMe a few years ago, it was totally inoperable and made from soldered together empty shell cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coop
Mate wanted to ask dimensions (or some similar innocuous question) and was told he needed to supply his firearm licence number to ask that question.
Needless to say that was the end of THAT!
pushbikes used to have a serial number on them...not sure if they still do??? didnt stop them being stolen,or any easier to recover them either. possibly they could be returned to owner if number was recorded... wonder if a stolen car that gets used in a crime/ramraid will also be destroyed??? and if so,who pays origonal owner for it???
It doesn't share the info. All it does is verify your details are correct. So you bang in your name and FAL in and it comes back as a simple YES/NO that you are a real person with a FAL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seventenths
The system is all automated... The seller would have had their own licence and had it for sale in the firearms section where TM assumes everything requires a licence. You can't expect TM to have a human sit down and go over every listing when they are made and make sure it has licence required turned on or off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnwolf
Not quite. You need to have access to a valid FAL number (ANY valid license will do and if it is not their own all the better...) There is no way that trademe can confirm that the person who is online is the actual holder of said FAL. easy scenario- how many people have had scans or copied taken of their license? If you have access to a scan of someone elses license all you need is the full name and number and you can sign up to trademe and pretend to be that person. Honest people call this fraud....dishonest people call this easy. And remember it is the honest people who are NOT the problem. The only thing tradme checks is that the name on the trademe account matches the license.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coop
The really frightening thing here is that you do not have to misplace your license for someone to do this- If you lose your phone or laptop that has access to trademe- in fact you dont even need to misplace it- just leave it somewhere someone can access it for a few minutes......bingo they can buy it under your name....and they can change the trademe email address to one they can use too....
and how many employees of a large retail chain have access to the "book under the counter" with lists of firearms licence numbers...two seconds to take photo on phone.....
I can also tell of an owner of a franchise of large retail chain who has/had very strong connections to a gang..even used gang member for business debt collection....
but thats all OK ...apparently......
Yes, the loopholes are many and frightening - and every step taken to 'improve' the system seems to make it more easily advantaged. I had a mate fall foul with an online site, sold a firearm and requested the mail order documentation as per the requirements. Not forthcoming... Money was there quicksmart in his account though. Mate did the right thing, refused to send the firearm until paperwork supplied to verify buyer's license - but paperwork still didn't arrive. Next step, mate gets a call from Trademe enquiring what the go was, why hadn't he completed the transaction? He patiently explained the situation, said by law he couldn't send it until the required Police mail order paperwork was supplied and if the buyer couldn't supply it he would refund the payment and cancel the auction/apply for return of the fee.
This is where it gets funky, Trademe girl starts having a go and orders the mate to complete the transaction as per Trademe's terms and conditions! Mate says 'excuse you, your terms and conditions state that all firearms auctions and sales must comply with the requirements of the Arms Act...' - which is where that argument descended into a idiot's guide to achieving not a lot. I think he contacted the Police Arms guys to let them know, and ended up finally getting bank details off the buyer to refund the payment. I'm not too sure of the finer points of the rest of how that ended, but it was as dodgy as F...
Basically, that's a long winded way of saying Trademe no longer has a customer from me mate and quite right from him to - total shit show from them and any system of theirs is a crap shoot at the best of times. I know of another guy who couldn't use trademe for a while as his licence number failed the check tool for a while. They told him he wasn't licenced, he's looking at his licence going huh? Smack me head...
That smells like trademe girl was involvedQuote:
Originally Posted by No.3
Yes they do and iirc a number of bike shops offer serial tracking services (and some other security marking I think?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck