Thread: Firearms ban in Western aussie

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

Now, after the loss of lifetime licenses, semi auto centrefires, 15 shot magazines in .22 rifles, we should compromise - what do we get in return? By now, if you can't see that sections of the Govt - and especially PNHQ want all guns gone, you are deluded. Bit by bit the common persons ability to own guns will all be eroded unless it is stopped by us.

It would be interesting to see an evidence based case for the “PNHQ want all guns gone” part.

I really need to see this evidence. This belief that the police want all firearms gone is at the core of much of what is stated as supposed fact on social media, yet to my eyes and ears there is a wholesale lack demonstrable evidence that supports this belief. In the absence of any demonstrable evidence, then is that statement not the delusion?

To that end, is it not a situation where fear has overtaken objectivity? That’s what @Tahr was saying above. Subjectivity laced with emotion. Whenever I chat face-to-face with someone who has these fears about police motives and I ask this same question, I never get a straight answer on the evidence part. It just comes across as fear.

In most similar democracies, e.g. UK, gun control has stopped at what the ordinary guy would regard as the typical sporting rifle. It’s been that way for many years now. Gun control as I experienced it did not in any way shape or form stop me from hunting, be it deerstalking, rough shooting with 12ga or rimfire small game shooting.

We all share the same concerns about over-reach and excessive imposition of control due to ulterior motives. If the police motive truly is the removal of all firearms from society, and there is irrefutable evidence that supports this view, then how do you propose we go about stopping it? Because this is the next part of the face-to-face conversation I have with people who are worried about this. They all say the same thing… unless we stop it. But how?

The how part never gets a straight answer.

What do you propose?

Originally Posted by Flyblown

It would be interesting to see an evidence based case for the “PNHQ want all guns gone” part.

I really need to see this evidence. This belief that the police want all firearms gone is at the core of much of what is stated as supposed fact on social media, yet to my eyes and ears there is a wholesale lack demonstrable evidence that supports this belief. In the absence of any demonstrable evidence, then is that statement not the delusion?

To that end, is it not a situation where fear has overtaken objectivity? That’s what @Tahr was saying above. Subjectivity laced with emotion. Whenever I chat face-to-face with someone who has these fears about police motives and I ask this same question, I never get a straight answer on the evidence part. It just comes across as fear.

In most similar democracies, e.g. UK, gun control has stopped at what the ordinary guy would regard as the typical sporting rifle. It’s been that way for many years now. Gun control as I experienced it did not in any way shape or form stop me from hunting, be it deerstalking, rough shooting with 12ga or rimfire small game shooting.

We all share the same concerns about over-reach and excessive imposition of control due to ulterior motives. If the police motive truly is the removal of all firearms from society, and there is irrefutable evidence that supports this view, then how do you propose we go about stopping it? Because this is the next part of the face-to-face conversation I have with people who are worried about this. They all say the same thing… unless we stop it. But how?

The how part never gets a straight answer.

What do you propose?

My Uncle was a cop.
My best man was a cop.
My partner was a cop.
I've been on ridealongs, drunk in station bars and hunted with cops. I luved with cops in London, and I've walked around with my eyes open all my life.

Over the 39 years I've owned firearms there has been a steady increase in the rhetoric and the actions of both the Police Association and any of the Police spokesfolk with regard to firearms that I'd wonder about your cognitive capacity if you didn't think that the body of the Police weren't anti gun.
Look at how they handle orders in council.
Look at this nonsense around ranges.
Look at how they handled the aftermath of Christchurch.
Look at what they are doing with licensing.
I am an absolute supporter of the Ryle of law, but I am very disappointed in the way the NZ Police are handling the firearms issue.

Lived, not luved
Also rule of law, not Ryle.

Duplicate post

Originally Posted by Flyblown

In most similar democracies, e.g. UK, gun control has stopped at what the ordinary guy would regard as the typical sporting rifle. It’s been that way for many years now. Gun control as I experienced it did not in any way shape or form stop me from hunting, be it deerstalking, rough shooting with 12ga or rimfire small game shooting.



What do you propose?

heres what I propose, I dont only want to own guns for hunting, hell i don't consider 50 bmg to be a sporting cartridge but i absolutelty believe that i should be able to own one if i wanted, it almost sounds as if you dont mind uk gun laws because you still get to own what you want to own, well guess what i don't, I want to be able to shoot long range competition I want to and do own pistols, and im sure as hell not using that for deer but guess what, i still own it. if we let them take this away what are they going to take away next? first we said ok we will register our e cat ar's then they used that register to check of everyone who was forced to comply with the confiscation then they said we will ban pump action ar's, we said ok, then they said they would ban certain pistols which they did, infact is this not proof that pnhg wants all firearms gone? that they are gradually removing the range of firearms we can own, creating difficulties for firearm clubs, introducing laws without really making it clear to everybody. they never go after the duck shooters semi auto but they will go after the minoritys ie sports shooters guns. A sports shooter would stick up in hand in protest if the government went after a hunters firearm but as long as the hunter gets to keep his 308 deer rifle most of them dont give 2 shits. gun control has sure as hell stopped me from doing what I wanted to do with a firearm and I envy you for not having the same experience

In most similar democracies, e.g. UK, gun control has stopped at what the ordinary guy would regard as the typical sporting rifle. It’s been that way for many years now. Gun control as I experienced it did not in any way shape or form stop me from hunting, be it deerstalking, rough shooting with 12ga or rimfire small game shooting.

We all share the same concerns about over-reach and excessive imposition of control due to ulterior motives. If the police motive truly is the removal of all firearms from society, and there is irrefutable evidence that supports this view, then how do you propose we go about stopping it? Because this is the next part of the face-to-face conversation I have with people who are worried about this. They all say the same thing… unless we stop it. But how?

The how part never gets a straight answer.

What do you propose?[/QUOTE]

I should have addressed this before now, but in my eyes the answer is normalisation of the sport, and the tools of the sport. I introduce as many people as I can to hunting - via venison sausages, through taking them target shooting, through talking about pheasant hunting and the dog work that goes with it - all of the joy of the hunting experience.

I'm not trying to turn them into hunters necessarily, just to show them that this is something done by normal people, and no threat to them.

Politicians will vote in response to their perceptions of the electorates willingness to punish them for choices that they oppose. What I mean by that is that most pollies have a hierarchy of motivations. First, re-election. Second, a personal and party series of agendas. Their actions are managed by a question that sounds like "will this hurt my chances of getting back in at the next election?", and if they perceive that the bulk of the population is either actively anti, or at least apathetic to a group (for example, shooters) then they have carte blanche to do what they want, on the grounds that this won't get in the way at the next election. What I am looking to do is to move people from passive/possibly concerned about guns towards either moderately positive, or at worst meh about the question.

The people we should be looking to involve are those on the fence, whose perceptions have been gained through movies, tv and the media and not through contact with decent people who enjoy shooting. Show them the face of sport shooting is not Rambo, but George the mechanic or whomever you are.

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

Politicians will vote in response to their perceptions of the electorates willingness to punish them for choices that they oppose. What I mean by that is that most pollies have a hierarchy of motivations. First, re-election. Second, a personal and party series of agendas. Their actions are managed by a question that sounds like "will this hurt my chances of getting back in at the next election?", and if they perceive that the bulk of the population is either actively anti, or at least apathetic to a group (for example, shooters) then they have carte blanche to do what they want, on the grounds that this won't get in the way at the next election. .

so.....the gangs are left to do as they please and the drug dealers are whacked with wet bus ticket then offered councilling for the trauma afterwards BECAUSE???? the polititions have realised the gangs are now so big that everyone in country who votes is tied into someone with a patch??? and the drug problem is so huge the connection is even bigger...radio as typing this says the addicted in Gisborne will be suffering and may need hospitalization and in some cases deprivation may lead to death.....

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

radio as typing this says the addicted in Gisborne will be suffering and may need hospitalization and in some cases deprivation may lead to death.....

Isn’t that typical. Just when I small out of fucks to give.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

so.....the gangs are left to do as they please and the drug dealers are whacked with wet bus ticket then offered councilling for the trauma afterwards BECAUSE???? the polititions have realised the gangs are now so big that everyone in country who votes is tied into someone with a patch??? and the drug problem is so huge the connection is even bigger...radio as typing this says the addicted in Gisborne will be suffering and may need hospitalization and in some cases deprivation may lead to death.....

I think the answer is a whole lot more complex and nuanced than just go hard and lock the sons of bitches up.

There is an employment component, an associates and community component, a pride component, a family component, a money component, a solo parent component, an education component, a lack of belonging, of excitement....and it isn't accidental that gaining a patch involves doing something that makes it impossible to be accepted back into "polite" society.

I don't think that any party is courting the gang vote, but I do think that doing the things that will fix it are going to be hard, and could risk the voter base of some of the parties.

If it was simple the fix would have been done already.

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

I think the answer is a whole lot more complex and nuanced than just go hard and lock the sons of bitches up.

There is an employment component, an associates and community component, a pride component, a family component, a money component, a solo parent component, an education component, a lack of belonging, of excitement....and it isn't accidental that gaining a patch involves doing something that makes it impossible to be accepted back into "polite" society.

I don't think that any party is courting the gang vote, but I do think that doing the things that will fix it are going to be hard, and could risk the voter base of some of the parties.

If it was simple the fix would have been done already.

Well there will be plenty of opportunity for employment, community pride, family, money and all that you mentioned Ross in the next few years.
I genuinely hope that many will seize the chance to build something amazing for themselves and community

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

I think the answer is a whole lot more complex and nuanced than just go hard and lock the sons of bitches up.

There is an employment component, an associates and community component, a pride component, a family component, a money component, a solo parent component, an education component, a lack of belonging, of excitement....and it isn't accidental that gaining a patch involves doing something that makes it impossible to be accepted back into "polite" society.

I don't think that any party is courting the gang vote, but I do think that doing the things that will fix it are going to be hard, and could risk the voter base of some of the parties.

If it was simple the fix would have been done already.

Well, I'm old fashioned. The primary function of Law and Order is to make sure the honest folk can go about their lawful business in safety. I'm a fan of the outlaw concept. If you are breaking the law, you are outside of it's protection.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

so.....the gangs are left to do as they please and the drug dealers are whacked with wet bus ticket then offered councilling for the trauma afterwards BECAUSE???? the polititions have realised the gangs are now so big that everyone in country who votes is tied into someone with a patch??? and the drug problem is so huge the connection is even bigger...radio as typing this says the addicted in Gisborne will be suffering and may need hospitalization and in some cases deprivation may lead to death.....

Sorry but according to todays information....The gangs are 'community leaders' and have been asked by Nashie to to show leadership and discourage looting in the flooded areas up north...They mobilised 600 police for the protests at parliament, and they mobilised the armed forces for the Chch earthquakes (though unarmed in that role...) And Nash is from up that way somewhere, isnt he?

Originally Posted by timattalon

Sorry but according to todays information....The gangs are 'community leaders' and have been asked by Nashie to to show leadership and discourage looting in the flooded areas up north...They mobilised 600 police for the protests at parliament, and they mobilised the armed forces for the Chch earthquakes (though unarmed in that role...) And Nash is from up that way somewhere, isnt he?

Sorry Ross. Tim is right. watch this:
https://youtu.be/yX2TUQWiEC8
that guy is now providing "drug rehab" services for the government
then there was giving the prisoners the vote.