Thread: Firearms Storage Inspection ....

The only ar I've seen in anything vaguely related was a drug bust. Only thing was, the ar in question was a softair plastic pellet gun. There might be some limited incidences of ar's falling into the wrong hands, but none that I know of.

According to the cops I know, the firearms most commonly used by criminals are cut down shotguns, .22's and old .303s with all three usually cut down to pistol length. Mostly this is because they're the most commonly available firearms, and the law of averages says the more prevalent something is the more likely it is to fall into the wrong hands.

There are already lots of urban legends about OMCs having full auto kit anyway, so semi-autos aren't really up there with those, and at the end of the day, a half-way competent machinist with a P habit could pay off their debts with hand-made pistols in fairly short order. After all pistols are much more practical for criminals, and cad plans for pistols are all over the web....

Originally Posted by gimp

Absolutely not, and most especially in New Zealand

Exactly. Saw off shotties the choice of most crims over here.

Everyone just being sucked into media hype. Nothing like a bit of scare mongering to get the public flapping.

Originally Posted by scaggly

The only ar I've seen in anything vaguely related was a drug bust. Only thing was, the ar in question was a softair plastic pellet gun. There might be some limited incidences of ar's falling into the wrong hands, but none that I know of.

According to the cops I know, the firearms most commonly used by criminals are cut down shotguns, .22's and old .303s with all three usually cut down to pistol length. Mostly this is because they're the most commonly available firearms, and the law of averages says the more prevalent something is the more likely it is to fall into the wrong hands.

There are already lots of urban legends about OMCs having full auto kit anyway, so semi-autos aren't really up there with those, and at the end of the day, a half-way competent machinist with a P habit could pay off their debts with hand-made pistols in fairly short order. After all pistols are much more practical for criminals, and cad plans for pistols are all over the web....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fna9WEO6BjE

The E-Cat measures were brought on by the David Grey shooting that happened right here in NZ. It doesn't specifically target ARs. It is a preventative measure to try and stop MSSAs from falling into the wrong hands, and it may possibly have worked for the last 20yrs looking at the statistics.

Do define which weapons needed more control they used features on certain types of firearms that aren't vital for any sporting use of firearms except the odd exception (Service Rifle Shooting), which also attract the types of people that go on shooting sprees. For the people that really wanted them they had the reasonably easy process of getting the necessary endorsement.

Sounds quite reasonable when put out there in the basic version. But people continue to use the argument that the rifles are no more dangerous or used in crime and refuse to look at the reasoning behind it because it doesn't fit their argument.

I personally don't think the A-Cat system is strict enough to allow people to get MSSAs, I mean a 16 yr old can easily get one.

The way I see it is that if you want the toys then get the endorsement, simple. Mine's underway.

The reasoning behind it is flawed

Originally Posted by Savage1

The E-Cat measures were brought on by the David Grey shooting that happened right here in NZ. It doesn't specifically target ARs. It is a preventative measure to try and stop MSSAs from falling into the wrong hands, and it may possibly have worked for the last 20yrs looking at the statistics.

Do define which weapons needed more control they used features on certain types of firearms that aren't vital for any sporting use of firearms except the odd exception (Service Rifle Shooting), which also attract the types of people that go on shooting sprees. For the people that really wanted them they had the reasonably easy process of getting the necessary endorsement.

Sounds quite reasonable when put out there in the basic version. But people continue to use the argument that the rifles are no more dangerous or used in crime and refuse to look at the reasoning behind it because it doesn't fit their argument.

I personally don't think the A-Cat system is strict enough to allow people to get MSSAs, I mean a 16 yr old can easily get one.

The way I see it is that if you want the toys then get the endorsement, simple. Mine's underway.

It is probably worth saying that those changes were a knee jerk reaction, that cynics might suggest were an attempt to cover up for someone getting a license who never should have had one in the first place.... kind of like the most recent round of changes to the rules.....

Those 1992 changes were also responsible for driving a fairly substantial number of mssa's underground which have had ample opportunities to fall into the wrong hands over the last 30 years...

The reality is, the world has moved on. The rules are 30 years old and are as out of date as if they were outlawing that newfangled cased ammunition, and restricting everyone to muzzle loaders.

Originally Posted by gimp

The reasoning behind it is flawed

That's an opinion.

Originally Posted by scaggly

It is probably worth saying that those changes were a knee jerk reaction, that cynics might suggest were an attempt to cover up for someone getting a license who never should have had one in the first place.... kind of like the most recent round of changes to the rules.....

Those 1992 changes were also responsible for driving a fairly substantial number of mssa's underground which have had ample opportunities to fall into the wrong hands over the last 30 years...

The reality is, the world has moved on. The rules are 30 years old and are as out of date as if they were outlawing that newfangled cased ammunition, and restricting everyone to muzzle loaders.

They actually tried to make the changes earlier but weren't able to, it took a few deaths for them to pass it.

Last time I counted 1992 was 21 years ago. Just because the firearms could have gone underground doesn't mean they all ended up in the wrong hands.

Last I heard MSSA's are still the most popular weapon amongst people in the world for mass shootings, I think the world has moved on but probably in the wrong direction.

20 or 30, doesn't alter the fact that the rules are horribly outdated. Like if I was going to be pedantic, I'd point to the fact that MSSA's don't exist anywhere but here.

The interesting common denominator across an awful lot of mass-shootings is that the people doing them shouldn't have had licenses under the rules that existed at the time, but did. Port Arthur, the guy was a retard. Aramoana, the guy had some fairly serious mental peculiarities. Most of the US ones, mental health issues all over the place. Being nuts has always been a bit of a no-no for owning guns. before the advent of semi-autos, as well as after.

If i was a cynic, I'd suggest that trying to restrict guns based on looks was a deliberate ploy to distract attention away from questions about how people who never should have had a license, got one and then went off the deep end.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Last I heard MSSA's are still the most popular weapon amongst people in the world for mass shootings, I think the world has moved on but probably in the wrong direction.

cite source.

Again, if someone who is a potential mass shooter can pass the A-cat req's what is to stop them passing the E-cat req's. And why should they be allowed any gun, given that if they are a potential massshooter they are unlikely to obey the law and would likely modify their firearm to any configuration they like.

i dont have a problem with need an E cat licence to get a restricted firearm or whatever.

i have and issue with the definition of a MSSA. how does a pistol grip or a adjustable stock, (they are not exactly concealable, just customizable for length of pull) make a firearm more or less "dangerous". flash hiders?? wtf how does that make a firearm more dangerous??

high cap mags are a different story, can clearly see the thinking concerning them, and they are not restricted at all (except for use), my 4year old daughter could legally go and buy one from gun city, (if she had a spare $299 lmao). they should stop restricting firearms because they "look" dangerous.

end of the day, if they make a firearm that i want, to require a specific licence to own it, i will acquire the licence. because i am a "fit and proper person".

If I was going to be pedantic I would say, don't be stupid MSSA's are everywhere, it's just the term that is unique to NZ. Like saying beer only exists in English speaking countries.

First of all Aramoana happened before our current laws were bought into place so can only really be used to support the changes made as it obviously wasn't working prior, if you use that example. Port Arthur was overseas, not under our laws at the time so can't be used to disprove our restrictions.

Mental problems can be very hard to detect and quite often go on without ever being diagnosed, how could you ever expect an AO to pick up on it?

The Crimes Act 1961
Summary Offences Act 1981
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
All 'horribly outdated'? They're all older than the current Arms Act.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Mental problems can be very hard to detect and quite often go on without ever being diagnosed, how could you ever expect an AO to pick up on it?

Which seems hilarious. Well we can't pick up on it for the A cat checks and interviews with the applicant and 2x referees, maybe we'll pick up on it with the E cat checks and interviews with the applicant and 2x referees!! And even if we decide they can't own a pistol grip, they can own anything the fuck else they like and just illegally modify it if they have any intention of breaking the law by shooting people!

Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

Unrelated, but a large portion of the population would consider parts of this outdated

Originally Posted by gimp

cite source.

Again, if someone who is a potential mass shooter can pass the A-cat req's what is to stop them passing the E-cat req's. And why should they be allowed any gun, given that if they are a potential massshooter they are unlikely to obey the law and would likely modify their firearm to any configuration they like.

Source, my own observations.

People change, more inspections and contact with the AO can only help pick up on problems, add in more reference checks I don't see a downside. Small price to pay in my views.

Just to be clear, I'm not against E-Cat, I just don't think an A cat licence is strict enough to own those types of weapons.

Originally Posted by Haydendev

i dont have a problem with need an E cat licence to get a restricted firearm or whatever.

E cat:
-requires $200 fee
-requires $1000+ safe - is there actually any evidence to suggest that it prevents theft more than a standard safe, to justify the burden of cost on law abiding shooters?
-can't loan my rifle to a friend
-can't even get my friend to take my rifle to a gunsmith
-can't sell my rifle easily
-can't buy another rifle easily
-can't import parts for my rifle. I want to try a different pistol grip to see if I like it better? FUCK YOU HAND IN YOUR OLD ONE SO WE CAN DESTROY THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY YOU ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO OWN BEFORE WE GIVE YOU AN IMPORT PERMIT

A cat:
-I can do all of the above
-If I am a scumbag asshole murderer, I shouldn't have an A-cat but if I do I can just as easily get an E-cat, or just use my A-cat guns to be a scumbag asshole murderer