Thread: HDPA does indeed lie about firearms

Originally Posted by systolic

Legalise weed? How much extra are we going to have to pay in benefits for all the extra dope smokers who can't work because they're too unmotivated to get out of bed in the morning and then, because it's legal claim, a sickness benefit fore not being able to work?

What about all the extra costs for mental health services for those, usually younger people, who fuck up their brains smoking weed?

Stoned drivers kill and main enough people now. Do you think the number would reduce if it was legal to smoke?

Filthy druggies should be forced into rehab programs on offshore islands for a minimum of a six month program.

Beneficiaries should be drug tested regularly and any illegal drugs found in their system should result in the benefits being cancelled.

Drug convictions should result in automatic and immediate lose of any firearms licence held.

Originally Posted by systolic

Why should it matter if they are currently high or were high last night?

Using drugs is still illegal either way.

It's like saying "I fucked a 9 year girl last night, but I'm not fucking her now, so that's okay".

Wow, you're special.

Keneff, if you want people to read anything you say please try using paragraphs

Otherwise, rant at will

You guys keep attacking him personally as an individual. Even linking what he says on behalf of the association with dubious facts about his career and experience. That's just shit. He represents an association which represents its members views. Instead of personalising everything, wouldnt it be better to debate the actual policies and ideas he is promoting?
Personal assassination gives me the shits.

Originally Posted by Tahr

You guys keep attacking him personally as an individual. Even linking what he says on behalf of the association with dubious facts about his career and experience. That's just shit. He represents an association which represents its members views. Instead of personalising everything, wouldnt it be better to debate the actual policies and ideas he is promoting?
Personal assassination gives me the shits.

As many of us think he steeped over the line and illegally added in reporters braking the law(something I doubt many cops would support-even if they agree with his end goal) you have to expect some ill will to be expressed towards the man.

Personally I think the guy is scum and drags down the image of front line police-and they are people I very highly respect

Originally Posted by Tahr

You guys keep attacking him personally as an individual. Even linking what he says on behalf of the association with dubious facts about his career and experience. That's just shit. He represents an association which represents its members views. Instead of personalising everything, wouldnt it be better to debate the actual policies and ideas he is promoting?

My comments above were not attacking him as a person, just speculating as to possible reasons why his ideas seem so detached from reality to many of us.

His policies and ideas have been debated here many times over, why bother doing it again? I don't think I ever did get a good answer about why the official police statistics about reductions in firearm crime contradict what he claims 'on behalf of police officers'.

The current and former police officers I know personally don't seem to agree with his views and policies that supposedly represent their interests.

Originally Posted by Tahr

wouldnt it be better to debate the actual policies and ideas he is promoting?

Actual policies & ideas you say? I think you are completely ignorant to the fact that this man has used insidious scare-mongering tactics to throw of the general public on firearm use in NZ. Especially for us law-abiding citizens! He has been quoted for saying that the law abiding FAL holders may have to lose some of their "rights" to mitigate all those illegal guns here in NZ.. His ideas are nothing but woeful, nonfactual wild assumptions which are far from being anything good

Originally Posted by Tahr

Personal assassination gives me the shits.

And trying to destroy the very essence of what makes this country unique and stand out from the rest really really gives me the shits. We have one of the best licencing systems in the world. And this good advocate as you say is slowly but surely feeding misinformation to a vast majority of people about laws & "loopholes" involving firearms.

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Actual policies & ideas you say? I think you are completely ignorant to the fact that this man has used insidious scare-mongering tactics to throw of the general public on firearm use in NZ. Especially for us law-abiding citizens! He has been quoted for saying that the law abiding FAL holders may have to lose some of their "rights" to mitigate all those illegal guns here in NZ.. His ideas are nothing but woeful, nonfactual wild assumptions which are far from being anything good



And trying to destroy the very essence of what makes this country unique and stand out from the rest really really gives me the shits. We have one of the best licencing systems in the world. And this good advocate as you say is slowly but surely feeding misinformation to a vast majority of people about laws & "loopholes" involving firearms.

I'm not ignorant of the fact that some of us shooters and hunters are so subjective that we are beyond being reasonable, nor that we select data and information to support our own bias in the same way that the Assotiation does.

Doesn't make sense a enforcement officer doesn't need a firearms licence when us mere mortals do?. The army is a little different when fighting wars and killing people is the objective.

Originally Posted by Maca49

Doesn't make sense a enforcement officer doesn't need a firearms licence when us mere mortals do?. The army is a little different when fighting wars and killing people is the objective.

To be fair, a fal like what most forum members have would make no difference to how well a cop acts with a gun.the difference in use and mindset is just to large, sure it's not the same as the army either.
For both the police and military proper training is needed-if the tick I. There training box is called a license does it really change anything?

If joe blow like you and I could Cary in public for protection then there would be a case for the licance story be the same

Problem is that govt budgets don't seem to have room to fund the training-lets not forget that it's not just the ammo it's the extra bodies to cover the down time caused by proper training. Unless the $ is there I'm anti arming the police, if the $ was there I'm open to it as I know I would want it if I was doing the job and I struggle with the idea of expecting someone to do something on my behalf with less tools/training than I feel I would want to to the task.

Originally Posted by res

To be fair, a fal like what most forum members have would make no difference to how well a cop acts with a gun.the difference in use and mindset is just to large, sure it's not the same as the army either.
For both the police and military proper training is needed-if the tick I. There training box is called a license does it really change anything?

If joe blow like you and I could Cary in public for protection then there would be a case for the licance story be the same

Problem is that govt budgets don't seem to have room to fund the training-lets not forget that it's not just the ammo it's the extra bodies to cover the down time caused by proper training. Unless the $ is there I'm anti arming the police, if the $ was there I'm open to it as I know I would want it if I was doing the job and I struggle with the idea of expecting someone to do something on my behalf with less tools/training than I feel I would want to to the task.

exactly this. Im anti full time arming of the police because they dont have the required level of training. It looks like they wont have the budget to carry out that training either, train the trainers. ammo, wear on firearms/maintenance, down time of officers while doing that training.

shooting is a perishable skill, hence why the military combat trades are constantly having weapons with them on exercise, be it tactical or not. Currently an NZ pistol license holder, doing the mandatory 12 shoots a year minimum, is more highly trained than an average officer.

Originally Posted by Danger Mouse

exactly this. Im anti full time arming of the police because they dont have the required level of training. It looks like they wont have the budget to carry out that training either, train the trainers. ammo, wear on firearms/maintenance, down time of officers while doing that training.

shooting is a perishable skill, hence why the military combat trades are constantly having weapons with them on exercise, be it tactical or not. Currently an NZ pistol license holder, doing the mandatory 12 shoots a year minimum, is more highly trained than an average officer.

We used to have an annual competition between the AOS, Army and the local pistol club, always finished Club first, the AOS and Army fighting it out the rest, was good because the Army brought boxes of ammo and nice things to shoot, both semi and auto, AOS brought some hot 357 and revolvers to bowl it down the range, guess that doesnt happen anymore

Originally Posted by Danger Mouse

Currently an NZ pistol license holder, doing the mandatory 12 shoots a year minimum, is more highly trained than an average officer.

Attendance does not make for skill.

Otherwise no-one would ever get DQ'd in a comp, being so highly skilled with their firearm and all

Originally Posted by Kscott

Attendance does not make for skill.

Otherwise no-one would ever get DQ'd in a comp, being so highly skilled with their firearm and all

Exactly. Didn't some top pistol shooter shoot themselves in the leg recently?

One of the clubs around Auckland or Northland?

Originally Posted by res

To be fair, a fal like what most forum members have would make no difference to how well a cop acts with a gun.the difference in use and mindset is just to large, sure it's not the same as the army either.
For both the police and military proper training is needed-if the tick I. There training box is called a license does it really change anything?

If joe blow like you and I could Cary in public for protection then there would be a case for the licance story be the same

Problem is that govt budgets don't seem to have room to fund the training-lets not forget that it's not just the ammo it's the extra bodies to cover the down time caused by proper training. Unless the $ is there I'm anti arming the police, if the $ was there I'm open to it as I know I would want it if I was doing the job and I struggle with the idea of expecting someone to do something on my behalf with less tools/training than I feel I would want to to the task.

Agreed!

There is obviously some (probably reasonably high up) in the Police that do agree with Greg,

There is suddenly a big push for a register, while it would appear that the Police have been building one for some time with the vetting officers and now mail order forms.
Greg has come out wanting 50cals to become a restricted weapon because they will go through a vest and now restrictions are being put on import permits.

Im sure there are other coincidences as well.