Thread: Insanity rules in the vetting process

Originally Posted by blip

So with this line of thinking does tarrant get his fal back if hes a good boy?

Don't be so bloody stupid.

So where's the line in the sand? Honestly curious

The line in the sand (I think) should be where decision makers put it after considering all of the circumstances, risks and likely consequences. Hopefully objectively.

I think the victims of his crimes should be interviewed as part of his vetting, and their concerns if any taken seriously...

Originally Posted by Tahr

The line in the sand (I think) should be where decision makers put it after considering all of the circumstances, risks and likely consequences. Hopefully objectively.

As much as I hate Blip's line of thinking there and raise Rushy's "throw away the key" defence - he raises a valid point for the purposes of discussion. Where do we draw the line on this - at what point do we consider a person has redeemed themselves? Considering that if you have a licence the threshold of incidents that might cause you to loose it can be quite low and it would appear that the difference between you being able to keep it and not would seem to be your will to fight for it and size of your finances. Where with the cases we see here with issuing licences, after a period of time all sins seem to be forgiven for whatever reasons? The disparity on the fit and proper test for new issues with history vs current holders with no history seems vast.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

I do wonder what my views would be if I was one of his victims.
His actions now may prevent more victims in the future though.

I'd say his actions now just create more victims because we are soft on this kind of shit in NZ and allow even the most vile of people to "redeem" themselves. So what does his situation really achieve.. a few people might straighten out their act and a heap more will continue to thieve oxygen from the rest of us because hey at the end of the day you can literally go terrorise people with a firearm, 15 times (probably a shit load more times that he wasn't caught..) and you'll eventually be able to legally possess a firearm, people will even talk about you on forums - about how much of a great chap you are. Where's the consequences for people like this?

Originally Posted by blip

So where's the line in the sand? Honestly curious

Well you just crossed it.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

Well you just crossed it.

It was an honest question.

Maybe an appropriate answer is, 'Apart of course during times of war when murder with a firearm is legal, all other murders by firearms may be considered crossing the line.'?

Yeah right.... Stirring,trolling,outright bad taste. Take your pick. That arseholes name doesn't get used for good reason.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

Yeah right.... Stirring,trolling,outright bad taste. Take your pick. That arseholes name doesn't get used for good reason.

The biggest issue here is that if we are not able to have open honest conversation about it then how are we to determine if we are seeing it again?

The question of where the line is is a fair one, the bloke wanted to know where this line was blurred and where it wasn't. Perhaps his example was an extreme one, but, I suppose he had to start somewhere.

I do not think he was trolling or stirring, nothing I have read of his posts would suggest that he is that way inclined. Perhaps curious and open minded, as some of us are.

Just because what he has said offends your sensibilities that does not mean it should not be discussed in an open forum.

Or are you of the view that just straight out censorship is the way to go?

Thats where it all turns to shit. It would be way easier to have one rule for everyone but clearly we dont, you can commit premeditated voilent crime with a firearm one guy can get a licence and one guy cant. Im not stirring either seems a valid point even if you dont like my example. Yes Im open minded and quite like having the hard discussions as long as people dont start being dicks about it.

Originally Posted by inglishill

The biggest issue here is that if we are not able to have open honest conversation about it then how are we to determine if we are seeing it again?

The question of where the line is is a fair one, the bloke wanted to know where this line was blurred and where it wasn't. Perhaps his example was an extreme one, but, I suppose he had to start somewhere.

I do not think he was trolling or stirring, nothing I have read of his posts would suggest that he is that way inclined. Perhaps curious and open minded, as some of us are.

Just because what he has said offends your sensibilities that does not mean it should not be discussed in an open forum.

Or are you of the view that just straight out censorship is the way to go?

Well we can't have an open honest discussion on a couple or three other topics....is that censorship in your eyes too. It's like saying " rape is illegal and it doesn't stop it happening" as argument that laws don't stop crime so are useless. Using that Ozzie arseholes name is just sensationalising things for a bite.... Gaslighting is another name for that.

Probably because they arent firearms related?

Really??? Do you honestly believe that??? Or are you completely naive??? That aren't discussed because SOME people get all hot under the collar and carried away,others get abusive and others still just get uptight about it full stop.this forum was created with few rules....a few things can't be discussed... Because ( happy to be corrected here) when they were discussed in old forum it ended up in a shit fight.over and over again. Covid was added to taboo list for same reason.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

Really??? Do you honestly believe that??? Or are you completely naive??? That aren't discussed because SOME people get all hot under the collar and carried away,others get abusive and others still just get uptight about it full stop.this forum was created with few rules....a few things can't be discussed... Because ( happy to be corrected here) when they were discussed in old forum it ended up in a shit fight.over and over again. Covid was added to taboo list for same reason.

I will come back to you with a more measured answer, but at this stage as per the rules 'There aren't many rules here but not negotiable is no Politics, no religion, no bullying/abuse, keep it fit and proper'

I don't think this falls into any of those categories but I am happy to defer to those who know better.