Thread: Registry to stay??

Originally Posted by Ben Waimata

From the perspective of someone wanting wider semi auto access, I see political advantages in keeping the register. We all know that criminals are importing drugs, guns etc regularly. If we get wider access to semi autos and maintain a register of all legal firearms then comparing criminal use to legal use will be easier. Even Cahill might have difficulty blaming licensed shooters for crimes once the register is fully implemented, and unlicensed firearms alone are turning up in crime stats.

On the last sentence - you underestimate his lack of shame, I think. We've had a handgun register since forever and he still tut-tuts whenever Police recover pistols from crims. To be fair, most are toys/airsoft/blank-firing and not actual handguns.

There are 2 bits of evidence that support what Ben writes here, that I see:

a) E-category worked. We have decades of evidence of this. The anti-gun types know that too so they avoid the subject (and it met nearly all the things they actually say they want, just not the things they wont say). Word is even Police knew it in 2019 and expected it to be retained. So getting it back should be a focus.

b) There is clear evidence out of Australia of the ineffectiveness of a Register: Research suggests it is easier than ever for criminals to get guns illegally in Australia

It's a good article to refer people to, even Gun Control NZ. You'll note the word 'Register' never appears in the article once, not even from the Police.

Interesting stuff in there on moves to focus on the user rather than the tool.

And I'll add in c) Create a stand-alone Firearms Safety Authority, outside of Police. Separate policy from enforcement. NZTA works, firearms will be simpler than that.

Originally Posted by Ben Waimata

I put the following comment on the goodoil article comments section this morning\;


10 hours ago
I am in two minds about this. There seems very little chance of the register working, and a lot of potential for the data to leak. But a lot of the public believe it will stop crime, and a lot of MPs agree. Ultimately in democracy the people should get what they want, perhaps McKee and ACT should just express strongly worded objections, clearly state the issues, and wait a few years to be proven correct. Personally I would far prefer they focused on the semi auto issue, and get wider and easier access for shooters for pest control and competitions, rather than fight against the register.

ACT are in an awkward political position here in that any future firearms crime will be blamed on them regardless of what they do, or on logic. From the perspective of someone wanting wider semi auto access, I see political advantages in keeping the register. We all know that criminals are importing drugs, guns etc regularly. If we get wider access to semi autos and maintain a register of all legal firearms then comparing criminal use to legal use will be easier. Even Cahill might have difficulty blaming licensed shooters for crimes once the register is fully implemented, and unlicensed firearms alone are turning up in crime stats.

So I think the register will be a very costly failure, but it's not in the interests of legal shooters to oppose it. We have more to gain politically from keeping it than the anti-gun crowd do, who are creating their own failure.

As for the impact of data breaches, yes this is an issue, particualrly for inner city people who'se neighbours have no idea they own firearms. For farmers such as myself it's far less of an issue, I don't know any farms without firearms so the criminals already know where to look for them. We are already potential targets. From a future political potential I suggest register data breaches will gain far more sympathy for the legal shooters than for the rabid anti-gun crowd.

The register will inevitably prove to be a costly waste of item but I think shooters have more to lose than gain now by opposing it, if it was dumped we'd still be blamed for all future firearms crime, keep it in place and the blame shifts firmly away from us back to criminals, and eventually the public will be looking for answers to budget blow outs and future firearm crime that will by then be clearly shown to not be caused by us.

It's an interesting take. To be honest the majority of collectors and shooters I know of personally, couldn't give a toss about the register in principle (putting it into practice is a different story) - but they want semis back for shooting.

The most vocal people I have interacted with in regards to the register, are hunters, people that mostly probably don't give a toss about access and use of centrefire semis. Not specifically saying they are against them, just not in their wheel house of priorities.

I could be fully reading the room wrong, but that is the overarching impression I have got in my circles.

Didn't the recent government law consultation clearly say that the firearms registry was out of scope for any submissions?

Originally Posted by John Duxbury

Didn't the recent government law consultation clearly say that the firearms registry was out of scope for any submissions?

Yes, nor did it say there would be opportunity to make further submissions.

And on the more important issue. There should be real and harsh punishments for leaking documents in an effort to sway govt policy. Especially given the nature of coalition govt's. It's a crime against democracy from people who think they know better than the voting public and the relevant m minister. Its also a show of partiality, which should be discouraged in any govt office.

The register will not be scrapped as the wider public have been sold on the idea it's a public safety issue. Whether or not its effective or fit for purpose is irrelevant as in this world, facts are no longer considered to be relevant by most of the social and mainstream media platforms. The article that sparked this discussion is clear evidence of political based editorial direction, it's never going to change.
There are a number of Government agencies outside the Police who have access to information contained within the register, which must increase the chances of a data leak one would think.
The fact that is missing in the register debate is that fact that the gangs already have a large number of firearms. Retrospective registration is not going to change that fact. There are many ways criminals can obtain firearms and simple ways to identify addresses where firearms are likely to stored, register or not.
The simple fact is the register is being sold as being for the greater public good. The media push this as do 3 of the political parties, nothing we do as firearms owners will change this, unfortunately.

And there is a below the horizon Registry bias in the National party.

Originally Posted by Tahr

And there is a below the horizon Registry bias in the National party.

And right there is the pity in it all. On all sides supposed smart people incapable of rational and pragmatic thought and speech and explaining stuff using a weird thing called facts. They just find it so hard to do. No. 6 second sound bites is all they are up for.

I'm of the mind that we will struggle to get rid of either because of the public anti-gun hive mind and the supporting politicians.
But I am probably one of the Hunter types Beavis mentioned. I did once own a Remington 243 semi, which, to be fair,was a bit of a lemon, but never got around to owning another,r although i was considering it when I moved back from OZ. If one is ever going to go it would be the registry by a nose
I hate this registry. It was brought in under duress to appease a population and used to control legal people. I also don't trust them to use it for future confiscations, as it suits them. Look out for anything like WA.
It's a waste of time,e and it shows they don't trust us, which means I don't trust them now.
plus it is a massive waste of time. cost for benefit is just so skewed its bollocks.

To add to the irony of a report about the Firearms' Registry being leaked, this report came up on RNZ today: Police warned over shifting information to Microsoft cloud services

Police have been warned that shifting their information to the cloud could have "severe detrimental impacts" if they are not careful.

The shift to Microsoft cloud services has started in Wellington.

But a privacy impact assessment says if staff accidentally let someone into the data, the consequences could be "death of individuals, extensive injury and hospitalisation".

I'm sure they have thought of this with the Register. Right?

The problem with the cloud is it is a shared responsibility model (see here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/az...responsibility )

Basically:

For all cloud deployment types, you own your data and identities. You're responsible for protecting the security of your data and identities, on-premises resources, and the cloud components you control.

The problem is a lot of orgs do not properly take responsibility for their data and identities. This includes prevents the cloud provider (in this case Microsoft) having access to that data. In fact it's increasingly more difficult to keep the cloud providers nose out of your data as they offer you all sorts of services that depend on that access (keeping them out of your data may also impact on pricing, ie it goes up a lot).

There is also a challenge in that securing cloud is a fairly expensive exercise. Microsoft do offer bundled security services, but they are what we (in the industry) term MVP... a Minimal Viable Product. It does the bare minimum , and it still costs you $$$, but the good security products are from other vendors and cost you $$$$$$... and it's hard to setup... and it's hard to find people in NZ who can do it properly.

I can tell you outright that the likelihood of a data breach/or data leak will go up if the registry is moved to cloud, especially given Polices constrained budget/limited resources they always seem to be working under.

A lot of people are under the illusion that cloud is cheaper, but it's not. But vendors like Microsoft are making it harder and harder to not operate in cloud.

Originally Posted by vulcannz

The problem with the cloud is it is a shared responsibility model (see here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/az...responsibility )

Basically:


The problem is a lot of orgs do not properly take responsibility for their data and identities. This includes prevents the cloud provider (in this case Microsoft) having access to that data. In fact it's increasingly more difficult to keep the cloud providers nose out of your data as they offer you all sorts of services that depend on that access (keeping them out of your data may also impact on pricing, ie it goes up a lot).

There is also a challenge in that securing cloud is a fairly expensive exercise. Microsoft do offer bundled security services, but they are what we (in the industry) term MVP... a Minimal Viable Product. It does the bare minimum , and it still costs you $$$, but the good security products are from other vendors and cost you $$$$$$... and it's hard to setup... and it's hard to find people in NZ who can do it properly.

I can tell you outright that the likelihood of a data breach/or data leak will go up if the registry is moved to cloud, especially given Polices constrained budget/limited resources they always seem to be working under.

A lot of people are under the illusion that cloud is cheaper, but it's not. But vendors like Microsoft are making it harder and harder to not operate in cloud.

The cloud is a toxic curse as far as a user's perspective of microsoft (or as we used to call them micromakeithard) is concerned. All of the info I have on microsoft format documents that were created on a locally held copy of their software no longer work on the cloud-format software versions - all of the formatting is farked up as well.

It's almost enough of a reason to go to linux I tell ya.

My cloud experience does not give me any confidence in the service, been cut off three times now when I really needed access due to other outfit's cockups and service outages - it's easier and quicker to fix from backups held locally so you still need to do that even with cloud. What's the point (apart from slightly improved travelling access versus using a local server with net-based access).

Security we just have to face up to the fact that Police don't do that - their implementations of tech projects appear to be legendary in terms of overruns, underdelivery and cost blowouts. A legacy of underresourcing and competing priorities when organisations are pulled off core business for whatever reasons.

until such time as wise heads are able to sit at a table and undertake rational discussion nothing willever be acheived in this lifetime .the word s gentlmen and ladies of the late medical superintendewnt Dr PKdavidson of seaview hospital where it did my trainingas a psychiatric nurse .as i reflect on them Isee a container load of truth .

Hmm..’no’ from me

absolutely a yes .

Firearms users are a minority who the media portray as mass-murderers in waiting so the only possible out come of a yes/no referendum would be a yes