Thread: Registry to stay??

Originally Posted by fawkes

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

Hard to like that but I do agree.
It would take a very effective and expensive media campaign for a referendum yo work in our favour.
Our best chance is straight out legislation change but I reckon National is too scared unless you could sho them how much it costs. Because it's going to cost shit tons and the money would be better spent elsewhere

The thing that irks the most with a registry is the cost of establishing and running the thing are kept very vague from what I can see and it looks a lot like what is released is heavily to the lowest end of the costing range not to the highest.

It would be educational to get the entire expenditure related to the register quantified and released so we actually know. It would also be educational to place it into a 'per registered license holder' cost as it stands and at the end of 2028 or whenever all license holders have been through registration. I think that the costings presented in this format might be educational.

The other one that would be good to find out is the final costs for the buy backs, as up until a couple of years ago there was still some payments to be completed for that too.

National won’t do anything now that looks too “Republican” after what’s happened in Canada and Aus. That’s not a good thing for positive changes to gun laws.

I think it might be a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation in all honesty. It's a matter of time until the current setup fails and my personal viewpoint is it will be kept as an interest project for a few keen punters to try and drive forwards. There are more pressing issues like Health, Defense, Education, Climate and Emergency Response, ACC, Transport Infrastructure, Energy Security, blah blah blah blah.

Even though it's a potential billion-dollar hole and a huge risk factor I just don't think firearms are high enough of a priority to get to the top of the pile.

I’d like to see the figures for recovered stolen firearms returned to the rightful owners due to the registration.

And how many lives have been saved due to firearms being registered.

(Just being silly here

Well considering them tanking the pay equity scheme to save money.
Pity the costs of the registry couldn't be more transparent for the same goal.
Happy to alienate a big chunk of the population there to make budget

Originally Posted by csmiffy

Well considering them tanking the pay equity scheme to save money.
Pity the costs of the registry couldn't be more transparent for the same goal.
Happy to alienate a big chunk of the population there to make budget

Considering 50% of voters are adversely affected by that, I doubt the coalition give a single shit about us LFAOs.

Originally Posted by Tahr

National won’t do anything now that looks too “Republican” after what’s happened in Canada and Aus. That’s not a good thing for positive changes to gun laws.

How do you mean?

Ironically, I don't think that particular beast is all that it is made out to be...

It's been billed as 'Pay Equity' but in reality the pay equity that the unions are going for is more a case of 'Pay Equivalency' than 'Pay Equity'. By that I mean that in a lot of the occupations that have had equity agreements already reached, males in those professions were not being paid much more or in some cases any more than their equivalent female compatriots in the same occupation.

Where the issue was for some occupations, is that an equivalent occupation with a 4-year degree and only a few papers different was getting paid in some cases twice as much for what is essentially broadly similar work in the same office and for the same employer. The example I'm going to give is a specialist oncology social worker (critical role in cancer treatment support) who works alongside a psycologist who works with people undergoing cancer treatment. Both registered, both professional, but the social worker despite paying for a four-year degree was on a lot less. The pay equity levelled the playing field there somewhat (not going as far as equal pay). It was required as there was no way that they would be able to recruit people into that occupation when for a few extra papers and swapping the registration body the same person jumps ship to the other role...

The 'Pay Equity' side of it is more for the roles like caregivers and nurse aids, but again a male in those roles is not from my knowledge paid a notably higher salary (and I'd argue that the wages aren't enough as these people perform vital work).

I for one would happily give up any 'safety bonus' that a registry might provide to put more money into the pool for those occupations...