Thread: Support for tighter Acat storage

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

A burglary reported every 7 minutes as recorded crime rate jumps | Stuff.co.nz
What statistics are you talking about @Nick-D these guys disagree with you. OK so one face on the page has no credibility but the economy is APPARENTLY going very well but burglary getting worse.

Well I was referring to crime statistics as a whole, which is in fact really irrelevant to the argument, my point being very well documented that increasing sentences has little effect on crime rate. This is commonly offered up by our community as a counter argument to reduce firearm crime rates, and I'm just pointing out that it is based on about as much evidence as thumbhole stocks making ar15's safer.

It's nonsense, as is much of the current legislation. Im merely saying that given the issues with theft, implementing better standards than the current shite ones would actually have an effect on the issue at hand.

As for the economy, well it's going Ok, but inflation and cost of living is sky rocketing much faster than wages leaving the lower socioeconomic groups most affected. You do the maths there. It's why I said, not just a healthy but a balanced economy. All of that is irrelevant anyway, but just musings

The way I see it, for what it's worth, is that the greatest threat my to the security of my firearms is myself and my family - not how strong my safe is.

If some lowlives invade my home and threaten my family or me I'm not going to be foolish and risk serious harm or death to prevent access to my firearms. They can have them all and bugger off. Mine won't do the average lowlife much good as they're all single shot target rifles, mostly big and heavy. Even if cut down they'd still be big and heavy and cumbersome.

I'm not brave if the choice is harm to myself or my family or give up my firearms it won't matter how strong my gunsafes are.

Originally Posted by Macca

Recent proposes to law changes regarding firearms has caused quite a stir and caused many to be very vocal about their opinions, some of which are more drastic than others. One point I've always looked at and thought needed improving was basic storage requirements of A category firearms.

Current standards approved by I have no idea who, But enforced by police (to their dismay) allow things such as a simple mild steel eye bolt into a wall stud with a wire cable etc to attach firearms, a basic stamped metal cabinet that could be cut with tin snips, or even just a cable around hot water cylinder pipes etc. Let's be honest here and agree that these options are pathetic (and most Acat safes) and we can do better than that as a community to protect out hobbies and investments.

What's wrong with making stout (ie more than 1mm Acat safes) boxes/safes which are securely attached to walls/floors a mandatory requirement and ditching the minimum? Such as how we do our Ecat/Bcat. I get cost may play a factor, but if we're spending thousands and thousands on our firearms then we can invest in secure storage.

Another touchy subject is making all semi autos (.22 and shotguns etc excluded) into Ecat or a new class where a process similar to permit to preclude must be followed. Because what semi autos do you hunt with that aren't ar15/AK derivatives? I only vaguely support this because any Joe Bloggs with a FAL can buy an Acat Ar15/AK and then buy a 30 round mag on the same licence (pretty sure you don't even need a licence?) And then sell it onto a criminal. Please don't come at us with the usual "police should do a better job vetting", and "they need to make longer sentences", because we need to do our part as well to protect our sport and future.

Please add your ideas and solutions as to what changes can be made to have a middle ground between us and police/anti gunners to make all parties happy.

There is no need to invent a ''middle ground.'' We have strict firearms licensing laws already; and very successful ones.

You, for example, can't even shoot your pistols anywhere except a gazetted range, and you're not even sure if you are legally allowed to have a loaded magazine in your possession that is not attached to a firearm.

Exactly what problem you trying to solve, you haven't stated. It seems you simply think that things should be harder, in order to impress anti-gun people. (Whoever they are. The leader of the Police Union is the only one that comes to mind. And he is unlikely to be satisfied with anything short of a complete hand in.) Things should be easier. The restrictions we have already have been in part driven by misunderstandings about firearms and politicians wanting to be seen to do something, even if it is meaningless; much of that is inflamed by a media who love to write anything about 'guns' because it makes it sound like they are in the Big Time. Couple that with constant depictions of actors being shot in television detective shows, followed by American news of actual shootings....a place where they do have problems with a violent gun culture.

I hypothesis here that if our television was restricted to Italian cooking shows and Indian dance videos, interspersed with mild soft-porn for both genders, we would have hardly any firearms restrictions at all, because if the firearms laws were driven by actual events rather than a perception created by media and made up stories in movies, things would be much different.

Actual firearms crime is modest to the point of quaint in this country. (If you are going to get murdered here, for example, you have only a one in ten chance of being murdered with a firearm in New Zealand. You are ten times more likely to get killed by someone, should they want to kill you, with a heavy stick, or a crockpot. Or a lobster.)

Storage and security is sufficient for its intention - to deter opportunistic theft. Anyone who actually has targeted your firearms will get them over more robust precautions, even if they are only modestly determined.

It is naive to attempt to keep all parties happy, but happily, it is not required.

I am more concerned about the amount of people that drown in this country than in how secure someones Ruger 10/22 is.

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

There is no need to invent a ''middle ground.'' We have strict firearms licensing laws already; and very successful ones.

You, for example, can't even shoot your pistols anywhere except a gazetted range, and you're not even sure if you are legally allowed to have a loaded magazine in your possession that is not attached to a firearm.

Exactly what problem you trying to solve, you haven't stated. It seems you simply think that things should be harder, in order to impress anti-gun people. (Whoever they are. The leader of the Police Union is the only one that comes to mind. And he is unlikely to be satisfied with anything short of a complete hand in.) Things should be easier. The restrictions we have already have been in part driven by misunderstandings about firearms and politicians wanting to be seen to do something, even if it is meaningless; much of that is inflamed by a media who love to write anything about 'guns' because it makes it sound like they are in the Big Time. Couple that with constant depictions of actors being shot in television detective shows, followed by American news of actual shootings....a place where they do have problems with a violent gun culture.

I hypothesis here that if our television was restricted to Italian cooking shows and Indian dance videos, interspersed with mild soft-porn for both genders, we would have hardly any firearms restrictions at all, because if the firearms laws were driven by actual events rather than a perception created by media and made up stories in movies, things would be much different.

Actual firearms crime is modest to the point of quaint in this country. (If you are going to get murdered here, for example, you have only a one in ten chance of being murdered with a firearm in New Zealand. You are ten times more likely to get killed by someone, should they want to kill you, with a heavy stick, or a crockpot. Or a lobster.)

Storage and security is sufficient for its intention - to deter opportunistic theft. Anyone who actually has targeted your firearms will get them over more robust precautions, even if they are only modestly determined.

It is naive to attempt to keep all parties happy, but happily, it is not required.

I am more concerned about the amount of people that drown in this country than in how secure someones Ruger 10/22 is.

Post of the week right there. Especially the last line there are a lot more things/problems in our country that deserve more effort to solve rather than firearms issues.
Its just that they don't grab headlines. For example "man affords to go to doctor" or "children get enough food" does not has quite the same ring as Man Shoots at Police"

I was being flippant in that post and it wasn't to be taken with too much seriousness, although in all seriousness - I do grow tired of these weak arguments on "more" stringent security for firearms based on no real evidence and lame sentencing for serious firearm offending.

With the current "status-quo" for our justice system; it simply isn't working & we could be in serious trouble if society doesn't sort this problem out. As for Sasquatchanism, I had to have a chuckle at that!

@Sasquatch

Imagine you Avatarial self lending his name to a new World Religion of Piece*, huh?

*One piece of you here, the other piece over there.