Thread: Support for tighter Acat storage

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"