NZ Shootings

I would like to know just what we use them for. If they are used for a purpose (eg; shooting pests without having to reload) then they have a legitimate purpose. An extra licensing procedure in this case would be the legitimate response. I think what we have here is another case of technology allowing individuals far greater power than they had before. If you compare the shootings to 911 (and adjust for population) then we just had an event on the scale of 911, but it only took one person instead of 19.

I imagine what happened with the PM is that she saw a chance to gain power on the international stage in exactly the same way that 911 was used for the invasion of Iraq.

Bee; you’ll get a dozen different answers from a dozen different people as to why semi-autos are sometimes a better tool.
The basic answer is: Military weapons are modern designs and after a shooter has experienced a tamed one, they really don’t want to go back and use something designed when Adam was a cowboy.

Would you ride a wooden wheeled push bike when a modern bike is available?
Many of the features that are desirable for military & terrorist use, also apply to civilian use.
We also want something that is compact, light, corrosion & dirt resistant; but its not just about the gun part.
Sights and night vision and all sorts of boy toy accessories like suppressors, also scare the H out of people.
Suppressors are actually a health & safety, gentleman's accessory that stop you going deaf from the especially noisy short barrels.
They considerably add to the safety & fun of firing all firearms.
Most of these modern accessories, really do assist in getting the projectile to the intended target.

People shoot for different reasons. Like fishing, it is not always about ‘catching the fish’.
[There is commercial]… but most shooters do it for fun or just as ‘a time to walk in open spaces and think their own thoughts’…
I personally have always been drawn to the beauty of some of the mechanisms. I acquired a french pinfire ladies revolver when I was about 14yr. Engraved scenes with inlays of exotic metals & other materials, made with an intricacy and accuracy of a watch. Same detailed art can be found in old swords and knives.
You see the same attention to detail in church’s and temples.
I’m not sure the prohibitionists really understand they are messing with a type of emotion.

In other thoughts along these lines I would suggest everybody watches what our government does while Brexit is blanketing the news in a week or so.

So the law is changed? Without being worked out?
Without going through 1st 2nd & 3rd readings, without providing any room for dissent.
Democracy or dictatorship?
And in a few days everyone who hasn’t complied with this midnight law change will be a criminal?
“Buy back” seems an after thought, with no details provided.
Will those that have already handed in, get a refund?
Will the paid up licence owners get a refund for their licence and ACC fees and special storage equipment that they had been legally required to buy?? Will dept of Social development give them a handout for hurt feelings?

What happens if some owners take the Kiwi Farms attitude to the NZ Police? I kind of joked about in an earlier post but now I pose the question in earnest.
Will force be used? Emotional control freaks don’t like it when someone says no, so this could easily escalate.

Yes, it should have been discussed and thought out further. I reckon if the person was legally required to buy the gun they should be compensated.

Yes. It would be rather blowback-ish if controlling firearms set up situations where people were shot. There are quite a few people in the country who don't like the Police but who live legal lives. Hell, there are quite a few Police in the country who don't like people who live legal lives. Sending in the ADS to recover a suspected firearm might cause more damage than it stops.

It is important that the membership form a clear cohesive discussion on Gun Control.

One thing I will note is the IP social media following comprises mostly of people favoring the MSSA ban and in particular even favoring the speed at which it was done. I have posted on Facebook roughly every 2-3 days over the past month and it seems to be that way.

So if the IP is going to argue for discussion and debate on alternatives before continuing the ban it needs the active members behind it. Although it may not matter during the 2020 campaign, instead then it would be arguing further measures.

I hate politics but this is something I’m fairly passionate about. (Incase you hadn’t guessed)
Almost every one of those MSSA owners would give their lives to protect New Zealand against enemies foreign or domestic. Part of a common mind set among them. They see themselves as protectors…
Do you see the irony?

Prediction:
When we feel attacked we can submit, defend, attack back or side step; I suspect there’s a lot of digging going on around the country today.
While weapons are currently 99% in the hands of law abiding citizens by the time they resurface, there will be no legitimate places to shoot them, so will pass exclusively into the hands of criminals.
(Its a logic that I don’t want to be true)

Covering the censorship part of the argument
Primary source © Reuters / Jorge Silva re-presented by RT (4 quotes from article + my comments & rant)

Jacinda Ardern’s “global call” to fight the “ideology” of racism. Ardern pledged “to weed it out where it exists and make sure that we never create an environment where it can flourish.”

Following the classification, anyone caught with the (Manifesto) document on their computer could face between 10 and 14 years in prison. (WTF! more than raping or stabbing someone)

counterterrorism expert Jennifer Breedon told RT that banning such videos does nothing to prevent future attacks. “We need to stop putting band-aids on gunshot wounds,” she said. “We’re spending so much time talking about ‘we can’t have videos like this’...rather than answering questions that need to be asked.”

” Stephen Franks, a constitutional lawyer and spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition, told AP. “The damage and risks are greater from suppressing these things than they are from trusting people to form their own conclusions and to see evil or madness for what it is.”

So my questions start: Was the firearms law change done legally? The I’s dotted the t’s crossed?
Was it based on statistical logic or emotional threat logic. (Not a question)
Is the censoring and blocking of websites and free communication, and attacking of alternative views with threats of extended incarceration and huge fines, not a greater influence on your lives?
The justice warrior thought police are actually making New Zealanders into criminals because they know best.
Such well thought out policies.. Force of will & virtuous aggressive action…

Other related ideas:
Armed unrest and wars don’t just happen, they are organized and funded just like other business’s.
The businesses usually operate under the guise of national defense and ‘influence group think’ as a tool.
Paranoia and fear of our fellow man attacking us, is pushed upon us from every direction.
Like no one noticed ;)
We are programmed with the belief that with a gun we are safe and without we are the victim.
Its an image of power & force of will and aggression.

The real players have executive immunity and write the laws & use the laws and break the laws.

It is my humble opinion that if you want to stop this cycle it must start at the top.
If the spying can’t identify the people who organize & fund these criminal acts then what good did it do?
You don’t have to be a conspiracy nut to see these crimes going on everyday around the world.
Who arms and funds and trains the terrorists?
Who thinks that propaganda against the people by ‘the representatives of the people’ is acceptable?
Fake news by media monopolies and from Govt funded (tax money) think tanks is behind most of the worlds problems. Executive immunity when uncovered is in every-bodies faces.
Do you think that has no effect on society’s collective paranoia and crime stats?

I guess my point is that “popular decisions” should not ever trump law and proper procedure.
Democracy requires that descenting voices have their say.
The elimination of descent by the the speed of action and the censored blocking of websites by ISPs and other associated stories have my questioning how you ‘trust’ in the face of abusive power even if it is “popular”?