One news report said they were members of the public trying to assist the police. The police that were not there yet.
Best post Iâve seen on this forum so far!
100% agree mate.
Public who happened to have webbing and arâs? LolâŚ
Do you really?! Whatâs the matter - farceblog of twicher or one of those other hugely informative repositories of your news not serving your need well enough? How sad. Too bad. Never mind.
Two men and a woman, actually.
Perhaps, if you were to read an online version of a newspaper that is quite close to the scene, and source, and as reported to be the words of the NZ Police Commissioner, you will find that they have no case to answer in relation to the murders by one of our Australian brothers.
Read here: - https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12213473
Go on; indulge yourself.
Thanks for the link mate and for the record I donât do facebook or the other social engineering sites. Iâve seen a bit about NZ on the news (ABC and Al jezira streamed on youtube as I doânt watch commercial telly) but hadnât heard anymore about the other 3, so did some googling and found a Reddit thread (another site I donât use) and saw a link to this
I canât say whats what or if the video is legit or not. I had just lost interest in the Reddit posts as they were generally far too tinfoil hat for my tastes, so I checked this site (As I do religiously, gun forums are my facebook) and with the above still fresh in my mind I saw new posts in this thread and asked the question.
Like I said I can not testify to the truth of the link I posted with the footage of two armed men, but it doesnât seem to gel with the story you posted a link to.
So far I have heard this blamed on; Trump, the NRA, The Mossad, Hillary Clintons daughter, Australian gun grabbers, NATO and probably some I.ve missed. F@#k knows what the truth is, Iâm just a simple bumpkin in my comfy little country bubble.
2 Likes
If I see this spiralling, Iâll get nasty on everyone! Youâve been warned.
@GUN-DMC give reddit a rest.
@oldAG take a valium
I get your point just and old ag.
I have always said guns are a tool, a tool can be used both for good or evil depending on how its used. I suppose example be, cars, we can get high powered cars but in most states they are banned on P plates, as it was found young guys esp, do guys things and that can result in injury to both themselves or others. Similarly trucks while are vehicles just bigger than cars⌠but they too have a different license structure and yes driving a heavy truck is completely different than driving a car, for those who have driven both.
Letâs say semiautomatic are allowed. Then the same argument could be used for rocket launchers, anti aircraft guns⌠they are just guns just bigger caliber, or even full auto firearms⌠I could even imagine a tank be fine under your reasoning. Of you had the land and money to afford to fire the big guns
While a cool idea, the question is, is there really a reason we need them. Or we just want them, cuz itâs cool in our minds. Can a standard bolt gun do most of what an antiaircraft gun can, excluding ofcourse shooting down airplanes.
Anyway hopefully that explains me thoughts reasonably. I donât agree with many of the strange anomalies in the gun laws in australia, like appearance laws, or whatâs considered a high power rifle and banning a calibre cuz its sniper spec, or how some will make you wait longer than reasonable to get a permit or license application. Or how a license in one state is not actually valid in another state.
There are at times valid reasons to get a semi auto and maybe the licensing authorities can make it a little easier and more uniform to get a semi, but a person like me who goes to the range to shoot paper, prs/fclass target shooter, maybe hunts bit doesnât need a centerfire semiauto in my mind, and no one has actually come up with a valid enough reason to convince me otherwise.
Thanks for letting me voice my views, glad this forum still allows reasonable discussions.
Buy that reasoning. You could hunt and punch paper with a single shot, so there for why do you need a bolt action repeater?
You can hunt with a muzzle loader (fed a lot of people back in the black n white), so why do you need a centrefire.
Bow and arrows work too, why do you even need a gun?
That argument goes both ways mate.
And itâs only the law abiding gun owners anyway that will stick to the law.
Before 1996 there were hundreds of thousands of Semi auto rifles in Australia and only a handful were turned in, that mean there a shit loads of them out there already for the Criminals which is a fact that banning you from having one legally and responsibly canât change.
Not to mention the thousands of illegal imported handguns.
So because you shoot a box of ammo once in a while, you are saying that everyone is like you and therefore nobody should have one? This is 100% fudd mentality. Would you feel the same if Field and Game fellas say that really all you need is a shotgun, because itâs a tool.
By the way, what a load of shit, a tool, no itâs not. Itâs a toy. You shoot PRS and F-class? Thatâs not feeding your family - itâs a sport for personal gratification - toy, not tool. So why should you be allowed a high powered calibre that can kill well over a few kilometres or a scope that lets you do that, but I shouldnât be allowed to own a semi auto (by the way, I actually do shoot thousands of rounds per year for fun, so why shouldnât I)?
Yep, this goes both ways, mate. You either support all shooting sports or you are going to lose your guns. Bit by bit, year on year, but you will. Look at WA and anything over 300WM. Look at Adler, look at magazine capacity and handgun shooting requirements. Itâs all or nothing.
Very shortsighted and self-centred sort of outlook, I think.
N.B.
@gunmut, good thing we donât live in a society of needs.
On one aspect, I do understand what you are saying - that the risk and possibility for harm needs to be managed, and that the question of at what point is the risk unacceptable needs to be answered.
The idea that only the risk should be considered in judging policy is a poor one, there are definitely other factors at play. Applying your above logic, it would be like if they banned recreational flying after 9/11 because of the possible harm to society with pilots.
I like your idea of a tiered licencing system, but it needs to be achievable. Taking car racing as an example, if I sat all the classes, and demonstrated ability as well as passing a background check, I could get as far as maybe national GT racing (If I could afford it 
). Yet with the current system I canât own anything more than a Cat A/B because I not a farmer, or in an accepted occupation.
There isnât anything wrong with people chasing the cutting edge of their hobbies; there just needs to be measures to accurately reflect that with greater ability, comes greater responsibility. These measures can come in the form of more extensive background checks to access different classes of licencing required for various firearms.
Time for my 2 cents worth.
As a person who used to have a semi auto and lost it in the steal back I can see all points of view brought up in this discussion.
Would I get another one if the rules/laws changed? You bet. It was a Ruger 10/22 and was just the thing to sit on a hill above a rabbit warren and clean up big time.
Unfortunately I canât see things changing so it will just be a pipe dream and a bunch of good memories.
The thing that we need to remember @juststarting, @GUN-DMC, @Gunmut, @Tempestman and everyone else is that everyone is entitled to their own views on what we should or shouldnât be allowed to own or want to own so we should respect that and sort of agree to disagree.
I think that Gumnut was just expressing his views and is appreciate that we as a group and a forum have allowed him to do so without ridicule or prejudice.
We should keep it like that as there are not too many places that you can still do thatâŚ
2 Likes
Actually,yes. What would be wrong with owning a tank,or a rocket launcher, or an a/a gun? NEED does not come into the equation. If I have the wherewithal to own such a device, what is wrong with that? It doesnât mean that it would be used. Given that a tank might be a bit savage on the road surface, and my landholding is sufficiently sized to use its mobility still does not mean that I have any desire to fire the artillery piece. But then again, why not? With a backstop of kms thick granite that is also several hundred mtrs high, why not?
You alluded to âhigh powered carsâ being banned from use by P platers. But having finally got an unrestricted licence, doesnât prevent them from buying a Veyron, or something similar; a car that can travel at 330+ kph. Again, nothing to do with need. And nothing to do with driving at its possible limit.
If the ultimate argument is about whether or not we NEED anything, apart from food and shelter, then weâd have a rather dull life to look forward to.
And to bring it all home: since the ban on semi-auto rifles here, why do our State and Territory Police services NEED semi-auto rifles? To counter what?
1 Like
If your into PRS you should be worried and you want to have the unity of all the shooters beside you. I feel it will be another hit and maybe based on appearance PRS guns look like current military guns they may be in the spotlight. Is a muzzle brake really needed. See its a very slippery slope down to the colour you paint your gun. That cammo is scary.
There are Rifle clubs in panic mode after the fact it was shown he was a member of one. Many clubs have banned wearing cammo but are against the âAppearance Lawsâ they are getting a serve from me. How hypocritical. Cammo is the in thing being worn in all sorts of urban areas sold in shops like K mart and Target. WTF
1 Like
I agree that weâre all entitled to our own opinions and if @Gunmut wants to subscribe to the âneedâ philosophy then thatâs his right, but I have the right to disagree also.
Iâm not trying to tell anyone that they have to believe the same thing as me, Iâm just laying out my arguments.
@Gunmut is free to have his own opinion and to express that opinion here (as long as itâs respectfully presented and relevant, which it always has been) just like he has.
1 Like
âRangeâ. I dont shoot at the range and nobody âneedsâ to shoot at a range. Its really only country people like me that need guns at allâŚ
To reply to a couple questions, obviously a rifle has more range, more knockdown power than a bow/arrow. Many benchrest type rifles are single shot only as it actually makes the action stronger and more consistency of feeding. Some rifle ranges even mandate single shot only. A magazine though make a improvement in the ability to use a rifle, while hunting and convenience while target shooting. Also I have already said appearance and high power laws are justâŚsilly/dumb. A 308 will still kill each 1000m and a black sniper type gun doesnât look scary in a bag covered just like all other rifles. And if you are at a gun range, expect to see gunsâŚor not go there
Anyway so apart from âwantâ, other uses are for centre fire semi auto, that a bolt gun cannot do as well.
Target shooting is not needed at all, target shooting is a want.
Hunting is not a need in Australia, itâs a want.
Sport full stop is only a want.
Your legs arenât painted on, cars are only a want.
Beyond food, water and shelter everything is a want!
And I want an M1 Garand.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak outâbecause I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak outâ because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak outâbecause I was not a Jew.
Then they came for meâand there was no one left to speak for me