NationStates Jolt Archive

For all the people I've been talking to on the gun threads (trying not to go OT)

Do you think that pepper spray and/or stun guns and tazers should be legal?

For a bit of background, I'm annoyed about the firearm defence situation because in my country (New Zealand) you aren't allowed anything for defence. Pepper spray and tazers are illegal. Carry any weapon on you and you are committing a crime.

Are there people who would support having pepper spray legal, but firearm defence not? Why?

People who think we should fight off intruders by asking them politely?

People who have claymores buried in their front yard (;) j/k)?

For all the people I've been talking to on the gun threads (trying not to go OT)

Do you think that pepper spray and/or stun guns and tazers should be legal?

For a bit of background, I'm annoyed about the firearm defence situation because in my country (New Zealand) you aren't allowed anything for defence. Pepper spray and tazers are illegal. Carry any weapon on you and you are committing a crime.

Are there people who would support having pepper spray legal, but firearm defence not? Why?

People who think we should fight off intruders by asking them politely?

People who have claymores buried in their front yard (;) j/k)?

Legal? I own all of those things.

Doesn't New Zealand use tazers for cattle?

Doesn't New Zealand use tazers for cattle?
We are allowed cattle prods. If you carried a cattle prod into town or used it to defend yourself you would be commiting a crime.

I believe that if you live in constant fear of having your home broken into you probably live a pretty shitty life.
Lol, the bloody "constant fear" argument...

If wanting to have a weapon available in case of someone breaking in is living in constant fear, you'd better also pull down that smoke detector and stop wearing your seatbelt, right? Stop living in constant fear of fires and car crashes. After all, putting on your seatbelt means a pretty shitty life, right?

Wanting to be prepared for something is not living in fear of it.

Doesn't New Zealand use tazers for cattle?
A cattle prod and a tazer aer very different.
I have been hit with cattle prods-no big deal you pretty much just move in the oppisite direction of the prod.
A tazer is designed to take you down.
I have been Maced(poohy, sissie stuff) I have been indirectly pepper sprayed-that stuff has some kick and I am certain I would not have been able to handle being directly sprayed.

On the topic of the thread.
A gun(I am pro-gun by the way)
A gun is lethal force and should be thought of in that context only.
You should never brandish your weapon with the intent of NOT killing the person who is the threat.
So if you have any qualms about taking someones life a gun is a bad idea.

Pepper spray and tazers are "Less then Lethal" however many laws regulate these items all over the world because "less Then Lethal" is not "Non-Lethal"
You can kill someone with a tazer or stun gun, or even pepper spray.

I am sorry New Zeland leaves you defenseless.

Tips from when I was kid.
Carry a small spray bottle full of Ammonia-Mace.

Keep a baseball bat in your car with a ball and glove. Always have a ball and glove.

Carry some tools in your car-wrenches to be specific-cut a piece of old bicycle about two feet long-the light wieght durable aluminum makes an excellent light wieght club-when asked what it is for explain that it is a "Breaker Bar" for adding leverage to your wrenches-a very common item.
One I actually carried and used often was a varient on the slap jack.
I carried a pool ball in a sock for awhile, two rolls of quaters in a leather glove-though I carried both gloves. Have button up shirt wrapped around a couple cans of soda pop-hit someone in the head with any of those and there is good chance you will kill them.

Now if you are defending your home.
151 proof rum and a lighter are good.
FIre extinguisher.
Run a line from you breaker/fuse box to your bedroom so you can shut off all the power in your house from your bedroom-usually a rally point if your home is invaded.
If your lights are out and cant be turned back on you automatically have the advantage-your house is full of weapons.
I can shut off power and the phone from my bedroom, my back windows are covered with layers of cloth so that the onlylight is coming from the entry way to my home. It allows me to see while not being seen.
There are hundreds of ways to get around the law as far as self defense is concerned.
I feel your pain though-I am buying my wife a 410 shotgun so she can protect her and the kids when I am not home. To bad New Zeland wont let you do that.

I own a shotgun, so "no" I really don't live in fear.

I've been tazered and pepper sprayed. (my delinquent friends and I thought it was fun at the time) Neither is too serious.

On the topic of the thread.
A gun(I am pro-gun by the way)
A gun is lethal force and should be thought of in that context only.
You should never brandish your weapon with the intent of NOT killing the person who is the threat.
So if you have any qualms about taking someones life a gun is a bad idea.

Pepper spray and tazers are "Less then Lethal" however many laws regulate these items all over the world because "less Then Lethal" is not "Non-Lethal"
You can kill someone with a tazer or stun gun, or even pepper spray.

I am sorry New Zeland leaves you defenseless.

Tips from when I was kid.
Carry a small spray bottle full of Ammonia-Mace.

Keep a baseball bat in your car with a ball and glove. Always have a ball and glove.

Carry some tools in your car-wrenches to be specific-cut a piece of old bicycle about two feet long-the light wieght durable aluminum makes an excellent light wieght club-when asked what it is for explain that it is a "Breaker Bar" for adding leverage to your wrenches-a very common item.
One I actually carried and used often was a varient on the slap jack.
I carried a pool ball in a sock for awhile, two rolls of quaters in a leather glove-though I carried both gloves. Have button up shirt wrapped around a couple cans of soda pop-hit someone in the head with any of those and there is good chance you will kill them.

Now if you are defending your home.
151 proof rum and a lighter are good.
FIre extinguisher.
Run a line from you breaker/fuse box to your bedroom so you can shut off all the power in your house from your bedroom-usually a rally point if your home is invaded.
If your lights are out and cant be turned back on you automatically have the advantage-your house is full of weapons.
I can shut off power and the phone from my bedroom, my back windows are covered with layers of cloth so that the onlylight is coming from the entry way to my home. It allows me to see while not being seen.
There are hundreds of ways to get around the law as far as self defense is concerned.
I feel your pain though-I am buying my wife a 410 shotgun so she can protect her and the kids when I am not home. To bad New Zeland wont let you do that.
Now, this is a man who lives in constant fear.
Not that I see that as a bad thing of course, I myself have kept my trusty stun gun within three feet of me at all times for the past two years, one can never be to careful.

Now, this is a man who lives in constant fear.
Not that I see that as a bad thing of course, I myself have kept my trusty stun gun within three feet of me at all times for the past two years, one can never be to careful.
;)

I was drunk with some idiot friends once, and we started to mace each other.

It hurts :mad:

I can see how it could be ineffective if you don't put a good blast in the face, but frankly, I was in a shit state for like fifteen minutes.

For all the people I've been talking to on the gun threads (trying not to go OT)

Do you think that pepper spray and/or stun guns and tazers should be legal?

For a bit of background, I'm annoyed about the firearm defence situation because in my country (New Zealand) you aren't allowed anything for defence. Pepper spray and tazers are illegal. Carry any weapon on you and you are committing a crime.

Are there people who would support having pepper spray legal, but firearm defence not? Why?

People who think we should fight off intruders by asking them politely?

People who have claymores buried in their front yard (;) j/k)?
I can see why people would want a measure for personal defense, and they're definitely less lethal than firearms.
However, since they could be misused, I think there's a case for some sort of licensing system, as exists in many countries which have legal ownership of guns.

I was drunk with some idiot friends once, and we started to mace each other.

It hurts :mad:

I can see how it could be ineffective if you don't put a good blast in the face, but frankly, I was in a shit state for like fifteen minutes.
Maced or Pepper sprayed?
Trust me there is a difference.
I found it very easy to keep fighting when I got maced-now when I caught some pepper spray-I found it difficult just to breath normally.

Maced or Pepper sprayed?
Trust me there is a difference.
I found it very easy to keep fighting when I got maced-now when I caught some pepper spray-I found it difficult just to breath normally.

Maced. Not pepper spray. I got a crap load in the eyes and nose. I could still breathe, but I was totally blind and wanted to throw up for like 10-15 minutes. The other fools reported similar experiences. I could see how if you didn't get a full blast in the eyes you could keep on fighting, but my eyes teared up and practically closed.

I was well drunk to though - hence the "experiment" - so maybe it's not that bad if you are sober.

Put it this way though, we never went for a repeat with the pepper spray. :)

Maced. Not pepper spray. I got a crap load in the eyes and nose. I could still breathe, but I was totally blind and wanted to throw up for like 10-15 minutes. The other fools reported similar experiences. I could see how if you didn't get a full blast in the eyes you could keep on fighting, but my eyes teared up and practically closed.

I was well drunk to though - hence the "experiment" - so maybe it's not that bad if you are sober.

Put it this way though, we never went for a repeat with the pepper spray. :)
See there is the problem--you were playing, you didnt have any need to defend your self.
The trick with Mace(keep in mind mace can actually cause permanent damage to the eyes) is to not touch your face or eyes- do not rub them, blink often but dont rub your face-let the tears run.
I imagine if I had just been fecking off in the backyard I wouldnt have had much fight in me, however it was a matter of not letting some prick pound me down just because he gave me spritzer of the bad stuff.
You are lucky you werent playing with pepper spray- I thought the stuff was a joke till I got a whiff.

See there is the problem--you were playing, you didnt have any need to defend your self.
The trick with Mace(keep in mind mace can actually cause permanent damage to the eyes) is to not touch your face or eyes- do not rub them, blink often but dont rub your face-let the tears run.
I imagine if I had just been fecking off in the backyard I wouldnt have had much fight in me, however it was a matter of not letting some prick pound me down just because he gave me spritzer of the bad stuff.
You are lucky you werent playing with pepper spray- I thought the stuff was a joke till I got a whiff.

To be fair, I'd rather screw around like that than have to defend myself after taking a snifter of the stuff. So it's all good.

I am surprised about the pepper spray though, I would have thought mace would have been worse. Isn't mace what the cops use?

Also I think the large quantity of scotch a "dosed" myself with before might have made it worse than it otherwise would have been.

Ah college, fun times.

bump

With all the gun threads, someones gotta have a view on this.

Opinion? I think their great to keep around the house for security reasons, especially for women.

Like my sis has a small can of pepper-spray, about the size of her lipstick hanging on to the side of her bag, easily accesible in emergencies. One time the safety pull caught on her bra, and accidentally sprayed her armpits. Just to say, she wasn't as amused as I am. She said it stung though.

I don't think it should be controlled. So far I haven't heard of any assailant, rapist, robber that sprays people with pepper spray yet.

Even then, it's better to have one than to not have one.

Actually we had excellent weapon laws in New Zealand until about a decade ago. To own a fire arm you had to have a licence and each fire arm was individually registered. To get your license you had to pass an exam (just like driving a car) to prove that you knew what you were doing. You were on receipt of your license deemed knowledgable enough to safely own a gun and could do so, providing you complyed with laws such as gun registration.

Concealed weapons have never been allowed. This worked very well, as firearms were registered they were rarely used in crimes, and concealed weapons were usually non-fire arms, and often modified devices that are not primarily weapons (why carry a club in your car and get arrested when a base ball bat is permissable)? This has meant that our police force was able to go largely un-armed (aside from a baton). In countries with greater gun access, you notice that there is often an 'arms race' between police/law abiding citizens, and criminal elements. Criminal elements need better weapons than other criminals, the police and citizens they might want to rob or murder, once everyone has a fire ar, faster, more powerful firearms are the next option, and so on.

However about a decade ago the police thought that they would have a tinker, it was very expensive and annoying for gun owners, costly to the tax payer, and made us less safe (after a few years this became apparent and I believe it has since been changed either back to how it was, or some hi-brid of the new and old systems) so was socially expensive. They should have left it how it was, few criminals had guns, the police rarely carried any, and those who wanted to own and use guns for legitimate purposes, rarely had any problems doing so.

Basically you dont need mace, after all men's deoderant and women's deoderant both come in spray containers of similar size to pepper spray and mace, combine with lighter for that 'extra ping' factor...

Actually we had excellent weapon laws in New Zealand until about a decade ago. To own a fire arm you had to have a licence and each fire arm was individually registered. To get your license you had to pass an exam (just like driving a car) to prove that you knew what you were doing. You were on receipt of your license deemed knowledgable enough to safely own a gun and could do so, providing you complyed with laws such as gun registration.

Concealed weapons have never been allowed. This worked very well, as firearms were registered they were rarely used in crimes, and concealed weapons were usually non-fire arms, and often modified devices that are not primarily weapons (why carry a club in your car and get arrested when a base ball bat is permissable)? This has meant that our police force was able to go largely un-armed (aside from a baton). In countries with greater gun access, you notice that there is often an 'arms race' between police/law abiding citizens, and criminal elements. Criminal elements need better weapons than other criminals, the police and citizens they might want to rob or murder, once everyone has a fire ar, faster, more powerful firearms are the next option, and so on.

However about a decade ago the police thought that they would have a tinker, it was very expensive and annoying for gun owners, costly to the tax payer, and made us less safe (after a few years this became apparent and I believe it has since been changed either back to how it was, or some hi-brid of the new and old systems) so was socially expensive. They should have left it how it was, few criminals had guns, the police rarely carried any, and those who wanted to own and use guns for legitimate purposes, rarely had any problems doing so.

Basically you dont need mace, after all men's deoderant and women's deoderant both come in spray containers of similar size to pepper spray and mace, combine with lighter for that 'extra ping' factor...
You do realize that there are very very very very very few crimes commited with a weapon that people have a CCW license for right? Criminals generally aren't going to go through the trouble to get a license to carry a weapon.

You do realize that there are very very very very very few crimes commited with a weapon that people have a CCW license for right? Criminals generally aren't going to go through the trouble to get a license to carry a weapon.
Well every single gun known to be in the country (and so far as all evidence suggests that would be most if not all guns, since gun smuggling was never an issue) was registered, and under the direct responsibilty of the licensed owner, who as a condition of his licence had to secure his fire-arms according to strict criteria, the only guns that were not currently in the possession of their licensed registered owners, were those reported stolen. Yes there were a few floating around, but not many, the numbers used in crimes were not great, and most of those used in crimes were never actually fired (ie they were presented but not discharged and so no one actually got shot).

Whatever theory one could attach, empiracally there was a low rate of firearm offences even though the reported offences included people charged with improper use or storage (ie negligent not criminal acts, including many that resulted in no harm or injury to any person). Although I dont think that the weapon laws as they operated here would necessarily acheive the same results elsewhere, I do believe that changing them was a change for the worst.

However you have to take note, that once guns are licenced, It's harder to obtain guns.

Yes, there would always be a few schmo's who somehow smuggle a gun in.

But the average mugger wouldn't have one. Mostly the big gangs that rob banks or big jobs.

Plus, the laws here in Malaysia, is that if you own a gun without licence, it's a mandatory death sentence! Even being possession of ammunition (even antique's like WW2 bullets), there's a very severe punishment.

Thats why criminals in possession of unlicensed weapons, once the police take them in, their usually hanged. No other way around.

But for the US, to ban firearms, with all the weapons in the market, it would take forever to bring them all in. It's too late for that now.

The stuff in pepper spray is generally capsicum (capsaicin). It's the same stuff found in chiles (like jabaneros or jalapenos). Rub your eyes with a chile.

Are chiles illegal? Carry those. :D

My opinion:

All humans should have the right to determine how best to defend themselves--and with what to do so.

Firearms, Pepper Spray, Tazers should all be legal, without registration.

If they are abused and used on others offensively, then the full extent of the law should be used to prosecute those perpetrating the acts.

Plus, the laws here in Malaysia, is that if you own a gun without licence, it's a mandatory death sentence! Even being possession of ammunition (even antique's like WW2 bullets), there's a very severe punishment.

Thats why criminals in possession of unlicensed weapons, once the police take them in, their usually hanged. No other way around.

But for the US, to ban firearms, with all the weapons in the market, it would take forever to bring them all in. It's too late for that now.

You say that almost as if it's a bad thing. Our 80 million firearms are the reason we don't get hanged by our government for having just one.

Actually we had excellent weapon laws in New Zealand until about a decade ago. To own a fire arm you had to have a licence and each fire arm was individually registered. To get your license you had to pass an exam (just like driving a car) to prove that you knew what you were doing. You were on receipt of your license deemed knowledgable enough to safely own a gun and could do so, providing you complyed with laws such as gun registration.
The registration system was dropped when the police admitted it was useless and had never solved a single crime.

Concealed weapons have never been allowed. This worked very well, as firearms were registered they were rarely used in crimes,
I've heard from police they estimate about 70,000 illegal MSSAs ("Assault weapons" in the states) are floating around NZ. It's not the fact that crims can't get them.

and concealed weapons were usually non-fire arms, and often modified devices that are not primarily weapons (why carry a club in your car and get arrested when a base ball bat is permissable)? This has meant that our police force was able to go largely un-armed (aside from a baton). In countries with greater gun access, you notice that there is often an 'arms race' between police/law abiding citizens, and criminal elements. Criminal elements need better weapons than other criminals, the police and citizens they might want to rob or murder, once everyone has a fire ar, faster, more powerful firearms are the next option, and so on.
There's no "arms race", because any mugger could take on the entire street with a knife. There is no "arms race" because we are left so defenceless that our lives are forfeit should anyone choose to attack us.

Basically you dont need mace, after all men's deoderant and women's deoderant both come in spray containers of similar size to pepper spray and mace, combine with lighter for that 'extra ping' factor...
Really, really not the same thing. Pepper spray and tazers (car battery and BBQ lighter perhaps? ;) ) are designed to incapacitate, getting some deoderant in the eyes won't stop an attacker.

There's no "arms race", because any mugger could take on the entire street with a knife. There is no "arms race" because we are left so defenceless that our lives are forfeit should anyone choose to attack us.


You have my sympathies, Kiwicrog. Any kind of movement "in house" to reverse all this crap?

You have my sympathies, Kiwicrog. Any kind of movement "in house" to reverse all this crap?

Um, there is one members bill in the mix at the moment, unlikely to go through tho. http://www.act.org.nz/action/campaigns/selfdefence/

It doesn't change the Arms Act, so no change in what you can own, but it basically means that you can defend yourself with less fear of being proscecuted. This includes being excluded from the requirements of the Arms Act (safe storage, discharge in residential area) if a firearm is used in self-defence.

Maybe it will happen in my lifetime. I think anyone who would ban a device that is non-lethal and designed for self-defence is truly scum (especially if they are doing this surrounded with armed bodyguards).

"But criminals will use them on people." It would be GREAT if criminals started using these! I'd rather be tazered than stabbed or shot.

If tazers became fashionable, imagine a gang fight! Seriously, we NEED non-lethal forms of defence. I'd rather have the option of tazering or spraying someone in my house than having to stab them with a kitchen knife or smack them over the head with some random debris from the floor.

Changing the law to allow these weapons mean you have the option to use LESS force. The bloody lefties should be up in arms, pushing for a change in legislation in the name of peace.

The stuff in pepper spray is generally capsicum (capsaicin). It's the same stuff found in chiles (like jabaneros or jalapenos). Rub your eyes with a chile.

Are chiles illegal? Carry those. :D
Steep the strongest habanero peppers you can find in strong alcohol. Let the stuff sit for a few days, strain out the peppers and add fresh ones. It's ready when the liquid is reddish-orange. Put it in a spray bottle. Have fun.

You say that almost as if it's a bad thing. Our 80 million firearms are the reason we don't get hanged by our government for having just one.

No sorry. I'm not saying its a bad thing. Rather it's more like a pandora-box in my view. Once purchasing guns are allowed to be purchased without needing licence, we would have millions of guns in the market, which the gov can't just "Take back".

No sorry. I'm not saying its a bad thing. Rather it's more like a pandora-box in my view. Once purchasing guns are allowed to be purchased without needing licence, we would have millions of guns in the market, which the gov can't just "Take back".

Gotcha! Interesting analogy.

Maced or Pepper sprayed?
Trust me there is a difference.
I found it very easy to keep fighting when I got maced-now when I caught some pepper spray-I found it difficult just to breath normally.
It can have quite drastic effects on some people, and almost none on others. We had a guy out here teaching safety courses at my range, name was Darrel Mulroy. He tought defensive shooting, and it never failed - someone in his class would say "What about pepper spray?"

"Do you have any with you?"
"Yes, right here."
"Great, pass that up here."

He would then apply it liberally as aftershave and resume teaching the course. I was at the other end of the building, and it started messing up MY breathing one day. :) I can't imagine how he built up that tolerance.

No sorry. I'm not saying its a bad thing. Rather it's more like a pandora-box in my view. Once purchasing guns are allowed to be purchased without needing licence, we would have millions of guns in the market, which the gov can't just "Take back". That's actually the point, though. The only reason to 'register' firearms (or at the very least, the primary reason) is so when the government decides to disarm the LAWFUL citizens, it can easily do so.

You should fear a government that strips your ability to defend yourself, your family, and your home. The police in the US are also known to get 'pushy' at times. I had one show up at my apartment a few years back (no warrant in hand), and he decided he wanted to come in, so he started moving forward and positioning himself to enter without my approval. I jammed the toe of my boot under the edge of it and leaned into the wall. He stopped and looked at me and said "Let me in.", I told him (politely) that I would zealously defend my home against unwelcome intruders, and he had no warrant, and no invitation.

Some people would say I threatened an officer of the law. I say I made him aware that I *could* be armed and would drill his ass for illegal trespass. I wasn't, but he didn't know, and he backed down. Had I lived in a country where private arms ownership were illegal, he'd possibly have just kicked the door in and arrested me on some bogus charge for annoying him.

I'm proud to live where the gestapo hasn't been firmly re-established.

The registration system was dropped when the police admitted it was useless and had never solved a single crime.
You'll have to substantiate that, at the time the system was initially changed, there was no wide spread public call for it, the polices' case for it was never publically cited to my knowledge as being related to failure to solve crime, in fact it sounds more like you are referring to more recent changes that occurred after the system was first changed. Funnily enough although I dont recall any discussion that sounds like what you describe accompanying or preceeding the first changeover, what you have typed does sound uncannily like the reasons cited for the subsequent changes, that were undertaken after the initial (well-working) system was changed for no good reason.

I've heard from police they estimate about 70,000 illegal MSSAs ("Assault weapons" in the states) are floating around NZ. It's not the fact that crims can't get them.
You can hardly blame a system that hasnt been in operation for about 10 years for the failings of the current or any interim system...

There's no "arms race", because any mugger could take on the entire street with a knife. There is no "arms race" because we are left so defenceless that our lives are forfeit should anyone choose to attack us.
Right, that proves my point doesnt it. I'd rather face a mugger with a stanley knife than a mugger with a gun, I think that if the mugger has to get close enough to use the knife and get blood on his hands, the mugger is less likely to attempt to murder me, I also think I have more chance of stopping a mugger with a knife murdering me, than I have of stopping a mugger with a gun. In the States, you have the freedom to own a gun, however in most places you cannot without license carry a concealed fireare, and law enforcement are likely to look at you sideways if you carry one down the street overtly, yet I bet more of their muggers have got them than ours...if there is still any doubt left in your mind, compare the number of US people killed by strangers to that in New Zealand, compare the number of people injured or killed during a crime who's primary goal was not violence (ie theft, where they primary goal is the acquisition of property), and most of all, compare shooting deaths.

Really, really not the same thing. Pepper spray and tazers (car battery and BBQ lighter perhaps? ;) ) are designed to incapacitate, getting some deoderant in the eyes won't stop an attacker.
Well I've had an eyefull of perfume, and I doubt pepper spray is much worse than that in the initial 5 minutes afterwards.

Sidenotes...
Evidently tazers can and do kill, I however suggest they are more likely to become fashionable in gang torture than in gang warfare...

As it happens no one in this country gets hanged for owning a gun, even illegally, so that argument, is yet another that cuts no cheese...

I'd have to say that it is probably best if one is allowed to defend oneself from outside aggression as one sees fit.

That's actually the point, though. The only reason to 'register' firearms (or at the very least, the primary reason) is so when the government decides to disarm the LAWFUL citizens, it can easily do so.
Right, and the only reason to 'register' cars (or at very least, the primary reason) is so when the government decides to demobilise LAWFUL citizens, it can easily do so....

Actually the reason to register guns and motorcars is to ensure that someone is responsible for them...

You should fear a government that strips your ability to defend yourself, your family, and your home. The police in the US are also known to get 'pushy' at times.
Well I dont claim that our police always mind their manners quite as they should, however I'm inclined to believe that they stack up favourably compared to US police....a point which weakens the argument you claim to be presenting.....

I had one show up at my apartment a few years back (no warrant in hand), and he decided he wanted to come in, so he started moving forward and positioning himself to enter without my approval. I jammed the toe of my boot under the edge of it and leaned into the wall. He stopped and looked at me and said "Let me in.", I told him (politely) that I would zealously defend my home against unwelcome intruders, and he had no warrant, and no invitation.
To be honest this is not a good example of the police being pushy relative to what might be expected, nor is it a good example of being particularly firm on your part, surely this is all fairly standard, police always want to come in, and a lot of people have a policy of not letting in uninvited guests. To suggest that police 'try it on' though is hardly a revelation...if it's not a universal police trait, it's the next thing to it.

Some people would say I threatened an officer of the law. I say I made him aware that I *could* be armed and would drill his ass for illegal trespass. I wasn't, but he didn't know, and he backed down. Had I lived in a country where private arms ownership were illegal, he'd possibly have just kicked the door in and arrested me on some bogus charge for annoying him.
Er, since he could probably ascertain that you didnt have your gun on you at the time and his own was much closer, and since he is probably a better shot, more confident, and since you were unlikely to be wearing a bullet proof vest, but he was likely to be wearing one, perhaps it wasnt the possibility of a gun that stopped him. I have never had the police enter my home without my permission, and in order to acheive this I have never had to make any reference to any form of weapon, nor would I feel it proved a form of freedom should I need to do so. Where I live it is enough to cite the law itself... no threats required...

I'm proud to live where the gestapo hasn't been firmly re-established.
There has never been a gestapo established where I live, evidently if you live in the US, the way I see it, I'm a lot more free than you are, at least I can burrow library books in privacy... ;)

Right, and the only reason to 'register' cars (or at very least, the primary reason) is so when the government decides to demobilise LAWFUL citizens, it can easily do so....

Actually the reason to register guns and motorcars is to ensure that someone is responsible for them... Perhaps in your country the terminology is different. Cars here are registered to be allowed on the road, and we are assessed a use tax. It has no bearing on responsibility. For those, we have a drivers license, which suggests I am both competent and responsible behind the wheel. This is mostly true. If they implemented firearms licenses, I would readily go apply and qualify for one.



Er, since he could probably ascertain that you didnt have your gun on you at the time and his own was much closer, and since he is probably a better shot, more confident, and since you were unlikely to be wearing a bullet proof vest, but he was likely to be wearing one, perhaps it wasnt the possibility of a gun that stopped him. He couldn't see my back, or most of the left side of my body, he had no idea if my hand was empty, or if I had a ready location to draw from. Better shot? Highly questionable. Confident? Cocky, maybe. If he'd been that confident, he'd have pushed more. It was clear I had no vest, nor did he. I dont have a violent background or any arrests to suggest he'd need such a thing on a "peaceful" visit. Most cops around here dont wear a vest unless explicity ordered, or going into a well known hostile situation. It isn't about if he believes I'm readily armed at the moment, but if the possibility is enough to cause him doubt.

I'm somewhat sure that many police, all around the world, bear certain commonalities. Badge-heavy is a term we use. The authority makes them think they are better than people, and push them around as such. Not all, but enough that it sours the reputation of almost all of them.

There has never been a gestapo established where I live, evidently if you live in the US, the way I see it, I'm a lot more free than you are, at least I can burrow library books in privacy... ;) Uncontested. Since the passing of the patriot act, I've been more inclined to check out books that would set off a warning beacon to the gov't about a terror-minded individual - much like I never downloaded a movie off the internet until I had to sit through the stupid "Don't download movies" commercial IN MOVIE THEATRES for two months. I downloaded one out of spite. People are good at living down to your expectations.
Don't insult the paying customers by calling them thieves. It's just dumb.

Perhaps in your country the terminology is different. Cars here are registered to be allowed on the road, and we are assessed a use tax. It has no bearing on responsibility. For those, we have a drivers license, which suggests I am both competent and responsible behind the wheel. This is mostly true. If they implemented firearms licenses, I would readily go apply and qualify for one.

Actually I think you'll find that registering a car does put an onus of responsibility on you. If it gets a parking ticket while no one is in the car, the ticket comes to you, if the car refuses to pull over and gets away from the police, guess who's door they come knocking on, and despite innocent until proven guilty, if you turned up in court without some evidence to show it wasnt you driving that day, chances are even, to better than even, you would as the registered car owner 'get done' on some charge or other.

He couldn't see my back, or most of the left side of my body, he had no idea if my hand was empty, or if I had a ready location to draw from. Better shot? Highly questionable. Confident? Cocky, maybe. If he'd been that confident, he'd have pushed more.
Would he? Well this proves my point. You live where there is more access to gun ownership and less controls and the only thing stopping the police from breaking the laws they exist to enforce, is the threat that you might have a gun, I live where access to guns is more limited, and the fact that I know and understand the law has always been sufficient to prevent illegal entry by the police into my home. Your point about gun ownership was that it made the government less capable of controlling law abiding citizens illegitimately, and made it harder for police to abuse their powers, yet your post indicates that your police are far more 'out of control' than ours are. As I have pointed out, on many occasions I have barred the police from entering private premises, and never have I had to threaten anything at all, usually I dont even have to make them aware of my understanding of my legal rights.

It was clear I had no vest, nor did he.
How you can tell, I mean the average person in a vest, sure, they look a bit like a barrel and are easier to pick, but really what doughnut eating copper doesnt look like a barrel even before the vest goes on....? ;)

I dont have a violent background or any arrests to suggest he'd need such a thing on a "peaceful" visit.
Ok, I just assumed it was probably fairly standard in a country where there are so many guns, a lot of them in the hands of violent criminals who have plenty to loose. However either way, my point is that I had hoped it was the regulations rather than your threat of violence that prevented the unlawful entry of the police officer, however if as you say it was the threat of violence, this weakens your central argument. You suggested that the gun ownership licensing we have makes our police more likely to infringe our rights, yet if I only have to state 'no' to stop a policeman who has no warrant from entering my property, but you have hint at having a gun on you to get the same result, your assertion is appears mistaken.

I'm somewhat sure that many police, all around the world, bear certain commonalities. Badge-heavy is a term we use. The authority makes them think they are better than people, and push them around as such. Not all, but enough that it sours the reputation of almost all of them.
Aha, that's my point. Police can be pushy...it's that kind of job in more ways than one... however your point was that gun ownership in the US helped keep police in line, as compared to our own gun laws, yet you have to hint at having a gun to get your police to abide by the law, and I dont....I think this indicates that perhaps things dont work quite the way you had reasoned them.

Uncontested. Since the passing of the patriot act, I've been more inclined to check out books that would set off a warning beacon to the gov't about a terror-minded individual - much like I never downloaded a movie off the internet until I had to sit through the stupid "Don't download movies" commercial IN MOVIE THEATRES for two months. I downloaded one out of spite. People are good at living down to your expectations.
Don't insult the paying customers by calling them thieves. It's just dumb.
Well exactly....I'm not trying to put too finer point on it, because it's not as though what you've said is implausable, it's just well, untrue... you have a government that peeks in on your library borrowing, and police that break their own laws if you dont hint at violence being the result of their not doing so, whilst I can borrow a library book in privacy, and have successfully ordered policeman not enter my home on many occassions and have never needed to present or hint at any threat in order to keep a policeman from illegally entering my home..., if gun ownership stops the government becoming tyranical and intrusive and protects you from illegitimate police practises, whilst restricted/registered ownership does the opposite, how do you explain these facts?

You'll have to substantiate that, at the time the system was initially changed, there was no wide spread public call for it, the polices' case for it was never publically cited to my knowledge as being related to failure to solve crime, in fact it sounds more like you are referring to more recent changes that occurred after the system was first changed. Funnily enough although I dont recall any discussion that sounds like what you describe accompanying or preceeding the first changeover, what you have typed does sound uncannily like the reasons cited for the subsequent changes, that were undertaken after the initial (well-working) system was changed for no good reason.

David Kopel, op. cit., p. 245.
In 1983, New Zealand abolished its registration system for rifles and scrapped a proposal to register shotguns after police determined that it was valueless as a crime control tool and diverted limited police resources from more important duties.[47].

Background to the Introduction of Firearms User Licensing Instead of Rifle and Shotgun Registration Under the Arms Act of 1983, (New Zealand Police), p. 6.
"The reduction of police time spent on registration of firearms will allow more time for functioning within the community"

You can hardly blame a system that hasnt been in operation for about 10 years for the failings of the current or any interim system... It's a good reason why it's silly to expect registration to stop criminal usage of guns.

Right, that proves my point doesnt it. I'd rather face a mugger with a stanley knife than a mugger with a gun, I think that if the mugger has to get close enough to use the knife and get blood on his hands, the mugger is less likely to attempt to murder me, I also think I have more chance of stopping a mugger with a knife murdering me, than I have of stopping a mugger with a gun.'Cept criminals don't just use stanley knives. Just because you don't have a gun doesn't mean they don't get them.

Evidently tazers can and do kill, I however suggest they are more likely to become fashionable in gang torture than in gang warfare... Where did you hear about the tazer fatalities from? Again, what would stop a gang from getting one now if they wanted? Nothing. How does banning tazers stop gangs torturing people? It doesn't.

Did you read inthe Herald, do they have that in Wellington or just Auckland? about those cops in the states using a tazer on that 6 year old kid, thats raw.

Did you read inthe Herald, do they have that in Wellington or just Auckland? about those cops in the states using a tazer on that 6 year old kid, thats raw.

Was that the story the policeman did that to jumpstart the kids heart? Or was it an old lady?

Was that the story the policeman did that to jumpstart the kids heart? Or was it an old lady?

no a kid in a school was said hed cut himself with a bit of glass, and then they used on on another kid a 12 yearold girl skipping class

Was that the story the policeman did that to jumpstart the kids heart?

!?!?!

If they did, they need more training!!!

Tazers are designed NOT to interfere with the heart or pacemakers.

David Kopel, op. cit., p. 245.
In 1983, New Zealand abolished its registration system for rifles and scrapped a proposal to register shotguns after police determined that it was valueless as a crime control tool and diverted limited police resources from more important duties.[47].
What this says, is that for no apparent reason, the Police determined that if there appeared to not be much of a problem, the system in place to prevent problems, wasnt needed. Obviously the system was deemed surplus to needs in some capacity by someone (that is implicit in the fact of it's having been removed and replaced with a 'toned down' or lesser system), but my point is that there was nothing substantial to support such a conclusion, nor any publically motivated reason for considering it in the first place. No public outcry about inconvinience, or ineffectiveness for instance. For a modern industrialised free society we had very few problems at the time with firearm crimes. No study was done, nothing happened to suggest that the system needed review, someone somewhere just figured hey we could cut our budget and charge gun owners a huge fee to change over to the new system...the conclusion that it was surplus was based on the lack of a problem, the system wasnt being used often to trace guns because the kind of circumstance where that would be necessary were simply not arising whilst the system was in place. The decision to decide that this meant the system wasnt needed rather than it meaning that the system was working can only be explained in terms of someone thinking with dollars rather than sense.

Background to the Introduction of Firearms User Licensing Instead of Rifle and Shotgun Registration Under the Arms Act of 1983, (New Zealand Police), p. 6.
"The reduction of police time spent on registration of firearms will allow more time for functioning within the community"
Which really means, "we have no reason to believe changing the status quo will improve public safety, and we know that with the system in place we really dont have a problem, but getting rid of it is cheaper...."

It's a good reason why it's silly to expect registration to stop criminal usage of guns.
Hang on, a statistic about there being too many guns in criminal hands in a country that removed individual gun registration proves that individual registration isnt helpful?! Perhaps there is some misunderstanding, because based on what I think you are saying, I reach a very different conclusion.

Regardless, In New Zealand do we get 'shoot outs' between police and criminals (the latter armed with automatic weapons) that last for hours as occurs in societies with less regulation of gun ownership? Seriously compare how often US police are shot at, compared to New Zealand police.

Lets be clear about these regulations, there is nothing stopping you from owning a gun in New Zealand if you can show that you are a responsible owner. If you dont have a criminal record or a history of severe mental illness sufficient to have rendered you a danger to yourself and others, so far as I know, you easily meet all the pre-requisites. We dont let just anyone drive a motor vehicle either (you have to pass a test proving physical competence ie you can see well enough to drive, and knowledge competence ie you know all the relevent road regulations, and skill competence the practical part of a driving exam), and vehicles themselves are registered individually. This doesnt eliminate motor vehicle crimes and infringements, but I am certain that if cars were not individually registered and identifiable (via the registration plates), many, many, many, more vehicle crimes would be committed, so I believe absolutely that vehical registration reduces motor vehicle crimes, even though it does not eliminate the problem entirely. I also am convinced that if there were no driver fitness standards that more vehicles would be involved in accidental harm to property and person, even though the standards dont eliminate the problem entirely. Guns like cars are safe when lawfully and responsibly used and maintained, and dangerous to the point of being potentially lethal if used unlawfully and/or irresponsibly. As with cars, regulations dont prevent all crimes and accidents entirely, but they make things much safer than they would be in the absence of such regulations.

'Cept criminals don't just use stanley knives. Just because you don't have a gun doesn't mean they don't get them.
I can assure you that porportionately few criminals in this country carry guns around for criminal purposes. In New Zealand your average drug dealer does not carry a firearm, your average mugger does not carry a firearm, your average burgler does not carry a firearm, your average non-confrontation-theft robber does not carry a firearm, your average rapist does not carry around a firearm, your average criminal does not in course of an average crime carry firearms. That would change to one degree or another if everyone had guns, and if all the people described above habitually carried firearms, I think there would be more, not less shooting, and more shooting means we are all less safe.

Where did you hear about the tazer fatalities from? Again, what would stop a gang from getting one now if they wanted? Nothing. How does banning tazers stop gangs torturing people? It doesn't.
A comparative television report on various law enforcement techniques. The thing about something like a tazor is that you can design it so in theory if correctly used, there wont be fatalities, but in real life all sorts of variables occur.
What stops gangs from getting them is 'why bother'? If they could walk down the corner shop and pick one up, they'd as probably have one as not, but unless they have a particular penchant for a tazor for personality reasons, I suspect that gang members like most people are not going to go to a whole lot of trouble and expense to get something when a readily and cheaply available baseball bat, fist full of sharp rings, empty beer bottle, pool cue, piece of furniture, knife etc will do just as well. However if you could grab one at the corner dairy, I dont see why a tazor wouldnt automatically be added to the already large category of readily available objects that can be used to inflict harm.

US police this week tasered a 5-year old into unconsciousness.

Bullies can abuse anything.