About This is why I support CCW Page 5
|April 17th, 2007||#41|
| || |
Unfortunately I cant seem to link the source and I know there will be intense whining if I don't so here is the whole story.
Getting guns right
25 February 2006
New Zealanders own almost a million guns, but we have a remarkably good record on gun safety. MIKE STEERE investigates what we're doing right – and could do better.
Moving softly, silently brushing leaves aside, a hunter deep in the Kaimanawa Forest spots the deer he has been waiting for.
He moves into position and lines up his prey. Carefully focused, he takes aim, his finger tightens on the trigger and he fires.
The bullet enters the target's head at great speed and exits the other side – killing it instantly.
Unknown to the shooter, the victim is no deer. Taupo father Mark Leathwick, who was hunting in the same area as the shooter, was killed instantly by the bullet that entered his head through his cap.
The shooter, 24-year-old Christopher Martin Davies, was sentenced to nine months in prison and ordered to pay reparations of $5000, and has to face the horror of having killed someone.
Though an awful tragedy, Leathwick's death in 2003 is one of just 11 fatal hunting accidents to occur in the last 10 years in New Zealand, which, for the high number of guns owned by Kiwis, has a remarkably good record for gun safety.
Most people's experiences of guns are limited to hearing of their use in crimes or seeing them in the entertainment media.
Fortunately for Kiwis, the reality here is not as frightening as some of the excesses routinely reported from around the world or created by Hollywood.
Police estimate there are about 1 million guns in New Zealand – or roughly one gun to every four people. There are 239,000 licensed users, many of whom own more than one gun; an unknown number are held by unlicensed people, including criminals.
Although comprehensive international statistics on gun ownership are quite old (1994), they place New Zealand with higher per household gun ownership than Australia and Italy, and similar to Canada, Switzerland and France.
Yet, figures collected by the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council show relatively few gun-related deaths: 48 in 2003 and 55 in 2002. The Public Health Association previously reported an average of 80 gun deaths and 65 hospital admissions a year. The statistics are dominated by suicides, which account for 80 to 90 per cent of gun-related deaths; the balance is typically hunting accidents, accidental shootings, police shootings and homicides.
Compare this to the United States' 30,136 gun-related deaths in 2003 – nearly eight times higher per capita than New Zealand's figures – and our reason for being satisfied becomes more clear.
Earlier figures also show favourable comparisons for New Zealand. In 1998, Associated Press reported that New Zealand's gun-related deaths per capita were six times fewer than the United States, nearly half that of Canada, and fewer than Australia, France and Switzerland.
Not surprisingly, most people are primarily concerned with firearm homicides – they, in our minds, constitute the biggest threat from guns. Dairies get robbed, homes are invaded, people are mugged by firearm-wielding criminals. But, again, that concern should be low. Homicides with firearms make up less than 15% of all homicides – a rate lower than Australia and Canada.
Our record is drawing international recognition. The director of the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific, Tsutomu Ishiguri, was in Christchurch this week for a gun-safety seminar and says he is "very impressed" with the low number of gun-related deaths in New Zealand.
Ishiguri feels nongovernmental organisations play a huge role in keeping the injuries minimal in New Zealand, and says this week's event showcased their ability to operate freely.
"If this sort of thing was organised in some countries it would be all police and politicians," he says of the conference.
Experts here credit other factors.
"We need society to help recognise if someone is no longer `fit and proper', because police can't monitor this all of the time." _Jack McConchie, Mountain Safety Council
Police national manager of firearms licensing and vetting, Inspector Joe Green, feels there are two major reasons for the statistics: legislation and education.
Green says the 1992 Arms Amendment Act put in place many safety measures for licensed gun owners, who have to be deemed "fit and proper" by police to own a gun.
He also speaks highly of our education programmes, implemented by the Mountain Safety Council.
The convenor of the council's firearms committee, Jack McConchie, is also happy with New Zealand's current system.
"What we have is a system that is almost the perfect balance between legislation and enforcement, and the community buying into the process."
He says the security measures put in place for the storage of weapons with the Arms Amendment Act has greatly improved safety around the home, where many accidents occurred in the past.
The act also attracted praise from Annette Beautrais, head of the Canterbury Suicide Project. She says that after its implementation, firearm suicides fell by 46%.
McConchie feels licensed gun owners in New Zealand are responsible, and the potential problem group is unlicensed owners, who are hard to track down.
But David Gray, who was responsible for New Zealand's worst mass killings – at Aramoana in 1990 – was a licensed gun owner, whom most people would not describe as "fit and proper".
Gray had fallen through a loophole which, before 1992, meant all registered users were issued new licences automatically.
McConchie says this area could still be tightened up today. "We need society to help recognise if someone is no longer `fit and proper', because police can't monitor this all of the time."
He is happy with the Mountain Safety Council's education programmes, but notes that continuing education is needed to keep gun- related deaths to a minimum. The council has made a submission on the Arms Amendment Bill now before Parliament. The submission argues that removing 100,000 firearms from circulation could be beneficial. It suggests old and unsafe guns could be collected in a "buy in" scheme.
Researchers at this week's firearm- safety seminar singled out individual areas where injuries and deaths could be prevented.
Although hunting accidents are only a small portion of New Zealand's gun- related deaths, American hunting accident investigator Rod Slings says investigating accidents is the key to alleviating future problems.
Slings, who describes his job at the Iowa Department of Natural Resources as "the CSI for hunting accidents", says New Zealand could benefit from carefully analysing the cause of incidents.
"We have to learn from these things, so we can warn hunters of the biggest dangers and fix problems that are occurring."
He says the use of bright orange clothing to make hunters visible in the bush is one of the benefits to have developed from this sort of research.
Many of these developments would be helpful in maintaining a low level of gun-related injuries in New Zealand – but only among licensed users.
The worry is stopping the thousands of unregistered firearms in New Zealand from becoming a bigger problem. In criminal cases, they often feature in robberies, but the trigger is rarely pulled. Authorities can only hope that part of the firearms equation, too, remains at a low level.
We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
|April 17th, 2007||#42|
| || |
The here and now in America, someone gets nearly 3 hours on a College Campus to shot and kill Civilians, and I want to know why…. why he got 3 hours.
From what I have heard so far the gunman shot and killed 2 people to begin with, people who would have had most likely had to shot first and ask questions later, if they were Armed, and then the gunman was allowed (not by having permission granted) to transverse the campus and begin his shooting spree anew in another building.
Now, I'm not for a Police State, but when a Shooting happens on a College Campus (implying Adults) I fully except the Uniformed Police to do whatever (and I mean whatever) is necessary to subdue the assailant and protect the Innocent.
That means, (speaking generally) if all of you, and I mean all (again generally), are killed in the line of duty, I fully I expect you to die in the line of duty to subdue the Shooter, if need be, to protect the Public at large.
If you live…. well, that is a bonus.
The Police (again speaking generally) may, sometimes, well….. seem to think today that someone else has the job to die, or at least risk their lives first in that type of situation, but, it is you (in your State) that has that job, and not the Public in general.
In EOD, strangely enough, we did not issue Wire Cutters and Blasting Cap Crimpers to the General Public to defuse and Render Safe bombs they may come in contact with…. therefore, we knew that we would have to take the hit first if need be.
That meant that I would have blown up long before (measured in seconds or mere milliseconds) any Civilians sadly left in the Area of Operations.
Likewise, Firemen run into burning buildings all the time to save the Innocent, because they know it is their job, even though they know beforehand things may not, and most times will not work out well.
I noticed that the College Campus in question has a Police Chief, implying they have a Police Department, and, I take it for granted that in this day and age they are Armed, and, so, likewise, I am more than a bit bewildered that there are no Police Officers listed among the causalities…. there being so many Civilians lost and all. Not of course speaking of you personally, because you, not only are from a different State, and very far from the AO, but you (as I have been told) are also a Combat Veteran, and, as such, you know how easy it is to die in the line of duty, if need be.
But, it is after all your (generally) duty to do so, if need be.
So, any Officers who do not like the odds, and maybe feel it is the General Publics fault for not Arming Up themselves, well, perhaps those Officers should just maybe think of getting a different job, like say Sanitation Engineer within the City they wish to reside.
You tell me.... with so many Civilians lost, and so much time involved, how does it make you feel to know that no Police Officers were, at the very least, among the wounded in the incident?…. and then to have put out that if only the Civilians were Armed that perhaps not as many Civilians would have been lost…
★INITIAL SUCCESS✫or✫TOTAL FAILURE★
Last edited by Gator; April 17th, 2007 at 08:15.. Reason: changed "blow" to "blown" changed "that's" to "that"
|April 17th, 2007||#43|
| || |
|April 17th, 2007||#44|
| || |
State ???? Jeeez...us,.... Monty's not going to like that very much. Couldn't you have been just a little more diplomatic and perhaps thrown a handful of sh!t in his face?
USA may have the size, but I know where I'd rather live. No contest.
Australia! but NZ would be right up there.
"I am totally responsible for what I write,... however I cannot be held responsible for your complete inability to understand"
Last edited by senojekips; April 17th, 2007 at 12:51..
|April 17th, 2007||#45|
| || |
How many shooting at schools have their been? By my count
2007 -Virginia Tech
2006 -Dawson College
1999 -Columbine High School
1997? Kentucky High School -I forget exact date
1995? Missouri High School -I forget exact date
1988 -Montreal University
1966 -University of Texas
3 of those in the list are High School. 2 of the incidents were not even in the United States. But for the sake of argument we will add them all. Thats 7 shooting in schools over 41 years. Given that guns are banned on most campuses, that is a very small number of incidents over 4 decades.
Schools and Universities are high-stress, high pressure, environments. I have graduated from both. You put guns into high-stress environments and the number of such incidents will increase. Thats guaranteed.
"My center is giving way, my right is in retreat situation excellent. I shall attack." -Foch
I am from NYC. I fly a French flag because I work in Paris.
|April 17th, 2007||#46|
| || |
So easy for people to point fingers from their sofa...
And mmarsh, again you argument is very flawed, go to a college in the sticks where hunting is big and you will see a lot of guns...
Last edited by Donkey; April 17th, 2007 at 14:41..
|April 17th, 2007||#47|
| || |
What type of guns are you allowed to own in NZ? It's a nice country but I wouldn't consider living there without my future FAL and AR-15s.
"Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government." - George Washington
|April 17th, 2007||#48|
| || |
College kids dont need to have guns like mmarsh said. It is a high stress high emotion enviorment, and we dont need a bunch kids running around with guns. Were every fist fight someone pulls out a gun and starts blasting. I'm good on my campus becoming a wild west saloon.
|April 17th, 2007||#49|
| || |
Guess what guns were barred from that campus...did it stop what happened?
Or does your "common sense" not compute that?
|April 17th, 2007||#50|
| || |
No, Rabs is right. It is common sense, but because it contradicts your opinion you don't wish to see it.
You say my argument flawed but you don't elaborate as to why. Therefore, its a rather a meaningless statement. You are also attempting to change the subject. We are not talking about hunting, but about CCW.
But for your information, I was in college was in rural Indiana. In about as conservative republican as you can get in the Mid-West. And yes, their were hunters, but the students who hunted were locals who left their guns at home. You don't spend $25K a year in tuition, in order to hunt. But rather, to get an education. Having fewer guns on campus means you will have fewer shootings.
Its pretty simple math.
Last edited by mmarsh; April 17th, 2007 at 18:00..
|You all know~~|
|TECH SUPPORT !!!|
|Tech Support. May I Help You?|
|Americans Support The Troops With Food, Soap, DVDs|
|Support Needs Could Double 'Surge' Forces|