7 ms·

>but he did have weapons in his house at the time of the raid. All of which is taken into account in the risk profile, and he was judged to be of low risk. Be

>but he did have weapons in his house at the time of the raid. All of which is taken into account in the risk profile, and he was judged to be of low risk. Besides, who cares if he has legal guns? I have guns, doesn't mean I'm going to shoot someone who comes to serve a warrant. >probably a scare tactic to show him who he is messing with It's sad that people (particularly Americans, but also citizens of more brutal regimes) are so used to such tactics by police that they seem normal.

res0nat0r 14y ago
There are a lot less guns in NZ than Amurrica, so it is probably more of a big deal over there than here. But I'd let someone from NZ chime in on that to be sure.
- RowanH 14y ago
  I'm an expat Kiwi now living in Canada. Gun control is much stricter in NZ - you need a firearms license with different endorsement, and restrictions on the types of guns allowed http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/ http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/ A fair percentage of farms out in the country would have a license for dealing with farm issues (possums/live stock etc). As a teenager growing up in the country, you would likely have a friend and go possum hunting. And/or things like Scouts where you would be shown how to safely handle a gun. However it was always in a safe light - for farming reasons. In Coatesville, the area where his mansion is, it wouldn't be out of the norm to have a rifle on hand. I can't comment on the last 7 years, but police officers (do, or did) need to have guns locked in a lock box in the back of their cars, they're not carrying them around in public. Members of the public with pistols and semi-auto style weapons are very rare indeed. When I moved to Auckland from the country I didn't know of a single soul that would have a gun. As always the gang element would have some serious guns but it's really not as prevelant from both an anecdotal when I lived there, or statistical view point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence). NZ 15% of homicides with guns vs 65% in USA. (Source UN, 2000 per the entry). That's a staggering difference. It was 16 years ago my first trip to the US, but I was shocked/stunned seeing guns in public. Texas of all places. Being a company owned by kiwis, our "culture shock" of the year was going to a gun show. Abso-frigging-lutely mind blowing. I don't care what potential use case you put it under, some types of guns are for one reason, and one reason only.
  - cobrausn 14y ago
    All guns are for one reason only - shooting bullets. Also, most firearm-involved homicides in the US are committed with handguns, a fact routinely ignored or brushed aside by those trying to keep the focus on the guns that are 'scarier', but usually less effective for criminal purposes. Knives kill more people per year than all other gun types combined. The gun control debate in this country is effectively screwed because of the fact that there is a second amendment whose purpose is to ensure civilians remain armed well enough to defeat military occupation, and 'well enough' is being argued about by extremists who set tone of the entire debate. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ODAU_WF0nowJ:davidbrin.blogspot.com/2007/01/brin-classics-jefferson-rifle.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ODAU_WF...
    - ktizo 14y ago
      It is true that while the US army might have the most guns in the world, the US public seemingly isn't all that far behind. Even if your armed forces were not allowed to take part, you'd still probably win in a land war against Canada or Mexico.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - cobrausn 14y ago
        I don't necessarily disagree, though I seriously doubt Canada or Mexico would ever invade the US, as there would be too much to risk and too little to gain for the cost. The sad thing is, and I feel really strange saying this as a former member of the US military, we also are supposed to be able to combat our own military should they one day be used against us. Though the US military has not been used against the people of the US since Posse Comitatus (excepting recent drone strikes in foreign countries), history (and present day) is full of examples of this not always being the case. I don't think you can talk about the point of the second amendment completely without mentioning the fact that it was envisioned to apply against both foreign invasion and domestic tyranny. I'm pretty sure 'self-defense' was a given to the founders, and did not enter into the thinking for it - they were explicitly laying out out the need for civilians to be able to rise up against their own government.

res0nat0r 14y ago

There are a lot less guns in NZ than Amurrica, so it is probably more of a big deal over there than here. But I'd let someone from NZ chime in on that to be sure.

RowanH 14y ago
I'm an expat Kiwi now living in Canada. Gun control is much stricter in NZ - you need a firearms license with different endorsement, and restrictions on the types of guns allowed http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/ http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/ A fair percentage of farms out in the country would have a license for dealing with farm issues (possums/live stock etc). As a teenager growing up in the country, you would likely have a friend and go possum hunting. And/or things like Scouts where you would be shown how to safely handle a gun. However it was always in a safe light - for farming reasons. In Coatesville, the area where his mansion is, it wouldn't be out of the norm to have a rifle on hand. I can't comment on the last 7 years, but police officers (do, or did) need to have guns locked in a lock box in the back of their cars, they're not carrying them around in public. Members of the public with pistols and semi-auto style weapons are very rare indeed. When I moved to Auckland from the country I didn't know of a single soul that would have a gun. As always the gang element would have some serious guns but it's really not as prevelant from both an anecdotal when I lived there, or statistical view point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence). NZ 15% of homicides with guns vs 65% in USA. (Source UN, 2000 per the entry). That's a staggering difference. It was 16 years ago my first trip to the US, but I was shocked/stunned seeing guns in public. Texas of all places. Being a company owned by kiwis, our "culture shock" of the year was going to a gun show. Abso-frigging-lutely mind blowing. I don't care what potential use case you put it under, some types of guns are for one reason, and one reason only.
- cobrausn 14y ago
  All guns are for one reason only - shooting bullets. Also, most firearm-involved homicides in the US are committed with handguns, a fact routinely ignored or brushed aside by those trying to keep the focus on the guns that are 'scarier', but usually less effective for criminal purposes. Knives kill more people per year than all other gun types combined. The gun control debate in this country is effectively screwed because of the fact that there is a second amendment whose purpose is to ensure civilians remain armed well enough to defeat military occupation, and 'well enough' is being argued about by extremists who set tone of the entire debate. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ODAU_WF0nowJ:davidbrin.blogspot.com/2007/01/brin-classics-jefferson-rifle.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ODAU_WF...
  - ktizo 14y ago
    It is true that while the US army might have the most guns in the world, the US public seemingly isn't all that far behind. Even if your armed forces were not allowed to take part, you'd still probably win in a land war against Canada or Mexico.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - cobrausn 14y ago
      I don't necessarily disagree, though I seriously doubt Canada or Mexico would ever invade the US, as there would be too much to risk and too little to gain for the cost. The sad thing is, and I feel really strange saying this as a former member of the US military, we also are supposed to be able to combat our own military should they one day be used against us. Though the US military has not been used against the people of the US since Posse Comitatus (excepting recent drone strikes in foreign countries), history (and present day) is full of examples of this not always being the case. I don't think you can talk about the point of the second amendment completely without mentioning the fact that it was envisioned to apply against both foreign invasion and domestic tyranny. I'm pretty sure 'self-defense' was a given to the founders, and did not enter into the thinking for it - they were explicitly laying out out the need for civilians to be able to rise up against their own government.