bloop

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The story you link literally says:

"the varying ways to count and then interpret police data means it’s worth taking all claims about crime rates rising or falling with a pinch of salt"

They go to great pains to point out that the data is not recorded consistently, so drawing any conclusions from it is fraught.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Hmm. In the old days, pretty much every ISP ran a Usenet server. The cost was covered as part of your internet connection bill, it was just part of the service.

I could see a potential future where running a Lemmy instance became table-stakes for ISPs, like Usenet used to be.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Man, I wish she would just go away

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I think I've responded to a lot of your points in the reply I posted to the other commenter, and I don't want to just spam the thread with my opinion over and over... But I did want to say thanks for creythe thread in the first place, and thanks for being chill about the topic. It's pretty hard to have a reasonable discussion about this kind of thing in a lot of places without lots of unnecessary name calling, so I appreciate your approach here :)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Where do illegally use firearms come from presently, though? My impression was that it's already really hard to smuggle them through customs.

I don't claim to know the answer to that for sure, given that I don't deal in illegal firearms:) But I have my suspicions.

I'm sure that some have come from licensed people doing deals with criminals for whatever reason. In 240,000 licensed people I'm sure there are a few dodgy ones, it would be naive to pretend otherwise. But organised crime in NZ mostly means gangs. We're talking about people who seem to be able to import and distribute vast quantities of meth; last time I checked, Customs weren't very fond of that either but they seem to get it through. We're a small country with a large coastline, and there are a lot of boats coming and going.

It seems to me that the firearms that are commonly available in NZ are both expensive, and not really what your average gangster is probably looking for, especially now that semi-automatic actions are illegal. I would imagine that if you're already in the underground importing business, getting a few handguns or military-pattern rifles tucked in with a shipment probably isn't too hard.

Are legal owners specifically worried that increased scarcity of guns in criminal groups, once they can't get them through more legit sources like a dodgy licensed owner, means there will be orders of magnitude stronger incentives for gun-wanting criminals to track down and steal their guns?

No, I don't think so. I mean, I'm sure some people think that, and there is some concern about poor data security leading to the whole database ending up in the wrong hands and becoming a "shopping list" for criminal gangs. But I don't think that's the majority of the reason for most people.

(Edit: formatting)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

As I said previously, I can't claim to speak for all licence holders. But it's an interesting comparison.

Consider what the purpose of vehicle registration is. Does vehicle registration stop vehicle theft? Or stop bad guys from driving around, even if they don't have a licence? Vehicle registration laws are doing really well against the dirt bike gangs at the moment aren't they?

So, as far as I can see, the main purposes of vehicle registration are taxation and monitoring. Taxation through the regular licensing fee, and monitoring through the registration number.

Ok, good. So the monitoring reduces vehicle crime right? Well, it gives the authorities a few things:

  • A method to determine who a vehicle belongs to, so when they see it breaking the law, they can use that number to issue a fine to the owner (e.g. speed cameras, red-light cameras).
  • Because registered ownership has to be transferred from one owner to the next, it reduces the market for stolen vehicles within the general public (i.e. people buying a second-hand vehicle that they didn't know was stolen).
  • They can also theoretically use those numbers to track down the rightful owner of a stolen vehicle if it is recovered.

All good so far.

But, firearms are not vehicles. They are used in quite a different context, and I don't think the comparison holds up well.

  • Firearms aren't typically used in a way that the firearm can be more easily identified than the user. The serial number on a rifle is usually about 2 - 3mm tall, stamped into the receiver. If you can read that, you can probably identify the person holding it by a more direct manner...
  • The transfer of registered ownership would reduce the market for firearms being sold by licensed owners to unlicensed people. If that were a major problem, but I just don't believe that it is. It does nothing for the market for stolen firearms, because they were always being sold to criminals anyway, and laws only affect people who obey laws in the first place.
  • The tracking down of the rightful owner of a stolen item would be great for that person. But considering the security requirements for the storage of firearms, I think most licensed owners are not that concerned about having their firearms stolen if they are stored legally.

So really, what we are left with is more process, more taxation to pay for a service we don't feel that we benefit from, and a register of information who's main purpose for existing appears to be enabling Police to audit licensed owners looking for reasons to punish us, or to ban and confiscate our sports equipment, some of which is highly treasured.

Imagine if vehicles weren't currently registered and the government passed a law to introduce vehicle registration. Imagine how the majority of drivers would feel about being made to pay for a system that offered them few benefits and many perceived downsides.

Now imagine that the excuse that was used to introduce that law was that someone had used a vehicle to cause a lot of harm, but that person had been given a licence without being properly qualified under the existing laws. And supporters of the change dismissed anyone who disagreed with them as a "car nut" and "American car culture".

If you magine how you, as a safe and legal driver would feel about that situation, you might feel a little empathy for the shooting sports community.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

See my other post, but this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that we (Licensed firearms owners) don't appreciate being misrepresented as a bunch of rednecks.

We're talking about a large group of people who's hobbies have been made significantly more expensive and inconvenient, and if someone tries to express our perspective we get written off with "lol they need a psychologist, lol freedums".

I hope you never find yourself on the unpopular side of a political football issue. It's less fun to be on the receiving end. Especially when you lose access to sports and activities that you love.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Licensed firearms owner here. I have an opinion on this but I don't claim to represent all other license holders.

There 240,000 or so licensed firearms owners in NZ, so there are a lot of different opinions amongst that population. And, contrary to how it often seems to be represented in media, we are not an organisation or lobby group. It's just simply a population of people who for one reason or another have a use for firearms in their work or sport.

It's really unfortunate that the American style association between shooting sports and right-wing "freedum" rednecks has been imported here - and I'm 100% certain that it has been deliberately exaggerated to make shooters easier to discredit. A lot of us have quite disparate political beliefs - shock horror, I know more than one person who hunts and also votes Green...

COLFO are doing their best to represent the concerns of licensed firearms owners, but as I say, we are a disparate group and not actually that easily represented. There are common themes, but it's not like we are some kind of organised lobby group. The themes I have seen are:

  • We don't like being scapegoated for the Christchurch tragedy. That wasn't us.
  • We don't appreciate our leisure/sports activities being taken away by people who don't understand them for political posturing.
  • We don't appreciate the massive increase in the cost and complexity of compliance that has been pushed on us, around things that were not causing any problems - particularly the increases in licensing costs, shooting range certification cost and complexity, and now the register (which is of course not free)
  • A lot of shooters don't really trust Police senior leadership. We don't trust them to manage our data properly, and we believe that they have shown through their past and present actions that they would prefer if civilian firearms ownership was completely banned.
  • We don't see the need for, or benefits of, a register of firearms. Yeah, I have seen the "It will keep the guns out of the hands of the gangs" arguments, but personally I don't believe much of it. I'm sure that some firearms have been transferred from licensed owners to gang members, but I don't believe that the bulk of their weapons are acquired that way. You're talking about people who smuggle meth into the country but you think they're not also bringing in guns? Like more interesting ones than the hunting rifles that you can buy at Hunting and Fishing?
  • We don't appreciate being represented in media as being unreasonable about all of these things by people who's total involvement in the issue is collecting soundbites. We don't appreciate COLFO and SSANZ being referred to as "The gun lobby" to make them seem like highly funded and media savvy PR experts - which they are not.

Licensed shooters are generally a responsible, law-abiding group - this much is guaranteed by the licensing process. We will probably just suck up this additional inconvenience and cost just like we have had to with all the other ones, because we have no choice and the public and media are not on our side.

But I think it's unreasonable for you to expect us to be happy about it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It's some kind of potting material - it's hard to say from the photo but it looks like it might be soft? It's probably been put on to protect the board against moisture and pollution. You may be able to scrape it off with a scalpel blade or similar if you need to. Depending on what the material is it may melt away under soldering heat or it might burn, or it may be quite heat proof

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

If you're already going to couple the axes to BLDC motors, why not use the same encoder for position feedback for the motors and the stick?

Hall effect switches on the motors for commutation are accurate, but may not give enough resolution for your application. There are rotational hall effect sensors from AMS that have a LOT of resolution, something like AS5055A might work for your application?