Misreading policy

Mary Riddell gets it wrong in the Torygraph.

Voters do not mostly want to shoot a burglar or swap shares for rights or hurt the poor.

No one wants to shoot a burglar. They don’t want to be burgled to begin with. What they really don’t want is an innocent person being prosecuted for protecting themselves from some scumbag who invades their home.

The fear is not the burglar. The fear is a system that unfairly prosecutes those who stand up for themselves and their family.

On another note did we resolve the question of what is the best burglar load for the shotty?


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Mitch82

    “The fear is not the burglar. The fear is a system that unfairly prosecutes those who stand up for themselves and their family.”

    I don’t think the above could be stated any better.

  • Magoo

    Regarding the load for the shotty. Shoot to kill – why take a chance?

    • Anomymouse Coward

      You dont want to shoot someone if you dont have to. Shooting someone can screw up your mind.

      If you have a bouble barrell or pump shotgun for protection load the first shell with salt. The bang and flash gets the bad guys attention and makes your intentions clear. By all means have serious ordinace for the next shot.

      • Name

        Or use dragons breath, might need a new house afterwards

      • Magoo

        If you get a chance for a 2nd shot that is. Shoot to kill, or at least blow something off. After a couple of them have been killed their buddies might not be so keen.

    • Pissedoffyouth

      Keep a crossbow in your room with the bolt heads covered in rust – if you don’t take him down with the first shot he’ll run off and die from tetanus

  • phronesis

    I’m still leaning towards a 7 first up for the warning shot (to the head). Backed up with some 00 in case there is more than one of them and a few slugs in back of the mag to see them off with if they make it back to their vehicle.

  • Andrewo

    “No one wants to shoot a burglar”
    …..that’ll be because of the mess on the carpet, right?

  • Paul66

    There is already legal protection for people to protect themselves or another or their homes in NZ Law. Section 48 of the Crimes Act 1961 Self Defence or Defence of another and Section 55 for Defence of a Dwellinghouse. Provided they use such reasonable force for the circumstances as they believe them to be.

    • nasska

      Agree that there is provision for “reasonable force” to be used in self defense. Where the theory comes unglued is that the police invariably collect their evidence & let the courts sort out the rights & wrongs.

      It’s not hard to understand their position but if you’re the poor bugger who’s family has been threatened woe betide you. A couple of years of suspense waiting for a court hearing & the attendant legal costs which will surely bankrupt you.

      Given that the Poms are a crim cuddling pack of socialists, probably worse than our political nannies, it is amazing that their current proposal to strengthen the position of those acting spontaneously to defend lives has seen the light of day.The legal position in NZ has to be defined better, not just dealt with on case by case basis.

      • Paul66

        I think you will find that over the years, except for the more dodgy cases, (like shooting a burglar in the back who is running for his car) very few people have ever been prosecuted for protecting themselves or their family etc.
        That’s not to say that the Police have not investigated them properly, as they should. They also have to be able to justify the decision not to prosecute, as you infer, the bleeding hearts are always willing to complain about the Police or further erode our rights to protect ourselves.
        I’m not convinced that this is a “one size fits all” type of area of the law nor am I convinced, based on the last 51 years (Crimes Act 1961). That this area is not adequately provided for, both in Legislation and Common Law

  • Steve (North Shore)

    Pete George will be along soon with a lecture about how not to lose your gun licence.
    That’s the Pete George that sits on the fence full time.