No critical analysis behind gun buy-back scheme
We are about to spend a $1 billion on the gun buy-back scheme, a scheme that will also tie up huge amounts of police time and resources that could be employed elsewhere. Where is the critical analysis that this is value for money or that it makes us safer?
We bought into this scheme during a time of stress, fear and grieving and on the basis that it would make us safer. This situation has created vastly more illegal guns. It has forced more guns under the radar. Criminals and terrorists almost always use illegal, untraceable guns, the ones we now have more of. Over 95 per cent of deaths and serious injury caused by guns are caused by illegal guns. Countries where most of the guns are in the hands of the police and criminals have societies that New Zealanders would not choose to live in but that appears to be where we are headed. Why isn’t the Government being forthcoming with the facts behind its policy on gun ownership? History shows that governments which place ever tighter restrictions on its people, gradually taking away rights and freedoms, are eventually to the detriment of us all. After guns, what’s next? Robin Wakeling Karori, Wellington
Rising sea levels
Reference the letter from Councillor Bailey, June 22, 2019, Climate Emergency. He makes a number of serious assertions, without general or specific supporting evidence. To clarify my own thinking, I seek his help. I wish to understand the rationale and evidence for his assertion that “rising sea levels will flood much of Napier”, so I have some questions.
1. Does he have a time frame over which such an event is likely to occur?
2. Is his assertion based on modelling or actual measurement?
3. If modelling algorithms are used, can he detail the assumptions and corrections that are used in their formulation?
4. Does he have any resulting data to support his claim?
5. Can he compare and contrast for me, and your readers, the specific evidence for his assertion in relation to the international evidence below?
The PSMSL (Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level) data shows the na¨ıve averaging of all the tide gauges worldwide included in the PSMSL surveys show “relative” rates of sea level rise about +1.04mm/year (570 tide gauges of any length). If only the 100 tide gauges with more than 80 years of recording are considered, the rise is only +0.25mm/ year. The na¨ıve averaging of this actual tide measurement data over this period has been stable, and shows that the sea levels are slowly rising but not accelerating. (A Parker & C D Collier). This represents 25mm (about an inch) per century. The mean sea level trend measured at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour is 0.65mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1886 to 2010, which is equivalent to a change of 2.5 inches per century. He comments that HBRC “plan and put money aside for many things”, which is prudent, however in the light of the actual sea level data collected internationally for over 80 years showing a sea level rise of around 2.5cm a century, and not accelerating, it is my view that adding to our HBRC rates by putting money aside now, may be premature.
Could Councillor Bailey could enlighten me by answering the questions above? Rowan Ogg Hastings