Mass shooting New Zealand Mosque - MOD NOTE POST #1

lbc2019

Boggles wrote: »

Gaybo never hosted Saturday Night Live, As far as I am aware.

I cant believe you missed that episode- he played Dev in a skit

Manic Moran

So as I am reading the new proposals for what is to be prohibited, and comparing with how we are doing things in California these days.

Other than the fact that California permits up to ten rounds in a semi-auto with non-detachable magazine and New Zealand says 7, the list of prohibited features is generally identical (pistol grips, flash hiders, bayonet lugs etc) I believe these will remain legal under a Category A license, the most basic type the New Zealanders issue.



Quite what the benefit is to banning those features I can’t say, but stupidity aside, it’s the law, so we work with it. Some such features can be home made and screwed on. Bayonet lugs, which cannot, don’t seem to have any practicable danger.

The magazines are not detachable. It used to be that California law defined “detachable” as “can be removed without use of a tool”, but when it was demonstrated that it was possible to use a tool in about a half second to do it, they changed the definition to “any ammunition feeding device which can be removed from the firearms without disassembly of the firing action”.

So now it adds an extra second or so. (And can easily be worked around back to normal configuration if someone with ill intent has a will to do it)

But, hey, everyone feels safer.

BBFAN

The amount of people in here trying to show off their knowledge of guns is disturbing.

I really don't want to know.

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote:

The amount of people in here trying to show off their knowledge of guns is disturbing.

BBFAN wrote:

I really don't want to know.

Why? Why would you not want to learn from people who have knowledge?

BBFAN

Deleted User wrote: »

Why? Why would you not want to learn from people who have knowledge?

Why would I want to learn about guns, their calibre, appearance etc.????

You're confused that not everyone needs to know this crap???

I along with probably 95% of the population will never touch a gun and will never have any need or want to do so.

This thread is about a mass murderer, how does that translate into a debate into the types of guns, appearance of guns, calibre, blah blah blah.

It's just a big bollix type of conversation to have which has nothing to do with the thread subject.

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote:

It's just a big bollix type of conversation to have which has nothing to do with the thread subject.

The new gun laws imposed in new Zealand have a lot to do with this thread. Many are lauding their government for their "quick action" but people who know more about the subject are highlighting that it seems like lip service and not an actual fix.

Kind of important if you ask me.

BBFAN

Deleted User wrote: »

The new gun laws imposed in new Zealand have a lot to do with this thread. Many are lauding their government for their "quick action" but people who know more about the subject are highlighting that it seems like lip service and not an actual fix.

Kind of important if you ask me.

"people who know more about the subject" in whose opinion???

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote:

"people who know more about the subject" in whose opinion???

People who own guns, people who know about calibres of guns...

You know, the very people who you asked to not talk about stuff they know because you feel it's not important.

Manic Moran

BBFAN wrote: »

The amount of people in here trying to show off their knowledge of guns is disturbing.

I really don't want to know.

Well, if you don't want to know, you obviously cannot comment on the legislation purported to fix the problem. As near as I can tell, the new proposed regulation, had it been in force before now, would have done basically nothing to stop this shooting, the man planned well in advance and converted his category A rifle to a category E rifle. It demonstrates a lack of knowledge of how modern firearms are constructed.

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote:

"people who know more about the subject" in whose opinion???

Having more knowledge isn't an opinion. It's measurable.

BBFAN

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, if you don't want to know, you obviously cannot comment on the legislation purported to fix the problem. As near as I can tell, the new proposed regulation, had it been in force before now, would have done basically nothing to stop this shooting. It demonstrates a lack of knowledge of how modern firearms are constructed.

You're correct, I can't comment on the legislation and neither do I pretend I can. That's the point I'm making. :rolleyes:

It's of no interest to 95% of the population as I've pointed out already.

BBFAN

Deleted User wrote: »

Having more knowledge isn't an opinion. It's measurable.

No it's not because you don't know what knowledge the people who came up with the legislation have. How could you possibly know that?

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote:

It's of no interest to 95% of the population as I've pointed out already.

Well your statistics are made up and I think you are wrong. Most people care about what happened and would like to know if law changes are going to make a difference.

But maybe in mad.

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote:

No it's not because you don't know what knowledge the people who came up with the legislation have. How could you possibly know that?

You are spectacularly missing the point. The posters here have noticed that there are glaring holes in the new legislation and are pointing them out using facts.

I for one am glad to learn from them

GinAndBitter

Pilly is just popping in and out of threads telling people he doesn't want to know anything :pac:

BBFAN

Deleted User wrote: »

You are spectacularly missing the point. The posters here have noticed that there are glaring holes in the new legislation and are pointing them out using facts.

I for one am glad to learn from them

Good man.

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote:

Good man.

Thanks?

StinkyMunkey

No surprise to hear NZ are banning military grade weapons. It was the obvious course of action and the only logical one. Granted there are a serious amount of these weapons of war in circulation, but like with the curing of all diseases, you have to start somewhere.

10 years down the road this tragedy will be a bad memory with the chances of it happening again greatly reduced because of the new legislation brought in today.

Manic Moran

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

No surprise to hear NZ are banning military grade weapons. It was the obvious course of action and the only logical one. Granted there are a serious amount of these weapons of war in circulation, but like with the curing of all diseases, you have to start somewhere.

10 years down the road this tragedy will be a bad memory with the chances of it happening again greatly reduced because of the new legislation brought in today.

Are they? See above.

davedanon

Hector Savage wrote: »

New Zealand bookshop has banned Jordan Petersons book in response to the attacks.
How can they even BEGIN to blame JP for this ?

Does anyone need an actual pretext to ban Big Jord's appallingly tedious tomes???

I think not.

davedanon

Zorya wrote: »

If you could say exactly what ''Islamophobia'' triggered that monster, the terms for discussion might be clearer. Because if you are refering to regular normal human discussion and analysis of topics of current interest, including radical Islam or any thing under the sun, then no, this is not ''Islamophobia'' and if it triggered this guy then we may as well shut up shop and go inside altogether. So why would one wear a hijab to show apology for Islamophobia that they do not participate in?

I'm struggling to understand this gobbledegook, but, one thing seems clear. This guy went to mosques, where Muslims would be present, and shot a load of Muslims. This would seem to indicate some degree of Islamophobia, no?

Wibbs

BBFAN wrote: »

You're correct, I can't comment on the legislation and neither do I pretend I can. That's the point I'm making. :rolleyes:

It's of no interest to 95% of the population as I've pointed out already.

So you're happy to remain ignorant on a subject you appear to show this much interest in? OK. Not exactly uncommon, hence the one flaw with democracy, but OK. Then again this wasn't a democratic vote, much less an informed one.

Wibbs

davedanon wrote: »

Does anyone need an actual pretext to ban Big Jord's appallingly tedious tomes???

I think not.

Kermit is outa pocket on voiceover work on the back of this, but nobody thinks of the frog. Lily pads have mortgages too you know, you froggist.

Pretzeluck

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

No surprise to hear NZ are banning military grade weapons. It was the obvious course of action and the only logical one. Granted there are a serious amount of these weapons of war in circulation, but like with the curing of all diseases, you have to start somewhere.

10 years down the road this tragedy will be a bad memory with the chances of it happening again greatly reduced because of the new legislation brought in today.

Yeah **** responsible gun owners.

kowloon

Jumping into legislation without putting in the work and taking time often works out badly. Politicians are under pressure to make it look like something is being done even if it has little effect.
An example from Irish law that gets on my wick: The government managed to make the vast majority of breech-loading rifles manufactured before the 1880s restricted. They're in a higher licence category than the majority of modern hunting and target rifles and even some military rifles because antiques were never defined in the legislation.
This leaves us in a situation where anyone can go to an antiques shop in Northern Ireland and buy something which is in our highest licence category. The result is many people (and some businesses) just ignore the law entirely because it's stupid.
People will ignore stupid laws and it will normalise breaking them.
Properly thought out laws that aren't deemed moronic require people who are well informed and given time to do their job. Banning a stock style or a particular rifle because it 'looks dangerous' will achieve nothing other than making it look like something was done so everyone can feel safe and forget about it until the next mass shooting.

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote: »

Why would I want to learn about guns, their calibre, appearance etc.????

You're confused that not everyone needs to know this crap???

I along with probably 95% of the population will never touch a gun and will never have any need or want to do so.

Sure why know anything about anything.

Knowing the rules of soccer when you don't even play.. Fool. Knowing stuff about history when you don't even have a time machine.. Madness.

mvl

Deleted User wrote: »

The new gun laws imposed in new Zealand have a lot to do with this thread. Many are lauding their government for their "quick action" but people who know more about the subject are highlighting that it seems like lip service and not an actual fix.

Kind of important if you ask me.

very useful summary, thanks.

Zorya

The word 'Islamophobia' ws created by Islamists to silence Muslims who want to cleanse Islam of polygamy, Arab supremacy, FGM, Ayatullahs, Kings, Sharia law, & Mullahs who pray in mosque sermons for defeat of Kafirs (Hindus Jews Christians) at the hands of Muslims. - Tarek Fatah

Omackeral

BBFAN wrote: »

You're correct, I can't comment on the legislation and neither do I pretend I can. That's the point I'm making. :rolleyes:

It's of no interest to 95% of the population as I've pointed out already.

You've no bother pretending to know the interests of the entire nation. Who made you the statistician of the country? Are you working for the CSO? Especially loved the "As I've pointed out already" follow up, as if it's just a given fact. Hilarious.

super_furry

kowloon wrote: »

Jumping into legislation without putting in the work and taking time often works out badly. Politicians are under pressure to make it look like something is being done even if it has little effect.
An example from Irish law that gets on my wick: The government managed to make the vast majority of breech-loading rifles manufactured before the 1880s restricted. They're in a higher licence category than the majority of modern hunting and target rifles and even some military rifles because antiques were never defined in the legislation.
This leaves us in a situation where anyone can go to an antiques shop in Northern Ireland and buy something which is in our highest licence category. The result is many people (and some businesses) just ignore the law entirely because it's stupid.
People will ignore stupid laws and it will normalise breaking them.
Properly thought out laws that aren't deemed moronic require people who are well informed and given time to do their job. Banning a stock style or a particular rifle because it 'looks dangerous' will achieve nothing other than making it look like something was done so everyone can feel safe and forget about it until the next mass shooting.

A better example would be Dunblane.