gw80 wrote: » Yes it's the nazi's, Everything you don't like is nazis. Everyone you don't like are nazis. That time you missed the bus,....... nazis That time you stubbed you toe on the coffee table.....nazis did it. That strange noise you here late at night while you are trying to sleep... that's right, nazis under your bed. I can't tell you how many times I've had to chase nazis out of my garden with a big stick when they are trying to get into my bins at night.
tuxy wrote: » You can buy a semi automatic shotgun legally in Ireland. It's not a difficult licence to get as people use them for clay shooting, hunting and pest control. Legally limited to 3 rounds I think but of course the restriction could be removed.https://www.sportsden.ie/hunting-accesories/gun-showroom/shotguns/franchi-variopress-12g-semi-auto.html
listermint wrote: » I'm no world could he have murdered 50 people in that time with the weapons you describe. Semi automatics have no business in the public's hands. None.
Wibbs wrote: » ..
Wibbs wrote: » Unlikely R. More likely is that this - and it seems this is the case - was a spur of the moment opportunistic attack which apparently may have been a personal family matter targeting one or two people, with a handgun. Probably a semiautomatic pistol, though a revolver, even a single action revolver would have resulted in the same outcome(though carry fewer rounds and take longer to reload). In tragedies like that, even kitchen knives would be nearly as lethal, as the surge in knife crimes in the UK shows. Massacres like in New Zealand would require more planning. Weapons wise the same sick prick could likely have caused the same bloody murder with a pair of pump action shotguns, or lever action rifles, firearms which almost certainly won't be hit with whatever new laws the NZ government brings in.
gozunda wrote: » You can't legislate for crazy. More restrictive gun laws unfortunately do not stop the criminally deranged from accessing firearms or using them.
Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: » Are they really confused by it? If the far right are using something as a symbol, even if it's something of a joke, it's functioning as a far right symbol.
RandomName2 wrote: » I wonder if stricter gun laws in the Netherlands was the reason why today's lone wolf ending up with only 3 fatalities, and not the 50 witnessed in Christchurch.
tuxy wrote: » The shooter is still making reference to memes and it's still working He used the OK hand simbol today in court, there has been an ongoing joke to keep posting this symbol on social media to trick the traditional media into thinking this is actually a white supremacists secret sign. The media continue to be confused by it.
Nazis have always taken an interest in occult symbols like the Black Sun on Fritz’s ring, and like the swastika itself, but more obscure symbols can be useful as a kind of secret handshake, a way for fascists to recognize each other, without the normies taking notice. The best symbols to use for this purpose are ones that are not generally associated with fascism, or at least have other meanings, like the Othala rune or the iron cross. Better still are symbols that, until adoption by fascists, are completely innocuous. Modern fascists have taken to using almost arbitrary emoji as a way to wink and nod at each other, most notably the frog (after pepe), the milk, and the ok sign. It doesn’t matter what the symbols are, and in fact it’s important that the symbols constantly change, so that normies don’t catch on. By the time you watch this video, they probably won’t even be using the frog anymore. Maybe it’ll be this. Or this. The only way to find out is to watch fascists carefully and see what symbols they use to identify themselves. And, of course, another advantage of using innocuous symbols is that when leftists try to point those symbols out, the fascist can always say: Fritz: These gullible SJWs now think that even the ok sign is racist. Is there anything they don’t think is racist? And the gullible centrists will be taken right in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx4BVGPkdzk
Boggles wrote: » This stat gets thrown around a lot without clear explanation. There is more guns but far less gun ownership. i.e less people have guns.
tuxy wrote: » No but they are happy to spend €50k or more for a rifle that's worth €2k and are only interested in making money not mass killings.
Without the right criminal connection you can#t even find someone willing to talk to you about illegal gun. The drug gangs that deal in these gun have too much to loose by selling to civilians.
gozunda wrote: » This guy seemed to have plenty of connections imo.
gozunda wrote: » The criminal underclass here funnily enough do not bother with firearms licences btw
tuxy wrote: » Every weapon he had is currently legal in New Zealand, it's stupid to say he would have tried to buy these guns illegally when he had a licence to just go buy them in a shop. Could you give me more info about the "connections" he had?
Wibbs wrote: » Today Australia has more registered firearms than it had before the law charge
gozunda wrote: » Afaik certain types of firesrms are still restricted there. Btw I'm not saying he didn't go the full legal route- just we have no idea whether all his firearms were legally obtained or otherwise. The New Zealand police apoear to have linked him to other 'activists aka contacts. That is as much as I know.
tuxy wrote: » In New Zealand the person is licenced not the gun. So once he got his licence he could go in and buy all the guns he wanted. Why would he go to the trouble and extra cost of getting illegal guns? What connections does he have? I'm unaware of any criminal links he had before this.
gozunda wrote: » Interestingly we do not know if all the guns he had were even legal tbh.
listermint wrote: » I've all the time in the world for sporting weapons rifles or sport pistols .
gozunda wrote: » This guy seemed to have plenty of connections imo. It really doesn't seem to be that hard to obtain non licensed firearms imo
tuxy wrote: » I believe it does, usually these people don't have the criminal connections to obtain illegal guns. But of course there are still bombs and cars and just about anything if you have a good imagination. He must be very happy as gun control was one of his core objectives.
strandroad wrote: » Was it, why? Genuine question. I would have thought that guns are quite a thing for right wing extremists; Islamists seem to prefer vehicles or explosives.
tuxy wrote: » He must be very happy as gun control was one of his core objectives.
listermint wrote: » Excellent work by the NZ prime minister. Straight away changing gun laws. No one needs a semi automatic rifle. I've said it before and I'll say it again there is zero need for that sort of weapon at all in a domestic setting. It's not required for sport it's not required for anything. It's a mechanical toy for people who want to play with it. I've all the time in the world for sporting weapons rifles or sport pistols . But anything else is ego stoking and there no excuses for it.
GinAndBitter wrote: » For the benefit of International news agencies not familiar with the law in NZ I presume.
