nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Mass shooting New Zealand Mosque - MOD NOTE POST #1

MeMen2_MoRi_

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/live-mass-shooting-christchurch-mosque-police-respond-active-shooter-situation

Rip to all involved.

Filmed himself doing it and videos are on the net/YouTube.

Mod Note:

Please do not propagate videos or links to manifestos in this thread. Given the seriousness and impact of this event, its just not appropriate right now.

Given this happened this morning, i dont want any victim blaming or conspiracy theories that have no direct basis or backing in fact..

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Does anyone else think the media covering Ardern saying she'll never say the suspects name, to such an extent that it's breaking news, a touch ironic?

His name, while it matters a bit, is largely irrelevant. He's getting more exposure now from the media's coverage.

Wibbs

listermint wrote: »

The only people still promoting fire arms are the usual suspects . They attempt to bog down in symantics.

I'm certainly not "promoting firearms". I don't own nor have ever owned a firearm and outside of a couple of antique firearms I wouldn't mind having as deactivated collectables wouldn't want one and would consider the US right to keep and bear arms an archaic notion for a very different modern world and would no way in hell like to live in an Ireland with a similar gun culture. What I am saying is simple answers to complex questions while comforting are not nearly the panacea many think. As for semantics, how can you propose an answer when you don't understand the basic differences of the items you're talking about?

At least manic recognised that it would be highly unlikely to kill 50 people with a shotgun.

He wrote "Not the same way, no, but you can certainly do damage.", pointing out a mass shooting where somebody did and would have killed many more in different circumstances. The prick was able to kill eleven people and injure three more in a military base, about the hardest target to do something like that in. Consider that the largest mass murder on a US military base was "only" two more victims killed and that prick was using "military grade automatic weapons".

Should New Zealand tighten up her gun legislation? Yes, of course. It seems to me at least that the existing laws are way too lax, when a non resident can register and buy any gun(s) barely a wet day in the place. In his native Australia it would have been far more difficult for him to do it.

gozunda

For anyone who believes Islamic terrorists have difficulty accessing illegal firearms in Europe.

the situation was such that Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the alleged planner of the November attacks in Paris, had no difficulties at all obtaining weapons. Abaaoud died five days after the attacks when police stormed his hideout, but three months prior to the attacks, in August 2015, Reda H., who had returned from Syria, provided testimony about Abaaoud to the French secret service agency DGSI. "He told me that I should find a soft target, a concert, for example, a place with lots of people," Reda H. said of Abaaoud. When it came to weapons, "he said that accessing weapons was no problem at all. I should just tell him what I needed. I think they had a supply network."

From the Spiegel article linked earlier.

CabanSail

A very good speech today by Jacinda Ardhern in the Parliament. Worth looking at the whole thing.

She has said that she will never speak the name of the terrorist who perpetrated these horrific acts as that is what he desires. She is urging others to do the same.

There are a lot of poor politicians around. It is refreshing when you see a good one.

listermint

The only people still promoting fire arms are the usual suspects . They attempt to bog down in symantics.

At least manic recognised that it would be highly unlikely to kill 50 people with a shotgun.

The whole point of legislation is to minimise or remove risk.

So yes as stated semi automatic weapons have to be addressed. Enough with the symantics because that's all that's left oh that an pretending that reacting to these incidents with legislation is knee jerk. It's not at least admit that.

This knee has been hit many many times before and hasn't moved.

Manic Moran

Surely something like that is an accident waiting to happen though? Like if some looper in Germany is determined to kill people but can't lay their hands on a gun then a trip over the border to Czech, spend a few weeks setting themselves up there like a resident and then they get the permit and gun and go back to Germany to commit an atrocity. Not saying its easy but with open borders it sounds do-able and could be a single best option for a lone wolf who doesnt have criminal underworld connections to get their hands on a weapon

No, not quite that simple. It works one direction, but not the other. If you went on a daytrip from Germany to Prague, and tried to buy a firearm, they would ask you to provide proof of a German license for that sort of firearm. It is theoretically possible for an EU citizen to be resident long enough to be considered domestic and get a permit that way, but the looper would have to plan ahead, a long way ahead.

Think of it as a "Guns welcome" sign. They won't help you get your gun, but they won't stop you bringing yours along with you if you pass their basic requirements of a background check, doctor's note and proficiency check, and then you can go out on the town in Prague with it (That said, being drunk with a firearm can lead to some draconian punishment). Thus the Czech policy is of far more practical use to someone from, say, Crete or Germany, where handguns are more easily available than someone in Ireland.

As an example of the cultural difference, you know the way most people on Boards scoff at the idea common in America that there is safety in more people carrying guns? The President of the Czech Republic two years ago, shortly after the Paris attack, urged those with permits to carry, and for others to arm themselves, as a defense system against terrorist attack. There are a quarter million carry permit holders in the population of ten million.

Muahahaha

tuxy wrote: »

Australians can visit, study, work and live in New Zealand without applying for a visa. They have the same rights as a national.

Yeah I know they have reciprocal rights between citizens, when I lived there the Aussies were forever howling on about the amount of Kiwi surf bums on the east coast claiming the Australian dole. I just didn't think it would extend all the way to gun rights.

Manic Moran wrote: »

As an EU national (presumably) you can obtain a permit to carry a pistol in the Czech Republic (It's a non-discretionary permit, if you meet the basic criteria, it must be issued). They don't seem to have had many issues with that sort of policy over the years. In the US similarly you must be a permanent resident.

Surely something like that is an accident waiting to happen though? Like if some looper in Germany is determined to kill people but can't lay their hands on a gun then a trip over the border to Czech, spend a few weeks setting themselves up there like a resident and then they get the permit and gun and go back to Germany to commit an atrocity. Not saying its easy but with open borders it sounds do-able and could be a single best option for a lone wolf who doesnt have criminal underworld connections to get their hands on a weapon.

Manic Moran

The latest I've heard is that of five fireams used in New Zealand, four were legally posessed, the fifth (the AR) was not. At least, not in the condition it was in. The shooter's permit apparently did not extent to purchasing/posessing MSSAs.

It appears that the Kiwi definition of "Military Style Semi-Auto" is kindof similar to the US "Assault weapon" definition, in that it is what in Ireland I have heard of an "IdunLikeDaLoookaDat" categeory: It is down to the configuration, which is easily changed. Operative word "Style", defined as "a distinctive appearance".

The problem is basically that which Wibbs has attacked above. There are various firearms which people look at and believe have no place in civilian hands. Usually they are black and plastic-furnished. However, mechanically, they are the same as semi-autos which the same people also recognise have numerous acceptable civilian use, which are usually wooden furnished, so the laws tend to be based on appearance.
It took me between 20 to 30 seconds to change one of my rifles from California-safe 'not-an-assault-weapon', to 'an evil weapon of mass murder suitable only for the military' when I left California. Apparently this is similar to what happened in NZ.

You cannot kill 50 targets with a shotgun like that. Yes I know full well shotguns are plentiful in Ireland. My father in law has a few of them. Beautiful weapons in fact.

Not the same way, no, but you can certainly do damage. The Washington Navy Yard shooter killed 11 with a shotgun. It was an office building, so he just went door to door shooting one or two people at a time instead of basically shooting a massed target. The only reason the toll wasn't higher was that since Alexis was shooting up a navy base, armed security were already in the vicinity and got to him before he could get to anyone else.

And like I asked before are shotguns OK? They're about the easiest firearm to legally hold, even in Ireland. They can cause truly horrendous wounds in close quarters. They're actually circumscribed in their use in war by The Hague and Geneva Conventions,

Eh? No they're not. Germany claimed that they were when the US started using them in WW1, but that opinion has never been shared or upheld. Shotguns are still issued to combat troops today.

Anyway, we'll see what actually changes in New Zealand. The country has an estimated one unregistered firearm for every three people, sensible lawmaking will reflect this reality. I suspect the laws are not going to end up being 'Australia' levels of restriction.

Whatever about a NZ citizen getting a gun license you'd have to wonder about them giving them out to people who weren't born there.

As an EU national (presumably) you can obtain a permit to carry a pistol in the Czech Republic (It's a non-discretionary permit, if you meet the basic criteria, it must be issued). They don't seem to have had many issues with that sort of policy over the years. In the US similarly you must be a permanent resident.

tuxy

Muahahaha wrote: »

Whatever about a NZ citizen getting a gun license you'd have to wonder about them giving them out to people who weren't born there.

Australians can visit, study, work and live in New Zealand without applying for a visa. They have the same rights as a national.

Muahahaha

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.

Whatever about a NZ citizen getting a gun license you'd have to wonder about them giving them out to people who weren't born there.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

If you showed that in some places, they would assume you were a Nazi.

Likewise, the swastika is often used in many Asian countries as a Buddhist symbol. I saw it regularly in Korea. It's innocent there. But not in the west.

The Nazis appropriated the swastika from Hindu culture where it has existed for thousands of years. Buddhists use it too, it represents well being

Tacklebox

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

If you showed that in some places, they would assume you were a Nazi.

Likewise, the swastika is often used in many Asian countries as a Buddhist symbol. I saw it regularly in Korea. It's innocent there. But not in the west.

Probably part of some gang or something, talk about being a target, I'll turn them into something else with a marker in public lol

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Tacklebox wrote: »

I hope not as I've 5 of them tattooed on a Celtic grave yard design on my back shoulder

If you showed that in some places, they would assume you were a Nazi.

Likewise, the swastika is often used in many Asian countries as a Buddhist symbol. I saw it regularly in Korea. It's innocent there. But not in the west.

Tacklebox

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

The celtic cross is now a well known symbol of white supremacists in many places. This is annoying for Irish people but if they are using it as a racist symbol it will effectively become one.

I hope not as I've 5 of them tattooed on a Celtic grave yard design on my back shoulder

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Grayson wrote: »

The point is that if a load of far right people keep using the same symbol to try and make everyone else think it's a far right symbol, then it has infact become a far right symbol.

If everyone in Ireland started saying "Top of the morning" as a greeting tomorrow, even if it's tongue in cheek, then it would quite rightly be recognised as an Irish thing, even if it started out as a joke.

The celtic cross is now a well known symbol of white supremacists in many places. This is annoying for Irish people but if they are using it as a racist symbol it will effectively become one.

briany

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yet the same people don't apply the same logic to gun owners. 99.9% or more of gun owners are law abiding citizens and use their guns for lawful purposes yet when some gobsh1te goes and does something crazy, then people say ban guns.

If 2nd amendment people in the States want to interpret the term 'gun control' as 'ban guns', there's probably not a lot that can be said to change their minds.

It seems to me that NRA types in the States don't seem to favour much preventative measures when it comes to mass shooters because they're afraid it'll be used as an excuse to impinge upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners. But it also seems that they're not willing to have a conversation on mental health and what kind of reasonable preventative measures could be taken to stop a maniac amassing a collection of weapons. I think the tacit position is that having the occasional massacre is worth it so that the other 99.9 percent of law-abiding gun owners can continue to own guns.

Out of all the things that get blamed for massacres, i.e. guns, Islam, video games, Marilyn Manson, et al, the real common denominator is poor mental health.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

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.

Ok, it would be nice if you ackowledged my point.

tuxy wrote: »

The OK symbol is used by just about everyone, the people who started the joke did so because of it's popularity and use in everyday life. You can find pictures of many famous people using the symbol, so now you can convince extreme left media that those people are white supremacist.
So yes this symbol will be seen as a white supremacist symbol by those that want to see that and and will cause all kinds of confusion because I don't see it declining in use to mean OK.

As is mentioned in the part I quoted from the video, that's kind of the point. It confuses people.

tuxy

fly_agaric wrote: »

I think if they could somehow get hold of weapons more easily (if Europe was more like the US?) they would all be using them. Most of the attempts with knives and vehicles + trying to make homemade explosives have not been very "successful" compared to what the more capable ones who actually managed to get hold of guns have "achieved".

I agree except for some of the bombing incidents that killed far more than were killed in New Zealand.

fly_agaric

tuxy wrote: »

Exactly, it's all about maximising profits for drug gangs. You may hear many reasons given for feuds between gangs but really it only comes down to control of territory. And generally it's only for feuds that they use guns.
Very good point about Islamic extremists in Europe seemly unable to get their hands on guns. Maybe if they tried hard enough they could get their hands on gun but why bother when you can do plenty of damage with bombs, cars and even knifes.
Be honest if you had the money and wanted to get a gun fast how would you go about it? I personally wouldn't know where to start and even if I did I would probably just end up getting myself in trouble.

I think if they could somehow get hold of weapons more easily (if Europe was more like the US?) they would all be using them. Most of the attempts with knives and vehicles + trying to make homemade explosives have not been very "successful" compared to what the more capable ones who actually managed to get hold of guns have "achieved".

edit: I remember reading this about where the guns originated from for attacks in France:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/following-the-path-of-the-paris-terror-weapons-a-1083461.html

tuxy

BattleCorp wrote: »

People become outraged when someone mentions Muslims and terrorism in the same sentence. They say that you can't blame the 99.9% of peace loving Muslims for the actions of the .1% of head cases.

Yet the same people don't apply the same logic to gun owners. 99.9% or more of gun owners are law abiding citizens and use their guns for lawful purposes yet when some gobsh1te goes and does something crazy, then people say ban guns.

Very true but in most countries gun owners are a minority and politicians want votes.

BattleCorp

People become outraged when someone mentions Muslims and terrorism in the same sentence. They say that you can't blame the 99.9% of peace loving Muslims for the actions of the .1% of head cases.

Yet the same people don't apply the same logic to gun owners. 99.9% or more of gun owners are law abiding citizens and use their guns for lawful purposes yet when some gobsh1te goes and does something crazy, the first thing called for is a gun ban. Blame the 99.9% for the actions of the 0.1%

Wibbs

tuxy wrote: »

Very good point about Islamic extremists in Europe seemly unable to get their hands on guns.

Not really T. In the Charlie Hebdo and the November 2015 Paris(Bataclan) terrorist attacks they used guns, actual military grade selective fire* weapons too.

*can be switched between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire(civilian versions are limited to semiautomatic). AK47's or their variants IIRC.

gozunda

fly_agaric wrote: »

I've wondered about this. The Islamists seem (to me) to have struggled to get hold of guns in Europe for their attacks. So perhaps drug dealers etc (who I presume do have the weapons) do indeed give a proverbial about who they supply their guns to?
If there were some more Paris type massacres and authorities track the weapons used back to criminals selling drugs, they will have the police, the intelligence agencies (+ perhaps armies??) of several EU countries after them as priority no. 1, no expense or resources spared. They'd be out of business and in jail (or dead?) quite quickly.

I was referring more to here tbh. As to Europe I have read that firearms are sometimes smuggled across land borders. As to their availability there I reckon it could be more that increased security especially in France etc means that firearms are increasingly hard to move around. Hence the more recent move to things like knives and vehicles which can also make lethal weapons especially in areas with large populations.

Wibbs

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I would say yes tbh. No ordinary citizen needs a military grade weapon. There’s absolutely no reason to have one.

Define "military grade".

listermint wrote: »

And to come back to you comparing shotguns and semi-automatic weapons.

Christ on a bike.

You cannot kill 50 targets with a shotgun like that. Yes I know full well shotguns are plentiful in Ireland. My father in law has a few of them. Beautiful weapons in fact.

Semi-automatic weapons have no business being in the Public hands. It's not knee jerk. Mass murder is ubiquitous now the weapon of choice being semi-automatic rifles. What's knee jerk about finally bothering to take these weapon's out of public hands
Knee jerk ... Pull the other one fella

"Christ on a bike" yourself. You have at best an extremely rudimentary knowledge about the firearms you reference. To you "semiautomatic" = "military grade" and "machine guns". So the "Beautiful weapons" shotguns are OK in your book? Again which type? A pump action shotgun could easily cause mass casualties. Walk through a building full of terrified men, women and children with even a double barrelled shotgun and a load of shells and you could kill and injure scores of people. What about a lever action rifle? They're not "semiautomatics", but can lay down quite a bit of fire. Somebody with a lever action Winchester could let off rounds at the same rate of fire as the firearms that lunatic used.

listermint wrote: »

I'm aware

Also as you are aware there are restrictions

Oh yeah like who's gonna be bound more by restrictions? The honest gun owner or the lunatic/criminal?

But you'll stick to your guns(no pun) no matter what, or how basic your knowledge is.

tuxy

fly_agaric wrote: »

I've wondered about this. The Islamists seem (to me) have struggled to get hold of guns in Europe for their attacks. So perhaps drug dealers etc (who I presume do have the weapons) do indeed give a proverbial about who they supply their guns to?
If there were some more Paris type massacres and authorities track the weapons used back to criminals selling drugs, they will have the police, the intelligence agencies (+ perhaps armies) of several EU countries after them as priority no. 1, no expense or resources spared. They'd be out of business and in jail (or dead?) quite quickly.

Exactly, it's all about maximising profits for drug gangs. You may hear many reasons given for feuds between gangs but really it only comes down to control of territory. And generally it's only for feuds that they use guns.
Very good point about Islamic extremists in Europe seemly unable to get their hands on guns. Maybe if they tried hard enough they could get their hands on gun but why bother when you can do plenty of damage with bombs, cars and even knifes.
Be honest if you had the money and wanted to get a gun fast how would you go about it? I personally wouldn't know where to start and even if I did I would probably just end up getting myself in trouble.

fly_agaric

gozunda wrote: »

Guns are there for the the right money imo. The drug gangs dont give a proverbial...

I've wondered about this. The Islamists seem (to me) to have struggled to get hold of guns in Europe for their attacks. So perhaps drug dealers etc (who I presume do have the weapons) do indeed give a proverbial about who they supply their guns to?
If there were some more Paris type massacres and authorities track the weapons used back to criminals selling drugs, they will have the police, the intelligence agencies (+ perhaps armies??) of several EU countries after them as priority no. 1, no expense or resources spared. They'd be out of business and in jail (or dead?) quite quickly.

BattleCorp

tuxy wrote: »

Do you think semi autos should be banned in Ireland?
Personally I don't care as I don't own one and don't feel strongly about it either way.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I would say yes tbh. No ordinary citizen needs a military grade weapon. There’s absolutely no reason to have one.

There are several sporting competitions run by several different organisations that use semi-auto rifles here in Ireland.

Why do you think that a semi-auto rifle is a military grade weapon? What are you basing this on? Is a semi auto .22lr rifle a military grade weapon? Are you lumping all semi auto firearms into the same category?

tuxy

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I would say yes tbh. No ordinary citizen needs a military grade weapon. There’s absolutely no reason to have one.

We were talking about semi auto not military grade, although I'm not sure what you mean by military grade.

This is something that is common in Ireland and is semi auto

https://www.sportsden.ie/hunting-accesories/gun-showroom/shotguns/franchi-variopress-12g-semi-auto.html

Would you ban it? You would probably see something similar used in the military in poorer countries.

BattleCorp

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 aware

Also as you are aware there are restrictions

You can also legally get a semi auto shotgun here in Ireland with a magazine in excess of 3 rounds if you apply for one on a restricted licence.

AudreyHepburn

tuxy wrote: »

Do you think semi autos should be banned in Ireland?
Personally I don't care as I don't own one and don't feel strongly about it either way.

I would say yes tbh. No ordinary citizen needs a military grade weapon. There’s absolutely no reason to have one.

tuxy

listermint wrote: »

I'm aware

Also as you are aware there are restrictions

Do you think semi autos should be banned in Ireland?
Personally I don't care as I don't own one and don't feel strongly about it either way.