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

Cookie_Monster

Gael23 wrote: »

What will happen to him then?

life in solitary. It's been noted already that other inmates have said they will target him if they come across him

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12214737

tuxy

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

life in solitary. It's been noted already that other inmates have said they will target him if they come across him

Probably right.
People who have harmed children in any way are often targets in general population.

Tigerbaby

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47642298

Can we have a vote on what should be done to this Terrorist?

Can we have the (rightly) Hearfelt, tear-jerking response as we had in NZ?

What about the Copts in Egypt or the Christians in Nigeria or Syria?

Do Christians not matter?

OBVS

Gael23

tuxy wrote: »

Probably right.
People who have harmed children in any way are often targets in general population.

Could he be taken to another country or something for his own safety?

SoundsRight

tuxy wrote: »

Probably right.
People who have harmed children in any way are often targets in general population.

I don't think he'd be viewed as a child killer in the same way as Ian Huntley or such like. Just a mad 'un. I'm sure there's certain inmates who would like to keep him on their side.

tuxy

Gael23 wrote: »

Could he be taken to another country or something for his own safety?

No, there is only one place that he could go legally and that is extradition to Australia. Massive headache legally and would make New Zealand look bad for not taking care of its responsibility. I don't know if Australia could punish him for a crime that happened elsewhere.
He would be safe in solitary, the chances of staff causing him harm would be very slim.

Gael23

So he is likely to be in solitary confinement for the rest of his life?

I feel very sorry for his family who are victims too. A mother’s love is unconditional and all that.

BBFAN

SoundsRight wrote: »

I don't think he'd be viewed as a child killer in the same way as Ian Huntley or such like. Just a mad 'un. I'm sure there's certain inmates who would like to keep him on their side.

"Just a mad un"??????

WTF is wrong with you????

BattleCorp

BBFAN wrote: »

SoundsRight wrote: »

I don't think he'd be viewed as a child killer in the same way as Ian Huntley or such like. Just a mad 'un. I'm sure there's certain inmates who would like to keep him on their side.

"Just a mad un"??????

WTF is wrong with you????

Well pointing a rifle at a child and pulling the trigger isn't something a normal sane person would do.

Not excusing the pr1ck by the way. He should rot in a 5x5 box for the rest of his life.

[Deleted User]

He should never see the light of day again, and whoever was commenting favorably at his actions on the live-stream should also be rounded up and chemically lobotomized.

Wibbs

Tigerbaby wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47642298

Can we have a vote on what should be done to this Terrorist?

Well TB in the other thread on this I said my immediate reaction was to string him up from the nearest lamppost. My cerebral bit took over and wants to see him charged, tried and convicted and punished accordingly. But the lamppost is still in the mix. Unless the man is genuinely disturbed and suffered a mental break.

What about the Copts in Egypt or the Christians in Nigeria or Syria?

Do Christians not matter?

Oh I hear you. A couple of hundred Christians in Nigeria have been shot and hacked to death with machetes in the last few weeks. I was gonna kick off a thread on it, but thought what was the point, for a few reasons. However TB, the plain and completely understandable fact about our human natures is that a tragedy affects us all far more when it's in familiar surroundings. In many ways we like to think the "evil" is out there, among the alien, the "primitive", not in our civilisation, surely? The photos of the aftermath of this tragedy in New Zealand could be where we live in quiet squinting windows they've got the builders in y'know suburbia and that hits home much harder and resonates far more.

A small village in Nigeria? It should, but it just doesn't. Even when it does it is usually a few lone voices and there is often an air of patronisation to it. One way where the current "left/right" and other idealogical divide nonsense has commonality is both do the above, our own backyard thinking and when they do regard such things it's almost always to score points for their "side" rather than begin reasoned debate.

Danzy

Wibbs wrote: »

Well TB in the other thread on this I said my immediate reaction was to string him up from the nearest lamppost. My cerebral bit took over and wants to see him charged, tried and convicted and punished accordingly. But the lamppost is still in the mix. Unless the man is genuinely disturbed and suffered a mental break.

Oh I hear you. A couple of hundred Christians in Nigeria have been shot and hacked to death with machetes in the last few weeks. I was gonna kick off a thread on it, but thought what was the point, for a few reasons. However TB, the plain and completely understandable fact about our human natures is that a tragedy affects us all far more when it's in familiar surroundings. In many ways we like to think the "evil" is out there, among the alien, the "primitive", not in our civilisation, surely? The photos of the aftermath of this tragedy in New Zealand could be where we live in quiet squinting windows they've got the builders in y'know suburbia and that hits home much harder and resonates far more.

A small village in Nigeria? It should, but it just doesn't. Even when it does it is usually a few lone voices and there is often an air of patronisation to it. One way where the current "left/right" and other idealogical divide nonsense has commonality is both do the above, our own backyard thinking and when they do regard such things it's almost always to score points for their "side" rather than begin reasoned debate.

The reality is Islamic terrorism no longer shocks, or exited reaction. It is now common and expècted.

This reactionary attack is not, so it stands out.

Pero_Bueno

Tigerbaby wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47642298

Can we have a vote on what should be done to this Terrorist?

Can we have the (rightly) Hearfelt, tear-jerking response as we had in NZ?

What about the Copts in Egypt or the Christians in Nigeria or Syria?

Do Christians not matter?

OBVS

Should we blame all Senegalese for this ?
since some media outlets are saying we should blame all white Australians for the NZ shootings.

SoundsRight

BBFAN wrote: »

"Just a mad un"??????

WTF is wrong with you????

I haven't seen any headline refer to him as a child killer. That moniker is attached to those who only kill children.

batgoat

SoundsRight wrote: »

I haven't seen any headline refer to him as a child killer. That moniker is attached to those who only kill children.

Killing children and adults doesn't act as a sudden improvement.

Cookie_Monster

And semi-autos are to be banned by Monday
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12214988

See, it's not difficult to take action, pity it'll cost $100 million plus...

"Cabinet agreed to overhaul the law when it met on Monday, 72 hours after the horrific terrorism act in Christchurch. Now, six days after this attack, we are announcing a ban on all military style semi-automatics (MSSA) and assault rifles in New Zealand.

"Related parts used to convert these guns into MSSAs are also being banned, along with all high-capacity magazines.

"An amnesty will be put in place for weapons to be handed in, and Cabinet has directed officials to develop a buyback scheme. Further details will be announced on the buyback in due course.

Manic Moran

That doesn’t apply to all semi autos, only those which look like military weapons. Emphasis on the word “style”.

It appears to basically be a variant of the assault weapons ban currently in place in some US states, and I will wager will be about as ineffective, both in scope (how many of those unregistered weapons will be turned in vs converted to non-threatening configuration vs just underground), and in effect (changing the style of a weapon doesn’t affect the nature of it).

There was a comment I saw the other day, that when reactionary restrictions are passed on the law-abiding due to the actions of one non-law abiding, we are in a society where one’s freedoms or privileges are dictated by the lawlessness of others. NZ hasn’t had a spree shooting with such firearms in some three decades, there is no reason to believe that they are any more likely to have one over the next three decades even if not a law is changed.

Boggles

Manic Moran wrote: »

There was a comment I saw the other day, that when reactionary restrictions are passed on the law-abiding due to the actions of one non-law abiding, we are in a society where one’s freedoms or privileges are dictated by the lawlessness of others.

Yeah, I have seen that hyperbolic cliché more than once after mass shootings, it's not new.

It's not like they are restricting peoples health care on the back of it.

Strict gun laws are a good thing, there is no sensible argument to the contrary.

Zorya

There's something a bit off (for me) about the scarfs for solidarity thing, wear a hijab on Friday to show you care. Meh. Why is there no campaign for men to wear turbans or salwaar kameez? Why after a school shooting is there no wear schoolbags or school scarfs response? Why no movement to wear crucifixes for the Christians being slaughtered in Africa? The hijab is a garment that is very divisive - ask the girls of Iran, ask Nasrin Sotoudeh, who has just been imprisoned in Iran for 38 years plus more than a hundred lashes, for supporting protests against compulsory hijab.
It all seems a bit paternalistic or patronising to me, ironically given that it is mostly aimed at women from women. People can perfectly well be horrified, upset, supportive, sympathetic and so on without some submissive, craw-thumping display.

Feisar

Zorya wrote: »

There's something a bit off (for me) about the scarfs for solidarity thing, wear a hijab on Friday to show you care. Meh. Why is there no campaign for men to wear turbans or salwaar kameez? Why after a school shooting is there no wear schoolbags or school scarfs response? Why no movement to wear crucifixes for the Christians being slaughtered in Africa? The hijab is a garment that is very divisive - ask the girls of Iran, ask Nasrin Sotoudeh, who has just been imprisoned in Iran for 38 years plus more than a hundred lashes, for supporting protests against compulsory hijab.
It all seems a bit paternalistic or patronising to me, ironically given that it is mostly aimed at women from women. People can perfectly well be horrified, upset, supportive, sympathetic and so on without some submissive, craw-thumping display.

Great post.

Zorya

Thanks Feisar, I'm just in a grumpy mood maybe ...
here's another bit of silliness. Jordan Peterson - who I am no fangirl of, lest some jump down my throat, I have little patience with his adoration of Nietzsche and Jung for that matter - has had his book 12 Rules for Life removed from Whitcoulls stores in New Zealand. Whitcoulls is a big chain like maybe our Easons, 56 stores nationwide and established in about 1888.

Yesterday on Twitter I saw Joe Rogan refered to as a person on the extreme right. I think the world has gone doolally. I'm not even going to look up how to spell that out of temper!

Wibbs

Manic Moran wrote:

That doesn’t apply to all semi autos, only those which look like military weapons. Emphasis on the word “style”.

Colour me surprised. Not. I'd have been impressed if they had banned all firearms save for bolt action rifles, shotguns and limited calibers to .22 or something(kinda like Irish law), but nah, this is your usual and typical political response that will appeal to the unaware and uninformed, thinking they'll be "safer" and "we've won against the gun nuts with their machine guns", but keep most of the votes from the sport shooter types, while effectively changing eff all.

Zorya wrote: »

People can perfectly well be horrified, upset, supportive, sympathetic and so on without some submissive, craw-thumping display.

Not if they're politicians. It's in their very marrow to go with the display. With plenty of cameras around of course. The oul hijab is a charm for the publicity shot, hugging crying women for bonus points. Cynical? Me? Nah...

Kivaro

Likewise, I'm put off by the Muslim call to prayer that will be broadcasted nationally on TV and radio to the whole country of New Zealand on Friday.
My view as an atheist is that I do not want to hear any call to prayer; irrespective of the faith. And I'm sure that there are many Kiwi's with similar sentiments.

Wibbs

Years back when yet another mass murder had kicked off in the US I remember watching a TV debate on it and they had a couple of people hollering about "machine guns" while not having a single clue what the hell they were talking about. It went full dribbling moron when they called for a ban on "military ammunition". Again not having a single clue about the subject. Namely that "military ammunition" is under international law agreed to be full metal jacketed bullets. This means the lead is encased with brass or similar, so is far less likely to deform or fragment on impact. However "hunting ammunition" which they were fine with usually has the inner softer lead exposed at the point, sometimes even hollow pointed so that they deform on impact and are designed to cause massive shock and wounds. In the vernacular they're "dum dum" bullets. I know which I'd rather see banned. Could these idiots be swayed? Nope.

Take this rifle:

Semiautomatic hunting/sport rifle, chambered for a range of rounds, more accurate than an "assault rifle", yet won't be circumscribed by the new legislation.

Or take this shotgun.

2-ms50104_1.tif&wid=575&cvt=jpeg

That'll be fine, but this

7-gpas12pg_1.tif&wid=575&cvt=jpeg

Won't be because it's "military style". It's the same bloody firearm, chambering the same shells, that will cause the exact same death and injury at the loud end. But they'll keep machine guns off the streets. :rolleyes:

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

Why no movement to wear crucifixes for the Christians being slaughtered in Africa?

Because it is largely BS. It was an article from Breitbart in the wake of the NZ massacre crying why Christians in Africa are being slaughtered but get no press coverage, but NZ gets wall to wall. Like they give a flying fook about Africans.

It's a herder farmer conflict that has been raging for years in Nigeria, 1000s have died, it's very little to do with religion.

Obviously Breitbart left out the part of 130 Muslims were slaughtered in February as part of the feud, one of the largest mass murders connected to it.

:rolleyes:

Zorya

Boggles wrote: »

Because it is largely BS. It was an article from Breitbart in the wake of the NZ massacre crying why Christians in Africa are being slaughtered but get no press coverage, but NZ gets wall to wall. Like the give a flying fook about Africans.

It's a herder farmer conflict that has been raging for years in Nigeria, 1000s have died, it's very little to do with religion.

Obviously Breitbart left out the part of 130 Muslims were slaughtered in February as part of the feud, one of the largest mass murders connected to it.

:rolleyes:

There are no Christians being murdered in Africa, because it's on Brietbart, (which I certainly did not hear it from)?

Anyway, optics is the thing. This police woman would not be allowed to have this job in some countries.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2JXD91UYAMSK6b.jpg

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

There are no Christians being murdered in Africa, because it's on Brietbart,

Yeah, I didn't say that you obviously didn't read my post.

But up to you if you want to smother yourself in ignorance. Not my job to educate you.

As you were.

[Deleted User]

Boggles wrote: »

Because it is largely BS.

No it's not. Just because Breitbart reported on it doesn't make it "bs".

There are Christians in Africa who are being killed and persecuted for their religion. That's irrefutable

Zorya

BTW, sorry I cannot engage regarding the gun issue. Guns, football, cars - with all these my brain helplessly freezes and I go completely bovine.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

There are Christians in Africa who are being killed and persecuted for their religion. That's irrefutable

There are people all over the world being killed and persecuted for their religion.

The feud cited by Breitbart has to do with land and natural resources.

Knock yourself out.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nigeria-christians-muslims/