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

paw patrol

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think they already have enough ammunition to fuel their fantasies already.

A book chain decided not to stock a book. Big deal. They will have decided to not stock many many books on many many topics by many many authors.

It has not been banned.

although I've a feeling you wouldn't be so supportive if they banned a book that was about something you held important.
Say they banned a book that was supportive of homosexuality because they disagreed with the content.

odd that censorship is good when it's applied to things you don't like only.

Bannasidhe

paw patrol wrote: »

What's your point?!?!? Arm all the farmers with military grade assault rifles?!

no, allow those that want too buy automatic weapons to apply for a licence , do a course, pay the fee and buy whatever is necessary like a cabinet... and walk home armed to the teeth.[/QUOTE]

I'm just going to run with this a second and see where it leads me.

Why only farmers?

Not everyone who lives in a rural location is a farmer. In fact many of the victims of home invasions were not farming. They were just old people living in isolated locations. Should they get licences too? Some of them are too old to be allowed to drive but sure as long as they pass the course.
What if they fail the course?? Are they just fair game??

What about people with holiday homes in the countryside? Idyllic location by a lake up a mountain. They could be targeted. Do they get licences? But what to do with their assault rifles when they aren't there?!?!? Can't just leave the place empty with an arsenal inside. Should they bring them back to the city? Pack up the SUV with kids, dogs, weaponry... but then what if Bad People were watching them leave?? Know they had weapons on board. OMG - they could be hijacked for the weapons!!

Best if they don't pack them. Someone would have to ride assault gun as it were.

Or maybe just farmers after all... but what size farms? All farms? Alpaca farms??? Tree farms????

What about Animal rescues? Many of those have their sanctuaries in vert rural locations. Do they get assault rifles or is the risk that they might blow some a-hole trying to dump their dog outside the gate at 3 am too great?

Bannasidhe

paw patrol wrote: »

although I've a feeling you wouldn't be so supportive if they banned a book that was about something you held important.
Say they banned a book that was supportive of homosexuality because they disagreed with the content.

odd that censorship is good when it's applied to things you don't like only.

Nope. I just wouldn't give them my custom.

Simples.

Ya'll should NOT buy books from Whitcoulls in N.Z!

It's not fecking censorship. It's a chain of book stores deciding not to stock a particular book. At worst it's virtue signalling and at best it's a ham fisted attempt to be seeing to take some kind of stance.

paw patrol

Bannasidhe wrote: »

no, allow those that want too buy automatic weapons to apply for a licence , do a course, pay the fee and buy whatever is necessary like a cabinet... and walk home armed to the teeth.

I'm just going to run with this a second and see where it leads me.

Why only farmers?

Not everyone who lives in a rural location is a farmer. In fact many of the victims of home invasions were not farming. They were just old people living in isolated locations. Should they get licences too? Some of them are too old to be allowed to drive but sure as long as they pass the course.
What if they fail the course?? Are they just fair game??

What about people with holiday homes in the countryside? Idyllic location by a lake up a mountain. They could be targeted. Do they get licences? But what to do with their assault rifles when they aren't there?!?!? Can't just leave the place empty with an arsenal inside. Should they bring them back to the city? Pack up the SUV with kids, dogs, weaponry... but then what if Bad People were watching them leave?? Know they had weapons on board. OMG - they could be hijacked for the weapons!!

Best if they don't pack them. Someone would have to ride assault gun as it were.

Or maybe just farmers after all... but what size farms? All farms? Alpaca farms??? Tree farms????

What about Animal rescues? Many of those have their sanctuaries in vert rural locations. Do they get assault rifles or is the risk that they might blow some a-hole trying to dump their dog outside the gate at 3 am too great?[/QUOTE]

I said anybody (who did the necessary and got a licence etc...) not just farmers.

the farmers came up as a retort to a poster who said they were glad there were no automatic weapons in Ireland.

they were different posts.

I'll repeat it succinctly , I believe the people in Ireland should be able to arm themselves subject to licence with weapons including automatic weapons.

Bannasidhe

paw patrol wrote: »

I said anybody (who did the necessary and got a licence etc...) not just farmers.

the farmers came up as a retort to a poster who said they were glad there were no automatic weapons in Ireland.

they were different posts.

I'll repeat it succinctly , I believe the people in Ireland should be able to arm themselves subject to licence with weapons including automatic weapons.

What? Everyone???

What could possibly go wrong with that eh?

By the way - could you sort out what is going on with your quoting. It's really confusing the way you are doing it. Maybe there is a glitch or something?

StinkyMunkey

paw patrol wrote: »

What's your point?!?!? Arm all the farmers with military grade assault rifles?!

Manic Moran

Boggles wrote: »

Someone is going to be in shortly to "educate you".

"By simply turning a screw on this legal weapon and adding some duct tape, you have essentially a rocket launcher - Fools and th

ere strict gun policies"

The fact remains there is absolutely no sensible argument against stringent gun control laws.

Obviously this hyperbolic comment refers to me.

If New Zealand wanted to ban all semi-auto rifles, in much the same manner as the Australians did, I'd think it's a wasted effort and won't work as well as they think it will, but at least it's a clearly defined policy which has a theoretical chance of achieving what they want to do because it's based on the reality of how firearms are manufactured.

But if the restriction generally follows the announcements that they did make, then it won't even have the theoretical chance, because there are places like California which already have almost identical laws to the general proposal of a prohibited rifle category, and we have evidence as to how it won't actually achieve it.

I'm not saying that turning a screw will turn a rifle into a rocket launcher, I'm saying that turning the screw will turn the rifle into a banned rifle. I know, because I've done it. (Outside the State obviously. Inside the State would have been illegal). And, yes, screw, singular. That's the only thing I did. And, for the record, so did Farook before he killed 12 in San Bernadino.

goose2005

sk8erboii wrote: »

Like i care. Remind me again, how many crusader states still exist?

the Sovereign Military Order of Malta

DS86DS

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'm a New Zealander and I like guns. They're fun. I enjoy shooting them. I owned a few when I lived in NZ. I do agree that there should be restrictions on them. Much like cars. You should need a license and they should be registered. I have no issue with background checks and with the police having a database to keep track of them.

The restrictions the NZ government are bringing in are a knee jerk reaction and they want to be seen to be doing something in order to appease a shocked public. NZ doesn't have a gun culture so there isn't a need for banning types of weapons. There is a need to track them and to know who has them and to ensure nutjobs like Tarant don't have access to them.

I'm not a fan of PM Ardern. And I don't like her government. However I have to say she has generally handled this situation very well and has done a great job in helping the nation to grieve and heal. And I applaud her for that. I just hope she isn't able to ride this wave of populism into a 2nd term next year.

The talk of changing the name of the local rugby team from the Crusaders to ???? is an interesting one. It would be good PR and a nice gesture to the community but in fairness a lot of the people calling for a name change at the moment, wouldn't be big rugby fans in the first place. I don't have an issue with the team being named the Crusaders or the Vikings or the Pirates as that is all ancient history. HoweverI think they will change it next season.

Liberals will look for any excuse to ban the right to bear arms and self defence. After all, it was a man with a gun that stopped the shooter, not a non-armed person. But that won't stop Liberals attempting to confiscate guns and impede people's right to defend themselves.

davedanon

paw patrol wrote: »

I'm sure the isolated farmers who have been robbed, beaten and even killed by marauding gangs of scumbags wouldn't have minded a cabinet of automatic weapons to defend themselves.

because trusting the state to protect you is a mugs game and anybody who says otherwise is a g0bsh1te.

Unfortunately, that's the same mindset that is extant in the US, and look where that has got them. Open carrying in Walmart, and one of the highest gun-death rates in the world.

Cienciano

DS86DS wrote: »

Liberals will look for any excuse to ban the right to bear arms and self defence. After all, it was a man with a gun that stopped the shooter, not a non-armed person. But that won't stop Liberals attempting to confiscate guns and impede people's right to defend themselves.

What right to bear arms? Are you confusing American with normal countries?

davedanon

When a Nutcase capitalises a word, like with 'Liberal', you know they're a Nutcase.

sk8erboii

goose2005 wrote: »

the Sovereign Military Order of Malta

Malta Was actually taken before the crusades even began. Long story short its not a crusader state: it being in Europe not ME is a huge clue

Sonics2k

DS86DS wrote: »

Liberals will look for any excuse to ban the right to bear arms and self defence. After all, it was a man with a gun that stopped the shooter, not a non-armed person. But that won't stop Liberals attempting to confiscate guns and impede people's right to defend themselves.

We're not American.

I like guns. I love guns. Hell, I was able to get a gun licence here in Ireland many years ago. However, the concept that one needs a semi-automatic or automatic rifle purely for self defense is a huge misnomer.

A gun owner is statistically higher to use it on themselves over an intruder.

paw patrol

Bannasidhe wrote: »

By the way - could you sort out what is going on with your quoting. It's really confusing the way you are doing it. Maybe there is a glitch or something?

it is odd - must be a glitch the quot eand /quote are there

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

no, allow those that want too buy automatic weapons to apply for a licence , do a course, pay the fee and buy whatever is necessary like a cabinet... and walk home armed to the teeth.

Here is an actual video of what your suggesting:

https://youtu.be/GhxqIITtTtU[/QUOTE]

yes because that's precise what gun safety lesson would result in
bit racist that video calling those fine folk : apes...I expected better from you!

MrFresh

paw patrol wrote: »

it is odd - must be a glitch the quot eand /quote are there

It's not a glitch. You just deleted the wrong quote tags.

Zorya

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqOdDV7Brq4

Sam Harris speaks about dangerous accusations being made about him being an Islamophobe, and how he and others like him who have offered reasonable criticism of Islam are being held somehow responsible in the ordinary media for the Christchurch massacre. The cynical, agenda-driven abuse of the term ''Islamophobia''.

I know of Harris but vaguely as our interests do not intersect. But from any of his work I have come across, though I sometimes disagree with what I have heard, he seems like a reasonable and thoughtful person.

Samuel Benjamin Harris (born April 9, 1967) is an American neuroscientist, philosopher, author, critic of religion, blogger, public intellectual, and podcast host. His work touches on a wide range of topics, including rationality, ethics, free will, neuroscience, meditation, philosophy of mind, politics, Islam, terrorism, and artificial intelligence. He is described as one of the atheistic ‘Four Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse’, along with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett.

~ Wiki

Boggles

Manic Moran wrote: »

Obviously this hyperbolic comment refers to me.

If New Zealand wanted to ban all semi-auto rifles, in much the same manner as the Australians did, I'd think it's a wasted effort and won't work as well as they think it will, but at least it's a clearly defined policy which has a theoretical chance of achieving what they want to do because it's based on the reality of how firearms are manufactured.

But if the restriction generally follows the announcements that they did make, then it won't even have the theoretical chance, because there are places like California which already have almost identical laws to the general proposal of a prohibited rifle category, and we have evidence as to how it won't actually achieve it.

I'm not saying that turning a screw will turn a rifle into a rocket launcher, I'm saying that turning the screw will turn the rifle into a banned rifle. I know, because I've done it. (Outside the State obviously. Inside the State would have been illegal). And, yes, screw, singular. That's the only thing I did. And, for the record, so did Farook before he killed 12 in San Bernadino.

Like has all ready been stated, no legislation has been made public yet, what has been is a vague order to prevent the stock piling of weapons which as I all ready explained is a very sensible thing to do. The PM also stated in her address that the new laws will only be the start of overall gun reform for the country.

So any comparison with any other State or country is far too premature, I would suggest though, NZ would have it's own fire arm experts who would have technical knowledge at least on par with people the on internet all ready claiming the new (unpublished) laws are doomed to fail.

As for the comparison where you live, California is not a clutch of very remote islands in the South Pacific, it borders several other states, one been Arizona which is widely seen as having the loosest gun laws in the country.

Danzy

Zorya wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqOdDV7Brq4

Sam Harris speaks about dangerous accusations being made about him being an Islamophobe, and how he and others like him who have offered reasonable criticism of Islam are being held somehow responsible in the ordinary media for the Christchurch massacre. The cynical, agenda-driven abuse of the term ''Islamophobia''.

I know of Harris but vaguely as our interests do not intersect. But from any of his work I have come across, though I sometimes disagree with what I have heard, he seems like a reasonable and thoughtful person.

~ Wiki

Charlie Hebdo was a magazine that was dominated by Communists, anti racism activists anarchists.

They were thrown to the wolves by the modern Left.

Actually called racists and fascists, that they deserved it , God damn satirists.

There is no one today that large sections of the Left will not accuse of something. If people think a life time of anti racism or such will stop that they do not know the cultist thinking that has come to dominate the Left in the Western World.

The accusation is the thing, they get off on. Also a sense of power in witch hunting.

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

Sam Harris speaks about dangerous accusations being made about him being an Islamophobe, and how he and others like him who have offered reasonable criticism of Islam are being held somehow responsible in the ordinary media for the Christchurch massacre. The cynical, agenda-driven abuse of the term ''Islamophobia''.

I know of Harris but vaguely as our interests do not intersect. But from any of his work I have come across, though I sometimes disagree with what I have heard, he seems like a reasonable and thoughtful person.

So some person who is pretty insignificant had his feelings hurt by some other person of similar insignificance and he decides to have a moan about it on Youtube. He seems to have been called out because he "thinks" Islamophiba doesn't exist. I turned if off after he started claiming early on that "pornographers" are trying to getting him murdered.

But anyway, How is that even remotely relevant to a cowardly scumbag racist islamophobe who executed 50 innocent people in Christchurch New Zealand and more pertinent why did you feel the need to post it in this thread?

Bannasidhe

Boggles wrote: »

So some person who is pretty insignificant had his feelings hurt by some other person of similar insignificance and he decides to have a moan about it on Youtube. He seems to have been called out because he "thinks" Islamophiba doesn't exist. I turned if off after he started claiming early on that "pornographers" are trying to getting him murdered.

But anyway, How is that even remotely relevant to a cowardly scumbag racist islamophobe who executed 50 innocent people in Christchurch New Zealand.

Best I can work out the point is that, apparently, people are complaining that criticism of Islam (the religion) gets you called an Islamophobe which 'proves' there isn't any Islamophobia it's all just false flag name calling.

Which, of course, underplays that there have been actual documented instances of attacks on people because they are Muslim which is the very definition of Islamobhobia.

It's very similar (albeit with a twist) to the criticism of the State of Israel is Antisemitic trope used to deflect from that county's policies around Gaza.

Apparently the fact that it is possible to dislike a religion without hating those individuals who believe in it or disagreeing with the policies of a country without hating the people of that country due to their religion is too subtle a distinction.

Cienciano

DS86DS wrote: »

Brendan Tarrant, self-described Communist with a hatred for Christianity and Conservatives.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/radicalization-degeneration-brenton-tarrant-white-supremacist/

How the hell did you come to the conclusion that he was communist? The reason he admires china is because he thinks they're true to their race, don't have many foreigners in. Thinking it's because they're communist is like thinking someone who likes Chinese takeaway must support communism

Cienciano

While I support bookshops to stock whatever they like, this is crazy from New Zealand

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/385399/christchurch-mosque-shootings-manifesto-deemed-objectionable

.A publication reportedly written by the man accused of the Christchurch shootings has been officially classified as objectionable by the Chief Censor.

Anyone who sees the material online is being asked to report it immediately.

According to the Department of Internal Affairs, "knowingly" possessing or sharing objectionable material carries up to a 14 year jail term.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Boggles wrote: »

So some person who is pretty insignificant had his feelings hurt by some other person of similar insignificance and he decides to have a moan about it on Youtube. He seems to have been called out because he "thinks" Islamophiba doesn't exist. I turned if off after he started claiming early on that "pornographers" are trying to getting him murdered.

But anyway, How is that even remotely relevant to a cowardly scumbag racist islamophobe who executed 50 innocent people in Christchurch New Zealand and more pertinent why did you feel the need to post it in this thread?

He was one of the four horsemen - the radical anti religious group which grew out of 9/11. Hitchens being the main one.

His relevance is that there are accusations that that kind of rhetoric causes the atrocities.

Rather than pick in a nebulous “alt-right” maybe these guys should be examined? I know Breivick was influenced by Melanie Phillips for instance.

Wibbs

Cienciano wrote: »

How the hell did you come to the conclusion that he was communist? The reason he admires china is because he thinks they're true to their race, don't have many foreigners in. Thinking it's because they're communist is like thinking someone who likes Chinese takeaway must support communism

I don't think he knows what he is or what he admires CC. From the little I've read of his musings he's all over the place and contradictory, a mad disconnected troll with murderous intent. If he did say he admired China because of the above reasons he doesn't know much of the place. Or maybe he does? China has dozens of ethnic minorities, but the Han are the majority and that majority doesn't take too well to any dissension from the others.

[Deleted User]

"Radical"? *snigger*. Read all their stuff. The most radical thing they did or said was bothering to write the books at all.

Would be interested to know which of his rhetoric in situ is actually linked to "causes the atrocities". I have seen the level of selective quoting that goes on with their work - Harris in particular - usually quoted in such a way as to literally reverse what they actually said. But aside from that I am baffled as to what they did or said that can even remotely be blamed for someone going out with weapons to kill people.

Harris constantly talks about a "war of ideas" and how all humanities problems require the strong application of conversation. Everything else he does or says stems from that core position. Which is - you might notice - the exact opposite of gunning people down.

Boggles

Cienciano wrote: »

While I support bookshops to stock whatever they like, this is crazy from New Zealand

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/385399/christchurch-mosque-shootings-manifesto-deemed-objectionable

I wouldn't call it crazy TBH, this cowards "plan" didn't stop with him been arrested it is ongoing, his ramblings are part of the plan.

We know he pulled himself liberally to Breivik's nonsense, so the link is there that these horsé**** documents inspire actual mass murderers.

Call Me Jimmy

Cienciano wrote: »

While I support bookshops to stock whatever they like, this is crazy from New Zealand

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/385399/christchurch-mosque-shootings-manifesto-deemed-objectionable

They're just going bat****. If they sat down and thought for literally 1 minute they'd see they're pissing all over their own ideals because they don't trust their population (including journalists/academics/psychologists etc).

Wibbs

Cienciano wrote: »

While I support bookshops to stock whatever they like, this is crazy from New Zealand

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/385399/christchurch-mosque-shootings-manifesto-deemed-objectionable

That's bloody worrying alright. Like the other muppet arrested for sharing the video looking down the barrel of up to ten years in prison and now sharing the publication could have someone looking at fourteen years in prison, yet breaking the proposed law around gun legislation results in a fine of four grand or three years in prison. So it's more a crime to publish something on the internet or other sources than to actually have the type of weapons that could lead to mass murder? Seeking to control information like that is far more concerning than any gun law and is creepy as fuck.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

He was one of the four horsemen - the radical anti religious group which grew out of 9/11. Hitchens being the main one.

His relevance is that there are accusations that that kind of rhetoric causes the atrocities.

Rather than pick in a nebulous “alt-right” maybe these guys should be examined? I know Breivick was influenced by Melanie Phillips for instance.

Won't happen F. How many have said in this very thread that this murderous prick doesn't matter and it doesn't matter what he thinks? Just writing this guy and those like him with shared declared aims as insignificant loons is beyond stupid, though as usual an all too easy answer and people do love the easy answers. If you don't attempt to understand them, or worse, stick your head in the sand about their motivations, you have no hope of stopping them coming back again and again.

Cienciano

Wibbs wrote: »

I don't think he knows what he is or what he admires CC. From the little I've read of his musings he's all over the place and contradictory, a mad disconnected troll with murderous intent. If he did say he admired China because of the above reasons he doesn't know much of the place. Or maybe he does? China has dozens of ethnic minorities, but the Han are the majority and that majority doesn't take too well to any dissension from the others.

He's pretty clear on communism to be fair. From the manifesto:

.To Antifa/Marxists/Communists I do not want to convert you, I do not want to come to an understanding. Egalitarians and those that believe in heirachy will never come to terms.I don’t want you by my side or I don’t want share power. I want you in my sights. I want your neck under my boot. SEE YOU ON THE STREETS YOU ANTIWHITE SCUM

DS86DS comes to the conclusion that he was communist