Mass shooting New Zealand Mosque - MOD NOTE POST #1

Jelle1880 · 19-03-2019 12:50pm

Society has to address the issues he raised ? What the actual ****.

batgoat · 19-03-2019 12:55pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

If certain issues drive a man who had a normal upbringing to commit mass murder, don't you think that should be looked at?

You'll find plenty of serial killers had normal upbringings too. Shall we have a debate if their warped motivations are worth a discussion? You seem to have not a care in the slightest for the victims. Instead, you want to see if there's a rationalisation for killing a load of innocent people including children. That is based upon your own anti Muslim views.

Edit:won't engage further with you at this point.

Boggles · 19-03-2019 12:56pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Society has to address the issues he raised ? What the actual ****.

You see, that is exactly why you have to make cowards that commit these type of crimes merely a footnote in the story.

As certain people out there would see him as someone who has raised valid issues that need addressing, the type of individuals who would attack the NZ PM but at the same time legitimize this scum bag.

Wibbs · 19-03-2019 1:45pm

Boggles wrote:

He is racist cowardly mass murdering scum bag.

He is neither complex nor unique.

Given racist cowardly types that plan ahead, move countries to get better access to weapons and a a society not prepared for such an act and go ahead an commit mass murder are not exactly two a penny, he is unique to some degree and there was a complex set of circumstances that came together to enable this tragedy. Some of which might be flagged in others before similar happens elsewhere and again.

batgoat wrote: »

You'll find plenty of serial killers had normal upbringings too. Shall we have a debate if their warped motivations are worth a discussion?

Actually that's precisely what law enforcement agencies and psychologists do. It's how over time detection and catching these scumbags has improved. Calling such warped individuals "evil" is easy and comforting, but it does eff all to stop the next one.

Then again the prick in the Netherlands was "known to police" had all sorts of beady eyes on him, yet was able to find a weapon and murder three people in broad daylight, so that's another issue; acting on information about pricks like this.

SoundsRight · 19-03-2019 1:45pm

batgoat wrote: »

You'll find plenty of serial killers had normal upbringings too. Shall we have a debate if their warped motivations are worth a discussion? You seem to have not a care in the slightest for the victims. Instead, you want to see if there's a rationalisation for killing a load of innocent people including children. That is based upon your own anti Muslim views.

Edit:won't engage further with you at this point.

Actually yes, in the aftermath of a tragedy like this there is value to be gained from looking at the causes and motivation. If you want to sweep it under the rug and hope it doesn't happen again than you're doing a disservice to the victims

dav3 · 19-03-2019 2:15pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

Until society address the issues Tarrant raised in his manifesto, then we'll have learned nothing from this attack.

Well you wouldn't be just applying that logic to that particular terrorist. You'd have to apply that to all terrorists, terrorist groups and mass murders throughout the world. That's not usually the reasoning you would hear from any sane person. I don't think you would hear any anti-terrorism unit claim the the only way to deal with these terrorists or learn from an attack, is to address the issues raised by them.

The key word here being "address". In other words, pander to their wishes and demands.

batgoat · 19-03-2019 2:17pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Given racist cowardly types that plan ahead, move countries to get better access to weapons and a a society not prepared for such an act and go ahead an commit mass murder are not exactly two a penny, he is unique to some degree and there was a complex set of circumstances that came together to enable this tragedy. Some of which might be flagged in others before similar happens elsewhere and again.

Actually that's precisely what law enforcement agencies and psychologists do. It's how over time detection and catching these scumbags has improved. Calling such warped individuals "evil" is easy and comforting, but it does eff all to stop the next one.

Then again the prick in the Netherlands was "known to police" had all sorts of beady eyes on him, yet was able to find a weapon and murder three people in broad daylight, so that's another issue; acting on information about pricks like this.

I'm perfectly aware of the fact that such motivations are studied. But they're not reduced to the point of saying "he actually has a point". Which is what the previous user is implying so it's a drastically different way of approaching it.

Wanderer78 · 19-03-2019 2:21pm

Nerdlingr wrote:

I'm delighted with Ardens saying she'll not say his name. I said it on here before he should be forgotten about, wipe his name form the records. Make him irrelevant. What these narcissistic f*ckers want the most is their name in lights and their moment in the sun. He wants to represent himself in court. Same as Brevik. F*ck him and his Manifesto. The less we feed these idiots and pander to them the better. IMO there is nothing to be 'learned' from here. The guy is a child murdering coward - lets not big him up to anything more than that.

So not mentioning his name will prevent such events in the future?

KikiLaRue · 19-03-2019 2:24pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

She's actually adding to his notoriety with her silly virtue signalling. She's making him out to be something like the Candyman, where you can't even speak his name.

Until society address the issues Tarrant raised in his manifesto, then we'll have learned nothing from this attack. Gun reform and policing the internet are just distractions from the fundamental problem.

When ISIS attacked that Ariana Grande concert, did you think we should address the issues they raise in their manifesto?

If not, why do you treat the manifesto of this mass murderer differently to that mass murderer?

Nerdlingr · 19-03-2019 2:35pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

So not mentioning his name will prevent such events in the future?

Where did i say that? Great strawman argument there.
By not mentioning his name we can at least deprive him in a little way of what he wants - notoriety.
And nothing will prevent such events in the future. That is the sad, cold reality of the matter. You can read as much as you want into his manifesto and try to work out why he did such things in some vain attempt it will prevent another killing.
Truth is if someone gun toting maniac wants to walk into a McDonalds in the morning and shoot up the place he can.

o1s1n · 19-03-2019 2:36pm

Nerdlingr wrote: »

I'm delighted with Ardens saying she'll not say his name.
I said it on here before he should be forgotten about, wipe his name form the records. Make him irrelevant.
What these narcissistic f*ckers want the most is their name in lights and their moment in the sun. He wants to represent himself in court. Same as Brevik.
F*ck him and his Manifesto. The less we feed these idiots and pander to them the better. IMO there is nothing to be 'learned' from here. The guy is a child murdering coward - lets not big him up to anything more than that.

So should we forget about all mass murderers then? Just wipe them from our collective memories?

I really wish people would stop with this virtuous bull****. Whether you or anyone 'doesn't say the perpetrators name' is utterly irrelevant.

The event has happened, the perpetrator has been named. The best we can do now is to ensure he faces the full strength of the law and doesn't harm anyone ever again.

If you murder a load of people you are going to gain notoriety. It just the way things work.

Wanderer78 · 19-03-2019 2:38pm

Nerdlingr wrote:

Where did i say that? Great strawman argument there. By not mentioning his name we can at least deprive him of what he wants - notoriety. And nothing will prevent such events in the future. That is the sad, cold reality of the matter. You can read as much as you want into his manifesto and try to work out why he did such things in some vain attempt it will prevent another killing. Truth is if someone gun toting maniac wants to walk into a McDonalds in the morning and shoot up the place he can.

I understand the country is in shock and in a state of mourning, but I can't see not mentioning his name being of any benefit, the damage is done

KikiLaRue · 19-03-2019 2:42pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I understand the country is in shock and in a state of mourning, but I can't see not mentioning his name being of any benefit, the damage is done

On it's own, it doesn't mean a lot. Combined with
- fast-tracking visas for relatives to come to the funeral
- paying for the funeral
- financial assistance for families

and other measures she has announced, the PM is making it clear that her focus will be on the victims. I think that's admirable.

Nerdlingr · 19-03-2019 2:45pm

o1s1n wrote: »

So should we forget about all mass murderers then? Just wipe them from our collective memories?

I really wish people would stop with this virtuous bull****. Whether you or anyone 'doesn't say the perpetrators name' is utterly irrelevant.

The event has happened, the perpetrator has been named. The best we can do now is to ensure he faces the full strength of the law and doesn't harm anyone ever again.

If you murder a load of people you are going to gain notoriety. It just the way things work.

I'm sure the NZ authorities are taking care of that. I doubt we'll see him out walking the streets any time soon.
As I've said before - lets not pander to him. And yes I would rather we wipe mass murderers from our collective memories. Blur his face, dont say his name, stick him in solidarity confinement and let him rot. The world will move on without him. People think we have something to learn from these radicals, that somehow if we understand why this guy did this we can stop others doing the same. I disagree with that. He is the ultimate troll and i'd wipe my @rse with his manifesto.

Boggles · 19-03-2019 2:56pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I understand the country is in shock and in a state of mourning, but I can't see not mentioning his name being of any benefit, the damage is done

It's not just about mentioning his name, it's the wall to wall coverage of every small detail of his life.

There are studies there backed up with relevant data, that spree killers should be just a footnote to the story, that victims and heroes should be front and center to avoid contagion and copy cat inspired killers in the future.

Some newspapers and networks are copping on, putting pictures of the victims on the front page instead of the scumbag holding a gun, laughing, etc.

Anyway this particular scumbag wants notoriety and his 10 minutes in the spot light, fast track the trial, pixalate the fook out of him and throw him jail, it will annoy him more than anything else.

o1s1n · 19-03-2019 2:57pm

Nerdlingr wrote: »

I'm sure the NZ authorities are taking care of that. I doubt we'll see him out walking the streets any time soon.
As I've said before - lets not pander to him. And yes I would rather we wipe mass murderers from our collective memories. Blur his face, dont say his name, stick him in solidarity confinement and let him rot. The world will move on without him. People think we have something to learn from these radicals, that somehow if we understand why this guy did this we can stop others doing the same. I disagree with that. He is the ultimate troll and i'd wipe my @rse with his manifesto.

It's just such an incredibly naive point of view. You do know that many murderers, rapists and horrible people are released from prison after serving their time?

If their association with such events had been wiped from memory, then nobody would know who they are upon their release - putting people in danger.

SoundsRight · 19-03-2019 2:57pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

When ISIS attacked that Ariana Grande concert, did you think we should address the issues they raise in their manifesto?

If not, why do you treat the manifesto of this mass murderer differently to that mass murderer?

Their manifesto is directed at their people. We have little control over what is taught in mosques and madrasas. Tarrant's is aimed at us. We can either look at what motivated him, and try and prevent future attacks, or do what Ardern does and play into his hands. He's probably laughing at her walking around in a headscarf.

KikiLaRue · 19-03-2019 2:59pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

Their manifesto is directed at their people. We have little control over what is taught in mosques and madrasas. Tarrant's is aimed at us. We can either look at what motivated him, and try and prevent future attacks, or do what Ardern does and play into his hands. He's probably laughing at her walking around in a headscarf.

You're in a small minority in criticising her response, which has been widely praised.

Who cares if he's laughing at her in a headscarf? She's showing empathy to the victims, IDGAF what he thinks.

Boggles · 19-03-2019 3:01pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

Their manifesto is directed at their people. We have little control over what is taught in mosques and madrasas. Tarrant's is aimed at us.

It might be aimed at you, but not me lad, I have absolutely no time for racist scumbag cowardly murderers or their opinion on anything.

Nerdlingr · 19-03-2019 3:04pm

o1s1n wrote: »

It's just such an incredibly naive point of view. You do know that many murderers, rapists and horrible people are released from prison after serving their time?

If their association with such events had been wiped from memory, then nobody would know who they are upon their release - putting people in danger.

Ah jesus....We're specifically talking about mass murderers here!!, or you know, radicals who've driven trucks into people in Nice, shot up the Bataclan, Killed 50 in NZ, massacred kids in utoya, detonated bombs in a concert in Manchester. Not tommy down the road who's been let back into society.

King of Kings · 19-03-2019 3:07pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

You're in a small minority in criticising her response, which has been widely praised.

Who cares if he's laughing at her in a headscarf? She's showing empathy to the victims, IDGAF what he thinks.

There is no correct response to an event like this...her promise to never mention brenton tarrant by name is virtous bs...
Call me a cynic but it sounds like a spin doctors dream.

KikiLaRue · 19-03-2019 3:09pm

King of Kings wrote: »

There is no correct response to an event like this...her promise to never mention brenton tarrant by name is virtous bs...
Call me a cynic but it sounds like a spin doctors dream.

Why are you so focused on that one thing she said when she has announced a whole raft of measures?

19-03-2019 3:29pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I understand the country is in shock and in a state of mourning, but I can't see not mentioning his name being of any benefit, the damage is done

The rationale for not mentioning his name is that by doing so we are adding to his notoriety - which, for those of similar viewpoint, is the same as celebrity. The more notoriety/ celebrity any of these is given the more likely it is to "inspire" copycats. They even name reference each other in their "manifestoes".

For those of similar persuasion (any similar sense of personal inadequacy/failure) the allure of becoming a celebrated name within the subculture may be enough to tip more into similar action.

Graces7 · 19-03-2019 4:19pm

1641 wrote: »

The rationale for not mentioning his name is that by doing so we are adding to his notoriety - which, for those of similar viewpoint, is the same as celebrity. The more notoriety/ celebrity any of these is given the more likely it is to "inspire" copycats. They even name reference each other in their "manifestoes".

For those of similar persuasion (any similar sense of personal inadequacy/failure) the allure of becoming a celebrated name within the subculture may be enough to tip more into similar action.

compare with the Brievik massacre in norway? he revelled in any press coverage he got. gloried in personal "fame" every chance he got and yes, other crazies might copy

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 19-03-2019 4:25pm

King of Kings wrote: »

There is no correct response to an event like this...her promise to never mention brenton tarrant by name is virtous bs...
Call me a cynic but it sounds like a spin doctors dream.

You're a cynic.

He's just apiece of hate filled ****e, the sooner he's forgotten about the better.

SoundsRight · 19-03-2019 4:39pm

Boggles wrote: »

It might be aimed at you, but not me lad, I have absolutely no time for racist scumbag cowardly murderers or their opinion on anything.

You've more in common with Brenton Tarrant than you do with any of his victims. If western society can produce mass killers in the same vein as Middle Eastern societies, then something has gone wrong somewhere and it needs to be addressed.

batgoat · 19-03-2019 4:42pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

You've more in common with Brenton Tarrant than you do with any of his victims. If western society can produce mass killers in the same vein as Middle Eastern societies, then something has gone wrong somewhere and it needs to be addressed.

Problem is, you've already implied it's immigration's fault.

tuxy · 19-03-2019 4:43pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

You've more in common with Brenton Tarrant than you do with any of his victims. If western society can produce mass killers in the same vein as Middle Eastern societies, then something has gone wrong somewhere and it needs to be addressed.

Middle Eastern societies are flawed?

KikiLaRue · 19-03-2019 4:44pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

You've more in common with Brenton Tarrant than you do with any of his victims. If western society can produce mass killers in the same vein as Middle Eastern societies, then something has gone wrong somewhere and it needs to be addressed.

How on earth can you make that out?

You think Boggles or yourself has more in common with that guy based on what - the fact that he's white?

I would strongly wager Boggles has more in common with the victims, who were by all accounts just decent people going about their day.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 19-03-2019 4:47pm

1641 wrote: »

The rationale for not mentioning his name is that by doing so we are adding to his notoriety - which, for those of similar viewpoint, is the same as celebrity. The more notoriety/ celebrity any of these is given the more likely it is to "inspire" copycats. They even name reference each other in their "manifestoes".

For those of similar persuasion (any similar sense of personal inadequacy/failure) the allure of becoming a celebrated name within the subculture may be enough to tip more into similar action.

Exactly, he should not have his name immortalised. We shouldn't know the names of mass killers off the top of your head, Timothy McVeigh, Bundy, Manson are known to everyone. And that's exactly what they wanted.

The guy deserves the death penalty and have his body thrown into the ocean. But I know that the law shouldn't be changed for one off reasons.

There is a big push to have the video of it scrubbed from the internet, which I don't agree with.

Boggles · 19-03-2019 4:48pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

You've more in common with Brenton Tarrant than you do with any of his victims.

I have nothing in common with him, you might do not me.

You do understand that right?

SoundsRight wrote: »

If western society can produce mass killers in the same vein as Middle Eastern societies, then something has gone wrong somewhere and it needs to be addressed.

Hitler says Hi.

:rolleyes:

SoundsRight · 19-03-2019 5:18pm

Boggles wrote: »

I have nothing in common with him, you might do not me.

You do understand that right?

Hitler says Hi.

:rolleyes:

I'm talking about society today, not a hundred years ago. Western society should not be producing the likes of Tarrant and Brevik. They could be your brother or son, let's not pretend they are alien to us.

tuxy · 19-03-2019 5:23pm

oops

Boggles · 19-03-2019 5:27pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

Western society should not be producing the likes of Tarrant and Brevik.

That's exactly why you have to clamp down on the racist hate speech and introduce more stringent gun controls.

Something you don't think the focus should be on.

Go figure.

jmayo · 19-03-2019 5:39pm

o1s1n wrote: »

So should we forget about all mass murderers then? Just wipe them from our collective memories?

I really wish people would stop with this virtuous bull****. Whether you or anyone 'doesn't say the perpetrators name' is utterly irrelevant.

The event has happened, the perpetrator has been named. The best we can do now is to ensure he faces the full strength of the law and doesn't harm anyone ever again.

If you murder a load of people you are going to gain notoriety. It just the way things work.

Exactly.

Those people will still be dead and people who might think along the same lines will find his name, his bullsh** manifesto and ramblings no matter what you do.

This is the 21st century where you can't wipe someones identity and detail from the world, especially someone that has already attained such coverage.

It is not like the past where all traces of a person could be removed from history.
We live in the age of instantaneous information flow and with that information being around forever.

There are huge amounts to be learned from this sad episode.

For a start NZ has to have a total review their access and licensing of firearms.

The entire world needs to learn how to force the social media companies into preventing ar**hole terrorists and mass murderers from using modern social media to desseminate their atrocities online to the wider world.

Western governments have had plenty of time to rein in the likes of Youtube when they were willingly hosting videos of the vile executions carried out by ISIS.

And intelligence agencies, police forces need to learn how to spot and negate people like this guy before they get to act out their death cultish desires.

I look at each of these attacks, be they islamist, right wing or whatever, much like an air accident.
There are always things to be learned to prevent a reoccurrence.

19-03-2019 5:40pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

I'm talking about society today, not a hundred years ago. Western society should not be producing the likes of..( these murderers..)... They could be your brother or son, let's not pretend they are alien to us.

909 followers of "Rev" Jim Jones died in "Jonestown" - the majority apparently by suicide following instruction but also many by murder.

Do you think that we should examine the "teachings" of Rev Jones in order to "understand" and "better address something that has gone wrong in society"?

King of Kings · 19-03-2019 5:47pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Why are you so focused on that one thing she said when she has announced a whole raft of measures?

It seemed like the pertinant thing under discussion and cos I think that piece of her speech was grandstanding.

I am against rushing in legal changes immediately after a terrible event as such changes are generally driven my emotion.

As they say "hard cases make bad law"

KikiLaRue · 19-03-2019 6:12pm

King of Kings wrote: »

It seemed like the pertinant thing under discussion and cos I think that piece of her speech was grandstanding.

I am against rushing in legal changes immediately after a terrible event as such changes are generally driven my emotion.

As they say "hard cases make bad law"

All she has done is lead the way for placing the victims and their families front and centre in this tragedy rather than the perpetrator.

I don't see it as grandstanding. It's one sentence from a series of statements over days that have focused on supporting the victim and healing the nation.

And no new laws have been announced, but as we can see with Port Arthur, sometimes a dramatic change in the law after a major event can be a good thing.

WinnyThePoo · 19-03-2019 6:26pm

'grandstanding' 'virtual signalling'. Lads she's the fcukin prime minister of her country.

batgoat · 19-03-2019 6:27pm

King of Kings wrote: »

It seemed like the pertinant thing under discussion and cos I think that piece of her speech was grandstanding.

I am against rushing in legal changes immediately after a terrible event as such changes are generally driven my emotion.

As they say "hard cases make bad law"

From what I gather, most of the proposed changes will be previously proposed legislation that was previously rejected. The incident last week has made New Zealand gun owners more supportive to prevent a repeat of such an incident.

tuxy · 19-03-2019 6:27pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

And no new laws have been announced, but as we can see with Port Arthur, sometimes a dramatic change in the law after a major event can be a good thing.

The Prime Minister has promised new gun laws will be announced in a few days.

Billy86 · 19-03-2019 6:33pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

You've more in common with Brenton Tarrant than you do with any of his victims. If western society can produce mass killers in the same vein as Middle Eastern societies, then something has gone wrong somewhere and it needs to be addressed.

That's it buddy, keep pushing the agenda at every opportunity while remaining adamant we should be listening to white supremacists like this eejit. It's not like it's obvious or anything.

19-03-2019 6:43pm

tuxy wrote: »

The Prime Minister has promised new gun laws will be announced in a few days.

The recommendations on the reforms of gun laws have been there since 1997 - the Thorp Report. Attempts to introduce them by various governments have been twarted by intense pressure by the gun lobby.
Introducing these reforms now is not "rushing in legal changes", and "hard cases make bad law" as suggested by another poster. It is pushing on with reforms that have been discussed for over 20 years.

Billy86 · 19-03-2019 6:46pm

1641 wrote: »

The recommendations on the reforms of gun laws have been there since 1997 - the Thorp Report. Attempts to introduce them by various governments have been twarted by intense pressure by the gun lobby.
Introducing these reforms now is not "rushing in legal changes", and "hard cases make bad law" as suggested by another poster. It is pushing on with reforms that have been discussed for over 20 years.

And even if it were rushed, weren't Scotland's after Dunblane and Australia's after the Tasmania shooting both 20 odd years ago? I'm pretty sure those have worked quite well.

friendlyfun · 19-03-2019 6:52pm

King of Kings wrote: »

It seemed like the pertinant thing under discussion and cos I think that piece of her speech was grandstanding.

I am against rushing in legal changes immediately after a terrible event as such changes are generally driven my emotion.

As they say "hard cases make bad law"

How many Mass Shootings happened in Scotland since Dublane?

Wibbs · 19-03-2019 7:14pm

friendlyfun wrote: »

How many Mass Shootings happened in Scotland since Dublane?

How many mass shootings happened in Scotland before Dublane? How many mass shootings happened in Australia before Port Arthur?

mvl · 19-03-2019 7:50pm

King of Kings wrote: »

There is no correct response to an event like this...her promise to never mention brenton tarrant by name is virtous bs...
Call me a cynic but it sounds like a spin doctors dream.

Think in some cultures the name can be more fluid.
Maybe they could call him a generic name - Mr <number of years of sentence> from now on ?!?

Another point - having in mind that Australia and NZ PMs have had some (recent) escalations related to Australia criminal deportations habits, assume there is almost zero chance NZ would deport this one until he's served his sentence ... anyone heard differently ?

Robert ninja · 19-03-2019 8:05pm

biggebruv wrote: »

Oh Jesus that sounds horrible couldn’t you just stick to resetera or neogaf
I wouldn’t wanna risk seeing horrible stuff like that does it come up when you enter that 8chan site

Both those sites you mentioned are wildly censorious, account-based, ban-happy and have very heavy moderator bias so there's not really any reason I'd use em'... they're not even close to the same thing as minimal-moderation, simple-html, anonymised image boards. The threads I use are about niche gaming topics which are usually pretty tame.

Billy Mays · 19-03-2019 8:48pm

Wibbs wrote: »

How many mass shootings happened in Scotland before Dublane? How many mass shootings happened in Australia before Port Arthur?

A sh*tload. There were 4 alone in the 1990s before Port Arthur

Manic Moran · 20-03-2019 2:10am

The

Billy Mays wrote: »

A sh*tload. There were 4 alone in the 1990s before Port Arthur

You would think, though, that if the laws had particular effect, the ones which were conducted by weapons not prohibited would continue. Only one of the four was conducted with a semi-auto, (Franklin, 1991, 7 killed plus one with a knife). Two of the four: Baker, 1992, six dead, and Evers, 1990, five dead, were conducted with shotguns, and one, May, 1996, six dead, used a lever-action rifle.

Port Arthur was fairly unique in the scale of it, a shock to the national consciousness, but afterwards, despite an estimated two thirds of prohibited weapons remaining “on the streets”, spree shootings generally stopped be it with lever actions, bolt actions, or shotguns. I put it to you that the stop was more a societal thing, than a firearms law thing.

Mass shooting New Zealand Mosque - MOD NOTE POST #1

Comments