Mass shooting in NZ mosque
Discussion
DurianIceCream said:
Burwood said:
That is a semi-automatic rifle. Semi-autononly. An assault rifle is select fire. 
red_slr said:
Here are 2 UK legal firearms.
If you had to vote to ban one or the other which would you ban and why?
Both and neither. If you had to vote to ban one or the other which would you ban and why?
We absolutely do not need guns as personal property. Nobody does.
But we should be allowed to own things if they exist. Now if that means that our current licencing checks need to be altered so guns must be stored at registered ranges or specific places where organised shoots take place the so be it. But at least those who want to shoot would have them.
Guns isn't the issue anyway. The issue is social division, magnified by social media and the broadcast media. Fed by populist politicians and attractive to those incapable of independent thought or research. I honestly believe turning the internet off could fix more problems than banning guns, even though I could make a far stronger case for why the internet is good.
Burwood said:
Thats not my point-a poster said 'you know AR15's are illegal in NZ anyway'. Im suggesting they are actually legal to buy. I know nothing about firearms. I get what you're saying about definitions. I'll call them Rapid Fire weapons.
Nobody said that. They said assault rifles are illegal in NZ. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Assault rifles are select fire. Also if you don't know anything about firearms, why did you pick a calibre of rifle (a .270) which you want to have stored in a central repository? If you don't know about firearms, why do you think a .243 is OK to have at home but a .308 is not OK to have at home?
Salmonofdoubt said:
We absolutely do not need guns as personal property. Nobody does.
But we should be allowed to own things if they exist. Now if that means that our current licencing checks need to be altered so guns must be stored at registered ranges or specific places where organised shoots take place the so be it. But at least those who want to shoot would have them.
\
If you don't like guns and want to ban guns, why not just say you don't like guns and want to ban guns. That would be a reasonable opinion. Instead you have decided by yourself how gun owners should and should not be able to use their guns, without thinking it through and coming up with something which is unworkable for the majority of gun owners and well, which just makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about and made it all up. But we should be allowed to own things if they exist. Now if that means that our current licencing checks need to be altered so guns must be stored at registered ranges or specific places where organised shoots take place the so be it. But at least those who want to shoot would have them.
\
How would primary producers get their guns out of a central repository?
How would target shooters get their guns out of a central repository when they shoot at various locations which change week-to-week which could be a long distance from the central repository?
Why would you store guns in a central repository when everyone would know it is full of guns and a great place to go to steal guns, when instead gun owners could store them in a safe at home which nobody knows about?
Since the same people who have guns at home would have guns in a central repository (and would be able to travel all round the country and all round the world with their guns), what difference does it make that they are stored in a central repository when not on the way to or from a shooting event?
Just say you hate guns and want them banned, rather than coming up with half-arsed unthought restrictions which will reduce, not improve, public safety.
Edited by DurianIceCream on Thursday 21st March 12:03
DurianIceCream said:
Do you think if he hadn't had those guns, he would have just used a knife and killed a handful of people?
Maybe not, but he had the options of other means yet still chose the firearms he did. I expect that’s primarily because he judged them the most effective means of killing the most people.
A bomb can be effective as we saw in Manchester, but that was more people condensed into an area at a more specific and predictable time and that resulted in half the fatalities.
I wonder if the terrorist for that incident would have chosen a bomb had he been able to acquire what the NZ terrorist managed to acquire.
La Liga said:
aybe not, but he had the options of other means yet still chose the firearms he did.
I expect that’s primarily because he judged them the most effective means of killing the most people.
A bomb can be effective as we saw in Manchester, but that was more people condensed into an area at a more specific and predictable time and that resulted in half the fatalities.
I wonder if the terrorist for that incident would have chosen a bomb had he been able to acquire what the NZ terrorist managed to acquire.
The bits needed to bolt onto an AR rifle to make it self loading are freely available on the internet. I don't doubt one of his right-wing buddies in the US could have shipped him them and lied on the customs declaration. Anyone with a lathe can make them using schematics found online. These very situations have been found happening here in the UK.I expect that’s primarily because he judged them the most effective means of killing the most people.
A bomb can be effective as we saw in Manchester, but that was more people condensed into an area at a more specific and predictable time and that resulted in half the fatalities.
I wonder if the terrorist for that incident would have chosen a bomb had he been able to acquire what the NZ terrorist managed to acquire.
This is all conjecture of course, but so is "if we'd have banned these then this couldn't happen!". After Hungerford we tightened gun licensing, ten years later Dunblane happened and we tightened it again, ten years after that Cumbria happened. Each successive round of legislation did nothing to stop the subsequent massacre.
La Liga said:
aybe not, but he had the options of other means yet still chose the firearms he did.
I expect that’s primarily because he judged them the most effective means of killing the most people.
A bomb can be effective as we saw in Manchester, but that was more people condensed into an area at a more specific and predictable time and that resulted in half the fatalities.
I wonder if the terrorist for that incident would have chosen a bomb had he been able to acquire what the NZ terrorist managed to acquire.
All of that is explained in his manifesto, gun choice was to sow division with the 'Left and Right' of AmericaI expect that’s primarily because he judged them the most effective means of killing the most people.
A bomb can be effective as we saw in Manchester, but that was more people condensed into an area at a more specific and predictable time and that resulted in half the fatalities.
I wonder if the terrorist for that incident would have chosen a bomb had he been able to acquire what the NZ terrorist managed to acquire.
j_4m said:
The bits needed to bolt onto an AR rifle to make it self loading are freely available on the internet. I don't doubt one of his right-wing buddies in the US could have shipped him them and lied on the customs declaration. Anyone with a lathe can make them using schematics found online. These very situations have been found happening here in the UK.
This is all conjecture of course, but so is "if we'd have banned these then this couldn't happen!". After Hungerford we tightened gun licensing, ten years later Dunblane happened and we tightened it again, ten years after that Cumbria happened. Each successive round of legislation did nothing to stop the subsequent massacre.
But what did it do to other possible crimes? I've seen direct evidence that prohibition / the lack of availability stops criminal committing crime. It's hardly a stretch to imagine the same things have prevented people from carrying out mass shootings who may otherwise have done so. This is all conjecture of course, but so is "if we'd have banned these then this couldn't happen!". After Hungerford we tightened gun licensing, ten years later Dunblane happened and we tightened it again, ten years after that Cumbria happened. Each successive round of legislation did nothing to stop the subsequent massacre.
Bad outcomes do not mean there isn't a reduction of risk and reforms aren't successful. I don't think anyone who made legislative changes / changed licenses / policies said the changes would stop gun crime or "this couldn't happen".
Football banning orders don't stop football violence, but they reduce the risk.
The terrorists we have seen haven't used knives because they were there primary choice. Lee Rigby's killer didn't pick a 90-year old firearm because it was his preferred option. It's because they aren't able to obtain easily obtain firearms.
And again, were need to look to wider criminality when it comes to prohibition, regulation and lack of availability to see how harm is also reduced.
People are sailing close to the rather flimsy argument of, "Well he could kill with other things so why bother to look at firearms?"
Aphex said:
All of that is explained in his manifesto, gun choice was to sow division with the 'Left and Right' of America.
He wrote, "I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse", but I expect, as I wrote, he chose them as they were the most effective means of killing the most people. La Liga said:
e wrote, "I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse", but I expect, as I wrote, he chose them as they were the most effective means of killing the most people.
"Why did you choose to use firearms? I could have chosen any weapons or means.A TATP filled rental van. Household flour, a method of dispersion and an ignition source.A ballpeen hammer and a wooden shield.Gas,fire,vehicular attacks,plane attacks, any means were available. I had the will and I had the resources. I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states and thereby the political situation of the world. The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines. With enough pressure the left wing within the United states will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the US will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty. This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the US along cultural and racial lines."
La Liga said:
But what did it do to other possible crimes? I've seen direct evidence that prohibition / the lack of availability stops criminal committing crime. It's hardly a stretch to imagine the same things have prevented people from carrying out mass shootings who may otherwise have done so.
Are we specifically talking about NZ here? Their murder rate is less than 1 in 100k, one of the lowest in the world. This shooting really was an isolated incident by a determined individual.Licensing and a high cost of ownership present strong enough barriers against your common criminal scumbag. The Lee Rigby killers aren't comparable to Brievik or Tarrant, they didn't have the means or intelligence to carry out more than a savage murder.
Edited by j_4m on Thursday 21st March 13:29
Laws can be tightened and loosened. Parties can campaign on the basis of either and the country can decide on which direction to proceed, so I don't understand why the slippery slope is always mentioned when certain world leaders will call national emergencies demanding military action on the basis of some darker skinned people approaching on the horizon.
But I'm sad that human life is valued so minimally on a whole. In the US, many will feel utterly righteous shooting someone to death for trying to steal their car from their driveway in the middle of the night. In a snap decision, it was decided that a human life was worth less than an insurance premium increase on a £28,000 lump of steel, plastic and rubber, and the law will likely support that. This speaks to America's relationship with guns.
My take on the UK, as a young person when Dunblane occurred, was that the UK population accepted that if the occasional cost of gun ownership was dead school children, then handguns weren't worth having. The massive amounts of weapons handed in during the amnesty displayed that I think. The nation decided to shift its relationship to guns.
My issue with gun enthusiasts worldwide, is that they seem to utterly refuse to reconsider their relationship with firearms, whether as collectors, hunters, or sportsmen - there is no cost high enough that would cause them to trade off certain - very extravagant - liberties which have carried over from a bygone age. Owning any kind of weapon capable of taking a number of human lives in a blink of an eye is a massive responsibility. The general populace places their trust in you to use it in the most limited of circumstances and environments, and - yes - also places trust in the authorities to ensure only the right people have them. But you need to understand that when one of those previously trusted people breaks that trust and commits such a heinous act, we turn to you, gun owners, enthusiasts and lobbyists to offer us something to continue to keep that trust in you collectively.
No amount of background checks will prevent ALL mass shootings. And all mass shooters have one thing in common - they all at some point came into ownership of a weapon which makes them incredibly over powered compared to the man on the street, and for at least some period of time kept their head down and lived with those weapons under their roof peacefully.
So unless you want the decision made for you by a voting public and referenda, you need to decide what is a fair human cost that can be repaid by the justice of either the death or sentencing of a single offender, and be prepared to offer something - ANYTHING - which perhaps curtails your gun owning rights. Things like reducing the ease with which you can thin a herd, or accept that target shooting offers nothing to anyone except those who participate in the sport, and so its unreasonable to demand you hold on to large calibre or rapid firing weapons simply for you hobby at a potential cost to the safety of the general public from lunatics in your midst. But all too often you just close ranks.
But I'm sad that human life is valued so minimally on a whole. In the US, many will feel utterly righteous shooting someone to death for trying to steal their car from their driveway in the middle of the night. In a snap decision, it was decided that a human life was worth less than an insurance premium increase on a £28,000 lump of steel, plastic and rubber, and the law will likely support that. This speaks to America's relationship with guns.
My take on the UK, as a young person when Dunblane occurred, was that the UK population accepted that if the occasional cost of gun ownership was dead school children, then handguns weren't worth having. The massive amounts of weapons handed in during the amnesty displayed that I think. The nation decided to shift its relationship to guns.
My issue with gun enthusiasts worldwide, is that they seem to utterly refuse to reconsider their relationship with firearms, whether as collectors, hunters, or sportsmen - there is no cost high enough that would cause them to trade off certain - very extravagant - liberties which have carried over from a bygone age. Owning any kind of weapon capable of taking a number of human lives in a blink of an eye is a massive responsibility. The general populace places their trust in you to use it in the most limited of circumstances and environments, and - yes - also places trust in the authorities to ensure only the right people have them. But you need to understand that when one of those previously trusted people breaks that trust and commits such a heinous act, we turn to you, gun owners, enthusiasts and lobbyists to offer us something to continue to keep that trust in you collectively.
No amount of background checks will prevent ALL mass shootings. And all mass shooters have one thing in common - they all at some point came into ownership of a weapon which makes them incredibly over powered compared to the man on the street, and for at least some period of time kept their head down and lived with those weapons under their roof peacefully.
So unless you want the decision made for you by a voting public and referenda, you need to decide what is a fair human cost that can be repaid by the justice of either the death or sentencing of a single offender, and be prepared to offer something - ANYTHING - which perhaps curtails your gun owning rights. Things like reducing the ease with which you can thin a herd, or accept that target shooting offers nothing to anyone except those who participate in the sport, and so its unreasonable to demand you hold on to large calibre or rapid firing weapons simply for you hobby at a potential cost to the safety of the general public from lunatics in your midst. But all too often you just close ranks.
Edited by Wrathalanche on Thursday 21st March 13:56
Wrathalanche said:
But I'm sad that human life is valued so minimally on a whole. In the US, many will feel utterly righteous shooting someone to death for trying to steal their car from their driveway in the middle of the night. In a snap decision, it was decided that a human life was worth less than an insurance premium increase on a £28,000 lump of steel, plastic and rubber, and the law will likely support that. This speaks to America's relationship with guns.
Taking the gun element out of it for a second, I still think you have it wrong.The transgression begins with the individual who not only decides to take something which does not belong to him/her but also, in and of that action, decides to put the owners/occupants at risk in the same instant. You go outside of the law, you face the consequences. Without that basis, there can be no fair or logical law and order. Granted, there are limits to reasonable force, but the criminal(s) should never feel they are safe.
j_4m said:
La Liga said:
But what did it do to other possible crimes? I've seen direct evidence that prohibition / the lack of availability stops criminal committing crime. It's hardly a stretch to imagine the same things have prevented people from carrying out mass shootings who may otherwise have done so.
Are we specifically talking about NZ here? Their murder rate is less than 1 in 100k, one of the lowest in the world. This shooting really was an isolated incident by a determined individual.Licensing and a high cost of ownership present strong enough barriers against your common criminal scumbag. The Lee Rigby killers aren't comparable to Brievik or Tarrant, they didn't have the means or intelligence to carry out more than a savage murder.
The response needs to be bespoke to New Zealand and what they balance as risks vs benefits.
Aphex said:
"Why did you choose to use firearms?
I could have chosen any weapons or means.A TATP filled rental van. Household flour, a method of dispersion and an ignition source.A ballpeen hammer and a wooden shield.Gas,fire,vehicular attacks,plane attacks, any means were available. I had the will and I had the resources. I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states and thereby the political situation of the world. The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines. With enough pressure the left wing within the United states will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the US will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty. This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the US along cultural and racial lines."
Yes, I've read it, but as I say I expect he also chose firearms due to the effectiveness as well as any perceived political gain. I could have chosen any weapons or means.A TATP filled rental van. Household flour, a method of dispersion and an ignition source.A ballpeen hammer and a wooden shield.Gas,fire,vehicular attacks,plane attacks, any means were available. I had the will and I had the resources. I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states and thereby the political situation of the world. The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines. With enough pressure the left wing within the United states will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the US will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty. This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the US along cultural and racial lines."
He could have combined other methods if he had so wish. Apparently that included 'planes' and 'any means', which clearly isn't the case, so I wouldn't add too much weight to some of things he writes.
desolate said:
Surely the new gun law is about more than just statistics?
It's about political leadership and making people who are shocked feel as if something is being done .
Which is a terrible basis for legislation. Law should be cold and impartial, not subject to emotion or empathy.It's about political leadership and making people who are shocked feel as if something is being done .
Digga said:
Taking the gun element out of it for a second, I still think you have it wrong.
The transgression begins with the individual who not only decides to take something which does not belong to him/her but also, in and of that action, decides to put the owners/occupants at risk in the same instant. You go outside of the law, you face the consequences. Without that basis, there can be no fair or logical law and order. Granted, there are limits to reasonable force, but the criminal(s) should never feel they are safe.
I agree their should be consequences. But that they should not automatically be ramped up to fatal. Nowhere in my hypothetical situation was anyone at risk - that's a wholly different argument about self defence etc.The transgression begins with the individual who not only decides to take something which does not belong to him/her but also, in and of that action, decides to put the owners/occupants at risk in the same instant. You go outside of the law, you face the consequences. Without that basis, there can be no fair or logical law and order. Granted, there are limits to reasonable force, but the criminal(s) should never feel they are safe.
If I looked out my window at night and saw someone trying to make off with my car, I'd phone the police and from there it would be out of my hands. No court in the land would sentence him to death. But there seems to be a machismo in the US that suggests that killing the man dead on the spot would be justifiable, simply for the sake of stopping him getting away with the car.
ETA - Trayvon Martin was shot dead by a member of the public for less! Just for standing on the street outside someone's house, FFS. If we leave the decision of dispensing consequences of law to the general public, rather than police, you are essentially allowing people like this NZ monster to respond to any grievance with as much force as they like.
Edited by Wrathalanche on Thursday 21st March 14:08
Wrathalanche said:
If I looked out my window at night and saw someone trying to make off with my car, I'd phone the police and from there it would be out of my hands. No court in the land would sentence him to death. But there seems to be a machismo in the US that suggests that killing the man dead on the spot would be justifiable, simply for the sake of stopping him getting away with the car.
No. It isn't about the car but about the crime against person and property. If someone is threatening damage or theft to you, your family or your property you are absolutely right to stop them using whatever means you have to hand.La Liga said:
Aphex said:
"Why did you choose to use firearms?
I could have chosen any weapons or means.<>."
Yes, I've read it, but as I say I expect he also chose firearms due to the effectiveness as well as any perceived political gain. I could have chosen any weapons or means.<>."
He could have combined other methods if he had so wish. Apparently that included 'planes' and 'any means', which clearly isn't the case, so I wouldn't add too much weight to some of things he writes.
j_4m said:
No. It isn't about the car but about the crime against person and property. If someone is threatening damage or theft to you, your family or your property you are absolutely right to stop them using whatever means you have to hand.
And that's what I find deplorable. Defence of people/persons yes- I understand that. But to enable people to lawfully defend a term such as "property" through fatal means is ridiculous.Even if it is legal - no one should WANT to end someone's life simply for taking something that isn't theirs. A human life, even if it is a miserable little thieving scrote, shouldn't be yours to take unless your own life was immediately at risk (him or me). Hence I perceive the erosion of the value of human life to the point that they are expendable, rather than redeemable.
Wrathalanche said:
And that's what I find deplorable. Defence of people/persons yes- I understand that. But to enable people to lawfully defend a term such as "property" through fatal means is ridiculous.
Even if it is legal - no one should WANT to end someone's life simply for taking something that isn't theirs. A human life, even if it is a miserable little thieving scrote, shouldn't be yours to take unless your own life was immediately at risk (him or me). Hence I perceive the erosion of the value of human life to the point that they are expendable, rather than redeemable.
And I find the willingness to lay down and let someone do what they want to you similarly ridiculous. Property isn't just 'things', it represents time that I have spent working to acquire those things; personal sacrifices on my behalf.Even if it is legal - no one should WANT to end someone's life simply for taking something that isn't theirs. A human life, even if it is a miserable little thieving scrote, shouldn't be yours to take unless your own life was immediately at risk (him or me). Hence I perceive the erosion of the value of human life to the point that they are expendable, rather than redeemable.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff