New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[Famine]

When it came to not naming the killer, Ardern had the right idea.

Deciding, after all that, that the rabidly racist, white supremacist, anti-immigrant immigrant who wasn't on any watchlists wasn't the problem, but his access to bullets and certain types of guns was, is a little less of a right idea.

Just to put this into context, Ardern has decided to make it illegal to kill more than 30 people with a single, big gun.

 

[Sharky.]

I'm delighted that Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern has refused to publicly state the name of the attacker. I hope it is a stance that is maintained.

Jacinda is handling this very well, imo. She's listening to people and not rushing blindly into kneejerk changes (see: people wanting our rugby team - the Crusaders - to change their name), which isn't something you'd necessarily see from leaders in other countries. I applaud her approach in not mentioning the name of the terrorist because that denies him something he was no doubt seeking - a reaction. Unfortunately as soon as you go beyond NZ, the media is plastering photos of him and his name all over the internet so it's a futile effort. Valiant, but futile. I wish international media would respect our wishes on that front but clicks = money so...

We're not a particularly pro-gun country so the semi-auto ban won't be much of a problem for the vast majority of people, and the new laws won't impact .22s and shotguns typically used for hunting so I think it's a good move, although if people still want their AR15s then I fear they'll just turn to the black market and find a way to import them illegally in a similar vein to drugs. Time will tell if the law change ultimately works because laws only work when people adhere to them, but if the change reduces the overall amount of weapons like these in circulation then that can only be a good thing right?

 

[BobK]

Well, they won't be able to do that again.

What's to stop them? A law making owning the gun illegal? Keep in mind it's already illegal to go around killing people in most places, and I suspect NZ is one of those places. So what makes you think they'd obey a gun law when they won't obey a law against killing?

 

[Jawehawk]

Well, they won't be able to do that again.

Right, because it's entirely impossible for criminals to obtain stuff that is illegal. Never happens. All this does is prevent people who don't misuse guns from enjoying their hobby.

But seeing as you support removing tools that can and are used as weapons, let us get rid of private vehicles too.

 

[Joey D]

I'd say it's probably harder for someone in New Zealand to get their hands on an illegal gun than in the US. America has two very large land borders and the one with Mexico often provides a highway for illegal goods to make their way into the country easier (no this isn't a case for a wall). Not saying it's not possible in New Zealand, but an outright ban will probably have a great effect.

Not saying I agree with it, but since I'm not a Kiwi, my opinion on the matter means nothing.

 

[Danoff]

Military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles to be banned after mass shooting: PM

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/ch...H7PLF-o_f0IXjCjtfjuzoWKRSfGkMj6hRDbc6HGxK9k5E

The knee-jerk ban is a little... ridiculous to me. Do we really think it's impossible to license and track these firearms? Not to mention that it's hard to carve out exactly what's being banned... this just seems lazy on the part of the government.

"Whelp, can't be bothered to put a little effort in to make sure that people can peacefully own these, might as well just make it illegal altogether then". There is a middle ground here, which is strict licensing. Instead people who have peacefully owned these guns for a long time, and who have never murdered even a few people with them, are being told that they have a certain amount of time to hand them over or become criminals.

This is a small global failure for freedom. And it encourages mass murderers who want to affect policy.

 

[LeMansAid]

New Zealand will continue to be New Zealand, just as Australia continued to be Australia. Only, in future, New Zealand will most likely also be used as a misguided example of how "gun control" is effective.

I reject the implied notion that Australia currently has would-be mass murderers that are not committing mass murder simply because they can't legally obtain a specific type of gun. Likewise, New Zealand over the coming years will probably have the relatively clean record it was destined to have, regardless of any gun law changes.

 

[novcze]

Funny, they banned guns because one was misused, imagine if someone wanted to ban migrants because one of them misbehaved and drove truck into people ... btw. answer to both problems is unrelenting strict control

 

[PocketZeven]

Not singling you out as many here in this forum bring this up, you just happen to be the latest instance I have seen of it.

Gun ownership and guns aren't illegal in Australia. Some types of guns yes absolutely but such a sweeping statement is wrong.

Sorry I rephrase that Australia enacted strict gun laws, banning semi-automatic and Shotguns.

Never really understood the idea on weapons being illegal suddenly making them impossible to own. Illegal blackmarkets exist- and sure it may leave the more "regular" owner out of the equation, but if it's someone sinister, or gang related... is a law really going to stop them?

Think of the flipside. Making them fully legal and available wont make the situation better. Essentially the same can be said of drugs, prostitution etc. The most direct consequence though is that the prices will raise significantly. Prices of blackmarket drugs and guns are probably skyhigh in Australia, compared to the USA.

Funny, they banned guns because one was misused, imagine if someone wanted to ban migrants because one of them misbehaved and drove truck into people ... btw. answer to both problems is unrelenting strict control

I am guilty of misusing "banning"guns. What I personally mean is restricting ownership with proper licensing, control and training requirements. Without a license ownership should always be a crime.

 

[Danoff]

Making them fully legal and available wont make the situation better. Essentially the same can be said of drugs, prostitution etc. The most direct consequence though is that the prices will raise significantly. Prices of blackmarket drugs and guns are probably skyhigh in Australia, compared to the USA.

Depends on what you mean by "better". If your goal is to reduce gun ownership, making it legal won't make it better. If your goal is to reduce violence, making them legal might make it better. Many of the reasons for that have been cited before.

You have a singular focus on reducing gun ownership instead of the actual problem - which is violence. I do not understand it. I think you want to help reduce violence, but your continued substitution of gun ownership for violence calls that into question.

Taking the drugs and prostitution examples for a moment, legalizing them won't decrease the amount of drug use or prostitution use (the illegal form of which is called human trafficking, which sounds a lot worse). So if your goal is to decrease usage, legalizing it is not a good idea. If your goal is to reduce harm associated with those activities, legalizing it might be exactly what is needed. Because making drugs illegal results in a lot of unwanted side effects, like guns used to protect drugs (because cops can't be called), and drug deals in cash (resulting in armed theft), and drugs cut with dangerous substances (because you can't check yelp for reviews), and more dangerous overdose situations (nobody wants to take you to the hospital). Same goes for prostitution. Pimps become important when johns can abuse the worker without fear of reprise from the cops. Pimps can then abuse the workers also without fear of reprise from the cops. Prostitutes are also more likely to carry dangerous diseases (because you can't check yelp for reviews), and guns are also needed to safeguard cash transactions which are vulnerable to theft.

So, as you can see, your priorities are quite important. Yes, if your goal is to reduce gun ownership, legalizing it doesn't help. That shouldn't be your goal, your goal should be to reduce violence, and making them illegal doesn't necessary achieve that goal.

 

[abrahamx]

Funny, they banned guns because one was misused, imagine if someone wanted to ban migrants because one of them misbehaved and drove truck into people ... btw. answer to both problems is unrelenting strict control

True but world wide they are continuously mis used all the time. More than I care to try and remember. Only a few times has a migrant drove a truck into people. If it starts happening all the time for a hundred years or more than I would be all for banning migrants.

 

[Danoff]

True but world wide they are continuously mis used all the time. More than I care to try and remember. Only a few times has a migrant drove a truck into people. If it starts happening all the time for a hundred years or more than I would be all for banning migrants.

Start out by banning men then, who commit the lion's share of violent crime.

 

[Famine]

True but world wide they are continuously mis used all the time. More than I care to try and remember. Only a few times has a migrant drove a truck into people. If it starts happening all the time for a hundred years or more than I would be all for banning migrants.

There's 3,500 deaths on the world's roads every day.

 

[PocketZeven]

Depends on what you mean by "better". If your goal is to reduce gun ownership, making it legal won't make it better. If your goal is to reduce violence, making them legal might make it better. Many of the reasons for that have been cited before.

You have a singular focus on reducing gun ownership instead of the actual problem - which is violence. I do not understand it. I think you want to help reduce violence, but your continued substitution of gun ownership for violence calls that into question.

Taking the drugs and prostitution examples for a moment, legalizing them won't decrease the amount of drug use or prostitution use (the illegal form of which is called human trafficking, which sounds a lot worse). So if your goal is to decrease usage, legalizing it is not a good idea. If your goal is to reduce harm associated with those activities, legalizing it might be exactly what is needed. Because making drugs illegal results in a lot of unwanted side effects, like guns used to protect drugs (because cops can't be called), and drug deals in cash (resulting in armed theft), and drugs cut with dangerous substances (because you can't check yelp for reviews), and more dangerous overdose situations (nobody wants to take you to the hospital). Same goes for prostitution. Pimps become important when johns can abuse the worker without fear of reprise from the cops. Pimps can then abuse the workers also without fear of reprise from the cops. Prostitutes are also more likely to carry dangerous diseases (because you can't check yelp for reviews), and guns are also needed to safeguard cash transactions which are vulnerable to theft.

So, as you can see, your priorities are quite important. Yes, if your goal is to reduce gun ownership, legalizing it doesn't help. That shouldn't be your goal, your goal should be to reduce violence, and making them illegal doesn't necessary achieve that goal.

Reducing gunrelated violent crime by having stricter gun laws has been proven around the world. I dont need to add anything to that.
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data...Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf
conclusion: "While the specific relationship between firearm availability and homicide is complex, it appears that a vicious circle connects firearm availability and higher homicide levels,"

With drugs and prostitution I can already tell you making it legal (or semi legal) like in my country does not prevent drugrelated crime or human trafficking. From experience human trafficking and drugrelated crime are not solely the result of banning drugs and prostitution.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Funny, they banned guns because one was misused, imagine if someone wanted to ban migrants because one of them misbehaved and drove truck into people ... btw. answer to both problems is unrelenting strict control

Comparing people to a tool which accelerates small metallic objects into other objects and beings makes perfect sense.

 

[Danoff]

Reducing gunrelated violent crime

Totally irrelevant, and exactly what I was explaining before.

With drugs and prostitution I can already tell you making it legal (or semi legal) like in my country does not prevent drugrelated crime or human trafficking. From experience human trafficking and drugrelated crime are not solely the result of banning drugs and prostitution.

Sure. People steal all kinds of things that are legal. This is a no-brainer.

 

[PocketZeven]

Totally irrelevant, and exactly what I was explaining before.



Sure. People steal all kinds of things that are legal. This is a no-brainer.

I have posted many times that violent crime and gunlaws are closely related. Just like less violent crime is closely related to strict gunlaws.

 

[Danoff]

I have posted many times that violent crime and gunlaws are closely related. Just like less violent crime is closely related to strict gunlaws.

And what do you think the relationship is and what evidence do you have to support that relationship. For example, do you think that they're correlated? If so, please provide evidence. Keep in mind how many variables you have to control for in establishing correlation. What do you think the correlation relationship is? More violent crime leads to lax gun laws? Or the inverse? Please provide evidence of your selection.

You think you can keep making this assertion without supporting it.

 

[novcze]

Comparing people to a tool which accelerates small metallic objects into other objects and beings makes perfect sense.

yeah, I know.
Lax gun and migration policies are not good, but banning them it's not the answer, strict policies are.

 

[PocketZeven]

And what do you think the relationship is and what evidence do you have to support that relationship. For example, do you think that they're correlated? If so, please provide evidence. Keep in mind how many variables you have to control for in establishing correlation. What do you think the correlation relationship is? More violent crime leads to lax gun laws? Or the inverse? Please provide evidence of your selection.

You think you can keep making this assertion without supporting it.

I have posted multiple reports and stats before, however you chose not to make the same conclusions.

edit: I need to add that overall (rich) countries do not neccesarily have less crime. I am speaking of gunrelated crime that is much, much higher.

 

[Animera]

What a defeatist attitude some people have.
Nothing would ever be done if everyone just sat around and did nothing because someone could find a way around it anyway.

As a New Zealander I'm happy that it will be more difficult in New Zealand for someone to commit an act like this again.

 

[PocketZeven]

What a defeatist attitude some people have.
Nothing would ever be done if everyone just sat around and did nothing because someone could find a way around it anyway.

As a New Zealander I'm happy that it will be more difficult in New Zealand for someone to commit an act like this again.

Thats the problem with providing such solutions to people that have no experience with said actions in their own environment. I feel safer knowing it is unlikely that anyone in my country owns and/or is carrying a firearm.

 

[Dennisch]

Thats the problem with providing such solutions to people that have no experience with said actions in their own environment. I feel safer knowing it is unlikely that anyone in my country owns and/or is carrying a firearm.

You should do your homework and look up how many people legally have weapons, and then look up how many illegal weapons there are, and just how available they are.

Hint: very.

 

[PocketZeven]

You should do your homework and look up how many people legally have weapons, and then look up how many illegal weapons there are, and just how available they are.

Hint: very.

I did and it is much, much lower then in the USA. I have never seen a gun (except on police) in my life in the netherlands. I have shot guns on gunranges in China though.

 

[Exorcet]

What a defeatist attitude some people have.
Nothing would ever be done if everyone just sat around and did nothing because someone could find a way around it anyway.

As a New Zealander I'm happy that it will be more difficult in New Zealand for someone to commit an act like this again.

The goal isn't to have nothing done, but to have the right thing done (and limit its effects only to those people that need to be contained). A gun ban is more likely to reduce the use of guns in heat of the moment disputes perhaps, but less likely to stop a determined attacker from taking lives. Even if you look at this from an anti-gun perspective, the response doesn't seem all that fitting for the attack in question.

 

[Danoff]

What a defeatist attitude some people have.
Nothing would ever be done if everyone just sat around and did nothing because someone could find a way around it anyway.

As a New Zealander I'm happy that it will be more difficult in New Zealand for someone to commit an act like this again.

You're not thinking it through.

You have a psycho wanna-be mass murderer who hates *group* and wants to kill them. He has more trouble obtaining a gun legally. That seems to be where you stop the analysis. I want you to follow it through to its logical conclusion. Does he then decide not to kill? Or does he find another way to do it... perhaps a more effective way... perhaps a way that involves more collateral damage. Let's say a legal firearm cost this guy $200. Let's say an illegal firearm would have cost him $2000. How do you know that that matters? You need to think of it from the perspective of someone who is about to make this their life's purpose, and possibly decide to die in the process. Do you think that $1800 is a deterrant? Would $18,000 be? Obviously at some point, it would cause a change in behavior. I'm just not sure you've gotten there yet.

So pat yourself on the back for thinking you've done something to help stop this from happening. And just don't bother thinking critically about whether it's the case. Also ignore the real consequences and sacrifices you're making in order to tell yourself you've done something.

 

[Tina Branford]

I just can't wait to hear of people crafting semi automatic guns in New Zealand. Just because they can't be sold and taxed doesn't make them go away.

 

[Animera]

There's no need for me to pat myself on the back since I've done nothing, unlike yourself with your condescending attitude who has a lot to say, but no solution to provide.

I can only talk for myself and I'll say it again. I am happy that it is more difficult for an idiot to commit this type of act again in my country.
I'm not naive enough, despite your attempts to show that I am, to think that this will stop anyone who is 100% committed to doing something like this from doing it.

Out of interest, what would you do if you were the NZ Prime Minister?

 

[PocketZeven]

You're not thinking it through.

You have a psycho wanna-be mass murderer who hates *group* and wants to kill them. He has more trouble obtaining a gun legally. That seems to be where you stop the analysis. I want you to follow it through to its logical conclusion. Does he then decide not to kill? Or does he find another way to do it... perhaps a more effective way... perhaps a way that involves more collateral damage. Let's say a legal firearm cost this guy $200. Let's say an illegal firearm would have cost him $2000. How do you know that that matters? You need to think of it from the perspective of someone who is about to make this their life's purpose, and possibly decide to die in the process. Do you think that $1800 is a deterrant? Would $18,000 be? Obviously at some point, it would cause a change in behavior. I'm just not sure you've gotten there yet.

So pat yourself on the back for thinking you've done something to help stop this from happening. And just don't bother thinking critically about whether it's the case. Also ignore the real consequences and sacrifices you're making in order to tell yourself you've done something.

Lets say you are mentally unstable and in rage and you want to kill your classmates or immigrants. A firearm costs 2k (which you cant afford at the moment) and you also need to find a black armsdealer or look on the dark web. So you start finding money or start saving, making connection, asking around, using your IP to google "firearm dark web". In the mean time you might cool down or are intervened by council/doctor/family/friend/love intrest and decide you dont want to act in that "fit of rage" anymore. How different it could have been if he could immediately act on his decision and go to the local gunstore and purchase one after a simple backgroundcheck.

Your example is legitimate, but isnt making it more difficult for that person to obtain a weapon, a deterrant or at least a way to slow his progress/ planning down since there are more steps to his endgoal so that authorities can find the breadcrumbs or people in his surroundings recommend a mental health specialist ? A lot more things that could go wrong, make mistakes and get caught or intervened, compared to relatively easily obtaining a gun legally?

edit: fixed spelling

 

[SVX]

Think of the flipside. Making them fully legal and available wont make the situation better. Essentially the same can be said of drugs, prostitution etc. The most direct consequence though is that the prices will raise significantly. Prices of blackmarket drugs and guns are probably skyhigh in Australia, compared to the USA.

The flipside is NZ pre-mosque attack - where it's taken this long for anything of this level to impact the country in the first place. It's not like criminals have suddenly had a collective 'ah-ha' moment and due to the mosque attack, realising that these guns exist and suddenly see an upsurge of NZ terror attacks. The people who would've used them before in an attack, would've used them regardless of legality. Personally I don't think this is any more than an irregularity, instead of a consequence of a law we have in place.

prostitution

The irony about this statement is that prostitution is legal in this country.