J28

Shooting at a Mosque in Christchurch NZ

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

You think even "normal" people will behave responsibly with this material? It's not so long ago that "responsible parents" took kids to public hangings to teach them the consequences of crime. Or people took really little kids to lay flowers at massacre sites. Or "righteous" people took kids to nigger* lynching and burnings for that matter. I think I see your point but I think you're naive. 

 

*context. 

Earlier you say “gamers” will be responsible about this video. And then you question whether normal people will.  Let me guess your kid is a gamer and your knee jerk reaction is that people like him/her are normal and their games don’t incite violence, yet “normal” people will use this video incorrectly. 

You cant believe it both ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

You'd be better off gaming..reading and comprehension ain't your strong point.:rolleyes:

My comprehension is strong. Your writing is all over the place.

For instance. You didn’t address what I said.

So I understand that to mean what I wrote is to close to the truth. So which is it, is your kid a gamer or is he normal? You separated the 2 groups by saying they would treat the material differently. So which is it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Earlier you say “gamers” will be responsible about this video. And then you question whether normal people will.  Let me guess your kid is a gamer and your knee jerk reaction is that people like him/her are normal and their games don’t incite violence, yet “normal” people will use this video incorrectly. 

You cant believe it both ways. 

Under what legal theory would you be able to make sharing and viewing this video illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you read his "manifesto"  

he is pro-union, anti-capitalism, pro-environment, wants America to collapse and chose guns because, arson, vehicular homicide, and bombs don't stir the same divisive emotions as guns do. 

He is a white nationalist and believes the Muslim birth rate will turn a dwindling white population into their slaves in the future. 

The person he most aligns with is a communist considers China to be the best government model and hates conservatives as corproationalists who hurt the environment for profit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

Strange as it may seem, I've only seen that a few times. I was with my kids in a video store when it happened..2 mins after the first plane hit. I don't have a TV so I didn't see it again for a long  time.

Surreal, I thought it was a movie. 

Okay, but you agree most people have seen it, a bunch of times, yeah?

1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

Are you suggesting that the terrorists filmed and distributed that as propaganda? You're as bad as Random :D

It's a false equivalence. 

That's not at all what I was suggesting.

It was my response to your asking, "How would you feel if your wife was one of the victims?"

I know a few dozen people who wound up under/in the resulting pile.  Everyone here, pretty much, knows someone who ended up under that pile, or at least someone who knew someone, who ended up under that pile.

Most people have seen that footage ... probably hundreds of times.  Just check out Random's 9/11 conspiracy threads, ffs. 

So why is this different?

Is it different because you can't see the people inside the plane & the building actually die?  We could smell them, all the way up to 45th street when the wind blew that way, for months.  That footage used to bring up those memories. 

Is it different because we've all (most of us, anyways) seen it so many times, that we're desensitized, at this point? 

Is it different because they've all been "avenged" (ugh.) thousands of times over?

Honest questions, not rhetorical. 

The shooter's video was incredibly difficult to watch, I stopped & restarted a half dozen times before I got through it.  I'm not watching it ever again if I can help it. 

But I felt... obliged? for lack of a better word... to... bear witness... I guess? 

To directly confront what actually happened, and consider the implications.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Have any of you read his "manifesto"  

he is pro-union, anti-capitalism, pro-environment, wants America to collapse and chose guns because, arson, vehicular homicide, and bombs don't stir the same divisive emotions as guns do. 

He is a white nationalist and believes the Muslim birth rate will turn a dwindling white population into their slaves in the future. 

The person he most aligns with is a communist considers China to be the best government model and hates conservatives as corproationalists who hurt the environment for profit. 

Yes, I have. 

Way to cherry-pick & distort the bits that conveniently supports you caricature of "leftists", and ignore the rest...

Did you read it?  Or are you just repeating what Tucker Carlson et al have claimed?

I somehow suspect it's the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Under what legal theory would you be able to make sharing and viewing this video illegal?

are you asking me? I didn't voice an opinion one way or the other about banning this video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, frenchie said:

Okay, but you agree most people have seen it, a bunch of times, yeah?

That's not at all what I was suggesting.

It was my response to your asking, "How would you feel if your wife was one of the victims?"

I know a few dozen people who wound up under/in the resulting pile.  Everyone here, pretty much, knows someone who ended up under that pile, or at least someone who knew someone, who ended up under that pile.

Most people have seen that footage ... probably hundreds of times.  Just check out Random's 9/11 conspiracy threads, ffs. 

So why is this different?

Is it different because you can't see the people inside the plane & the building actually die?  We could smell them, all the way up to 45th street when the wind blew that way, for months.  That footage used to bring up those memories. 

Is it different because we've all (most of us, anyways) seen it so many times, that we're desensitized, at this point? 

Is it different because they've all been "avenged" (ugh.) thousands of times over?

Honest questions, not rhetorical. 

The shooter's video was incredibly difficult to watch, I stopped & restarted a half dozen times before I got through it.  I'm not watching it ever again if I can help it. 

But I felt... obliged? for lack of a better word... to... bear witness... I guess? 

To directly confront what actually happened, and consider the implications.

 

fair enough...Friend of ours was a few sneezes away from being under that pile.

But I still think the only person your obliging by posting that NZ horror is the perpetrator. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

fair enough...Friend of ours was a few sneezes away from being under that pile.

But I still think the only person your obliging by posting that NZ horror is the perpetrator. 

I'm with Frenchie on this one. What is different between the planes and the mosque? The first has been seen millions of times and is still dragged out to prove various points. Including in NZ. The second one has been deemed a chargeable offense for having, watching or spreading.

Is it because we can see faces and actually need to come to grips with the reality of what happened. The planes are still just and inanimate object, we know there are people in them but we can compartmentalise that fact. The mosque is different. This is in your face real. I am not suggesting it should be blasted across the news for weeks like the plane video was, but it should be accessable. It should be considered necessary viewing for those that are against any further changes to our laws.

To hide it away as a snuff movie, as you labelled it, is wrong. It is as though you feel that the average person isn't strong enough to watch it, they need protecting from such horrors. If fact it is the other way around. We need to see the whole disgusting event if we wish. We need to have to make the choice of watch or not, not have it made for us. It may make us think a little deeper about the reality of what happened, even if most make a personal decision not to watch. Yes dickheads will worship it, but they will do this whether we try and hide it or not. To gloss over and hide the true nature of such events just empowers the dickheads even more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, frenchie said:

Yes, I have. 

Way to cherry-pick & distort the bits that conveniently supports you caricature of "leftists", and ignore the rest...

Did you read it?  Or are you just repeating what Tucker Carlson et al have claimed?

I somehow suspect it's the latter.

1

Whoa. That post was in response to the VERY one sided cherry pick we have been getting in the news. 

The only conclusion you can form is that to paint anyone with his brush is just political bull shit.

A simple fact: anytime an event like this occurs  the immediate reaction is "Was he a liberal, a Muslim, a Christian, a right winger etc" 

What kind of sickness makes that the issue. 

The press has been going non stop trying to tie the NRA, Trump, Conservative, Republicans etc to this evil person.  News flash he is not an American. He is a product of Aussie and NZ politics, not Trump politics.  

Oh, and he decided to do this heinous act because of a terror attack in Stockholm not because of anything Trump or the NRA or Republicans did. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gissie said:

Yes dickheads will worship it, but they will do this whether we try and hide it or not.

It's very easily findable here.  Took me under ten minutes, after Mo mentioned my first link wasn't working anymore.  Just have to go to the internet sites the dickheads frequent. 

A lot of those sites are blocked in Aus & NZ, now.  Also completely ineffective, since these are internet natives, have been getting around blocks since they were babies. 

 

33 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Whoa. That post was in response to the VERY one sided cherry pick we have been getting in the news. 

The only conclusion you can form is that to paint anyone with his brush is just political bull shit.

A simple fact: anytime an event like this occurs  the immediate reaction is "Was he a liberal, a Muslim, a Christian, a right winger etc" 

What kind of sickness makes that the issue. 

The press has been going non stop trying to tie the NRA, Trump, Conservative, Republicans etc to this evil person.  News flash he is not an American. He is a product of Aussie and NZ politics, not Trump politics.  

Oh, and he decided to do this heinous act because of a terror attack in Stockholm not because of anything Trump or the NRA or Republicans did. 

 

 

I had written a long detailed answer to this, but then... I erased it all. 

You haven't read it, have you? 

You still haven't.

Have you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, frenchie said:

It's very easily findable here.  Took me under ten minutes, after Mo mentioned my first link wasn't working anymore.  Just have to go to the internet sites the dickheads frequent. 

A lot of those sites are blocked in Aus & NZ, now.  Also completely ineffective, since these are internet natives, have been getting around blocks since they were babies. 

 

 

I had written a long detailed answer to this, but then... I erased it all. 

You haven't read it, have you? 

You still haven't.

Have you?

 

I think he needs to wait for the audio book. Reading is not his strong suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, frenchie said:

It's very easily findable here.  Took me under ten minutes, after Mo mentioned my first link wasn't working anymore.  Just have to go to the internet sites the dickheads frequent. 

A lot of those sites are blocked in Aus & NZ, now.  Also completely ineffective, since these are internet natives, have been getting around blocks since they were babies.

 

The sites are not only blocked but the police have warned the will arrest anyone caught with it, linking it or sharing it. So not a good idea to go hunting if you are here. Unless, as you point out, you are one of those that support it all and have been dodging and hiding shit on the web for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, frenchie said:

It's very easily findable here.  Took me under ten minutes, after Mo mentioned my first link wasn't working anymore.  Just have to go to the internet sites the dickheads frequent. 

A lot of those sites are blocked in Aus & NZ, now.  Also completely ineffective, since these are internet natives, have been getting around blocks since they were babies. 

 

 

It was my link to the manifesto I pointed out wasn't working when pointing out Arden lied about not knowing specific details of what terrorist was doing , the police commissioner said they knew where to find him because he also mentioned a 3rd mosque. I didn't post the shooting video. I did post a video years ago with a 7 year old Taliban boy doing his first beheading and haven't watched any beheading videos after seeing Chechens beheading a Russian woman then her husband. A warning on watching Chechen beheading vids they do it very slowly.

 Since the terrorist was nearly tackled by one of the victims I think if that happened where concealed carry is allowed it could have been stopped with far less killed.

The terrorist didn't use a silencer which are available over the counter it would have been very loud  someone who concealed carries would have known what was going on. For some reason criminals don't use silencers even when they're easy to get.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff posted this link the Guardian is not really a credible source it's leftist garbage.

Quote

Explainer: how are New Zealand's gun laws changing?

1. What semi-automatic firearms will be affected by the ban?

The ban will apply to all firearms that are now defined as military-style semi-automatics (MSSAs) and will also include assault rifles.

2. What semi-automatic firearms will not be affected by the ban?

There is a balance to be struck between public safety and legitimate use. The changes exclude two general classes of firearms which are commonly used for hunting, pest control, stock management on farms, and duck shooting.

  • Semi-automatic dogballs calibre rimfire firearms with a magazine which holds no more than 10 rounds

  • Semi-automatic and pump action shotguns with a non-detachable tubular magazine which holds no more than five rounds

  • 3. What semi-automatic firearms are affected by today’s changes?

    Two types of firearms are now defined as MSSAs:

  • A semi-automatic firearm capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges

  • A semi-automatic shotgun capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges

  • 4. What happens to people who have A-Category firearms licences and now, after the changes, own MSSAs?

    It would normally be an offence for an A-Category licence holder to possess an MSSA, punishable by up to three years in prison or a $4,000 fine. However a transitional period gives time for people to comply with the law, if they take certain steps. The transitional period will be confirmed next month. Firearms owners who unlawfully possess an MSSA now have three options

  • Voluntarily surrender the firearm to police for safe disposal

  • Complete an online form on the police website to arrange for the MSSA to be collected, while details are finalised for compensation under a buy back scheme

  • Sell or gift the firearm to a person who has an E-Category licence and a “permit to procure” the weapon

  • https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/explainer-how-are-new-zealands-gun-laws-changing

Reading that it appears those with category A license can no longer have an AR15 or similar  were previously limited to 7 round magazines, these are now Category E MSSA along with magazine restrictions on semi auto rimfire and semi auto shotguns. It appears these new laws are mainly for those with Category A licenses.

Where it says sell or gift the firearm to a person who has an E Category MSSA license it would appear this so called ban might not apply to those who already have MSSA Category E license.

 

The so called penalties for unlawfully having firearms already exist for some reason the judges never give anywhere near the maximum penalty, perhaps things like this might change.

Quote

Lower Hutt man who owned guns, including assault rifle, without licence gets community detention

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12215259&fbclid=IwAR39KHbQ0LLZiwHKVCAxmuxZhGtm6MyhL1IkETv0_72sR-kCV_uf7DG_8y8

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did read the whole thing.

He's says quite clearly why he did it - he trying to save, what he believes, is a long history of "Judeo-Christian European" culture.  That's his arch theme.  That's the "white supremacist" part and is easy to label.  But he's personally motivated by the story of Ebba Akerlund (the only example he discussed in detail) and pretty clearly sees her as his "damsel in distress". 

 He talks about 'taxation as theft' which is pretty much a hard libertarian talking point but also talks about 'European nations' and 'rule of law' which are more middle of the road conservative views.

Where it gets murky is he also invokes apocalyptic environmentalism and a strong anti-imperialistic/anti-corporate Zen which are much more left wing talking points.  He also laments the lack of action (just do something!) which tends to be a progressive mantra, not conservative.  So ya get a little bit of everything and partisans can grab whatever piece they want and they're partially right.

But, I take people at their word.  What does HE think he represents?  He's some sort of nationalistic conservative.  For example, when discussing the environment, he throws in "For too long we have allowed the left to co-opt the environmentalist movement to serve their own needs."   That's not the language of the left.  

------------------------------

To me, he's closer to John Hinckley Jr  than, say, Steven Paddock.  He's doesn't have a reasoned ideology - just a set of talking points that fits his vision of himself.  That's why his justification wanders all over the place.  This was about a man who had illusions of grandeur, set himself up as some sort of Don Quixote seeking redemption from a dead little girl, and murdered 50 people.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now