Mass shooting New Zealand Mosque - MOD NOTE POST #1

ClanofLams

Manic Moran wrote: »

The

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.

It’s quite a leap of logic to suggest it was a societal thing. Two thirds of prohibited weapons may have remained on the streets but they likely did so in the hands of criminal gangs. The type of dysfunctional characters who commit these acts wouldn’t have the balls or contacts to buy them from criminals and even if they did try to criminals would quite likely just take their money and tell them to F off.

Gun control was brought in, mass shootings stopped. Trying to put that down to some unknown ‘societal thing’ may be the only our gun advocates have in the argument but it’s not a very strong argument.

CabanSail

I admire Jacinda Adhern and how she has lead her nation in this sad event.

If all she did was "not utter his name" then it would have been very lame, she hasn't. When the events were very fresh and there were not clear details she made her first address. She would not have had time to get speech writers at that stage. She spoke from the heart. The main point she made then was that the community which was targeted were welcome and a part of the New Zealand society. She also has made the point that this sort of hate is not endemic there and it seems that is why they were chosen.

The address in the house was obviously a more prepared speech. The decision to not utter his name was important. Call it Virtue Signalling if you like but it sets a direction for the nation. It will not wipe his name from history, that is naive, but it is putting him in his place and setting a tone. That is to concentrate on those who are the victims of the coward and to put in place things which can prevent them happening again. It seems that the people of New Zealand have largely come together due to this horrible attack and the Muslims living there have become more integrated there than before.

I live only a short distance from Grafton where where the murderer grew up. His family are well know in that community. It must be very distressing for them due to his actions and no fault of their own.

Cookie_Monster

CabanSail wrote: »

There are a lot of poor politicians around. It is refreshing when you see a good one.

Slightly OT, but she is not a good politician; her govt have been mired in corruption and scandal since day 1 of her term. She's handled this incident very well but has otherwise been a disaster of unaccountability, vagueness, unwillingness to take action and not censuring corruption and incompetence within her party and cabinet.

mvl

CabanSail wrote: »

I admire Jacinda Adhern and how she has lead her nation in this sad event.

If all she did was "not utter his name" then it would have been very lame, she hasn't. When the events were very fresh and there were not clear details she made her first address. She would not have had time to get speech writers at that stage. She spoke from the heart. The main point she made then was that the community which was targeted were welcome and a part of the New Zealand society. She also has made the point that this sort of hate is not endemic there and it seems that is why they were chosen.

agreed, she did extremely well.

but I would have thought this type of scenarios are prepped in advance, as part of some sort of emergency/crisis management functions. besides, I think there might have been a bit of notice, as I read how the manifesto was sent 10 minutes before the shooting to a list of politicians/media actors, more than 70 in total, including the PM's office address. "It was written as if it had occurred, to explain what obviously was about to play out."

weldoninhio

NIMAN wrote: »

We were all shocked about that, and it was to be a watershed, but it changed nothing.

That was a propaganda shot. Nothing more and nothing less. His family were fleeing nothing. He had no reason to drown other than his fathers vanity.

WinnyThePoo

weldoninhio wrote: »

NIMAN wrote: »

We were all shocked about that, and it was to be a watershed, but it changed nothing.

That was a propaganda shot. Nothing more and nothing less. His family were fleeing nothing. He had no reason to drown other than his fathers vanity.

Not sure you understand the word vanity. Anyway go ahead...

Wibbs

ClanofLams wrote: »

Gun control was brought in, mass shootings stopped. Trying to put that down to some unknown ‘societal thing’ may be the only our gun advocates have in the argument but it’s not a very strong argument.

It is when you look at the US. If you track the increasing gun legislation over the last thirty years against a graph of mass murders, the latter has gone up, not down and significantly so. Gun control is a factor yes, but it is clearly not the only one. Not by a long shot. There are societal factors.

Consider Switzerland. The Swiss have pretty lax gun control laws and a very strong gun culture. A citizen or non native resident(some nations are banned) in the country can buy any firearm that isn't fully automatic. Pistol, rifle, shotgun whatever. That's before the guns issued as part of their militia, which every able bodied man of 20 is expected to join. They can choose to apply to hang onto those weapons after they leave. And yet gun crime is low in Switzerland. Shooting sprees in Switzerland? Zero. None. Finland, Austria, Norway, Switzerland all have more guns per head than New Zealand or Australia. Mass murders? Nope.

Take another angle. The scarily high incidence of knife crime, stabbings and murders in England at the moment. Everyone of us here reading this likely has a kitchen drawer full of knives capable of carrying out such attacks and yet we don't see nearly the same level of attacks in Dublin or Cork. One place has a cultural/societal issue, a knife "meme" as it were, the others don't, even though access is the same. England itself didn't have this current level of knife attacks even five years ago, in the same place.

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

Shooting sprees in Switzerland? Zero. None. Finland, Austria, Norway, Switzerland all have more guns per head than New Zealand or Australia. Mass murders? Nope.
.

Wibbs

Yup, ya got me on that one to be fair. OK. Swap out Iceland, or Malta for Norway. No mass shootings there. Cyprus and Portugal have pretty high levels of gun ownership too. And yet... My point still stands.

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

Yup, ya got me on that one to be fair. OK. Swap out Iceland, or Malta for Norway. No mass shootings there. Cyprus and Portugal have pretty high levels of gun ownership too. And yet... My point still stands.

Just reading about Iceland there, can take up to 13 months to be approved for a shotgun, 3-4 years for a handgun.

There hasn't been a gun murder for 12 years.

Population is small, but other countries / people instead of holding up the likes of Iceland as proof that guns don't cause mass murder, should instead have a look at their policies and mimic them.

Gun control is not just about preventing mass murder either, there is varied benefits from it.

ClanofLams

Wibbs wrote: »

It is when you look at the US. If you track the increasing gun legislation over the last thirty years against a graph of mass murders, the latter has gone up, not down and significantly so. Gun control is a factor yes, but it is clearly not the only one. Not by a long shot. There are societal factors.

Consider Switzerland. The Swiss have pretty lax gun control laws and a very strong gun culture. A citizen or non native resident(some nations are banned) in the country can buy any firearm that isn't fully automatic. Pistol, rifle, shotgun whatever. That's before the guns issued as part of their militia, which every able bodied man of 20 is expected to join. They can choose to apply to hang onto those weapons after they leave. And yet gun crime is low in Switzerland. Shooting sprees in Switzerland? Zero. None. Finland, Austria, Norway, Switzerland all have more guns per head than New Zealand or Australia. Mass murders? Nope.

Take another angle. The scarily high incidence of knife crime, stabbings and murders in England at the moment. Everyone of us here reading this likely has a kitchen drawer full of knives capable of carrying out such attacks and yet we don't see nearly the same level of attacks in Dublin or Cork. One place has a cultural/societal issue, a knife "meme" as it were, the others don't, even though access is the same. England itself didn't have this current level of knife attacks even five years ago, in the same place.

What increasing gun control legislation in the US? On a federal level the last bill as far as I’m aware was the assault weapons ban which Bush let expire fifteen years ago.

Australia was the only country in the world that had a similar problem with mass shootings as America, having 13 in 18 years. They took the hard option and brought in gun control.

Earlier on in the thread you were questioning how many mass shootings there had been before Port Arthur, attempting to cast it as a one off seemingly. Now that you have discovered they were very common, it is a ‘societal’ issue.


It is far more likely that the change we are aware of (legislation) is the primary factor behind this than suddenly and entirely coincidentally there being less disturbed individuals in Australia. The legislative changes after Dunblane were also effective. Gun advocates may not like it but legislation works.

Switzerland’s reputation for being efficient would suggest to me that they likely have a pretty thorough licensing system in place unlike the **** show that is the United States. Their military members also haven’t been in combat zones and are therefore less likely to be suffering than retired US military.

Wibbs

ClanofLams wrote: »

Earlier on in the thread you were questioning how many mass shootings there had been before Port Arthur, attempting to cast it as a one off seemingly. Now that you have discovered they were very common, it is a ‘societal’ issue.

Nope, maybe you imagined this as I didn't "discover they were very common", they simply weren't and certainly not nearly to the degree and (increasing)frequency of the US. Have an oul read. Port Arthur was a massive outlier. You'll also note in that list a fair proportion of mass murders were as a result of arson.

What increasing gun control legislation in the US?

Answer me this then. In the US was it harder to buy firearms in the 40's 50's, 60's and 70's compared to the 90's, noughties and today? The answer is no. It was much easier and yet.... Look at this list from Wiki. They don't even bother listing shootings pre 1966. Look how the frequency and number of victims has gone steadily upwards.

The legislative changes after Dunblane were also effective. Gun advocates may not like it but legislation works.

Read this list on the UK. The only two mass shootings were Hungerford and Dunblane. After the legislation change and a serious roll back of gun ownership in the UK you still had the Cumbria shootings which killed twelve and injured eleven more. Using a shotgun and a .22 rifle. About the last class of firearms to be banned. Even under Irish gun laws, which would be one of the most restrictive in the EU you can own them.

It is far more likely that the change we are aware of (legislation) is the primary factor behind this than suddenly and entirely coincidentally there being less disturbed individuals in Australia.

Which doesn't come close to explaining why many countries with far more lax gun laws and more gun owners don't suffer such tragedies to nearly the same degree. There are clearly cultural factors at play in this. I know it's all too simplistic and indeed comforting to just point at one factor and yes that will have some impact, but it is not the whole story, not even close. Until we look beyond the naive and simplistic then we'll continue to see such attacks.

Switzerland’s reputation for being efficient would suggest to me that they likely have a pretty thorough licensing system in place unlike the **** show that is the United States. Their military members also haven’t been in combat zones and are therefore less likely to be suffering than retired US military.

Now you're just grasping at straws TBH. Of the mass murderers today in the US the majority are young men with no combat exposure. In 1945 hundreds of thousands of American men who had served in combat zones, some for day after day, month after month crossing Europe and the Far East facing levels of combat and potential combat trauma far higher than today, came home, many bringing "souvenir" weapons back with them(it was a thing. You filled out a form and off you went with your Luger or whatever) to a homeland positively awash with firearms and hundreds of thousands of young men familiar with their use and yet, no mass shootings of the kind we see today and over the last two decades.

Switzerland has one of the strongest gun cultures within Europe and there are a lot of guns in private hands. They're not even sure how many. Yet mass murders involving firearms? None. How do you explain that? Are the Swiss somehow genetically different? Or is it something in the Swiss culture and setup that makes it less likely that a) yes better licensing, b) a disturbed individual will not go unnoticed and/or c) less likely to have disturbed individuals that see this as an outlet for their insanity?

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

Switzerland has one of the strongest gun cultures within Europe and there are a lot of guns in private hands. They're not even sure how many. Yet mass murders involving firearms? None.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zug_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_W%C3%BCrenlingen_shooting

MrFresh

Wibbs wrote: »

Which doesn't come close to explaining why many countries with far more lax gun laws and more gun owners don't suffer such tragedies to nearly the same degree. There are clearly cultural factors at play in this. I know it's all too simplistic and indeed comforting to just point at one factor and yes that will have some impact, but it is not the whole story, not even close. Until we look beyond the naive and simplistic then we'll continue to see such attacks.

Now you're just grasping at straws TBH. Of the mass murderers today in the US the majority are young men with no combat exposure. In 1945 hundreds of thousands of American men who had served in combat zones, some for day after day, month after month crossing Europe and the Far East facing levels of combat and potential combat trauma far higher than today, came home, many bringing "souvenir" weapons back with them(it was a thing. You filled out a form and off you went with your Luger or whatever) to a homeland positively awash with firearms and hundreds of thousands of young men familiar with their use and yet, no mass shootings of the kind we see today and over the last two decades.

Switzerland has one of the strongest gun cultures within Europe and there are a lot of guns in private hands. They're not even sure how many. Yet mass murders involving firearms? None. How do you explain that? Are the Swiss somehow genetically different? Or is it something in the Swiss culture and setup that makes it less likely that a) yes better licensing, b) a disturbed individual will not go unnoticed and/or c) less likely to have disturbed individuals that see this as an outlet for their insanity?

Surely it depends on what you consider lax or strict. Switzerland focuses more on the owner than the firearm type but they could be considered just as strict as other jurisdictions for someone looking for their first firearm. It's just strict in a different way. Ireland moved towards that kind of focus in the last major overhaul of firearm licensing. You need referees and you need to provide your doctors details.

Boggles

The Swiss are pretty unique anyway.

Be very hard to mimic them or their ways.

ClanofLams

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, maybe you imagined this as I didn't "discover they were very common", they simply weren't and certainly not nearly to the degree and (increasing)frequency of the US. Have an oul read. Port Arthur was a massive outlier. You'll also note in that list a fair proportion of mass murders were as a result of arson.

Answer me this then. In the US was it harder to buy firearms in the 40's 50's, 60's and 70's compared to the 90's, noughties and today? The answer is no. It was much easier and yet.... Look at this list from Wiki. They don't even bother listing shootings pre 1966. Look how the frequency and number of victims has gone steadily upwards.

Read this list on the UK. The only two mass shootings were Hungerford and Dunblane. After the legislation change and a serious roll back of gun ownership in the UK you still had the Cumbria shootings which killed twelve and injured eleven more. Using a shotgun and a .22 rifle. About the last class of firearms to be banned. Even under Irish gun laws, which would be one of the most restrictive in the EU you can own them.

Which doesn't come close to explaining why many countries with far more lax gun laws and more gun owners don't suffer such tragedies to nearly the same degree. There are clearly cultural factors at play in this. I know it's all too simplistic and indeed comforting to just point at one factor and yes that will have some impact, but it is not the whole story, not even close. Until we look beyond the naive and simplistic then we'll continue to see such attacks.

Now you're just grasping at straws TBH. Of the mass murderers today in the US the majority are young men with no combat exposure. In 1945 hundreds of thousands of American men who had served in combat zones, some for day after day, month after month crossing Europe and the Far East facing levels of combat and potential combat trauma far higher than today, came home, many bringing "souvenir" weapons back with them(it was a thing. You filled out a form and off you went with your Luger or whatever) to a homeland positively awash with firearms and hundreds of thousands of young men familiar with their use and yet, no mass shootings of the kind we see today and over the last two decades.

Switzerland has one of the strongest gun cultures within Europe and there are a lot of guns in private hands. They're not even sure how many. Yet mass murders involving firearms? None. How do you explain that? Are the Swiss somehow genetically different? Or is it something in the Swiss culture and setup that makes it less likely that a) yes better licensing, b) a disturbed individual will not go unnoticed and/or c) less likely to have disturbed individuals that see this as an outlet for their insanity?

As I stated previously there was 13 in 18 years in Australia. Gun control was brought in, none in the following twenty years. Australia didn’t stop having disturbed individuals overnight. Those individuals were simply no longer able to get hands on guns.

Of course gun control doesn’t cure all ills and such dysfunctional individuals may well commit arson or other crimes but it is necessary and the most transformative change a society can make when tackling these frequent attacks as in the US.

I have no idea how easy it was to get a gun in the 1940s in America but know it is ridiculously easy to do so today and guns are far more advanced than they were seventy years ago. I doubt the Las Vegas shooter would have been able to cause anywhere near the same damage in the same timeframe.

You haven’t outlined how thorough the Swiss background checks are. I would think they are highly likely to very diligent indeed, as another poster pointed out in one of the countries you mentioned, it can take up to 13 months to get a gun. That isn’t at all comparable to the US in reality.

My point around Swiss military members was that having previously talked to one they all get to keep their service weapon. It’s not a policy I like obviously but it would be far more dangerous if their army was engaged in comparable activities to the US and so were affected by the same mental health difficulties so many retired US military are suffer from.

Boggles

ClanofLams wrote: »

As I stated previously there was 13 in 18 years in Australia. Gun control was brought in, none in the following twenty years. Australia didn’t stop having disturbed individuals overnight. Those individuals were simply no longer able to get hands on guns.

Well TBF that is not true.

They have had mass shootings since, several of them. One last year where 7 or 8 were killed I think.

The data would back up that homicide by guns is definitely down, so that can only be a good thing also random spree shootings are down.

I think Wibbs point is that mass shootings on the scale of Port Arthur never happened before and just because they haven't happened since doesn't conclusively prove it won't happen again.

That said I don't think there is one good argument not to bring in stringent gun controls in any "normal" country.

ClanofLams

Boggles wrote: »

Well TBF that is not true.

They have had mass shootings since, several of them. One last year where 7 or 8 were killed I think.

The data would back up that homicide by guns is definitely down, so that can only be a good thing also random spree shootings are down.

I think Wibbs point is that mass shootings on the scale of Port Arthur never happened before and just because they haven't happened since doesn't conclusively prove it won't happen again.

That said I don't think there is one good argument not to bring in stringent gun controls in any "normal" country.

I meant to clarify that I was referring to random spree shootings which there have been none since to the best of my knowledge thought the cafe hostage situation a few years ago was close, the gunman only killed one but obviously could have killed more.

13 in 18 years was incorrect also, there had been seven random spree shootings in the previous ten years up to and including Port Athur.

Sardonicat

ClanofLams wrote: »

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, maybe you imagined this as I didn't "discover they were very common", they simply weren't and certainly not nearly to the degree and (increasing)frequency of the US. Have an oul read. Port Arthur was a massive outlier. You'll also note in that list a fair proportion of mass murders were as a result of arson.

Answer me this then. In the US was it harder to buy firearms in the 40's 50's, 60's and 70's compared to the 90's, noughties and today? The answer is no. It was much easier and yet.... Look at this list from Wiki. They don't even bother listing shootings pre 1966. Look how the frequency and number of victims has gone steadily upwards.

Read this list on the UK. The only two mass shootings were Hungerford and Dunblane. After the legislation change and a serious roll back of gun ownership in the UK you still had the Cumbria shootings which killed twelve and injured eleven more. Using a shotgun and a .22 rifle. About the last class of firearms to be banned. Even under Irish gun laws, which would be one of the most restrictive in the EU you can own them.

Which doesn't come close to explaining why many countries with far more lax gun laws and more gun owners don't suffer such tragedies to nearly the same degree. There are clearly cultural factors at play in this. I know it's all too simplistic and indeed comforting to just point at one factor and yes that will have some impact, but it is not the whole story, not even close. Until we look beyond the naive and simplistic then we'll continue to see such attacks.

Now you're just grasping at straws TBH. Of the mass murderers today in the US the majority are young men with no combat exposure. In 1945 hundreds of thousands of American men who had served in combat zones, some for day after day, month after month crossing Europe and the Far East facing levels of combat and potential combat trauma far higher than today, came home, many bringing "souvenir" weapons back with them(it was a thing. You filled out a form and off you went with your Luger or whatever) to a homeland positively awash with firearms and hundreds of thousands of young men familiar with their use and yet, no mass shootings of the kind we see today and over the last two decades.

Switzerland has one of the strongest gun cultures within Europe and there are a lot of guns in private hands. They're not even sure how many. Yet mass murders involving firearms? None. How do you explain that? Are the Swiss somehow genetically different? Or is it something in the Swiss culture and setup that makes it less likely that a) yes better licensing, b) a disturbed individual will not go unnoticed and/or c) less likely to have disturbed individuals that see this as an outlet for their insanity?

As I stated previously there was 13 in 18 years in Australia. Gun control was brought in, none in the following twenty years. Australia didn’t stop having disturbed individuals overnight. Those individuals were simply no longer able to get hands on guns.

Of course gun control doesn’t cure all ills and such dysfunctional individuals may well commit arson or other crimes but it is necessary and the most transformative change a society can make when tackling these frequent attacks as in the US.

I have no idea how easy it was to get a gun in the 1940s in America but know it is ridiculously easy to do so today and guns are far more advanced than they were seventy years ago. I doubt the Las Vegas shooter would have been able to cause anywhere near the same damage in the same timeframe.

You haven’t outlined how thorough the Swiss background checks are. I would think they are highly likely to very diligent indeed, as another poster pointed out in one of the countries you mentioned, it can take up to 13 months to get a gun. That isn’t at all comparable to the US in reality.

My point around Swiss military members was that having previously talked to one they all get to keep their service weapon. It’s not a policy I like obviously but it would be far more dangerous if their army was engaged in comparable activities to the US and so were affected by the same mental health difficulties so many retired US military are suffer from.

Military service is compulsory for Swiss men. They are expected to then maintain and secure their service weapon under strict regulations and can be subject to spot checks. The idea is to have enough trained armed men to fall in to defend the country should it come under attack.
If you ever travel in Switzerland on Friday or Sunday the trains are full of guys in uniform carrying weapons going from or to their military service.

Boggles

Yeah the Swiss are unique, they have spent the best part of 200 years being prepared to be invaded.

Building Bridges and Roads that self destruct, having 10% of the population as a trained militia, mass hideouts in mountains.

The whole culture seems to be about national self defense and not personal self defense.

You can't mimic that, also they do have some pretty stringent gun laws reading up on them.

Wibbs

ClanofLams wrote: »

Of course gun control doesn’t cure all ills and such dysfunctional individuals may well commit arson or other crimes but it is necessary and the most transformative change a society can make when tackling these frequent attacks as in the US.

The US is very much a special case. For a start something in their culture encourages mostly young men and mostly middle class young men too to go out and mow down dozens of people and going on hard statistics something pretty recent a shift too. A type of crime extremely rare anywhere else in the world. They also have one of the highest numbers of guns per capita in the world. Never mind a very strong pro gun lobby. The horse has long bolted there IMHO and is far from the ideal comparison to any other country or culture on this score.

I have no idea how easy it was to get a gun in the 1940s in America but know it is ridiculously easy to do so today and guns are far more advanced than they were seventy years ago. I doubt the Las Vegas shooter would have been able to cause anywhere near the same damage in the same timeframe.

It was far easier to get a gun in the 1940's, 50's and 60's, even 70's than it is today. Significantly fewer background checks, if any. It wasn't until the 1960's before selling firearms by mail order was outlawed. It was the late 60's before more extensive restrictions on gun dealers were brought in where they - crazy thought that it is... - had to keep more precise records on what guns they sold to whom(perviously little more than a name would do and IIRC that only came in sometime in the 40's).

To illustrate; actual US adverts for various firearms:



GAAAWD bless 'Murica




.22 in fairness, but still.

And for a bit of light sport shooting?



The "nazi" bit appears to have been a selling point(well Germany were known for quality firearms to be fair). Note: "Legal to own, no licences required", for a 20mm semi auto anti tank cannon.

And guns actually aren't that much "far advanced". More stuff like various polymers for grips and such and some improvements in metallurgy alright, but most modern military firearms are based on post war designs, with roots going back way before that. The Thompson submachine gun(Tommy gun) came out in 1918 and that Australian prick could have easily caused the same amount of carnage with one of them, if not more as with a drum magazine he'd have to reload less. If he was sticking with "assault rifles" the German StG 44(a better made AK47) from World War Two would have resulted in just as much horror. Indeed a cache of those "antiques" was found by ISIS and other troops in Syria a few years back and was very sought after as a weapon. I dunno what firearms the prick used, but I'd bet the farm that each one had the just as murderously deadly equivalent from 60 or more years back.

You haven’t outlined how thorough the Swiss background checks are. I would think they are highly likely to very diligent indeed, as another poster pointed out in one of the countries you mentioned, it can take up to 13 months to get a gun. That isn’t at all comparable to the US in reality.

Again the US is the world outlier for this and one can't apply that to other countries and cultures.

Swiss regs are as follows: In order to purchase most weapons, the purchaser must obtain a weapon acquisition permit (art. 8 WG/LArm). Swiss citizens and foreigners with a C permit over the age of 18 who are not under a curator nor identified as being a danger for themselves or others, and who don't have a criminal record with a conviction for a violent crime or of several convictions as long as they haven't been written out can request such a permit. Foreigners with citizenship to the following countries are explicitly excluded from the right to possess weapons: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania.[note 1] The following information must be provided to the cantonal weapon bureau together with the weapon application form:

valid official identification or passport copy.
residence address.
criminal record copy not older than 3 months.

My point around Swiss military members was that having previously talked to one they all get to keep their service weapon.

They don't. They can apply to keep it, but have to go through the usual procedures(though are naturally more likely to pass those). It being an automatic thing went out many years ago. They used to be issued ammunition too, but again that's not in play anymore, except for those considered more vital first line of defence guys.

It’s not a policy I like obviously but it would be far more dangerous if their army was engaged in comparable activities to the US and so were affected by the same mental health difficulties so many retired US military are suffer from.

Again you ignored my points. 1) the vast majority of mass shootings in America are not perpetrated by US service personnel that have seen combat(or not). 2) As I pointed out hundreds of thousands of US service personnel came back from WW2 many after seeing and experiencing stuff that few combat troops would experience today and certainly not to the same kind of timeframes of weeks and months of being under fire or the threat of it. A Marine's experiences on Iwo Jima alone would make most engagements in Afghanistan look like a teddy bear's picnic. And yet all those men came home to an America filled with guns and with on the ground training and yet they didn't go off on shooting sprees and neither do combat vets today, or very bloody rarely. I can only recall one? Last year I think? Then again they're so bloody regular over there it's hard to keep track. So that's not much of an argument.

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

Again you ignored my points. 1) the vast majority of mass shootings in America are not perpetrated by US service personnel that have seen combat(or not). 2)

That is true.

But a higher portion of service men commit mass murder compared with civilians.

Again it's not really surprising, didn't Timothy McVeigh say he decapitated a man with a canon on his first day in Kuwait. :eek:

That has to do things to people.

Americas very first recorded Mass Murderer was a vet from WW2.

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

Americas very first recorded Mass Murderer was a vet from WW2.

THE Interesting thing about that case was he was diagnosed as a full on schizophrenic and stuck in a mental hospital. Today chances are he'd be tried as sane. Secondly it didn't get much in the way of wider publicity, nor was seen as a "thing". Because such shooting sprees were so uncommon, they and the perpetrator were seen as a completely insane and abhorrent individual, doing what such people do, an insane and insanely rare act.

Muahahaha

Wibbs wrote: »

Shooting sprees in Switzerland? Zero. None. Finland, Austria, Norway, Switzerland all have more guns per head than New Zealand or Australia. Mass murders? Nope.
.

Finland has an awful record of mass murders including three school shootings.
1989- Shooter kills two students in a classroom
1998- Female shooter goes into a shooting gallery, rents a pistol and kills three men before attempting to board a flight to Sweden
2007-Shooter kills 9 students in a school and then himself
2008- Shooter inspired by previous school shooting kills ten people on a university campus
2009- Shooter kills his girlfriend and then a further four people in a shopping centre
2016- Shooter kills a mayor and two journalists in a restaurant

Gael23

Is the death penalty in operation in New Zealand? But then that’s making it too easy on him

tuxy

Gael23 wrote: »

Is the death penalty in operation in New Zealand? But then that’s making it too easy on him

New Zealand is a civilised country with a good track record on human rights so it doesn't have the death penalty unlike the U.S(only some state) and Saudi Arabia, Iran etc....

Gael23

tuxy wrote: »

New Zealand is a civilised country with a good track record on human rights so it doesn't have the death penalty unlike the U.S(only some state) and Saudi Arabia, Iran etc....

What will happen to him then?

Boggles

Gael23 wrote: »

What will happen to him then?

A Fine.

I imagine life in prison.

tuxy

Gael23 wrote: »

What will happen to him then?

Life with no chance of parole I think.

Odhinn

tuxy wrote: »

Life with no chance of parole I think.

Or an asylum, in the event he's pronounced insane. Either way I doubt he'll ever be set free.

Cookie_Monster

Gael23 wrote: »

What will happen to him then?

life in solitary. It's been noted already that other inmates have said they will target him if they come across him

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12214737

tuxy

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

life in solitary. It's been noted already that other inmates have said they will target him if they come across him

Probably right.
People who have harmed children in any way are often targets in general population.

Tigerbaby

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47642298

Can we have a vote on what should be done to this Terrorist?

Can we have the (rightly) Hearfelt, tear-jerking response as we had in NZ?

What about the Copts in Egypt or the Christians in Nigeria or Syria?

Do Christians not matter?

OBVS

Gael23

tuxy wrote: »

Probably right.
People who have harmed children in any way are often targets in general population.

Could he be taken to another country or something for his own safety?

SoundsRight

tuxy wrote: »

Probably right.
People who have harmed children in any way are often targets in general population.

I don't think he'd be viewed as a child killer in the same way as Ian Huntley or such like. Just a mad 'un. I'm sure there's certain inmates who would like to keep him on their side.

tuxy

Gael23 wrote: »

Could he be taken to another country or something for his own safety?

No, there is only one place that he could go legally and that is extradition to Australia. Massive headache legally and would make New Zealand look bad for not taking care of its responsibility. I don't know if Australia could punish him for a crime that happened elsewhere.
He would be safe in solitary, the chances of staff causing him harm would be very slim.

Gael23

So he is likely to be in solitary confinement for the rest of his life?

I feel very sorry for his family who are victims too. A mother’s love is unconditional and all that.

BBFAN

SoundsRight wrote: »

I don't think he'd be viewed as a child killer in the same way as Ian Huntley or such like. Just a mad 'un. I'm sure there's certain inmates who would like to keep him on their side.

"Just a mad un"??????

WTF is wrong with you????

BattleCorp

BBFAN wrote: »

SoundsRight wrote: »

I don't think he'd be viewed as a child killer in the same way as Ian Huntley or such like. Just a mad 'un. I'm sure there's certain inmates who would like to keep him on their side.

"Just a mad un"??????

WTF is wrong with you????

Well pointing a rifle at a child and pulling the trigger isn't something a normal sane person would do.

Not excusing the pr1ck by the way. He should rot in a 5x5 box for the rest of his life.

He should never see the light of day again, and whoever was commenting favorably at his actions on the live-stream should also be rounded up and chemically lobotomized.

Wibbs

Tigerbaby wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47642298

Can we have a vote on what should be done to this Terrorist?

Well TB in the other thread on this I said my immediate reaction was to string him up from the nearest lamppost. My cerebral bit took over and wants to see him charged, tried and convicted and punished accordingly. But the lamppost is still in the mix. Unless the man is genuinely disturbed and suffered a mental break.

What about the Copts in Egypt or the Christians in Nigeria or Syria?

Do Christians not matter?

Oh I hear you. A couple of hundred Christians in Nigeria have been shot and hacked to death with machetes in the last few weeks. I was gonna kick off a thread on it, but thought what was the point, for a few reasons. However TB, the plain and completely understandable fact about our human natures is that a tragedy affects us all far more when it's in familiar surroundings. In many ways we like to think the "evil" is out there, among the alien, the "primitive", not in our civilisation, surely? The photos of the aftermath of this tragedy in New Zealand could be where we live in quiet squinting windows they've got the builders in y'know suburbia and that hits home much harder and resonates far more.

A small village in Nigeria? It should, but it just doesn't. Even when it does it is usually a few lone voices and there is often an air of patronisation to it. One way where the current "left/right" and other idealogical divide nonsense has commonality is both do the above, our own backyard thinking and when they do regard such things it's almost always to score points for their "side" rather than begin reasoned debate.

Danzy

Wibbs wrote: »

Well TB in the other thread on this I said my immediate reaction was to string him up from the nearest lamppost. My cerebral bit took over and wants to see him charged, tried and convicted and punished accordingly. But the lamppost is still in the mix. Unless the man is genuinely disturbed and suffered a mental break.

Oh I hear you. A couple of hundred Christians in Nigeria have been shot and hacked to death with machetes in the last few weeks. I was gonna kick off a thread on it, but thought what was the point, for a few reasons. However TB, the plain and completely understandable fact about our human natures is that a tragedy affects us all far more when it's in familiar surroundings. In many ways we like to think the "evil" is out there, among the alien, the "primitive", not in our civilisation, surely? The photos of the aftermath of this tragedy in New Zealand could be where we live in quiet squinting windows they've got the builders in y'know suburbia and that hits home much harder and resonates far more.

A small village in Nigeria? It should, but it just doesn't. Even when it does it is usually a few lone voices and there is often an air of patronisation to it. One way where the current "left/right" and other idealogical divide nonsense has commonality is both do the above, our own backyard thinking and when they do regard such things it's almost always to score points for their "side" rather than begin reasoned debate.

The reality is Islamic terrorism no longer shocks, or exited reaction. It is now common and expècted.

This reactionary attack is not, so it stands out.

Pero_Bueno

Tigerbaby wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47642298

Can we have a vote on what should be done to this Terrorist?

Can we have the (rightly) Hearfelt, tear-jerking response as we had in NZ?

What about the Copts in Egypt or the Christians in Nigeria or Syria?

Do Christians not matter?

OBVS

Should we blame all Senegalese for this ?
since some media outlets are saying we should blame all white Australians for the NZ shootings.

SoundsRight

BBFAN wrote: »

"Just a mad un"??????

WTF is wrong with you????

I haven't seen any headline refer to him as a child killer. That moniker is attached to those who only kill children.

batgoat

SoundsRight wrote: »

I haven't seen any headline refer to him as a child killer. That moniker is attached to those who only kill children.

Killing children and adults doesn't act as a sudden improvement.

Cookie_Monster

And semi-autos are to be banned by Monday
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12214988

See, it's not difficult to take action, pity it'll cost $100 million plus...

"Cabinet agreed to overhaul the law when it met on Monday, 72 hours after the horrific terrorism act in Christchurch. Now, six days after this attack, we are announcing a ban on all military style semi-automatics (MSSA) and assault rifles in New Zealand.

"Related parts used to convert these guns into MSSAs are also being banned, along with all high-capacity magazines.

"An amnesty will be put in place for weapons to be handed in, and Cabinet has directed officials to develop a buyback scheme. Further details will be announced on the buyback in due course.

Manic Moran

That doesn’t apply to all semi autos, only those which look like military weapons. Emphasis on the word “style”.

It appears to basically be a variant of the assault weapons ban currently in place in some US states, and I will wager will be about as ineffective, both in scope (how many of those unregistered weapons will be turned in vs converted to non-threatening configuration vs just underground), and in effect (changing the style of a weapon doesn’t affect the nature of it).

There was a comment I saw the other day, that when reactionary restrictions are passed on the law-abiding due to the actions of one non-law abiding, we are in a society where one’s freedoms or privileges are dictated by the lawlessness of others. NZ hasn’t had a spree shooting with such firearms in some three decades, there is no reason to believe that they are any more likely to have one over the next three decades even if not a law is changed.

Boggles

Manic Moran wrote: »

There was a comment I saw the other day, that when reactionary restrictions are passed on the law-abiding due to the actions of one non-law abiding, we are in a society where one’s freedoms or privileges are dictated by the lawlessness of others.

Yeah, I have seen that hyperbolic cliché more than once after mass shootings, it's not new.

It's not like they are restricting peoples health care on the back of it.

Strict gun laws are a good thing, there is no sensible argument to the contrary.

Zorya

There's something a bit off (for me) about the scarfs for solidarity thing, wear a hijab on Friday to show you care. Meh. Why is there no campaign for men to wear turbans or salwaar kameez? Why after a school shooting is there no wear schoolbags or school scarfs response? Why no movement to wear crucifixes for the Christians being slaughtered in Africa? The hijab is a garment that is very divisive - ask the girls of Iran, ask Nasrin Sotoudeh, who has just been imprisoned in Iran for 38 years plus more than a hundred lashes, for supporting protests against compulsory hijab.
It all seems a bit paternalistic or patronising to me, ironically given that it is mostly aimed at women from women. People can perfectly well be horrified, upset, supportive, sympathetic and so on without some submissive, craw-thumping display.

Feisar

Zorya wrote: »

There's something a bit off (for me) about the scarfs for solidarity thing, wear a hijab on Friday to show you care. Meh. Why is there no campaign for men to wear turbans or salwaar kameez? Why after a school shooting is there no wear schoolbags or school scarfs response? Why no movement to wear crucifixes for the Christians being slaughtered in Africa? The hijab is a garment that is very divisive - ask the girls of Iran, ask Nasrin Sotoudeh, who has just been imprisoned in Iran for 38 years plus more than a hundred lashes, for supporting protests against compulsory hijab.
It all seems a bit paternalistic or patronising to me, ironically given that it is mostly aimed at women from women. People can perfectly well be horrified, upset, supportive, sympathetic and so on without some submissive, craw-thumping display.

Great post.