Mass shooting New Zealand Mosque - MOD NOTE POST #1

BBFAN

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, if you don't want to know, you obviously cannot comment on the legislation purported to fix the problem. As near as I can tell, the new proposed regulation, had it been in force before now, would have done basically nothing to stop this shooting. It demonstrates a lack of knowledge of how modern firearms are constructed.

You're correct, I can't comment on the legislation and neither do I pretend I can. That's the point I'm making. :rolleyes:

It's of no interest to 95% of the population as I've pointed out already.

BBFAN

Deleted User wrote: »

Having more knowledge isn't an opinion. It's measurable.

No it's not because you don't know what knowledge the people who came up with the legislation have. How could you possibly know that?

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote:

It's of no interest to 95% of the population as I've pointed out already.

Well your statistics are made up and I think you are wrong. Most people care about what happened and would like to know if law changes are going to make a difference.

But maybe in mad.

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote:

No it's not because you don't know what knowledge the people who came up with the legislation have. How could you possibly know that?

You are spectacularly missing the point. The posters here have noticed that there are glaring holes in the new legislation and are pointing them out using facts.

I for one am glad to learn from them

GinAndBitter

Pilly is just popping in and out of threads telling people he doesn't want to know anything :pac:

BBFAN

Deleted User wrote: »

You are spectacularly missing the point. The posters here have noticed that there are glaring holes in the new legislation and are pointing them out using facts.

I for one am glad to learn from them

Good man.

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote:

Good man.

Thanks?

StinkyMunkey

No surprise to hear NZ are banning military grade weapons. It was the obvious course of action and the only logical one. Granted there are a serious amount of these weapons of war in circulation, but like with the curing of all diseases, you have to start somewhere.

10 years down the road this tragedy will be a bad memory with the chances of it happening again greatly reduced because of the new legislation brought in today.

Manic Moran

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

No surprise to hear NZ are banning military grade weapons. It was the obvious course of action and the only logical one. Granted there are a serious amount of these weapons of war in circulation, but like with the curing of all diseases, you have to start somewhere.

10 years down the road this tragedy will be a bad memory with the chances of it happening again greatly reduced because of the new legislation brought in today.

Are they? See above.

davedanon

Hector Savage wrote: »

New Zealand bookshop has banned Jordan Petersons book in response to the attacks.
How can they even BEGIN to blame JP for this ?

Does anyone need an actual pretext to ban Big Jord's appallingly tedious tomes???

I think not.

davedanon

Zorya wrote: »

If you could say exactly what ''Islamophobia'' triggered that monster, the terms for discussion might be clearer. Because if you are refering to regular normal human discussion and analysis of topics of current interest, including radical Islam or any thing under the sun, then no, this is not ''Islamophobia'' and if it triggered this guy then we may as well shut up shop and go inside altogether. So why would one wear a hijab to show apology for Islamophobia that they do not participate in?

I'm struggling to understand this gobbledegook, but, one thing seems clear. This guy went to mosques, where Muslims would be present, and shot a load of Muslims. This would seem to indicate some degree of Islamophobia, no?

Wibbs

BBFAN wrote: »

You're correct, I can't comment on the legislation and neither do I pretend I can. That's the point I'm making. :rolleyes:

It's of no interest to 95% of the population as I've pointed out already.

So you're happy to remain ignorant on a subject you appear to show this much interest in? OK. Not exactly uncommon, hence the one flaw with democracy, but OK. Then again this wasn't a democratic vote, much less an informed one.

Wibbs

davedanon wrote: »

Does anyone need an actual pretext to ban Big Jord's appallingly tedious tomes???

I think not.

Kermit is outa pocket on voiceover work on the back of this, but nobody thinks of the frog. Lily pads have mortgages too you know, you froggist.

Pretzeluck

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

No surprise to hear NZ are banning military grade weapons. It was the obvious course of action and the only logical one. Granted there are a serious amount of these weapons of war in circulation, but like with the curing of all diseases, you have to start somewhere.

10 years down the road this tragedy will be a bad memory with the chances of it happening again greatly reduced because of the new legislation brought in today.

Yeah **** responsible gun owners.

kowloon

Jumping into legislation without putting in the work and taking time often works out badly. Politicians are under pressure to make it look like something is being done even if it has little effect.
An example from Irish law that gets on my wick: The government managed to make the vast majority of breech-loading rifles manufactured before the 1880s restricted. They're in a higher licence category than the majority of modern hunting and target rifles and even some military rifles because antiques were never defined in the legislation.
This leaves us in a situation where anyone can go to an antiques shop in Northern Ireland and buy something which is in our highest licence category. The result is many people (and some businesses) just ignore the law entirely because it's stupid.
People will ignore stupid laws and it will normalise breaking them.
Properly thought out laws that aren't deemed moronic require people who are well informed and given time to do their job. Banning a stock style or a particular rifle because it 'looks dangerous' will achieve nothing other than making it look like something was done so everyone can feel safe and forget about it until the next mass shooting.

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote: »

Why would I want to learn about guns, their calibre, appearance etc.????

You're confused that not everyone needs to know this crap???

I along with probably 95% of the population will never touch a gun and will never have any need or want to do so.

Sure why know anything about anything.

Knowing the rules of soccer when you don't even play.. Fool. Knowing stuff about history when you don't even have a time machine.. Madness.

mvl

Deleted User wrote: »

The new gun laws imposed in new Zealand have a lot to do with this thread. Many are lauding their government for their "quick action" but people who know more about the subject are highlighting that it seems like lip service and not an actual fix.

Kind of important if you ask me.

very useful summary, thanks.

Zorya

The word 'Islamophobia' ws created by Islamists to silence Muslims who want to cleanse Islam of polygamy, Arab supremacy, FGM, Ayatullahs, Kings, Sharia law, & Mullahs who pray in mosque sermons for defeat of Kafirs (Hindus Jews Christians) at the hands of Muslims. - Tarek Fatah

Omackeral

BBFAN wrote: »

You're correct, I can't comment on the legislation and neither do I pretend I can. That's the point I'm making. :rolleyes:

It's of no interest to 95% of the population as I've pointed out already.

You've no bother pretending to know the interests of the entire nation. Who made you the statistician of the country? Are you working for the CSO? Especially loved the "As I've pointed out already" follow up, as if it's just a given fact. Hilarious.

super_furry

kowloon wrote: »

Jumping into legislation without putting in the work and taking time often works out badly. Politicians are under pressure to make it look like something is being done even if it has little effect.
An example from Irish law that gets on my wick: The government managed to make the vast majority of breech-loading rifles manufactured before the 1880s restricted. They're in a higher licence category than the majority of modern hunting and target rifles and even some military rifles because antiques were never defined in the legislation.
This leaves us in a situation where anyone can go to an antiques shop in Northern Ireland and buy something which is in our highest licence category. The result is many people (and some businesses) just ignore the law entirely because it's stupid.
People will ignore stupid laws and it will normalise breaking them.
Properly thought out laws that aren't deemed moronic require people who are well informed and given time to do their job. Banning a stock style or a particular rifle because it 'looks dangerous' will achieve nothing other than making it look like something was done so everyone can feel safe and forget about it until the next mass shooting.

A better example would be Dunblane.

Omackeral

BBFAN wrote: »

No it's not because you don't know what knowledge the people who came up with the legislation have. How could you possibly know that?

How could you possibly know what 95% of the country are or are not interested in. Irony and lack of self awareness is off the charts.

Zorya

I did not know really about most of these attacks, to be honest. Only the ones where there was a big outcry. For example I can't recall hearing of the Cathedral massacre in the Phillippines less than 8 weeks ago in January 2019, where 20 died. I think that must be my own prejudice - a far away place where no one I know is likely to live does not imprint as strongly, whereas one of my siblings lives in New Zealand.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47018747

Just goes to show I suppose that we can sometimes be prejudiced about what news penetrates to our emotions. I know when I hear of a huge bomb or attack in some part of the world I don't know much about - Yemen or Afghanistan, for example - there is a muted response in me, almost a resigned feeling of this is the way the world goes.

It seems the species has a regular history of massacres in places of worship. Horrible. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/look-attacks-houses-worship-over-last-decade-n983626

This is an extract from a list compiled by NBC (left-leaning political bias - I checked)

Jan. 30, 2015: Suicide bombing at a Shiite mosque in the Pakistani town of Shikarpur kills 71. Jundullah claims responsibility.

March 20, 2015: Islamic State suicide bombers attack a pair of mosques in Yemen's capital, unleashing monstrous blasts that ripped through worshippers and killed 137 people.

June 17, 2015: Nine black worshippers including a pastor are killed by Dylann Roof, a 21-year-old white supremacist, after he prayed with them in Charleston, South Carolina. Roof was convicted of federal hate-crime and obstruction-of-religion charges and sentenced to death.

Sept. 24, 2015: A suicide bomber strikes a mosque in Yemen's rebel-held capital, killing 25 worshippers during prayers for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha.

Nov. 12, 2016: Suicide bomber from Islamic State group kills over 50 at the shrine of Shah Noorani, in Pakistan's Baluchistan province.

Dec. 11, 2016: Suicide bomber strikes inside a Cairo chapel adjacent to St. Mark's Cathedral, seat of Egypt's ancient Coptic Orthodox Church. The Islamic State group claimed the attack, which killed at least 25 people.

Feb. 16, 2017: Suicide bomber detonates his explosives vest among the devotees at the shrine of Lal Shahbaz Qalandar in Pakistan's Sindh province, killing 98.

April 9, 2017: Twin suicide bombings rock churches in the Egyptian coastal city of Alexandria and Tanta, killing at least 45 people. The attack was claimed by the Islamic State group.

June 15, 2017: A suicide bomber kills four people at a Shiite mosque in Afghanistan's capital city of Kabul. Among the dead is a leader of Afghanistan's ethnic Hazaras, who are mostly Shiite Muslims.

Aug. 1, 2017: A suicide bomber storms into the largest Shiite mosque in Afghanistan's western Herat province, opening fire on worshippers before blowing himself up, killing at least 90 people. Hundreds more were wounded in the attack, which happened during evening prayers.

Aug. 3, 2018: Suicide bombers disguised in burqa robes attack a Shiite mosque in eastern Afghanistan, killing 27 people.

Aug. 25, 2017: Militants storm a packed Shiite mosque in Kabul during Friday prayers. The attack ends with at least 28 worshippers killed and 50 wounded, many of them children. Two of the assailants blow themselves up and another two are shot dead by Afghan security forces.

Sept. 29, 2017: A suicide bomber blows himself up outside a Shiite mosque in Kabul, killing five. The attack took place as worshippers were leaving the mosque after Friday prayers.

Oct. 20, 2017: The Islamic State group claims a suicide bomber attack, killing 31 and wounding 29 people, at a Shiite mosque in Kabul.

Nov. 5, 2017: Dressed in black tactical-style gear and armed with an assault weapon, 26-year-old Devin Kelley opened fire at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, Texas, killing 26 people and wounding about 20 others.

Nov. 24, 2017: Militants kill 311 worshippers in a mosque attack in north Sinai, the deadliest such terrorist attack in Egypt's modern history.

Dec. 17, 2017: Islamic State attack on a church in Pakistani city of Quetta kills 16 people.

Oct. 27, 2018: A gunman believed to have spewed anti-Semitic slurs and rhetoric on social media entered Tree of Life Congregation synagogue in Pittsburgh and opened fire, killing 11 and wounding six, including four police officers.

Jan. 27, 2019: Two suicide attackers detonate two bombs during a Mass in a Roman Catholic cathedral on the largely Muslim island of Jolo in the southern Philippines, killing 23 and wounding about 100 others. Three days later, an attacker hurls a grenade in a mosque in nearby Zamboanga city, killing two religious teachers.

March 15, 2019: At least 40 people are killed in an attack at mosques in the New Zealand city of Christchurch. (My note - As we now know this is 50 people).

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote: »

Why would I want to learn about guns, their calibre, appearance etc.???? You're confused that not everyone needs to know this crap???

Or you are confused that you think threads and thread contents should in some way be dictated - or even remotely influenced at all - by what _you_ personally want to know or read. Or that you are somehow forced to be reading the thread.

The core to democracy is an informed public however. And if we are ever to come up with useful and effective gun laws in countries such as that - then an informed public making demands on their politicians is going to achieve that much better than a braying mob merely shouting "guns bad" around their mindless drooling gobs.

Certainly when you say "95% of the population will never touch a gun and will never have any need or want to do so" this is just white noise. So what? We had a recent referendum on abortion. What % of people will actually ever have one? We recently had a referendum on homosexual marriage. What % of our population is actually homosexual? Yet to vote on those issues it helped to be informed about them - and see past much of the ignorance pedalled by the anti-crowds on those issues.

I am rather agnostic myself on gun laws and what they should be. I do not consider myself informed enough on the subject yet to form or express and opinion. I have never had to be here in Ireland so forming and informed opinion on the subject is low down my priority list at this time compared to more relevant issues to me and my society. But I certainly do not have the gun-hate many do on here or the 100% liberal let anyone have whatever weapon they want gun-love I see from mostly US speakers on the subject.

So while you might revel in your self described ignorance on the subject - I find threads like this massively informative and educational. Go figure huh.

But I am happily teaching my 8 year old daughter and in a couple of years my currently 5 year old son how to handle and use and aim and fire a rifle. Including all the maintenance care and respect involved in fire arm handling. We are not scared of guns nor do we hate them. My daughter has a hell of a lot of fun using one in fact and she is at an age where I can instil respect for such weapons in her at a level that will remain with her as second nature.

But I am all for well thought out, informed, meaningful and effective legislation and laws on the subject. And I see no reason yet to think the knee-jerk proposals from New Zealand are an example of that.

BBFAN wrote: »

This thread is about a mass murderer, how does that translate into a debate into the types of guns, appearance of guns, calibre, blah blah blah.

Because we have a discussion on the best ways to prevent such things happening again basically. And what laws and legislation will best facilitate that goal. And the details of what the legislation proposed will do - what weapons it will or will not actually effect - is by default going to be part of that. If that is not a conversation you are equipped to have - then simply do not. The rest of us can however. And we will. So build a bridge. Proceed over it. Enjoy the other side. It is sunny flower filled fields over there.

Zorya

Hypocrisy.

Osman Faruqi is the Deputy Editor of ABC Life. ABC is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the national broadcaster of Australia founded in 1929.

weldoninhio

BBFAN wrote: »

"people who know more about the subject" in whose opinion???

In your opinion

"I along with probably 95% of the population will never touch a gun and will never have any need or want to do " :rolleyes:

Hector Savage

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have no idea who this JP guy is -and care less - but rather than place his arm around the shoulder of Mr Proud Islamophobe was he precluded in some way from saying "Nope, can't be doing with that t-shirt and it's message mate. Off you toddle and take a selfie far far away from me." ???

Islamaphobia - a phobia is an irrational fear, sorry but I think it's perfectly reasonable to fear Islam!

Boggles

Manic Moran wrote: »

So as I am reading the new proposals for what is to be prohibited

The legislation hasn't been published yet, what has been is a vague decree issued to primarily dealers to stop people from stock piling.

Preventing stock piling is a very good idea. No more so than for this.

The 2012 mass shooting at an elementary school in the eastern United States resulted in the deaths of 20 children. Levine and McKnight used the random timing of this event and the subsequent increase in gun purchases (as recorded by an increased number of background checks) to show that the increased exposure to guns resulted in ∼60 accidental deaths.

Over 2 times more than was killed in the massacre. Seems again a country being sensible.

As for NZ being knee jerk a week after the massacre, they spent 18 months studying their own gun laws, with 20 proposals, only 9 got through. The data I imagine is there.

RE the comparison with California, whatever loop holes exist there should be studied and closed in any proposed legislation in NZ.

There is no sensible argument to oppose more stringent gun laws, least of all "look at all my guns in a state and country the other side of the world".

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

The word 'Islamophobia' ws created by Islamists to silence Muslims who want to cleanse Islam of polygamy, Arab supremacy, FGM, Ayatullahs, Kings, Sharia law, & Mullahs who pray in mosque sermons for defeat of Kafirs (Hindus Jews Christians) at the hands of Muslims. - Tarek Fatah

Yeah, I don't think that is actually true.

But anyway words evolve, terrorism use mean oppression by the government or something. The word has evolved along the way several times. Everyone pretty much knows what it means now.

But for clarity

Islamophobia now means

hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture

Or Oxford

Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force

Basically it means not liking Muslims.

Semantics and word play is just nonsense rattling by people for various reasons to try and pretend that concept doesn't actually exist.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Basically it means not liking Muslims.

Semantics and word play is just nonsense rattling by people for various reasons to try and pretend that concept doesn't actually exist.

I disagree. It is possible to be opposed to a religious ideal and not hate the people who follow that ideal.

I dislike Islam but I don't hate all muslims. I dislike the Catholic Church but I don't hate all Christians.

Being critical of Islam is not an attack on muslims.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree. It is possible to be opposed to a religious ideal and not hate the people who follow that ideal.

I dislike Islam but I don't hate all muslims. I dislike the Catholic Church but I don't hate all Christians.

Being critical of Islam is not an attack on muslims.

What you like and dislike is moot to the "point" of the poster I replied to.

Islamophobia is real, how do we know this?

Well you are in a thread with a glaring extreme example.

Bannasidhe

Zorya wrote: »

The word 'Islamophobia' ws created by Islamists to silence Muslims who want to cleanse Islam of polygamy, Arab supremacy, FGM, Ayatullahs, Kings, Sharia law, & Mullahs who pray in mosque sermons for defeat of Kafirs (Hindus Jews Christians) at the hands of Muslims. - Tarek Fatah

For some reason this is reminding me of Panti's comments about Homophobes.

Bannasidhe

Hector Savage wrote: »

Islamaphobia - a phobia is an irrational fear, sorry but I think it's perfectly reasonable to fear Islam!

There is a perfectly reasonable reason to fear extremism. Regardless of it's religion, political-ideology, so called justifications.

The vast majority of Muslims are law abiding people who just want to live their lives. To fear them because they are Muslim is the very definition of a phobia.

Fifty grades of shay.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I disagree. It is possible to be opposed to a religious ideal and not hate the people who follow that ideal.

I dislike Islam but I don't hate all muslims. I dislike the Catholic Church but I don't hate all Christians.

Being critical of Islam is not an attack on muslims.

All Christians aren't Catholic, far from it.
Interesting to see catholics singled out as the only Christian Church of mention.

Fifty grades of shay.

Fifty grades of shay. wrote: »

All Christians aren't Catholic, far from it.
Interesting to see catholics singled out as the only Christian Church of mention.

Brain fart by me I'm afraid.

Fifty grades of shay.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Brain fart by me I'm afraid.

I'd agree with your point BTW.
The IRA sort of made it hard for the Irish in England, of course everyone in Ireland wasn't in the IRA, but if you were in a usually English crowd pub and a couple of strange Irish men showed they were viewed suspiciously in the 70s/80s.
Of course all Muslims aren't terrorists or all catholics child abusers, far from it.
But it is all too easy to tar all with the same brush and suspicion leads to phobia.
Unfortunately that's always been a problem.

suicide_circus

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/christchurch-shootings-white-australian-guilt-new-zealand.html

this promotion of collective guilt for white people is ill thought out.

If "white Australians" should all be implicated for the Christchurch shootings, how many Irish people are implicated in IRA bombings?

Are all Muslims to be implicated for the many many jihadist attacks accross Europe since 2005?

No, i didnt think so.

Wibbs

"Collective guilt" is pretty much always for the pale of face. All our fault y'know.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You really believe a privately owned chain of book stores deciding to no longer stock a particular author is the same thing as what is happening in your Godwin photo?

Do you not think it is up to a private company to decide for themselves what stock they wish to sell?


May surprise to learn the Irish government has banned books.

I love it when self-confessed left winger go with the 'Its a private company, they can do what they want' line when it suits them.

suicide_circus

markodaly wrote: »

I love it when self-confessed left winger go with the 'Its a private company, they can do what they want' line when it suits them.

take consolation in the fact that this attitude is absolutely guaranteed to come back and bite them in the ass.

kunst nugget

markodaly wrote: »

I love it when self-confessed left winger go with the 'Its a private company, they can do what they want' line when it suits them.

But it's the truth. The government aren't banning his books, one company, in an act of virtue signalling (let's be honest, that's what it is), is removing it from its shelves.

In this day and age, it's easy to choose not to shop in a particular store if you don't like its policies.

markodaly

On the book banning itself, its kinda hilarious in a way but also tragic.

One can buy Mein Kampf from the same bookshop, yet Jordan Peterson's book '12 Rules for Life' which as far as I know never even mentions Islam gets banned?

Odd times we live in.

Some people want to live in a pure, virtuous world where everyone is free of all sin, so to speak. We should call it 'Progressive Neo Puritanism'.

Franz Von Peppercorn

suicide_circus wrote: »

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/christchurch-shootings-white-australian-guilt-new-zealand.html

this promotion of collective guilt for white people is ill thought out.

If "white Australians" should all be implicated for the Christchurch shootings, how many Irish people are implicated in IRA bombings?

Are all Muslims to be implicated for the many many jihadist attacks accross Europe since 2005?

No, i didnt think so.

These articles are click bait

suicide_circus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

These articles are click bait

yes its race baiting but it needs to be tackled where ever these scumbags raise their ugly heads

Boggles

markodaly wrote: »

Some people want to live in a pure, virtuous world where everyone is free of all sin, so to speak.

It would be nice I suppose.

Personally I'd just aim for one where children don't get executed because some racist cowardly scumbag acted out his hate filled delusional "feelings".

markodaly

kunst nugget wrote: »

But it's the truth. The government aren't banning his books, one company, in an act of virtue signalling (let's be honest, that's what it is), is removing it from its shelves.

In this day and age, it's easy to choose not to shop in a particular store if you don't like its policies.

Hey, I am with them on the principle when push comes to shove. But I just like chuckling at the feebleness of it, never mind the brass hypocrisy.

markodaly

Boggles wrote: »

It would be nice I suppose.

Personally I'd just aim for one where children don't get executed because some racist cowardly scumbag acted out his hate filled delusional "feelings".

Along with not blowing up kids at an Arianna Grande concert, as would I.

kunst nugget

markodaly wrote: »

Hey, I am with them on the principle when push comes to shove. But I just like chuckling at the feebleness of it, never mind the brass hypocrisy.

I'm not understanding the hypocrisy angle that you're getting at...

Boggles

markodaly wrote: »

Along with not blowing up kids at an Arianna Grande concert, as would I.

All kids and innocent people.

I have no interest in playing top trump tragedy.

But hey fill your boots.

markodaly

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm not understanding the hypocrisy angle that you're getting at...

You do not see that it's odd that one can buy 'Mien Kampf' but not '12 rules for life'?

One guy was the leader of National Socialism, created the 3rd Reich, launched a war which killed up to 50 million people, including the gassing of millions of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals.

The other guy possed in a photo next to a guy wearing a subjectively offensive t-shirt.

Out of these two who whose ideas caused more carnage?

Oh, and that is not even starting on the whole 'freedom of speech' for private businesses when it suits.

Call Me Jimmy

markodaly wrote: »

On the book banning itself, its kinda hilarious in a way but also tragic.

One can buy Mein Kampf from the same bookshop, yet Jordan Peterson's book '12 Rules for Life' which as far as I know never even mentions Islam gets banned?

Odd times we live in.

Some people want to live in a pure, virtuous world where everyone is free of all sin, so to speak. We should call it 'Progressive Neo Puritanism'.

Yea but in fairness hitler never stood beside someone wearing a questionable t-shirt