Far-Right Terrorist Attacks in New Zealand

[niam2023]

Because he thinks Trump has his back.

But the moment New Zealand wants him extradited or anything, Trump'll just wash his hands of it and pretend he never heard of anyone named Joshua Moon.

That's what he does. Never does he EVER defend his friends. He just throws them to the wolves and claims they were coffee fetchers.

[Kanzenkankaku]

I don't see anything in that article that says he posted on kiwifarms at all? It looks like the police wanted information on people who were discussing him and that it's mainly about the site hosting a copy of the video that he livestreamed during the attack, because the police want to take it down, all copies of it.

In other news of people continuing to show graphic terrorist footage, Channel 7 news in Australia aired a segment on TV about it where they showed the video to the perp's family and blamed Fortnite Battle Royal for his actions
https://twitter.com/ChampChong/status/1107511559062880260

[dpareja]

Meanwhile, New Zealand has already amended its gun laws to ban certain high-fire-rate weapons.

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527

CHRISTCHURCH, NZ—In the days following a violent rampage in east-central South Island, New Zealand in which a lone attacker killed fifty individuals, and seriously injured over three dozen others, citizens living in a country where this kind of mass killing almost never occurs reportedly concluded Thursday that there was a way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but these things shouldn't happen and there is something we can do to stop them,” said Auckland resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by millions of individuals who reside in a nation where only one of the world’s deadliest mass shootings has occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are about as likely to die of gun violence as those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really was something that could have kept this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people even if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of an economically advanced nation where no mass shootings had occurred in the past twenty years were referring to themselves and their situation as “hopeful.”

So I'm never going to write for the Onion, sue me.

[Chaos Undivided]

Meanwhile, New Zealand has already amended its gun laws to ban certain high-fire-rate weapons.

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527

CHRISTCHURCH, NZ—In the days following a violent rampage in east-central South Island, New Zealand in which a lone attacker killed fifty individuals, and seriously injured over three dozen others, citizens living in a country where this kind of mass killing almost never occurs reportedly concluded Thursday that there was a way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but these things shouldn't happen and there is something we can do to stop them,” said Auckland resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by millions of individuals who reside in a nation where only one of the world’s deadliest mass shootings has occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are about as likely to die of gun violence as those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really was something that could have kept this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people even if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of an economically advanced nation where no mass shootings had occurred in the past twenty years were referring to themselves and their situation as “hopeful.”

So I'm never going to write for the Onion, sue me.

I really don't think this is necessary, considering this is literally the first mass shooting in New Zealand in over twenty years. Why institute these bans because of something that hardly ever happens? Really, I think a better solution would be to deploy armed guards to protect mosques, much like what European countries have done with synagogues.

[niam2023]

Because "Never Again".

This is why Australia went forward with awesome anti-gun legislation.

[Chaos Undivided]

Because "Never Again".

This is why Australia went forward with awesome anti-gun legislation.

Australia's anti-gun legislation is not "awesome". It's a miserable failure. And the claims that the 1996 laws stopped mass shootings... even by the strictest definition of mass shootings, that isn't true. Why do you think results across the Trench will be any better?

[Art Vandelay]

Because "Never Again".

This is why Australia went forward with awesome anti-gun legislation.

Australia's anti-gun legislation is not "awesome". It's a miserable failure. And the claims that the 1996 laws stopped mass shootings... even by the strictest definition of mass shootings, that isn't true. Why do you think results across the Trench will be any better?

Obviously, it's not perfect. It doesn't need to be perfect, though, it just has to be better than the alternative. Which it very much is. Here, we go years between shootings. Even longer between shootings that aren't gang related scuffles where innocents are left unscathed. Meanwhile, over in your Fatherland, schools get shot up on a monthly, sometimes even fortnightly, basis.

I'm sure you can see why some would prefer our system.

[niam2023]

Get ready for him to blither about how if its not perfect why bother having it at all.

[Chaos Undivided]

Because "Never Again".

This is why Australia went forward with awesome anti-gun legislation.

Australia's anti-gun legislation is not "awesome". It's a miserable failure. And the claims that the 1996 laws stopped mass shootings... even by the strictest definition of mass shootings, that isn't true. Why do you think results across the Trench will be any better?

Obviously, it's not perfect. It doesn't need to be perfect, though, it just has to be better than the alternative. Which it very much is. Here, we go years between shootings. Even longer between shootings that aren't gang related scuffles where innocents are left unscathed. Meanwhile, over in your Fatherland, schools get shot up on a monthly, sometimes even fortnightly, basis.

I'm sure you can see why some would prefer our system.

Our system works better than you think. It's true that the United States has many more mass shootings than the rest of the developed world... but that's at least partly a consequence of having the largest population by far. When you look at things on a per capita basis, we don't even crack the top ten in mass shooting deaths.

[niam2023]

That is shifting the goalpost.

The reality is that Australia's laws put years between shootings, whereas American "gunlaws" basically enable mass shootings.

[Chaos Undivided]

That is shifting the goalpost.

The reality is that Australia's laws put years between shootings, whereas American "gunlaws" basically enable mass shootings.

Oh yeah, I'm sure America having more than ten times Australia's population has nothing to do with it. /s

And could you please explain how that's moving the goalposts? I was directly responding to a statement that he made, pointing out that, on a per capita basis, America has fewer mass shootings and fewer deaths in mass shootings than many European countries. This includes countries like France that have strict laws regarding gun ownership. So if our gun laws "basically enable mass shootings", what does that say about French gun laws? Or Serbian or Macedonian gun laws, for that matter. I would have liked to say where Australia was on the list, but unfortunately, it wasn't included in the study.

[davedan]

CU - the three examples you had of mass shootings were one crime related dispute and one domestic violence dispute.  The largest number of dead being 7 (all sadly related). No instances of someone getting an AR-15 and shooting more than 10 people. Also given Norway's population and Anders Brevik shooting 98 people how many other mass shootings has Norway had?

Australia had been on a trend of about one mass shooting per year until the gun reforms after Port Arthur. Even with low compliance on the buyback it is very hard to get guns. So far as only career criminals having guns, well I don't mind because it's not career criminals who tend to go postal. Indeed it is in the criminal interest to use guns as little as possible.

No the people who we are worried about with mass shootings are the people who look normal until all of a sudden they lose it and start shooting up a school, a nightclub or vegas. The only way to reduce offenses by these people is to deny the guns. Now they may instead use a knife or use their cars. Well I would much rather that. Cars are inherently more useful than guns and you need a license for them. Knives are dangerous but it is much harder to kill 50 people with a knife. Moreover I think you'll find that knives are often illegal even in places where you can open carry.

Really the US obsession is part of their crypto-white supremacy.

[Skybison]

The first thing that needs to be said here is that it is a huge problem to look at the question of gun control based around mass shootings.  Public Mass Shootings Rampages are rare events that feel common because they get lots of attention from the media.  In truth, family massacres heavily outnumber mass killings of strangers, and all forms of multicide (mass murder, spree killers, serial killers, terrorists) make up only a small proportion of homicides, less then 5%.  The vast majority of homicides come from drunked barfights, family squables, domestic abuse cases and business disputes between drug dealers.  To determine if the american way is effective we shouldn't only look at mass shootings but per capita homicide rates in general.  Among the rich western democracies we've got (as of 2016):

Norway: 0.51 per 100 000
Spain: 0.63
Italy: 0.67
Ireland: 0.80
Australia: 0.94
Sweden: 1.08
Germany: 1.18
UK: 1.20
France: 1.35
Finland: 1.42
Canada: 1.68
USA: 5.35

Source The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
https://dataunodc.un.org/crime/intentional-homicide-victims

In short you are almost six times as likely to be murdered in the USA then you are in Australia.  Yes there are other factors besides just the guns but overall the american system is clearly far inferior at preventing homicide then other rich western democracies

[dpareja]

Meanwhile, New Zealand has already amended its gun laws to ban certain high-fire-rate weapons.

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527

CHRISTCHURCH, NZ—In the days following a violent rampage in east-central South Island, New Zealand in which a lone attacker killed fifty individuals, and seriously injured over three dozen others, citizens living in a country where this kind of mass killing almost never occurs reportedly concluded Thursday that there was a way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but these things shouldn't happen and there is something we can do to stop them,” said Auckland resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by millions of individuals who reside in a nation where only one of the world’s deadliest mass shootings has occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are about as likely to die of gun violence as those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really was something that could have kept this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people even if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of an economically advanced nation where no mass shootings had occurred in the past twenty years were referring to themselves and their situation as “hopeful.”

So I'm never going to write for the Onion, sue me.

I really don't think this is necessary, considering this is literally the first mass shooting in New Zealand in over twenty years. Why institute these bans because of something that hardly ever happens? Really, I think a better solution would be to deploy armed guards to protect mosques, much like what European countries have done with synagogues.

And then you're risking said armed guards snapping and shooting up a place.

As is so often pointed out, if more guns made a country safer, the US would be the safest country in the world. But it isn't.

[Skybison]