Christchurch Mosque Shooting

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Christchurch Mosque Shooting

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 79

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2199221 15-Mar-2019 22:45

freitasm:
@Batman:

BarTender: And YouTube
https://twitter.com/YouTube/status/1106431532976074753?s=19

someone tell me if it's safe to click?

Just YouTube being YouTube. They can identify copyright infringement while you are still uploading a video but can't take down first person view mass murdering videos even after being notified.

Typical.

That's what I don't understand either. Granted YouTube seem to be doing a better job than Twitter.
But how hard is it to fingerprint objectionable material when they have spent so much time on fingerprinting copyright material.

irongarment

280 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 134
Inactive user

#2199222 15-Mar-2019 22:50

BarTender:
irongarment:
BarTender: So the same tolerance should apply to kiddy porn and Islamic extremists showing gory stuff??
I think you've misread the room and belong with your fellow extremists on Whale Oil or Kiwiblog rather than Geekzone.

Er, no. That would be dumb. I actually agree with the Karl Popper cartoon you posted.

Really since you are arguing against censorship. Yet agree with me.

White supremacists and terrorist sites should have no place in our society.

I fully support all ISPs blocking any terrorists supporting sites. Both Chan's fall into that category.

I don't understand why you feel the need to defend the free speech of terrorists.

Yes. It is indeed a paradox.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41072

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2199223 15-Mar-2019 23:03

Right... One person to appear in court tomorrow morning on murder charges.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2199235 15-Mar-2019 23:19

One of the four who was armed, is not involved. Maybe he/she came out with his/her own firearm and got snapped up by the Police?

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2199255 15-Mar-2019 23:26

networkn:

I feel right now the focus should be the members of our community who are affected and ensuring they have whatever they need to get through this as best they can.

Perhaps the discussions on motives and the associated topics should be in a different thread or saved till a later time. Very little is known conclusively and jumping to conclusions is likely to only spread negativity.

Let's try and give each other the benefit of the doubt. It's understandble people are jumpy considering these terrible acts.

It's time to show the best of ourselves.

Sigh. Superficially nice but intellectually vacuous comments like these are so frustrating. Life's not all about getting along and merely brushing the hard conversations under the carpet.

Applying some kind of beyond reasonable doubt/conclusive beyond doubt standard before anyone seriously starts engaging in conversations around what questions we ought to consider asking as a result of this is silly. That standard is for criminally convincing somebody and keeping them in jail. I really don't think there's any meaningful doubt that the main shooter (at a minimum) is a hard/alt right nutbag on his little fantasy of striking again people that he doesn't like for no reason other than their skin colour and/or religion. This is terrorism in law and in the books of anyone half-way intelligent. There are important questions/issues that needs to be asked (and settled, if possible) with great urgency:

Yes, we know Mr Loser (the arrested gunman who's allegedly Australian) and his mates aren't on terror watch lists. But that shouldn't be the end of the matter. Why were they not being watched? Did our intelligent agencies genuinely not know about them? Should we have an inquiry to discover whether there were performance issues on the part of our intelligence/police agencies? Are there lessons to be learned? There are potentially uncomfortable questions that may arise: it's a well-recorded phenomenon that law enforcement and intelligence agencies tend to pigeon hole extremism as being the preserve of certain non-white groups and ethnic minorities perceive (rightly or wrongly) themselves as being less valued and less protected by law enforcement in many parts of the western world. I would hope this isn't the case in NZ but did our agencies do everything possible to prevent this?

We need to have some serious debate (and quick action) when it comes to our gun laws. Why does a country of four-point-something million people need 1.3 million guns? Why do we not have a register of guns? How did the nutters get hold of assault rifles? Why didn't we learn the lessons from Aramoana and Port Arthur? Will our politicians commit to compulsorily buying back high powered guns and banning them?

Will society and people finally grow a pair and stop tolerating idiots who throw around whataboutisms and offer emotional and other succor to the pathetic alt white idiots? Like the moron, Fraser Annan, that @freitasm posted about. Will we actually holding people like Trump (and his supporters) to account for expressing absolutely outrageous views like there are fine people amongst white supremacists? When will people call out dog whistle politicians like Winston Peters, Pauline Hanson, and [insert the names of other pathetic idiots of the same ilk]? Will people risk losing friendships over calling out idiots who casually remark that "Hey if there wasn't so many of [insert name of group] in this country, people like [some idiot who commits a hater crime] wuldn't have a platform?"

Will humanity ever find the strength to ask some questions around why the Y chromosomes are overwhelmingly so much more violent, intolerant of minorities, and murderous of their fellow homo sapiens compared to females. Should we fundamentally reassess western notions of masculinity? You know, that tough guy "Act before you think. Physical dominance and winning at all cost is the key!" mentality that these alt right losers just love and many "average Joes" routinely display. I mean, heavens forbid, maybe we should encourage our sons and grandsons to play with dolls and dress in pink etc. Girls/women are doing (and traditionally have done plenty of meaningful things like domestic chores, giving birth, and more without one bit of recognition) way better than men/boys on fundamental things like not being criminals and being better educated.

Will we face up to the fundamental crisis in education -- where first world countries continue to churn out a massive chunk of incredibly stupid and uneducated people who then overwhelmingly choose to support policies and politicians that disadvantage the vulnerable and the oppressed. Will we recognise that it is a kind of fundamental stupidity and inability to see basic logic (or be entirely impervious to it and general notions of decency) that you'd resort to just mass murdering people to "make a point"?

Or do we just prefer to resort to platitudes and play nice?

Oblivian

7345 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2117

ID Verified

#2199256 15-Mar-2019 23:28

I had a big post outlaying my feelings toward those actively seeking the content and then having the gall to form an opinion against attempts of it being taken down/restricted. But too emotionally fueled for this CBD worker after today.

Instead:

https://www.dia.govt.nz/Censorship-Objectionable-and-Restricted-Material

Every time a person downloads objectionable material onto their screen, there is the potential for a possession offence having been committed.

a publication...(that) describes, depicts or expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good."

All objectionable material is banned.

snnet

1413 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 556

#2199259 15-Mar-2019 23:38

freitasm:

One good question I've seen repeated everywhere: with so much surveillance and with perpetrator posting so much "content" publicly in the last few days, how come security services didn't know this?

Did anyone report the content before these events happened? Or was it public to a degree that the people viewing it shared this person's beliefs?

Ge0rge

2114 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2060

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2199279 16-Mar-2019 00:20

dejadeadnz:
We need to have some serious debate (and quick action) when it comes to our gun laws. Why does a country of four-point-something million people need 1.3 million guns? Why do we not have a register of guns? How did the nutters get hold of assault rifles? Why didn't we learn the lessons from Aramoana and Port Arthur? Will our politicians commit to compulsorily buying back high powered guns and banning them?
/

@dejadeadnz, I agree with everything you have written except this paragraph. Our gun laws are some of the best in the world, oft used as examples for other countries to follow. You bring up learning lessons from Aramoana - we have not had an event like that where a person legally entitled to own firearms has killed with criminal intent since the law changes as a result of that. I certainly hope that hasn't changed today, and wait with baited breath to hear how they did obtain their weapons.

As for the number of firearms owned legally in NZ, why should it matter if it is a large number? We're a nation of people who enjoy the outdoors, with 1 in 8 people south of Auckland having a licence - around 1 in 64 in Auckland do from memory. If you enjoy shooting ducks, rabbits, the occasional deer, perhaps a steel or paper target or two, there's at least four firearms that you'd want to be able to do each of those effectively. If we're allowed to own one, why not multiple?

We already do have a register of restricted firearms. Even the police themselves have admitted that it does not stop crimes being committed by criminals - you should know better than anyone that the laws don't apply to them.

The last two issues I have significant issue with are the use of emotive language. What exactly is a "high powered gun"? This is language designed to provoke fear amongst people. It does nothing to add to a serious and balanced debate. "Assault Rifle"? The only people to have "assault rifles" in NZ are the police, the defence force and those specially vetted collectors who aren't allowed to use them by law. This/these criminals who committed the crime today did not have assault rifles. Calling the firearms that they used assault rifles again promotes fear within the general public for no good reason.

A buy back / ban of firearms will not solve anything. Australia and the UK both did it, and there are statistics that show an increase in gun crime. Do you think the criminals or the gangs are going to hand their weapons in? It will only be those people who obey they law who do - those who were never going to commit a crime with their firearms in the first place! "When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" Yes, rather "NRA"ish, but it rings true. I'm not saying that "we're giving up our right to firearms, we won't be able to defend ourselves" or any other such rubbish - we don't have a legal right to self defence in NZ, and especially not with firearms. All I am saying is that the only people to hand in their firearms in the case of a buyback or ban will be those who are not criminals. Our firearms laws are good. We vet people, extensively if they want restricted firearms, and we have many clubs and organisations that promote the safe and responsible use of firearms. A much better solution would be to actually enforce the laws we have in regards to firearms - punish the criminals who choose to break the law, instead of those who obey it.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2199282 16-Mar-2019 00:46

Ge0rge:
dejadeadnz:

We need to have some serious debate (and quick action) when it comes to our gun laws. Why does a country of four-point-something million people need 1.3 million guns? Why do we not have a register of guns? How did the nutters get hold of assault rifles? Why didn't we learn the lessons from Aramoana and Port Arthur? Will our politicians commit to compulsorily buying back high powered guns and banning them?
/

@dejadeadnz, I agree with everything you have written except this paragraph. Our gun laws are some of the best in the world, oft used as examples for other countries to follow. You bring up learning lessons from Aramoana - we have not had an event like that where a person legally entitled to own firearms has killed with criminal intent since the law changes as a result of that. I certainly hope that hasn't changed today, and wait with baited breath to hear how they did obtain their weapons.

As for the number of firearms owned legally in NZ, why should it matter if it is a large number? We're a nation of people who enjoy the outdoors, with 1 in 8 people south of Auckland having a licence - around 1 in 64 in Auckland do from memory. If you enjoy shooting ducks, rabbits, the occasional deer, perhaps a steel or paper target or two, there's at least four firearms that you'd want to be able to do each of those effectively. If we're allowed to own one, why not multiple?

We already do have a register of restricted firearms. Even the police themselves have admitted that it does not stop crimes being committed by criminals - you should know better than anyone that the laws don't apply to them.

The last two issues I have significant issue with are the use of emotive language. What exactly is a "high powered gun"? This is language designed to provoke fear amongst people. It does nothing to add to a serious and balanced debate. "Assault Rifle"? The only people to have "assault rifles" in NZ are the police, the defence force and those specially vetted collectors who aren't allowed to use them by law. This/these criminals who committed the crime today did not have assault rifles. Calling the firearms that they used assault rifles again promotes fear within the general public for no good reason.

A buy back / ban of firearms will not solve anything. Australia and the UK both did it, and there are statistics that show an increase in gun crime. Do you think the criminals or the gangs are going to hand their weapons in? It will only be those people who obey they law who do - those who were never going to commit a crime with their firearms in the first place! "When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" Yes, rather "NRA"ish, but it rings true. I'm not saying that "we're giving up our right to firearms, we won't be able to defend ourselves" or any other such rubbish - we don't have a legal right to self defence in NZ, and especially not with firearms. All I am saying is that the only people to hand in their firearms in the case of a buyback or ban will be those who are not criminals. Our firearms laws are good. We vet people, extensively if they want restricted firearms, and we have many clubs and organisations that promote the safe and responsible use of firearms. A much better solution would be to actually enforce the laws we have in regards to firearms - punish the criminals who choose to break the law, instead of those who obey it.

How do you require an AR-15 to "enjoy the outdoors" and how is an AR-15 not an assault rifle?

There is no reason for an AR-15 to be owned by a private individual. If the killer had access to sporting rifles he would not have been able to kill that number of people he did. That is why they should be outlawed. The Australian and British examples demonstrate that. They have had massacres but at a totally different scale to the one today.

The NRA nonsense is just that.

There is no rational reason for these weapons to be in our society.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2199283 16-Mar-2019 00:58

Ge0rge:

The last two issues I have significant issue with are the use of emotive language. What exactly is a "high powered gun"? This is language designed to provoke fear amongst people. It does nothing to add to a serious and balanced debate. "Assault Rifle"? The only people to have "assault rifles" in NZ are the police, the defence force and those specially vetted collectors who aren't allowed to use them by law. This/these criminals who committed the crime today did not have assault rifles. Calling the firearms that they used assault rifles again promotes fear within the general public for no good reason.

I am not concerned about your or so called "balanced" debate when you are out resorting to NRA-like tactics, as you readily admit. Our firearm laws are good? Anyone who's bothered to look at the fact that our Arms Act hasn't had any kind of refresh/reform in 26 years would question this. I just had a look at the Law Commission's (NZ's government-funded and independent law reform body) website and amazingly I couldn't find any results, research and/or briefing paper on the Arms Act. People can conjecture as to why but I suspect the way successive governments have bowed to the gun lobby will tell you a thing or two. You can go and auto-eroticise on the fine details of what makes an assault rifle but the maniac(s) involved today are widely reported to have been carrying detachable cartridges, firing rapid bursts, and more. Have fun explaining how much more damage that kind of shooting causes compared to handguns, for example. And anyone who knows the slightest bit about the problems with our gun laws will note the ease which guns held under category A licenses can be easily converted into MSAAs. I prosecuted gun crimes as a prosecutor -- that doesn't make me some world authority on guns but I wasn't born yesterday and isn't stupid enough to take on faith some random's assertion that our gun laws are amazing.

A buy back / ban of firearms will not solve anything. Australia and the UK both did it, and there are statistics that show an increase in gun crime. Do you think the criminals or the gangs are going to hand their weapons in? It will only be those people who obey they law who do - those who were never going to commit a crime with their firearms in the first place! "When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" Yes, rather "NRA"ish, but it rings true. I'm not saying that "we're giving up our right to firearms, we won't be able to defend ourselves" or any other such rubbish - we don't have a legal right to self defence in NZ, and especially not with firearms. All I am saying is that the only people to hand in their firearms in the case of a buyback or ban will be those who are not criminals. Our firearms laws are good. We vet people, extensively if they want restricted firearms, and we have many clubs and organisations that promote the safe and responsible use of firearms. A much better solution would be to actually enforce the laws we have in regards to firearms - punish the criminals who choose to break the law, instead of those who obey it.

Yawn -- the usual chestnut about focusing on the criminals and the so called "rights" of the decent people to have fun. Ask homicide victims how much their otherwise previously law-abiding partners cared about the law when emotions ran high and there was a gun nearby. The fact is that some of the most peaceful, non-violent, and lowest-homicide-per-capita countries also have the strictest gun control laws (e.g. Japan) is indisputable. Why does having many guns around in society matter? It matters because these supposedly virtuous and wonderful citizens may become burglary victims and, once stolen, the guns are a threat to others. If people don't have a massive lawful arsenal to steal from, guns would become less accessible to criminals. There are also wider issues to consider: the Police Association (which really is just mouthpiece advancing lines that are politically advantageous to their members) has been trying to find every excuse under the sun to pressure police management into the general arming of police (with potential for disastrous outcomes for the mentality of policing and more). Now I agree the murder rate and gun deaths have been dropping but the last thing we need is for those guys to be able to latch more onto the wide circulation of guns and the increasing number of guns located during arrests.

Sorry, consider this (ex) gun owner to be unconcerned about your "plight".

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2199287 16-Mar-2019 01:25

dejadeadnz:

Anyone who's bothered to look at the fact that our Arms Act hasn't had any kind of refresh/reform in 26 years would question this.

Self-correcting before the vultures come calling. A more precise/accurate description of my bolded statement above would be that the Arms Act hasn't had any kind of significant refresh/reform after the post-Aramoana review. There have been some minor amendments since but major reform attempts, like the recommendations of the Thorp review, were never implemented.

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3317

Trusted

#2199290 16-Mar-2019 03:46

NZ is never going to be the same again after this. More gun restrictions? Most likely. More mass surveillance? Most likely.

Violence and hatred only breed more violence and hatred. I have no idea if the average NZer will be more at risk both here and overseas after this crazy massacre.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2199291 16-Mar-2019 05:45

One of the sites that hosts and promotes the videos is protected by Cloudflare so I contacted them saying they are protecting a terrorists supporting site.
Cloudflare bounced me to the actual hosting provider who of course hasn't responded.
The interesting thing is in Cloudflares terms of service they only care about Copyright material and child porn.
https://www.cloudflare.com/terms/

So really. They don't seem to care at all about supporting and protecting sites that host very objectionable material. I previously supported Cloudflare however after the response I have had I cannot anymore.

The site in question says "we don't support terrorists" and then the very next post is "download and torrent these videos"
We may not be terrorists. But the terrorists sure seem to like us and we like the traffic.

Edit, just took a screen grab from their site and removed their name plus a single word talking about poo if you ever had any question in your mind:

Yeah nah sorry bro. You support terrorists. You are no better than people who peddle in child porn.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2199292 16-Mar-2019 05:49

DarthKermit:
NZ is never going to be the same again after this. More gun restrictions? Most likely. More mass surveillance? Most likely.

Violence and hatred only breed more violence and hatred. I have no idea if the average NZer will be more at risk both here and overseas after this crazy massacre.

The only thing I can compare this to is Gallipoli. Our world has fundamentally changed. It is up to us what that means.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2199293 16-Mar-2019 06:03

BarTender: One of the sites that hosts and promotes the videos is protected by Cloudflare so I contacted them saying they are protecting a terrorists supporting site.
Cloudflare bounced me to the actual hosting provider who of course hasn't responded.
The interesting thing is in Cloudflares terms of service they only care about Copyright material and child porn.
https://www.cloudflare.com/terms/
So really. They don't seem to care at all about supporting and protecting sites that host very objectionable material. I previously supported Cloudflare however after the response I have had I cannot anymore.

The site in question says "we don't support terrorists" and then the very next post is "download and torrent these videos"
We may not be terrorists. But the terrorists sure seem to like us and we like the traffic.

@freitasm will you continue to use CloudFlare if they don't stop working with these people?

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 79