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 | ... | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | ... | 79

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2202865 21-Mar-2019 14:26

In this RNZ article, Andrew Little makes a distinction between (mainly) adolescent 'big-noting' and genuine terrorist rants:

"There are a lot of people who say things on social media that are kind of big-noting. They can be vile, they can be offensive but there's no either means or intention to carry through the comments that are made through expressions of violence.

"On the other hand, there are people who make violent threats towards classes of people, groups of people, types of people.

"The role of the agencies, among other things, is to do their best to distinguish between what is a real threat and what is just big-noting on social media."

I think this attitude is mistaken and is part of the problem. Any comments of this nature, whether they can be acted on or not, need to be immediately and forcefully squashed, as happened recently in Australia. Big-noting is a step on the path to eventual violence. There can be no tolerance for it. That is why we have reached this point now. Little needs to wake up and get serious.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2202882 21-Mar-2019 15:34

I totally get that deleting certain social media accounts isn't an option for many - FB, in particular, has become the primary method for many to communicate with friends and family - a dependency I'm sure FB is quite happy with.

Luckily I make little use of FB, primarily because I have a general revulsion towards most social media (this site is as close as I get!). The biggest problem is that one of my kids' school uses it as their main method to communicate with parents - I've emailed them to ask that they examine this continued reliance on FB, especially given it places those who can't or don't want to use it in a difficult position.

While I've posted the reason for my imminent departure from FB on FB itself (and have had feedback from friends who, while supportive, also can't follow suit given their dependence on the site), I hadn't thought about informing the site themselves; sometimes it's so difficult to find the correct channel for such feedback.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202883 21-Mar-2019 15:34

Government announces the Buy back of Automatic Weapons will cost $100M+

HOW? WTAF?!

Admittedly I have no idea what these things cost, but I expected in the range of a few thousand each? How on earth are we at $100M

loceff13

1065 posts

Uber Geek

#2202887 21-Mar-2019 15:43

networkn:

Government announces the Buy back of Automatic Weapons will cost $100M+

HOW? WTAF?!

Admittedly I have no idea what these things cost, but I expected in the range of a few thousand each? How on earth are we at $100M

Depends what they will be buying back, they might be buying back extended magazines and large amounts of ammo too. The Australian buyback scheme cost over 500M AUD in it's day but that covered a larger category of weapons.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202889 21-Mar-2019 15:46

Prior, and article sald 50 mill for semis, 100+ if including shotguns I think. There was also an option for modding them (but then they could be unmodded) Must be all semi automatics, wow. Good idea but its not the fix, but oh well

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202891 21-Mar-2019 15:49

100M is insane. Crazy. Especially since as tdgeek says, it's unlikely to prevent another attack.

Are there any numbers on how many weapons that qualify are in NZ, even ROUGHLY? What is the average cost of buying an automatic weapon in NZ? I don't want to go looking online incase the FBI storm my office later today LOL.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2202893 21-Mar-2019 15:56

It's good to see National putting aside partisanship and supporting the announced ban. It could have been quite ugly otherwise, though it'll be interesting to see where NZF go with this. If all parties support it it'll be harder for hard-arse interest groups (including NRA involvement) to stick their oar in.

The ban came into effect at 3pm today, so will put an end to those idiots who rushed out and purchased in the meantime.

I really don't get this behaviour - if something you've just bought ends up being banned you'll have two choices: follow the law and hand it in as part of the buy-back, or break the law and keep it but risk getting in trouble at a later date.

I also wonder if, over this last week (or prior), gun shops have been requesting or requiring the names/addresses of purchasers of such guns and accessories? They'll have them for online orders, for sure. If so, I wonder if the police will have access to this info so they've got at least some info on who should be handing things in.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202895 21-Mar-2019 15:58

How much of this $100M is raw buy back cost, and how much is beauracratic overhead?

Handle9

11391 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202897 21-Mar-2019 16:00

Tdgeek has a position on this that many of us disagree with. Essentially the logic for removal of these guns is that while you can not stop another attack you can remove the most efficient way of rapidly killing large numbers of people.

While there are still attacks in Europe and Australia generally far fewer people are injured or killed as the terrorists are forced to use far less efficient means of killing like cars and IEDs. Compare this to the US killings where larger numbers are killed due to more efficient methods.

If we decide these things need to go there is a cost. It's largely a one time deal so it just needs to be dealt with.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202898 21-Mar-2019 16:03

I support the ban but not the cost. $100M is MASSIVE money and honestly, I hope they present some cost break downs and quickly.

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2202900 21-Mar-2019 16:13

networkn:

I support the ban but not the cost. $100M is MASSIVE money and honestly, I hope they present some cost break downs and quickly.

What is that, $50 per taxpayer, once-off, to permanently rid the country of deadly assault weapons? I will never be more glad for my tax dollars to be spent on something.

I understand being frustrated at the amount of money, but I suggest focusing that frustration towards the kiwis who apparently bought and stockpiled 30,000+ assault weapons which now need to be forcibly nationalised.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2202901 21-Mar-2019 16:14

One report I read put the cost at between $100 million and $200 million, which should have you even more worried!

Those 'bureaucratic overheads" you mention (perhaps just overheads, given the other term's often used emotively to suggest profligate and unnecessary spending) will potentially cover such things as collection and disposal costs. I'd be interested to see if Police and NZDF are expected to undertake this additional work within current budgets.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2202902 21-Mar-2019 16:15

allio:

networkn:

I support the ban but not the cost. $100M is MASSIVE money and honestly, I hope they present some cost break downs and quickly.

What is that, $50 per taxpayer, once-off, to permanently rid the country of deadly assault weapons? I will never be more glad for my tax dollars to be spent on something.

Amen.

Handle9

11391 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202903 21-Mar-2019 16:17

networkn:
I support the ban but not the cost. $100M is MASSIVE money and honestly, I hope they present some cost break downs and quickly.

How would you implement a ban without a cost? Give the speed with which this is necessarily (to stop even more panic buying) being implemented do you think they have detailed budgets?

Treasury and police will have done a rough estimate, probably based on the Australian experience.

If the government didn't propose a realistic estimate they'd get criticized lated for over spending etc etc. It's not like you can have it both ways.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202904 21-Mar-2019 16:19

allio:

networkn:

I support the ban but not the cost. $100M is MASSIVE money and honestly, I hope they present some cost break downs and quickly.

What is that, $50 per taxpayer, once-off, to permanently rid the country of deadly assault weapons? I will never be more glad for my tax dollars to be spent on something.

The money doesn't grow on trees, there is a set pool of tax income. Reality is that $100M is going to be cut from something else. Health Care? Education? Mental Health Services?

I absoloutely understand there is a cost, and it's one off, and I want automatic weapons off the streets. Having said that, I feel 100M is crazy and I'd like to see how it's going to be spent. I think you should all want to see that to be honest. If it's truly justified, then I'll part with my $50, I'll even voluntarily pay an extra $50 in tax this year to cover it, but I want to ensure this doesn't end up a huge hole where the actual buy back is $25M and the rest is "compliance cost".

1 | ... | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | ... | 79