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 | ... | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | ... | 79

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2202906 21-Mar-2019 16:24

networkn:

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".

That's fair. As Handle9 just pointed out, speed of action is of the essence right now rather than financial accuracy and the figures were probably very roughly arrived at. They have to be, really, as we don't know how many of these weapons are out there. No doubt the actual cost of the buyback will be reported once it's known.

networkn

Networkn
32352 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202907 21-Mar-2019 16:24

Handle9:
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?

For God sakes NOT *once* did I suggest there should be no cost. Stop twisting what I am saying. Of course there is a cost, they aren't buying them back for nothing. But $100M seems way over the top.

With the panic buying, if they become illegal to own, and the fact lots of people bought them now, are you concerned that some of these people won't actually comply? We should do this quickly, but I don't think panic is required.

alexx

867 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2202908 21-Mar-2019 16:26

From stuff:

"The best estimate of the total number of firearms owned by New Zealanders is about 1.5 million. A political consultant who has advised the gun lobby, Simon Lusk, says there are an estimated 19,000 military style semi-automatic weapons in New Zealand."

They don't just have to buy back 19,000 weapons, they have to setup and administer a database to track at least 1.5 million weapons and their owners, which is a huge number of guns for a country our size.

When people say "let's not rush into this", it sounds like what they are really saying is let's give some time for well funded organisations like the NRA to come and interfere in our country. Those people don't care about us. They are simply worried about us setting a precedent for USA gun legislation. Then they will walk away regardless of the outcome.

Id prefer to let the government legislate now and if they get wrong they will find out at the ballot box soon enough.

#include <standard.disclaimer>

networkn

Networkn
32352 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202909 21-Mar-2019 16:31

There keeps being mention of the NRA, what exactly is it you think they are going to be able to do here? They aren't (to my knowledge) present as a formed organization and the ban has already been announced. Even with a week, or 10 days longer, what could they realistically do? I have yet to see an opinion voiced on this forum or in any conversations I've had in the past 6 days, that indicates one single person doesn't support a ban. *plenty* of people are realistic about the chances of it preventing another attack, even if it's accepted that a different weapon may well kill less people. Even if the NRA went absoloutely crazy lobbying against it, it would be a drop in the ocean of public sentiment.

Sideface

9360 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202910 21-Mar-2019 16:53

jonathan18:

One report I read put the cost at between $100 million and $200 million ...

That figure was estimated by the PM in her press conference this afternoon.

One problem is that nobody knows how many of these "banned" weapons are out there.

Sideface

Handle9

11393 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202911 21-Mar-2019 16:55

networkn:
Handle9:
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?

For God sakes NOT *once* did I suggest there should be no cost. Stop twisting what I am saying. Of course there is a cost, they aren't buying them back for nothing. But $100M seems way over the top.

With the panic buying, if they become illegal to own, and the fact lots of people bought them now, are you concerned that some of these people won't actually comply? We should do this quickly, but I don't think panic is required.

You've said you support the ban but not the cost. What is the cost you will support and how do you come to that number?

It seems to me that you are having a kneejerk reaction to a big number. I'm very confident there will be a lot of scrutiny over how the money is spent.

Given my ignorance of the number of weapons involved and the likely real world costs of this type of excercise I'm prepared to accept that treasury and police have logic for what they have proposed. I'm also prepared to accept that they aren't idiots until proven otherwise.

If you are going to shout about massive costs etc I'd like to understand your logic for this. It's a ton of money but how do you conclude it is way over the top? Once you get into large numbers the resources required make the costs large.

There is going to be bureaucracy (people) and compliance costs (systems) to make this happen. If we are saying we want to do this it needs to be done properly otherwise it will be a waste of time.

Of course some people aren't getting information to comply with the new laws and there will be enforcement costs associated with this. Anyone who suggests otherwise is being totally disingenuous.

Change is going to cost money and make us make uncomfortable choices.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2202912 21-Mar-2019 17:07

I would imagine that some of the cost may have to do with new measures being implemented to detect and monitor weapons that are not voluntarily submitted. Since there has apparently been no record of firearms purchases up to now, other than a check that they were purchased by a license holder, there may be a lot of manual database preparation work necessary to collect and collate the required data. They can't check for illegal weapons until they know where they are. I can well imagine all the man-hours involved adding up to a substantial sum. Add to that AOS callouts to those addresses that don't respond to requests to submit to inspection, and I'm sure you can reach a hundred mil fairly quickly.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Tracer

343 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2202916 21-Mar-2019 17:22

Looks like a good sensible amendment that few could quibble with. As I predicted .22LR and shotguns are excluded (except shotguns with detachable mag). Full text if anyone is interested: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2019/0055/latest/whole.html

chatterbox

204 posts

Master Geek

#2202918 21-Mar-2019 17:41

networkn:

There keeps being mention of the NRA, what exactly is it you think they are going to be able to do here? They aren't (to my knowledge) present as a formed organization and the ban has already been announced. Even with a week, or 10 days longer, what could they realistically do? I have yet to see an opinion voiced on this forum or in any conversations I've had in the past 6 days, that indicates one single person doesn't support a ban. *plenty* of people are realistic about the chances of it preventing another attack, even if it's accepted that a different weapon may well kill less people. Even if the NRA went absoloutely crazy lobbying against it, it would be a drop in the ocean of public sentiment.

Suspect it's $$$.

In the US they give huge money to politicians. I don't know if politicians here accept $ from any gun association we have.

Buys good lawyers armed with info. I'm sure I saw something on social media from a lawyer that specialised in gun stuff in the US. I didn't know that existed. Whereas in our media I saw an article that lawyers aren't familiar with the terrorist act and prosecuting that successfully.

I think right now we still have strong numbers of anti gun people against pro gun which is why it's good to get these legalities pushed through. In saying that I am also sad to see law abiding gun owners that are responsible giving up a weapon they used properly. My current overall position is I'm all for tightening things up.

Never say never

networkn

Networkn
32352 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202919 21-Mar-2019 17:43

You've said you support the ban but not the cost. What is the cost you will support and how do you come to that number?

You are right, it's a kneejerk reaction to a huge amount of money. I don't know what the number in my head that sound "ok" is, but not in my wildest dreams was I expecting it to be $100M. I reserve my right be to shocked.

Maybe it does legitimately cost $100M, but there is also some mention of $200M. That money will be be coming from other expediture that won't occur (or I guess a new tax could be implented). What cost centers do you support cutting cost in, to achieve those numbers?

Change is going to cost money and make us make uncomfortable choices.

It's a cute sound bite.

You know, it's possible to want NZ to be a safe place and ALSO be pragmatic and sensible at the same time. Being those two things doesn't prevent you from being a decent human being, prevent you from caring, and geniunely feeling the impact of what has happened. They aren't mutually exclusive, and I am tired of the implication from you and others, that anyone asking questions of how we go about securing NZ "just doesn't get it".

The implication here from a number of people is that we should just rubber stamp *any* measure at any *cost*suggested by anyone in the hope that it makes NZ safe(r) and prevents these attack from happening again.

I am actually only suggesting we take a measured and properly thought out process, as quickly as is practical, without taking shortcuts in a panic.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202922 21-Mar-2019 17:50

Handle9: 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.

That’s right and I stand by that. As I stated many times I support gun law change but it’s not a cure for another massacre here. I’m not sure I agree that one person driving around my town with semis is efficient. Sadly there are other methods available that can achieve high numbers. It will reduce damage from a firearm based massacre. That’s all. It will also provide a huge social benefit to our mindset and it will make us look good internationally. It won’t stop a massacre, it will change the type or use 3 instead of one person (he had 3 locations planned)

These changes are not enough. My first rifle was a .22 with a 15 shot magazine. Excluded. Second that I owned st the same time was a .22 Magnum 5 shot magazine but also excluded if it used the 15 shot. Why are these excluded? I agree that 5 shot is a good number. Maybe as it’s just a .22? .22 rimfire with a hollow point will cause a lot of damage. I think the AR15 is .223? More range that’s all. They need to restrict.22 or rimfire to 5 shots

networkn

Networkn
32352 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202923 21-Mar-2019 17:51

chatterbox:

Suspect it's $$$.

What would the NRA get out of preventing a ban of Semi Automatic Weapons in NZ? Is it that if the ban happens here they are worried the USA might sit up and pay attention and ban them too ? That seems pretty tenous. Not impossible I guess.

In my experience, which I will admit is limited in numbers to a tiny percentage of total NRA members, 100% of NRA members I have interacted ( online or in person) with ever have been *utterly* dismissive of *any* argument simply because "NZ". They simply do not care one iota what NZ thinks of their gun laws. No matter the evidence, the discussion would always boil down to "You don't understand the culture, you aren't from here, your don't understand the history, or politics, so butt out of things you don't understand".

chatterbox

204 posts

Master Geek

#2202925 21-Mar-2019 17:54

jonathan18:

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.

I left FB but found I was missing out on a few things. I didn't know which social media site was going to work for me. Still have FB. Have instagram & twitter. But with these events I am actually happy to just report inappropriate stuff. I don't think the police could do it all on their own, but if I come across severely offensive words then I'm reporting that. Have been to twitter but nz police gave out their email also.

I have a few accounts so if one gets blocked (and I have learned some people will block at the drop of a hat), then I can still search them from the other account to get details. You can get a feel for them by who they follow, who follows them, looking at their media feed. You can google their names, it's amazing what comes up on people these days. If I thought the conversation was turning nasty I would probably screen shot it so it's there before you get blocked. I'm not antagonising anyone and actually haven't had to do any of this but as I view the landscape I've come up with my own little recipe for dealing with offensive content. I have reported some things related to the video and pictures but I didn't interact with those people. No need to make yourself known.

It's a way I can be part of the solution. 😁

Reason from separate accounts was to separate work from personal interests just like I wouldn't discuss finances with certain friends when I felt it was inappropriate.

Never say never

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202926 21-Mar-2019 17:55

NRA? Why are they mentioned? This is NZ the crazy NRA doesn’t rule here. It sounds good though

dc2daylight

87 posts

Master Geek

#2202965 21-Mar-2019 18:04

Rikkitic:

One really has to wonder what value, if any, is being provided by our so-called security services. Maybe they were just too busy spying on Greenpeace and the Greens party to do their real job. There isn't even a mention of right-wing extremism in the 10 years of public documents released by both services, in spite of Muslim complaints. They seem to have been completely asleep at the switch. A lot like the services in the USA were accused of after 9/11. Ever heard of learning from experience, guys?

*Thumbs-down*. That is a very conceited opinion, and one based upon the emotion everyone feels at present across many different political viewpoints. One thing that most of our political parties share in common is the urgency of the need for dialogue and planning, and a prioritisation of resource redirection to address what had perhaps been swept under the proverbial rug.

Sometimes it may be better to not mention ones targets in an open publication if possible, and if not mandated by a legal instruction from politicians to do so. Isn't this kind of obvious though?

Apportioning blame to police, intelligence and even arguably power-mad social media sites is all very well, but the reality is that the petty extremists of any type need a far better education, mature development of empathy and compassion, and better leadership in their lives.

One factor which seems to be very common is this pattern of dis-affected working class, caucasian young males who often are having trouble in the romance and companionship department of life and are from what we euphemistically refer to as "first world countries". Testosterone with only a physical outlet - eg bodybuilding, combined with radicalisation by hidden entities online or in person, will surely often be followed by acting out eventually. Where were their role models,brothers,cousins,teachers,community leaders,peers,sisters,mothers, and few friends from earlier in life when they become so isolated and full of hatred?

We have a responsibility to the welfare of our 'brothers' and 'sisters', within the values framework of not only most major religions but also various humanist, ethical atheist, and also many new thought internet subculture communities. What we have to think about in the long term, is how do we gently,continually, and effectively fade out hate crimes from our societies as if they were a candle put out, though not with too fast and reactive a plan of action.

A reactionary solution simply won't work, as whatever is required needs properly thought out legislation, legal case law and new definitions, education, public engagement and of course the democratic process which is the bedrock of our modern civilisations - evolutionary progress and maturation.

1 | ... | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | ... | 79