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 | ... | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | ... | 79

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202967 21-Mar-2019 18:10

dc2daylight:

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.

I wish I had more than +1 to give. This.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2202969 21-Mar-2019 18:14

It's a lot of money. There are many MANY legitimate law abiding gun users that are going to be impacted. Bad guys will still be able to get some guns anyway in many cases.

What happens every time there's a mass shooting in the US? The rest of the world looks at them and collectively shakes their head in disbelief that they won't change their gun laws.

Australia has the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre and they reacted immediately with large changes to their gun laws, targeted at semi-automatic weapons. They had a buyback scheme that removed over 1million weapons from circulation.

Without going into details, that worked. The problem in quantifying how well it worked is that there have been NO similar incidents since.

New Zealand now has this tragic event.

Our "kneejerk" reaction is needed. To do nothing, or to drag it out for months or years means we emulate the behaviour of the US...

Our "kneejerk" reaction is basically copying arguably the most successful (at scale) gun control changes anywhere in the world.

Congratulations to the politicians and the police for taking such a bold step. Sometimes a situation is simply so extreme and beyond comprehension, lacking any sort of precendent or process to fall back on, that you suck it up and just take decisive action.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

chatterbox

204 posts

Master Geek

#2202970 21-Mar-2019 18:18

Paul1977:

I'm somewhat concerned that almost all the focus seems to be on gun law reform and the video uploading and sharing aspects of social media. Very little is being said about how to change the political and social climate that fuels extremism.

Don't get me wrong, I support gun law reform and improved mechanisms to curb the sharing of objectionable material. However both of these are aimed at minimizing the damage that can be done after a person has already become radicalized, in and of themselves they are not a solution.

They are the "easy" things to do, and while they should be done I see a danger of people mistakenly thinking they are a solution. I see them as a (much needed) ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

Indeed, measures like this will actually be seen by hard right extremists as further justification for their beliefs.

By all means, treat the symptoms - but we mustn't lose sight of the much harder goals of curing and vaccinating against the disease.

I have been thinking for some time some classes should be taught at school along the way about some of the common sense in life, like acceptance, or even real money concepts. In a nutshell, education. Online bullying occurs at school age.

I would also like to see I guess a form of local made-for-you sanctions. Australia banned? the Adelaide man from the internet. Not sure how that was done or if they are merely monitoring his use? Depending on the severity, even a short term stint in jail. 2 weeks eats into your annual leave. Impacts on your employment when you don't show up for 2 weeks etc. Get to pick an area of their life that makes life really difficult for a while. Need to attend a course in acceptance as well like someone might for anger management. Just ideas!

I see a couple from Auckland Ray White have just lost their jobs for hateful info on their facebook pages. Whilst I don't believe it will change their views I really hope it prevents themselves or someone else reading from converting thought into hateful action. These actions aren't dreamed up in a day.

Never say never

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202971 21-Mar-2019 18:20

I have to say, I have been utterly humbled by the reaction of the Muslim community through this. Honeslty, I don't have words that would describe the character that they have displayed. Something to aspire to I think, at least for me. This is one of the many plus sides of faith I believe (I am not religious per se but don't subscribe to the view it's more evil than good).

It's pretty early in the piece and so there are more grief cycles to go through and in my opinion, inevitiably anger will probably be one of these for some/most and rightfully enough.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2202972 21-Mar-2019 18:20

Nothing about what is being done now precludes anything from happening in the future.

This seems like a pretty good start.

BTR

1527 posts

Uber Geek

#2202974 21-Mar-2019 18:24

From what I have read and understand based on reading the new legislation is that any semi automatic that has a magazine that holds MORE than 5 rounds is now classed as military style and is now requires and E Cat license to purchase until the law change phases them out.

Semi autos which hold 5 or less rounds are still legal to buy and own. Small calibre .22 rifles which hold more than 5 rounds are also still legal.

I don't read it as being all semi automatics weapons being banned.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202976 21-Mar-2019 18:35

networkn:

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?

Why would cost cuts or more taxes be required? Our government is in surplus (in fact a much bigger surplus last year than was planned) with extremely low debt. Effectively it means that we repay a little less on our revolving credit.

networkn:

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.

Lets be clear - shouting, saying something is crazy or insane isn't taking a pragmatic approach. It's taking an emotional kneejerk approach. If you're going to take personal offence because others don't agree with your emotional arguments and react then that's too bad.

I'm happy to debate the actual measures (some of them aren't going to be correct or well implemented) but you haven't suggested we take a measured and properly thought out process, you've ranted and rejected ideas without facts or logic.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202977 21-Mar-2019 18:36

chatterbox:

I see a couple from Auckland Ray White have just lost their jobs for hateful info on their facebook pages. Whilst I don't believe it will change their views I really hope it prevents themselves or someone else reading from converting thought into hateful action. These actions aren't dreamed up in a day.

I am not sure what the answer is, or whether there even is a good answer, but I just see this going further underground rather than preventing it from happening at all. The people it actually stops are the ones who were in my opinion being "thoughtless" and are still redeemable, the ones it will have no impact on, will simply dig a deeper hole, find those like minded and retreat into echo chambers, egging each other on until they snap and this happens again.

I am not privy to the couples sins that got them fired, firing them was perhaps the right course of action, but if it prevents them from working going forward, do you think that's really the way you get people to change? Unlikely. They become isolated, unable to provide for their families, a burden on the system, with the social stigmas that go with it for them and their kids, and it all spirals downhill from there. It doesn't encourage enlightenment, it encourages resentment, hate and other things that entrench and magnifies their feelings.

I have in my life time held some uncharitable entrenched views due to my upbringing, experience etc. In being surrounded by others who had differing views and to some degree being exposed to positive peer pressure, other viewpoints have helped me understand the other perspectives that were missing. I no longer hold those views and regret holding them in the past.

chatterbox

204 posts

Master Geek

#2202979 21-Mar-2019 18:41

networkn:

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".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/03/14/how-the-nra-has-shaped-the-worlds-gun-laws/?utm_term=.6c76b8cab85e

"It has also intervened to help block attempts to regulate firearms in other countries, hoping to protect both gun ownership and potential markets for gun manufacturers."

From an article where basically the NRA took a run at the United Nations. Suspect most of our guns are from overseas.

"there are now more global agreements regulating the trade of bananas than of AK-47s." Quote from same article.

"Though it does not actively fund lobbyists around the world, the organization has played a major role in firearms debates all over the globe. It worked to defeat gun-control bills in Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom. As David Morton put it in Foreign Policy:

The NRA may not be actively funding gun lobbies around the world — the organization claims its charter prohibits it — but its influence is felt in much more than dollars. It lends support to the anti-gun control effort at the United Nations. It promotes lines of argument, strategy, and political tactics that others adopt for local use. And, if you contact the association, its representatives will come to explain how to get it done. Although many of the NRA’s members may not own a passport, their leaders are savvy operators in international politics. For all their red-blooded American pretensions, they have a deep understanding of how globalization works."

Never say never

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202980 21-Mar-2019 18:43

I’m not sure how we can say it worked. Gun fatalities were dropping already well before the changes over there. Incidents like that are rare. You could have two in a year or none in 100 years . If you used bombs that avoids the statistic. That there hasn’t been an incident by rifles or bombs mean that there was no incident to measure so the stats can’t be relied upon.

BarTender

3606 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202985 21-Mar-2019 18:52

If anyone wanted to have a look at right wing Twitter they are all up in arms (pun intended) over the law change today. And it's hilarious.
All you need to do is go onto NewstalkZBs Twitter, see who replies with racist or white supremacists responses, then see who likes it and down a cesspool you go.
https://twitter.com/NewstalkZB
There are sowme very depraved NZers.

kingdragonfly

11190 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2202986 21-Mar-2019 18:52

Shock: New Zealand Acts Logically After Mass Shooting
David Pakman Show

"Contrary to what happens in the US, New Zealand reacts completely logically to the recent mass shooting"

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202989 21-Mar-2019 19:09

tdgeek: I’m not sure how we can say it worked. Gun fatalities were dropping already well before the changes over there. Incidents like that are rare. You could have two in a year or none in 100 years . If you used bombs that avoids the statistic. That there hasn’t been an incident by rifles or bombs mean that there was no incident to measure so the stats can’t be relied upon.

It is very hard to prove or disprove for one country. What you can say is that there haven't been mass shootings in Australia of this scale since.

You can also say that there are regular mass shootings in the US which has not instituted meaningful gun control.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202996 21-Mar-2019 19:16

Handle9:

Why would cost cuts or more taxes be required? Our government is in surplus (in fact a much bigger surplus last year than was planned) with extremely low debt. Effectively it means that we repay a little less on our revolving credit.

Somewhere along the line the debt will need to be repaid, at the sacrifice of $100M spent elsewhere. The surplus will have been earmarked even if what it was earmarked for isn't announced yet. That money isn't coming from thin air. Which sector do we reduce future spending on in favour of spending 100+M on this ban? There is obviously a cost. I'm simply wanting to be sure it's as little as possible to get the job done effectively so we don't have to take that money away from other sectors eventually.

Lets be clear - shouting, saying something is crazy or insane isn't taking a pragmatic approach. It's taking an emotional kneejerk approach. If you're going to take personal offence because others don't agree with your emotional arguments and react then that's too bad.

I'm happy to debate the actual measures (some of them aren't going to be correct or well implemented) but you haven't suggested we take a measured and properly thought out process, you've ranted and rejected ideas without facts or logic.

I agree, let's be clear. I didn't shout. I emphasized my points because I was shocked, really shocked. I am surprised more people aren't. This one act could cost us *many* hundreds of millions. There aren't any numbers yet, so we should both agree, neither of us is working from "facts", other than the fact it's a crap load of money. I want to be sure it's being spent properly. If it could be done effectively for 70M a month from now, then that's sensible in my view rather than 100M on a plan thrown together in a hurry. It may be the real cost, in which, we will need to suck it up.

You don't seem happy to debate the measures at all, there is simply, "change will be hard and cost lots of money, oh well"

Bureaucracy and waste is rampant in bigger organizations, and it's usually because of poor /rushed planning.

I don't mind being disagreed with (Most people would prefer to be agreed with most of the time you'll find I think), but doing so by twisting peoples words and suggesting that they are saying something they aren't (or throwing in little jibes here and there) entirely lowers the tone of any thread and greatly reduces the likelyhood of actual debate.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2203001 21-Mar-2019 19:37

I have no issue with the Government spending up to $100mil to meet these pointless rifles out of circulation.

1 | ... | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | ... | 79