ZOMG we need those anti-terror surveillance laws right now!

Forums › Off topic › ZOMG we need those anti-terror surveillance laws right now!

1 | ... | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | ... | 27

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1199312 17-Dec-2014 16:35

KiwiNZ:
ajobbins:
KiwiNZ:The surveillance is also about protecting rights.

As for the Press they are self serving. The current Fourth estate bares no resemblance to that of the early 20th century.

Those seeking the power say it's about protecting the rights. The real world has shown mass spying does little or nothing to protect you from harm.

surely the removal of been able to have a coffee in safety, been able to travel on public transport in relative safety ( Interisland ferries noted as the exception) are all rights that have been taken from us that Government measures are seeking to restore?

I don't think we have ever had the right to do any of that in complete safety, and even with terrorism threat its not significantly increased in danger to continue doing so. If the government gave a toss about our safety, well being and rights, they would look a multitude of other things including current legislation that is broken beyond belief, to much to list here.

Wish they would just sod off and stop being busy bodies and come up with some meaningful changes that will impact my day to day life in a positive way rather than encroach on my rights.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1199404 17-Dec-2014 18:20

Geektastic:
roobarb:
Geektastic: However, you cannot have it both ways. If I am to take responsibility for my own safety, I want Castle Doctrine in NZ and the right to concealed carry. You cannot deny me the right to defend myself if necessary on the one hand, and then say that the government should not do it instead on the other.

Despite the colours on both the ISIS flag and the All Blacks kit, the world is not black and white.

You can deny concealed carry and not be able to stop all terrorist attacks. That's the situation now.

I don't think you can ever stop all terrorist attacks short of 100% genocide of the races that carry them out.

However, neither do I think that anyone has suggested that being able to defend yourself would stop all terrorist attacks.

Imagine if a couple of the Sydney hostages had had Glocks and training. The outcome may have been a different one.

Yeah, there may have been MORE dead people.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1199407 17-Dec-2014 18:26

heylinb4nz:
roobarb:
heylinb4nz: vs the stick your head in the sand approach ?

Let's add in all the classroom massacres, the stand-your-grounds, the "but I was only cleaning it", and the "but I thought he had a gun", the every dairy owners that now has to be armed because every villain has to now be armed.

More standard anti-gun rhetoric, I don't know where to start. What has ANY of this got to do with TRAINED, LICENSED concealed carry permit holders who are NOT the problem ?.

You're also chucking accidents and negligent storage in there as well to further confuse things, and please the old crims arming themselves argument seriously not understanding how a criminal mind functions...they are already armed.

Shooting someone for "thinking" they have a gun ?? cops do it all the time yet you have no issue with them carrying.

Key point for civilians vs cops is cops respond to crime, civilians are almost always the victims so are in a way better position to judge when their life is in danger.

You mean like this
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12/11/open-carry-texas-activist-arrested-shooting-killing-husband-stepdaughter.html

Trained - Check
Licensed - Check

http://www.futurity.org/shooting-deaths-states-gun-owners/
Covering 30 years (1981-2010) in all 50 states, the report shows a “robust correlation” between estimated levels of gun ownership and actual gun homicides at the state level, even when controlling for factors typically associated with homicides. For each 1 percentage point increase in the prevalence of gun ownership, the state firearm homicide rate increases by 0.9 percent, the authors found.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1199409 17-Dec-2014 18:35

KiwiNZ:
ajobbins:
KiwiNZ:The surveillance is also about protecting rights.

As for the Press they are self serving. The current Fourth estate bares no resemblance to that of the early 20th century.

Those seeking the power say it's about protecting the rights. The real world has shown mass spying does little or nothing to protect you from harm.

surely the removal of been able to have a coffee in safety, been able to travel on public transport in relative safety ( Interisland ferries noted as the exception) are all rights that have been taken from us that Government measures are seeking to restore?

Mass spying won't make going out for a coffee any safer than it is today. Nor would it have stopped what happened in Sydney this week.

Twitter: ajobbins

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1199454 17-Dec-2014 19:30

KiwiNZ:
SaltyNZ:
KiwiNZ:
ajobbins:
KiwiNZ: They are poorly funded, poorly equipped and hamstrung by the lack of legislative support

They have PLENTY of legislative support, they just aren't using it right.

If funding and equipment are an issue, then address that, don't sell the rest of the country down the river by legislating their rights away to make up for other failings.

It's a bit like saying the police don't have enough funding to keep us safe after dark, therefore the solution is a countrywide imposed curfew and no one is allowed outside after dark.

You do realise that we had far more reaching and restricting laws etc during the second world war that were quickly repealed when the need past.

When will the war on terrorism be over?

I read one assessment that was giving a ten year time frame. Logically never though. The current insurgents etc 10 years

Ah, well, it's already been 13 years. When do the 10 years start? How will we know if we won early? So yes: never. Therefore to say that it's ok to take away our rights because we'll get them back when the war is over leads to the logical conclusion that we will never get them back.

Which is what I'm afraid of.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1199462 17-Dec-2014 19:44

ajobbins:
KiwiNZ:
ajobbins:
KiwiNZ:The surveillance is also about protecting rights.

As for the Press they are self serving. The current Fourth estate bares no resemblance to that of the early 20th century.

Those seeking the power say it's about protecting the rights. The real world has shown mass spying does little or nothing to protect you from harm.

surely the removal of been able to have a coffee in safety, been able to travel on public transport in relative safety ( Interisland ferries noted as the exception) are all rights that have been taken from us that Government measures are seeking to restore?

Mass spying won't make going out for a coffee any safer than it is today. Nor would it have stopped what happened in Sydney this week.

You make these claim can you provide some back up. The US, UK and Australia all have stopped terror attacks using intelligence.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1199482 17-Dec-2014 19:49

KiwiNZ:
ajobbins:
KiwiNZ:
ajobbins:
KiwiNZ:The surveillance is also about protecting rights.

As for the Press they are self serving. The current Fourth estate bares no resemblance to that of the early 20th century.

Those seeking the power say it's about protecting the rights. The real world has shown mass spying does little or nothing to protect you from harm.

surely the removal of been able to have a coffee in safety, been able to travel on public transport in relative safety ( Interisland ferries noted as the exception) are all rights that have been taken from us that Government measures are seeking to restore?

Mass spying won't make going out for a coffee any safer than it is today. Nor would it have stopped what happened in Sydney this week.

You make these claim can you provide some back up. The US, UK and Australia all have stopped terror attacks using intelligence.

Which ones? The original 54 that James Clapper told Congress about became 0 upon cursory examination.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1199511 17-Dec-2014 20:38

KiwiNZ:

You make these claim can you provide some back up. The US, UK and Australia all have stopped terror attacks using intelligence.

Firstly, NO ONE is saying no intelligence. Secondly, yes, attacks have been stopped using targeted, warranted intelligence.

The terrorist attacks that have happened recently have all happened due not due to lack of mass surveillance, but by failure of security agencies to appropriately respond to known and obvious threats.

Saying the existing laws (for surveillance) have successfully stopped attacks, is not justification for additional laws, it just shows the existing laws work.

Twitter: ajobbins

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1199515 17-Dec-2014 20:44

sir1963:
heylinb4nz:
roobarb:
heylinb4nz: vs the stick your head in the sand approach ?

Let's add in all the classroom massacres, the stand-your-grounds, the "but I was only cleaning it", and the "but I thought he had a gun", the every dairy owners that now has to be armed because every villain has to now be armed.

More standard anti-gun rhetoric, I don't know where to start. What has ANY of this got to do with TRAINED, LICENSED concealed carry permit holders who are NOT the problem ?.

You're also chucking accidents and negligent storage in there as well to further confuse things, and please the old crims arming themselves argument seriously not understanding how a criminal mind functions...they are already armed.

Shooting someone for "thinking" they have a gun ?? cops do it all the time yet you have no issue with them carrying.

Key point for civilians vs cops is cops respond to crime, civilians are almost always the victims so are in a way better position to judge when their life is in danger.

You mean like this
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12/11/open-carry-texas-activist-arrested-shooting-killing-husband-stepdaughter.html

Trained - Check
Licensed - Check

http://www.futurity.org/shooting-deaths-states-gun-owners/
Covering 30 years (1981-2010) in all 50 states, the report shows a “robust correlation” between estimated levels of gun ownership and actual gun homicides at the state level, even when controlling for factors typically associated with homicides. For each 1 percentage point increase in the prevalence of gun ownership, the state firearm homicide rate increases by 0.9 percent, the authors found.

Right back at ya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality

We could do this all day :)

FYI there is homicide and justified homicide. They also dont report on situations that were averted simply by drawing a firearm, a rape or assault that didnt happen etc etc, doesnt sell headlines in the media.

Stats to support both sides, but in the end its a person right to defend themselves with any and the courts to decide if it was justified.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1199523 17-Dec-2014 21:05

sir1963:
heylinb4nz:
roobarb:
heylinb4nz: vs the stick your head in the sand approach ?

Let's add in all the classroom massacres, the stand-your-grounds, the "but I was only cleaning it", and the "but I thought he had a gun", the every dairy owners that now has to be armed because every villain has to now be armed.

More standard anti-gun rhetoric, I don't know where to start. What has ANY of this got to do with TRAINED, LICENSED concealed carry permit holders who are NOT the problem ?.

You're also chucking accidents and negligent storage in there as well to further confuse things, and please the old crims arming themselves argument seriously not understanding how a criminal mind functions...they are already armed.

Shooting someone for "thinking" they have a gun ?? cops do it all the time yet you have no issue with them carrying.

Key point for civilians vs cops is cops respond to crime, civilians are almost always the victims so are in a way better position to judge when their life is in danger.

You mean like this
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12/11/open-carry-texas-activist-arrested-shooting-killing-husband-stepdaughter.html

Trained - Check
Licensed - Check

http://www.futurity.org/shooting-deaths-states-gun-owners/
Covering 30 years (1981-2010) in all 50 states, the report shows a “robust correlation” between estimated levels of gun ownership and actual gun homicides at the state level, even when controlling for factors typically associated with homicides. For each 1 percentage point increase in the prevalence of gun ownership, the state firearm homicide rate increases by 0.9 percent, the authors found.

Couple more

http://gunwatch.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-one.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/10/what-one-recent-study-found-about-murder-rates-and-concealed-carry-permits-is-likely-to-make-gun-owners-smile/

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1199532 17-Dec-2014 21:35

heylinb4nz:
sir1963:
heylinb4nz:
roobarb:
heylinb4nz: vs the stick your head in the sand approach ?

Let's add in all the classroom massacres, the stand-your-grounds, the "but I was only cleaning it", and the "but I thought he had a gun", the every dairy owners that now has to be armed because every villain has to now be armed.

More standard anti-gun rhetoric, I don't know where to start. What has ANY of this got to do with TRAINED, LICENSED concealed carry permit holders who are NOT the problem ?.

You're also chucking accidents and negligent storage in there as well to further confuse things, and please the old crims arming themselves argument seriously not understanding how a criminal mind functions...they are already armed.

Shooting someone for "thinking" they have a gun ?? cops do it all the time yet you have no issue with them carrying.

Key point for civilians vs cops is cops respond to crime, civilians are almost always the victims so are in a way better position to judge when their life is in danger.

You mean like this
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12/11/open-carry-texas-activist-arrested-shooting-killing-husband-stepdaughter.html

Trained - Check
Licensed - Check

http://www.futurity.org/shooting-deaths-states-gun-owners/
Covering 30 years (1981-2010) in all 50 states, the report shows a “robust correlation” between estimated levels of gun ownership and actual gun homicides at the state level, even when controlling for factors typically associated with homicides. For each 1 percentage point increase in the prevalence of gun ownership, the state firearm homicide rate increases by 0.9 percent, the authors found.

Couple more

http://gunwatch.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-one.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/10/what-one-recent-study-found-about-murder-rates-and-concealed-carry-permits-is-likely-to-make-gun-owners-smile/

Oh they are rock solid verified sources ;\

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1199556 17-Dec-2014 22:42

KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
sir1963:
heylinb4nz:
roobarb:
heylinb4nz: vs the stick your head in the sand approach ?

Let's add in all the classroom massacres, the stand-your-grounds, the "but I was only cleaning it", and the "but I thought he had a gun", the every dairy owners that now has to be armed because every villain has to now be armed.

More standard anti-gun rhetoric, I don't know where to start. What has ANY of this got to do with TRAINED, LICENSED concealed carry permit holders who are NOT the problem ?.

You're also chucking accidents and negligent storage in there as well to further confuse things, and please the old crims arming themselves argument seriously not understanding how a criminal mind functions...they are already armed.

Shooting someone for "thinking" they have a gun ?? cops do it all the time yet you have no issue with them carrying.

Key point for civilians vs cops is cops respond to crime, civilians are almost always the victims so are in a way better position to judge when their life is in danger.

You mean like this
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12/11/open-carry-texas-activist-arrested-shooting-killing-husband-stepdaughter.html

Trained - Check
Licensed - Check

http://www.futurity.org/shooting-deaths-states-gun-owners/
Covering 30 years (1981-2010) in all 50 states, the report shows a “robust correlation” between estimated levels of gun ownership and actual gun homicides at the state level, even when controlling for factors typically associated with homicides. For each 1 percentage point increase in the prevalence of gun ownership, the state firearm homicide rate increases by 0.9 percent, the authors found.

Couple more

http://gunwatch.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-one.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/10/what-one-recent-study-found-about-murder-rates-and-concealed-carry-permits-is-likely-to-make-gun-owners-smile/

Oh they are rock solid verified sources ;\

Oh you mean government \ ngo propaganda type of verification ? sorry most of those sites are just filled with lies.

bigal_nz

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user

#1199612 18-Dec-2014 06:08

Just for good measure here is more evidence we do need those laws - yet another one!! http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11375502

Just because this guy is dumb enough to draw attention to himself doesnt mean we dont need the laws because they know who he is. They dont have the resources to have someone watching every fanatical in NZ 24/7.

And for every fanatical who draws attention to himself there will be ones who don't. After Sydney it appears the known ones are equally as dangerous.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41070

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1199626 18-Dec-2014 07:21

People should stop drawing attention to Sydney's events as an example of "need laws".

The guy was a criminal. He was accessory to murder of ex wife (plead guilty to that). He had 50 charges of sex-related crimes and waiting for hearing. He was on a watch list but then removed from it, and he had a gun permit.

Obviously the authorities knew about him but yet did nothing. He should have been locked up, he should have no gun permit.

The laws are there, just a bunch of idiots not enacting them.

Don't need everyone being watched because of some government dummy not doing his job.

The white vet in America killed six people, then himself. He was not a terrorist, he was a crazy guy. This one was brown and had a different religion, therefore some call him a terrorist - never mind he was a completely crazy guy as well.

If we had five guys storming a building, holding hostages, beheading them one by one, demanding resources for some illegal organisation then blowing themselves up, yes I'd say "terrorists". But this episode? This one was a demented person with no sense of reality and a failure of government officials to keep him locked up.

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.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1199629 18-Dec-2014 07:34

freitasm: People should stop drawing attention to Sydney's events as an example of "need laws".

The guy was a criminal. He was accessory to murder of ex wife (plead guilty to that). He had 50 charges of sex-related crimes and waiting for hearing. He was on a watch list but then removed from it, and he had a gun permit.

Obviously the authorities knew about him but yet did nothing. He should have been locked up, he should have no gun permit.

The laws are there, just a bunch of idiots not enacting them.

Don't need everyone being watched because of some government dummy not doing his job.

The white vet in America killed six people, then himself. He was not a terrorist, he was a crazy guy. This one was brown and had a different religion, therefore some call him a terrorist - never mind he was a completely crazy guy as well.

If we had five guys storming a building, holding hostages, beheading them one by one, demanding resources for some illegal organisation then blowing themselves up, yes I'd say "terrorists". But this episode? This one was a demented person with no sense of reality and a failure of government officials to keep him locked up.

I the media have jumped all over the "firearm licence" story, despite NSW police confirming he never had one. I wonder how long they will leave this propaganda up before amending it ? most likely too late, people have already formed opinions and will happily accept restrictions on pump actions now.

Also have to love how Abbott is using this horrible event for political point scoring and furthering his draconian agenda.

1 | ... | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | ... | 27