Mass Shooting In New Zealand

Status
Not open for further replies.
"More recently we have the Covington and Smollett stories with very quick diagnoses that were also wrong. "
The first news story (that I saw) was the day after the Smollett thing came out and mentioned the police were having a difficult time finding any evidence of anything in a camera dense area. I immediately became suspicious. The claims were extraordinary. I think lots of people that would have been quickly outraged were suspicious as well, because there was outrage, but it was a LOT more muted than usual.
 
The race to be certain about the causes of an event immediately after the event doesn't do a lot for accuracy.
Click to expand...

Wasn't looking for the causes, wasn't commenting on them...what was 'accurate' was that the guy mentioned trump in his manifesto..period..out...
 
Knowing exit points is very important. However shooters have been known to disable exits as part of their planning.
Click to expand...
That's why people at mosques, churches, schools, clubs, ect should be armed in case you have to fight your way past the shooter(s) when they disable the exits, or if you're not close enough to an exit when the shooting starts and you have to engage the shooter.
 
Time to label the shooter having a mental disorder. Starts a criminal prosecution. Pronounce him guilty. Then clothed_house_ and feed the miserable excuse of a man for the rest of his life.

Following the path and trap of P.C. & non-violence solutions:
New Zealands Prime Minster considering overwhelming Gun Restrictions. {That figures} Take em all away throw them all in the ocean. That way every normal human being residing on that island becomes easy prey for the trouble making undesirables from elsewhere in the World.
 
Can we not just have hyperbole? For example, do we need to discuss if the NZ folks ban some guns, how trouble makers from the rest of the world are going to get there?

Come on, we can do better. Let's stick as Tom said to more useful discussion.
 
That's why people at mosques, churches, schools, clubs, ect should be armed in case you have to fight your way past the shooter(s) when they disable the exits, or if you're not close enough to an exit when the shooting starts and you have to engage the shooter.
Click to expand...

I'm hard pressed to figure out how the bad guys haven't won when this is the new protocol for worship.
 
I worked with a fellow from NZ and he said that they could only own recognized sporting / hunting weapons and they had to be kept them ( and the ammo) at the "gun club" or some such non-sense. I got the feeling that he was talking about rifles, I am not sure if they can keep handguns at home or not.
 
Mainah said:
I'm hard pressed to figure out how the bad guys haven't won when this is the new protocol for worship.
Click to expand...



They win when law abiding citizens are disarmed, and we have a police state to “protect us.”

In a free society a law abiding adult should be able to be armed at all times. There generally are not armed police teams at schools, churches, or even malls. What we have seen over the decades is that whacko killers do not go in a spree at a gun club, police station, Wyoming diner, etc where armed persons can be expected. They attack where large numbers of persons likely to be unarmed gather without thorough police protection.

If more people were armed at places of worship and a few of these killer nuts got shot down in the lobby before they could kill much, I bet we would see those places ignored by them fairly soon. As long as people think they should have an aura of protection because they are praying then these psychos will continue targeting the willing defenseless wherever they congregate.
 
What we have seen over the decades is that whacko killers do not go in a spree at a gun club, police station, Wyoming diner, etc where armed persons can be expected.
Click to expand...

They don't shoot people at gun clubs not because the people there are armed. There have been murders at gun clubs and such. As for police stations, yes, the do attack polices. I do wish that this myth would die.

Here is a list of such attacks I compiled back in 2011 (post 32)
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=457683&highlight=police+station+attacked&page=2

Here is a video of a mass shooting at a Detroit police station. Several officers were shot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc0UGhPXmD0

Dallas police headquarters attacked...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6eJRDfpmr8

And they do it in other parts of the world as well. Here is a station in Buenos Aeries that was attacked...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjDEr8hYuuk
 
You just illustrated my point, thank you. Attacks on police stations do not result in mass killings. Armed targets respond with fire and the threat is contained with minimal loss. It does not turn into a Columbine or such and does not become the media event. I don’t think killer in waiting watching those videos is going to conclude, oh yeah that works great, I’m going to do that and be famous!

There are always going to be a few that will try the proven failure yet again, but an armed group is not going to be the copycat target for mass killings like schools, places of worship and malls.
 
Las Vegas was the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. 32 floors of elevation, almost 20 rifles, and thousands of rounds of ammo. If you watch the videos you can see people reaching for their guns, and realizing how hopeless that was.
 
You just illustrated my point, thank you. Attacks on police stations do not result in mass killings.
Click to expand...

Comically, that wasn't what you stated at all. You explicitly stated that whacko killers do not go on sprees in these places, specifically mentioning police stations. They most certainly do.

What we have seen over the decades is that whacko killers do not go in a spree at a gun club, police station, Wyoming diner, etc where armed persons can be expected.
Click to expand...

So you gave the impression that the presence of armed people would therefore preclude the shootings from ever happening, and that just isn't the case. Injuries and death may be more limited, but this does not stop the events from happening. Of course in the Detroit incident to which I linked the video, the shooter managed to shoot the vast majority of the officers present and engaged. It WAS a mass shooting with 4 officers shot.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/23/michigan.shooting/index.html
 
I don’t think even if carry of firearms is free and openly allowed that there would be a high probability of someone being armed when and where these events happen.

The percentage of the population that is allowed to carry is low. The percentage of people
That are allowed to carry who actually do is even lower. You might have a couple of legally armed people in a sizable crowd under the most likely in which conditions you’d find someone carrying. A pistol against a long gun is not going to give much advantage either.

I’ve seen people that do open carry pistols where allowed but their physical prowess is very questionable.
 
Any word on how the shooter got his weapons?..Googled but found nothing.
Click to expand...

You mean, like, did he shop at Dick's? The guy was a licensed gun owner who apparently obtained all his guns legally, as per the Prime Minister. He wasn't a criminal and wasn't on any watch lists.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/...vides-update-on-christchurch-mosque-shootings

The licensing process is somewhat significant.
In New Zealand, people first have to obtain a license to legally purchase, own, and possess a gun. A license applicant is vetted to check for a criminal record, a history of violence, drug and alcohol use, and relationships with potentially dangerous people, among other factors. The applicant also must go through a firearms safety course. That all typically takes months to get through.
Click to expand...
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/15/18267093/new-zealand-gun-control-laws-christchurch-mosque-shooting
 
The licensing process is somewhat significant.
Click to expand...

Anders Breivik, the Norway shooter who seems to have been an influence on this guy, went through similar circumstances. He first traveled to the Czech Republic after seeing a BBC documentary that claimed guns were freely available there. After failing to illicitly acquire weapons in Prague, he returned to Norway, applied for the licenses, and patiently waited out the process.

And that takes months. The idea that these folks just snap is malarkey. Most prepare for weeks at a minimum.
 
Tom is correct. Studies of potential school shooters who have been stopped, show that they studied Columbine and Virginia Tech quite thoroughly.

The idea of playing dead - now we see that the shooters are using finishing shots. They study the idea that you should play dead. They pull the fire alarms after seeing that folks did that and that chaos is useful.

About Norway - the shooter used a Mini-14 and the Norwegians are moving to or did ban those, IIRC. I could be corrected but that's what I read.

Thanks to DNS for pointing out that cliches are useless in defending the RKBA. Spouting something like shootings take place in gun free zones and you will be quickly debunked.
 
Las Vegas was the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. 32 floors of elevation, almost 20 rifles, and thousands of rounds of ammo. If you watch the videos you can see people reaching for their guns, and realizing how hopeless that was.
Click to expand...

With the Las Vegas shooting, there wasn't really anything that could be done about it. Even if the concert goers all had rifles, they couldn't return fire without endangering innocent people in the hotel. The only thing I can think if that might've stopped Paddock was if they had armed staff at the hotel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top