General Christchurch Shooting

DO NOT POST VIDEO TO THE MASSACRE OR LINKS TO IT

  • Ban hammer

    Votes: 3 100.0%
  • No regrats

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3

Miket12

Warriors 1st Grader
Apr 20, 2012
7,549
We blame the bomber, because bombs are illegal and he shouldn’t have had one. He was wrong to seek and use one.

We blame the driver, because drink driving is illegal and he was wrong to drive while intoxicated.

You have then made a straw-man argument about blaming the gun. We blame the gunman, that’s why he is facing murder charges, instead of being considered a victim or innocent bystander. Because the gun was legal we need to make it illegal to protect people from it, like we do with bombs and drink driving.

The only pro gun arguments that I have heard this week are just as disingenuous as yours.
You presume far to much. This isn’t my opinion... I wanted to see people’s opinions on how to deal with the situation. Pre David Gray, all guns were registered but the gun licenses were laxer. Then, post Aramoana, gun registration was abandoned in favour of stricter licenses and the banning of fully automatic weapons.

Here’s the thing, while limiting/banning semi-automatics will lessen the likelihood of what we’ve just seen happen again, it doesn’t remove the possibility of it happening again if someone doesn’t surrender their semi-automatic or illegally imports one from overseas.

Obviously, something has to be done but someone with the agenda of this guy unfortunately will find away around it. While I hope and pray it doesn’t happen again, I can see the possibility of it. And that saddens me deeply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: surfin and Sup42

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
May 8, 2012
7,280
You presume far to much. This isn’t my opinion... I wanted to see people’s opinions on how to deal with the situation. Pre David Gray, all guns were registered but the gun licenses were laxer. Then, post Aramoana, gun registration was abandoned in favour of stricter licenses and the banning of fully automatic weapons.

Here’s the thing, while limiting/banning semi-automatics will lessen the likelihood of what we’ve just seen happen again, it doesn’t remove the possibility of it happening again if someone doesn’t surrender their semi-automatic or illegally imports one from overseas.

Obviously, something has to be done but someone with the agenda of this guy unfortunately will find away around it. While I hope and pray it doesn’t happen again, I can see the possibility of it. And that saddens me deeply.
I've been saying for 20 years now that the most dangerous weapon a person has access to is a car. I came to the conclusion after watching the movie where the kid from home alone throws a dummy of the bridge and into traffic. People finally have used it as such. However no one has said we should put sharp objects on the front or side or add spears to the wheels etc. I mean why not it would be cool, and fun. But inherently more dangerous. In fact car design goes the other way. They spend amazing amounts of money and time to make car impacts less damaging on people. So here is my point.

Guns can be fun, but like a car they are automatically dangerous, a single bullet can kill. But the people - that's us, don't need guns to be more destructive than they already are. The army doesn't even need guns to be more destructive*. So why wouldn't the people want to make guns safer for people just like we do cars. And the first way to do this is to reduce the rate of fire, the second way to do this is to reduce the magazine size, the next way to do this is to restrict who can get guns and the next big thing has to be getting guns chipped to only work for their owners, (that whole thing about gun owners being killed by their own weapons... Stops theft) I am sure there are many ideas around for making guns safer, just like cars. And just like cars when a death occurs its not the gun that's at fault, but it will be the people at fault if they have the opportunity to do something to make them safer and don't.



*Not required for my point - background (Since Vietnam war has been fought to injure and not kill. This is about sapping the moral will of the nation when they are flooded by vets coming home without body parts, blinded etc Its about overwhelming the hospitals and costing the country more in healthcare than the war being fought. If the army really want you dead they don't use guns they use something much much more effective. A dead person is actually quite cheap and easily dealt with and becomes a martyr. Look at battlefield blinding lasers for a good example, or why bullet technology has stalled at the military level but is way more advanced in the civilian sector.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rizzah

The Cheap Seats

1st Grade Fringe
May 18, 2015
335
You presume far to much. This isn’t my opinion... I wanted to see people’s opinions on how to deal with the situation. Pre David Gray, all guns were registered but the gun licenses were laxer. Then, post Aramoana, gun registration was abandoned in favour of stricter licenses and the banning of fully automatic weapons.

Here’s the thing, while limiting/banning semi-automatics will lessen the likelihood of what we’ve just seen happen again, it doesn’t remove the possibility of it happening again if someone doesn’t surrender their semi-automatic or illegally imports one from overseas.

Obviously, something has to be done but someone with the agenda of this guy unfortunately will find away around it. While I hope and pray it doesn’t happen again, I can see the possibility of it. And that saddens me deeply.
Coward.

How about we all post nonsense, and then disavow ourselves of it.
 

FuNQie

1st Grade Fringe
Nov 30, 2018
446
.....What do you think happens to a patient who hits out over a smoke ?

They get violence risk added to their files, they get major tranquillisers injected into them to calm them down, drugs which any health care worker would, given the choice, choose or recommend a cigarette to calm down in its stead.

Some of these drugs violent smokers get pumped with have a one in so many hundred risk of causing death. Some of the drugs used for calming are more addictive than heroine (Benzodiazepines).....
I totally agree with you, Sup. Smoking is now virtually taboo. Which is crazy. I’m as certain as I could ever be that more people are having their health adversely affected in very serious ways by over-eating and especially consuming too much sugar, than by smoking. I was working as a domiciliary career (going house to house getting people up, giving them showers, etc) not that long ago and a high proportion of clients had diabetes-related conditions. There were several instances of leg amputations, including one through the hip. Many had ulcerated lower legs. And so on.

Smoking is taxed to an astonishing degree, but sugar isn’t taxed at all (other than GST.) Crazy.
 

Miket12

Warriors 1st Grader
Apr 20, 2012
7,549
Coward.

How about we all post nonsense, and then disavow ourselves of it.
I haven’t disavowed myself from anything, I just don’t agree with your interpretation of my original post that you think I’m blaming the gun.

The gun was his tool to do an act of evil. The blame, as you yourself said, is with the gunman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sup42 and Inruin

Horriors2013

1st Grade Fringe
May 24, 2013
1,694
I've been saying for 20 years now that the most dangerous weapon a person has access to is a car. I came to the conclusion after watching the movie where the kid from home alone throws a dummy of the bridge and into traffic. People finally have used it as such. However no one has said we should put sharp objects on the front or side or add spears to the wheels etc. I mean why not it would be cool, and fun. But inherently more dangerous. In fact car design goes the other way. They spend amazing amounts of money and time to make car impacts less damaging on people. So here is my point.

Guns can be fun, but like a car they are automatically dangerous, a single bullet can kill. But the people - that's us, don't need guns to be more destructive than they already are. The army doesn't even need guns to be more destructive*. So why wouldn't the people want to make guns safer for people just like we do cars. And the first way to do this is to reduce the rate of fire, the second way to do this is to reduce the magazine size, the next way to do this is to restrict who can get guns and the next big thing has to be getting guns chipped to only work for their owners, (that whole thing about gun owners being killed by their own weapons... Stops theft) I am sure there are many ideas around for making guns safer, just like cars. And just like cars when a death occurs its not the gun that's at fault, but it will be the people at fault if they have the opportunity to do something to make them safer and don't.



*Not required for my point - background (Since Vietnam war has been fought to injure and not kill. This is about sapping the moral will of the nation when they are flooded by vets coming home without body parts, blinded etc Its about overwhelming the hospitals and costing the country more in healthcare than the war being fought. If the army really want you dead they don't use guns they use something much much more effective. A dead person is actually quite cheap and easily dealt with and becomes a martyr. Look at battlefield blinding lasers for a good example, or why bullet technology has stalled at the military level but is way more advanced in the civilian sector.)
Why defend guns at all? Not one human being can claim they 'need' a gun. You can kill cattle in other more humane ways. Guns eventually get in the wrong hands. That's just a fact. If they don't exist, they don't hurt anyone.

Yes there will always be nutters. But the damage is reduced greatly if guns are not around.

I also code that people can make their own guns. But if guns are made illegal to carry by citizens it's going to be much harder to get one.

If you defend guns you're a muppet.
 

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
May 8, 2012
7,280
Why defend guns at all? Not one human being can claim they 'need' a gun. You can kill cattle in other more humane ways. Guns eventually get in the wrong hands. That's just a fact. If they don't exist, they don't hurt anyone.

Yes there will always be nutters. But the damage is reduced greatly if guns are not around.

I also code that people can make their own guns. But if guns are made illegal to carry by citizens it's going to be much harder to get one.

If you defend guns you're a muppet.
I have been target shooting since I was about 13, taught to shoot before that by my father. I like guns, worked in gun related industry as I have previously said. I also like fast cars and pretty women. Guess you can call me Gonzo. I also like killing people online with anything i can get my hands on. But I have yet to go postal and kill people, because i recognise the difference. Shooting is an Olympic sport, would your ban mean that no one in NZ could compete? I havent used, owned or even thought of buying a firearm in the last 20 years so a ban wouldnt affect me, but i do think it would be wrong.

BTW I think you are wrong. Farmers need guns. Ever seen a seagull shoot? Do you know why they do it? Do you know anyway to avoid using guns to get the same result?

as an aside I thought i would look up if any country in the world bans all guns to civilians, so I went to Wikipedia like all good researchers and it was an interesting read. North Korea is the only country listed that is a defn NO, others are very difficult to get guns in like china and Japan. And i really liked the read on Argentina's laws which sound good to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sup42

bruce

Warriors 1st Grader
Contributor
Sep 1, 2015
14,056
Why defend guns at all?
Some examples:
Duck and pheasant shooters
Farmers to kill for meat, to put stock down, possums and rabbits
Hunters for deer
Those types who collect antiques.
Genuine target shooters (of which there are very few).

Have I forgotten anybody? All the above number so few it would barely support a few retail outlets.
 

The Cheap Seats

1st Grade Fringe
May 18, 2015
335
Some examples:
Duck and pheasant shooters
Farmers to kill for meat, to put stock down, possums and rabbits
Hunters for deer
Those types who collect antiques.
Genuine target shooters (of which there are very few).

Have I forgotten anybody? All the above number so few it would barely support a few retail outlets.
Farmers survived for thousands of years without guns to do farming tasks. I bet they could manage in a mordern enviroment too.
Nobody needs to shoot ducks or pheasants. That's just a hobby.
If there are no guns, then there would eventually be no antique guns to collect.
Target shooters should take up darts and stop overcompensating. More prize money in darts too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sup42

wizards rage

1st Grade Fringe
Apr 18, 2016
970
Tauranga
Farmers survived for thousands of years without guns to do farming tasks. I bet they could manage in a mordern enviroment too.
Nobody needs to shoot ducks or pheasants. That's just a hobby.
If there are no guns, then there would eventually be no antique guns to collect.
Target shooters should take up darts and stop overcompensating. More prize money in darts too.
In a city there is no definately no need for guns, however rural it’s a different story. Farmers are isolated and are responsible for their own safety and security. The rural crime rate is shocking at the moment... it would explode if there was no threat that a farmer may present a gun.
 

wizards rage

1st Grade Fringe
Apr 18, 2016
970
Tauranga
Ban guns... just ban Aussies... they have been responsible for 100% of the terrorist acts in NZ for the last 10 years😆

And then we would be guaranteed to win all our home games😉
 

surfin

Warriors 1st Grader
May 9, 2012
5,199
Coromandel
Is she the Shaun Johnson of NZ politics? A good highlight reel of rhetoric?

Let me preface this by saying I am a national voter. I don't like Labours philosophy or policies for the most part.

This government and Jacinda have been full of talk and very little action. They have come across as ill prepared, naive at times, lacking real world experience and know how.

However, this is the first time I have been really impressed by Jacinda and the first time I have found her truly genuine - as you would hope everyone would be in this situation. The right words, delivered fantastically, leading in incredibly difficult circumstances. She has backed this up with quick common sense action (though I had hoped they would have gone further than they have with the changes to gun control laws).

I hope this is the beginning of great things from her and the government.

Say what you believe is right for the country and back it up with action.

Not what you think will win you votes, not what you think you will be able to get away with.

Do what is required.

I'm with you 100% on this, so much of the daily running of the country under Labour has to me resembled, to quote Oscar Wilde "Like a blind man looking in a black room for a black cat that isn't there, and finding it." But after last Friday the way she has taken the lead and taken control of the situation she has been absolutely the right person leading the country right now. No other politician in NZ or even possibly the world could have done this.
Decisions have had to be made and she has made them, and as far as I can tell they have been the right decisions, my hope now is, the leap has been made and she takes this new leadership into the rest of NZ's future decisions. I won't claim I'll agree with everything she will do but it proves things can be achieved without 300 working groups getting paid outrageous fees for months on end, then discussions trying to work out if the groups are right at even more cost. Sometimes the problem is obvious and so is the solution.

As horrible as it sounds, last weeks horror may have turned her into potentially one of great leaders, because to me prior to that she was best known internationally for having a baby and an unemployed boyfriend. Now she is a leader, but one thing that has really stood out for me this week, take a look at a photo of the 35 year old Jacinda compared to the 38 year old one of this week, leadership comes at a cost she may not be willing to pay in the long term. She may wake up one morning and think do I really want my child growing up in this shit storm.
 

surfin

Warriors 1st Grader
May 9, 2012
5,199
Coromandel
Im not a conservative. But I believe that Winston is one of the greatest PMs NZ never had.
Winston does politics better than most, but Winston, despite multiple attempts in governments on both sides always achieves very little. To me he always has the answer when he is not in a position to change it, unfortunately when in a position to change things he never has the answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Inruin and Sup42

Sup42

Warriors 1st Grader
May 7, 2012
15,166
Just a query I have.

Been Rabbit shooting myself, my experience is, that after one shot the Rabbits go pretty fast and are gone in seconds.

I can only imagine that you might only get two to three animals with a semi Auto at a time?


Wouldn't you need to be killing them in the dozens to make any kind of dent in the population (Wondering whether that figure should be in the thousands).

The Gun Lobby spokeswoman I listened to, made the example of pest culling on farms as the main rationale for Semi Autos.

As best I can tell, with a million and a half guns in NZ, including these weapons, Rabbits and Possums are still a problem.

I wish the Journo had of pointed that out to the Gun freak.

Shooting doesn't make a dam bit of difference, not unless its a niche population like these Tar that no one seems bothered about which the Doc boys and girls are having a staff Rambo weekend killing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rizzah and gREVUS

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
May 8, 2012
7,280
Pretty much my experience as well. then again I gave up hunting when i was 16-17. I know you can use silencers and subsonic ammo to shoot rabbits, but if it works that well then you have plenty of time to cycle the bolt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rizzah and Sup42

surfin

Warriors 1st Grader
May 9, 2012
5,199
Coromandel
An older story and I don't know if the problem is as large now as it was, but at a guess it doesn't take long for populations to explode.

Just to stop the outrage, like gREVUS I was taught young how to shoot and got my first slug gun as a 12th birthday present, but apart from paintball I haven't been hunting for 30 odd years and no longer own a gun.

Record broken in Easter bunny hunt
By Rosie Manins

66 0
  1. Regions
  2. Central Otago

Thousands of dead rabbits carpet Pioneer Park in Alexandra on Saturday, following the 19th annual...

Thousands of dead rabbits carpet Pioneer Park in Alexandra on Saturday, following the 19th annual Great Easter Bunny Hunt. Photo by Rosie Manins.
Central Otago farmers have reason to smile following the eradication of more than 24,000 rabbits, hares, and other pests from farmland throughout the district.

The 19th annual Great Easter Bunny Hunt culminated in a carcass count at Alexandra's Pioneer Park on Saturday, revealing a record for the number of rabbits shot per team.
Hunt convener Dave Ramsay said 23,064 rabbits were shot and collected by 39 teams during the 24-hour hunt.
The total was significantly up on last year's total of 14,799 rabbits.
"They [farmers] have to be pretty happy. We've had a pretty good clean-up and there's 23,000 [rabbits] that aren't out there breeding now anyway," he said.
Each team comprised 12 hunters who shot on ballot-allocated properties from Ettrick to St Bathans, the Lindis Valley to Lake Hayes and everywhere in between.
In 1997, a record 23,949 rabbits were shot by 44 teams - each averaging a kill of about 540 rabbits.
This year's 39 teams beat the "pro rata" record by each killing an average of about 590 rabbits.
The weekend tally included 1152 hares, 54 possums, 54 stoats plus other sundry pests and this year's overall tally came to 24,378, he said.
"There were a few magpies and goats shot."
Winning team SWAT shot in the Queensberry area between Cromwell and Luggate, collecting 2312 vermin - 2306 of which were rabbits.
Another Queensberry block proved fruitful, with third-place-getters Overkill shooting 1275 rabbits.
The second-placed Hair Raising Mutineers removed 1489 rabbits and a stoat from an Alexandra property.
Mr Ramsay said the hunt went off without a hitch and generated a good profit for the Alexandra Lions Club, which organised the hunt each year.
"The weather was amazing - it [rain] held off until we had finished packing up on Saturday afternoon. The hunt is a way for us to return a bit of money to the community, as well as help the farmers," he said.
rosie.manins@odt.co.nz
 
  • Like
Reactions: bruce and Sup42

tajhay

Hands up if you are a shit coach
Mar 30, 2012
8,869
Sydney
Saw a few Warriors jerseys amongst the Circular Quay mass haka for Chch. Any of you guys came?
 

tajhay

Hands up if you are a shit coach
Mar 30, 2012
8,869
Sydney
 

The Cheap Seats

1st Grade Fringe
May 18, 2015
335
In a city there is no definately no need for guns, however rural it’s a different story. Farmers are isolated and are responsible for their own safety and security. The rural crime rate is shocking at the moment... it would explode if there was no threat that a farmer may present a gun.
That is nonsense. Farmers are not responsbile for their safety any more than anyone else.
Show me where in the Crimes Act or the Arms Act where Farmers are required to act as personal security/vigilantes.

I've lived rural and city in my time. A firearm would have been far more useful for personal protection at the Penrose Train Station. Good thing that nobody there has one.