Witnesses say many dead, injured in shooting at New Zealand mosque

True. The murderer is Australian. Crime occurred in New Zealand. Law-abiding gun owners in both countries should expect to get butt-f***ed. For the Australians, it will be the second time. Wonder what will be outlawed next down there?

Has there been any commentary on how he acquired the weapons he used in the massacre? They say he legally acquired them, but I haven't read anything in regards to which country they were purchased in (though I suspect Australia) or how he was able to bring the weapons into New Zealand?
 
I'm curious why you guys watch these videos. Watch people die, gore... It's not that I'm adverse to death. I've seen plenty of traumatic deaths via shootings, hangings, car crashes, falls, etc. But I see them because I have to for work. I can't imagine seeking it out to watch. Honestly I think there is something immoral about watching a video for entertainment of somebody elses death. Like I think if it was my kid that got killed on video and these random people on the internet were cracking jokes about it. There was recently a thread about a chinese worker being killed that came up here that made me think of this as well. So out of curiosity, do you guys watch these out of curiosity, entertainment, suspicion of the accuracy and honesty of the media? I know this forum is a mix of guys that range from never actually seeing gore first hand to guys that had seen it regularly in war.

I watch to learn what to do and what not to do as a potential victim. There are a LOT of lessons to be learned from watching actual footage of crimes take place.

I'll give you a perfect example from this video. People cowering in corners of a room when there are windows 10ft away to escape from.
 
I'm curious why you guys watch these videos. Watch people die, gore... It's not that I'm adverse to death. I've seen plenty of traumatic deaths via shootings, hangings, car crashes, falls, etc. But I see them because I have to for work. I can't imagine seeking it out to watch. Honestly I think there is something immoral about watching a video for entertainment of somebody elses death. Like I think if it was my kid that got killed on video and these random people on the internet were cracking jokes about it. There was recently a thread about a chinese worker being killed that came up here that made me think of this as well. So out of curiosity, do you guys watch these out of curiosity, entertainment, suspicion of the accuracy and honesty of the media? I know this forum is a mix of guys that range from never actually seeing gore first hand to guys that had seen it regularly in war.

I suspect there are many persons on NES who are not first responders or who have not had the displeasure to see what violent "Death" looks like up close and the opportunity to do so sparks a bit of curiosity.
 
I'm curious why you guys watch these videos. Watch people die, gore... It's not that I'm adverse to death. I've seen plenty of traumatic deaths via shootings, hangings, car crashes, falls, etc. But I see them because I have to for work. I can't imagine seeking it out to watch. Honestly I think there is something immoral about watching a video for entertainment of somebody elses death. Like I think if it was my kid that got killed on video and these random people on the internet were cracking jokes about it. There was recently a thread about a chinese worker being killed that came up here that made me think of this as well. So out of curiosity, do you guys watch these out of curiosity, entertainment, suspicion of the accuracy and honesty of the media? I know this forum is a mix of guys that range from never actually seeing gore first hand to guys that had seen it regularly in war.

I have a copy, I watched about 50% then shut it off. Better than listening to the MSM bray about it.

I've seen far worse, worst two videos I've ever seen were those isis or al queda pukes that set the guy on fire (captured pilot?) and that serbian kid that set the cat on fire...

-Mike
 
“49 people were shot to death at two mosques in the city of Christchurch” - 41 at Al Noor mosque and 7 at Linwood mosque. (Seems to be +/- 1 death in the media)

In the research world, this is what might be a called an Internally Controlled Study:
Fixed Factors:
1. Same killer
2. Same day
3. Same Target Profile
Varied Factor:
1. Defensive Use of Guns

At Al Noor, only the attacker used guns; at Linwood, the attacker *and* a defender used guns
At Al Noor, the killer shot until he decided to move to the 2nd target; at Linwood the killer shot until someone shot back and he retreated.

Logical Conclusion: Defensive Use of Guns reduced mass shooting deaths by ~6-fold; supports facilitating DUGs by funding, policy & law.
NZ Gov’t & Liberal Media Conclusion: Guns killed 48 people; more guns laws are needed to hinder Defensive Use of Guns

Soft Targets (churches, synagogues, mosques, schools) are acquiring armed security at a rapidly increasing rate.
Non-targets (Left Gov’t, Liberal Media, Gun Control Advocates & Social Media “Friends”) are demanding, devising and passing laws to hinder Defensive Use of Guns.

“Gun Control” has devolved to a “Faith” or “Belief” that cannot be proven/disproven by evidence and observations.

And I think unfortunately true this will not be discussed in any way outside this forum...
 
NZ Threatens 10 Years In Prison For 'Possessing' Mosque Shooting Video; Web Hosts Warned, 'Dissenter' Banned

New Zealand authorities have reminded citizens that they face up to 10 years in prison for "knowingly" possessing a copy of the New Zealand mosque shooting video - and up to 14 years in prison for sharing it. Corporations (such as web hosts) face an additional $200,000 ($137,000 US) fine under the same law.

Because it's always better when the state controls the message
I'm not saying the state should control this. It was more a broader question. These website obviously exist because people watch the videos. And I used to work with a guy that would watch the ISIS beheading videos for entertainment. Literally would say "what's the big deal, the guys dead, I might as well enjoy the gore". I just don't get it. I feel it's a lack of empathy for the deceased family. Imagine having to suffer the loss of a loved one and knowing the internet is enjoying the video of it. Or it was you and now your family gets to experience this...
 
I watch to learn what to do and what not to do as a potential victim. There are a LOT of lessons to be learned from watching actual footage of crimes take place.

I'll give you a perfect example from this video. People cowering in corners of a room when there are windows 10ft away to escape from.

Agreed! That is what amazed me from the sound of the first gun shot... I simply don't understand why people went to cower in corners...
 
I'm curious why you guys watch these videos. Watch people die, gore... It's not that I'm adverse to death. I've seen plenty of traumatic deaths via shootings, hangings, car crashes, falls, etc. But I see them because I have to for work. I can't imagine seeking it out to watch. Honestly I think there is something immoral about watching a video for entertainment of somebody elses death. Like I think if it was my kid that got killed on video and these random people on the internet were cracking jokes about it. There was recently a thread about a chinese worker being killed that came up here that made me think of this as well. So out of curiosity, do you guys watch these out of curiosity, entertainment, suspicion of the accuracy and honesty of the media? I know this forum is a mix of guys that range from never actually seeing gore first hand to guys that had seen it regularly in war.

I have a military background. One of the best programs armies around the world still maintain are Lessons Learned. Here is one example: Center for Army Lessons Learned Unveils New Program for Sharing Best Practices

I was looking for an example from the other side which would be already translated into English. The closest thing I have found is this:

View: https://youtu.be/dwzU_wEeeBA


It is not exact but it may give you an idea.

Such LLs were labeled top secret and they were not available to a general population because sheep need to work and sleep well.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I got a weak stomach. I took a week long bomb blast response course where they show videos of US soldiers manning checkpoints getting vaporized in Iraq and I really felt uncomfortable watching them. It didn't really make me learn anything better.
 
I'm not saying the state should control this. It was more a broader question. These website obviously exist because people watch the videos. And I used to work with a guy that would watch the ISIS beheading videos for entertainment. Literally would say "what's the big deal, the guys dead, I might as well enjoy the gore". I just don't get it. I feel it's a lack of empathy for the deceased family. Imagine having to suffer the loss of a loved one and knowing the internet is enjoying the video of it. Or it was you and now your family gets to experience this...

I was not in any way relating that post to your responses. I simply wanted to point out NZ Gov is in charge of the propaganda.
 
I'm not saying the state should control this. It was more a broader question. These website obviously exist because people watch the videos. And I used to work with a guy that would watch the ISIS beheading videos for entertainment. Literally would say "what's the big deal, the guys dead, I might as well enjoy the gore". I just don't get it. I feel it's a lack of empathy for the deceased family. Imagine having to suffer the loss of a loved one and knowing the internet is enjoying the video of it. Or it was you and now your family gets to experience this...

You should want access these days specifically because faceplant, msm, shitty governments don't want you to have it....because they want to control reporting of the event. even if you have no interest in watching the video itself. Deleting/banning it doesn't undo the bad thing that happened.... and also allows others to misuse the event for their own gain.
 
I watched the vid once, not really for entertainment value but partly out of curiosity and partly because I dont trust the gov or the MSM to give an accurate account. For instance, I have seen accounts of someone who "rushed the shooter" hailed as a hero. To me it looked like the guy was trying to sneak past the shooter and make his way down the hallway. Many of the names written on the rifles and mags were of people murdered by Muslims but the media only talks about white supremacist symbols.

As others have stated, its good to watch and learn. People piled up in a corner, guys at the door standing there watching a guy with a rifle stroll up the walkway, shooter has multiple malfunctions, drops mags, goes outside and then comes back in and no one attempts to do anything to stop him while these are going on. One person in the building with a pistol could have made all the difference in the world. All lessons to be learned.
 
The fact that the gov has any say over it is ridiculous, imo.

I agree and since the BOR is a restriction on government the 2a does bar government from infringing on the right but unfortunately we and our ancestors have allowed them to become our masters and they disregard anything that tells them what to do unless of course it suits/benefits them.
 
Maybe I got a weak stomach. I took a week long bomb blast response course where they show videos of US soldiers manning checkpoints getting vaporized in Iraq and I really felt uncomfortable watching them. It didn't really make me learn anything better.

You do not have a weak stomach. Maybe nobody has explained to you that our body and our mind have to be trained in order to handle stressful situations in the most efficient way. Somebody telling you will not help you. Watching actual LLs does convince you about the need for training. LLs will eliminate your bad habits.
 

This was posted on March 4th, hard to believe.
New Zealand Police not moving to routine arming
New Zealand Police not moving to routine arming
4th March 2019
Mike Bush, Commissioner of Police
New Zealand Police is not moving to routine arming of its frontline staff.

You will be aware that the issue of routine carriage of firearms has been subject to a range of media commentary over the weekend.

The safety of our staff and the public will always be paramount but I do not believe routine arming is the right path for our organisation.

The current debate follows a decision by Canterbury District Commander Superintendent John Price last Thursday for level one responders in Canterbury to carry firearms during the search for a high-risk offender.

I absolutely supported his decision. Thanks to good work by Canterbury staff, that offender was located yesterday and the firearms order was immediately lifted.

We know that a local order like this happens occasionally. It is a tactical response under our TENR risk assessment and decision-making framework to a specific risk identified to staff and public safety. The order is reviewed on a shift-by-shift basis and is lifted – as in Canterbury – as soon as it is deemed no longer necessary.

Nevertheless this particular decision has prompted speculation that full arming of Police is on the agenda. I would like to be absolutely clear that this speculation is incorrect.

I’m conscious that there is a range of opinions on this, among the general public and within Police. I’ve been in Police for 41 years – most of it on the front line – and I’ve seen changes in the policing environment.

However, routine arming would fundamentally change our relationship with the New Zealand public, and it would have a significant impact on the trust and confidence which we have worked hard to build.

I believe we are in the right place in our current operating environment.

Ours is one of the most well-equipped police services in the world: giving our staff the tools they need to do their jobs is essential to our mission to be the safest country.

This is not just about firearms – we are in the process of rolling out new body armour to all our frontline staff, which is a major investment in our people’s safety. All frontline staff deploy with Tasers, a decision taken in 2015 to give them another option for keeping themselves and members of the public safe.

Meanwhile, frontline staff have greater access to firearms than ever before for the most extreme situations, with Glock pistols and Bushmaster rifles secured in their vehicles.

We are implementing a programme to give us a better understanding of the policing environment around firearms in the community. The more data we have on firearms and other risks, the more we can do to enable our people to carry out their duties safely. We are continuously enhancing firearms training for frontline staff.
 
“Ours is one of the most well-equipped police services in the world: giving our staff the tools they need to do their jobs is essential to our mission to be the safest country.”

CEBF1BA4-C034-431A-8F6F-E138E4B88A08.png

For some reason I am not convinced. Gotta say I have never seen those buttstock mag holders before. Seems like gear for the novice...
 
One from the archives:
Getting strapped in New Zealand, Americans learn ropes of gun control - The Seattle Globalist

You might be surprised to find out that New Zealand is not unfamiliar with gun violence. In 1990, a 33 year old mentally unstable man in Aramoana, NZ shot and killed thirteen people including a police officer using a semi-automatic rifle. (The events have been dramatized in the New Zealand film Out of the Blue)

But unlike shootings in the US, the incident directly resulted in changes to New Zealand firearms laws. A special category of “Military Style Semi-Automatic” weapons was created; the sales and ownership of which are now severely restricted. Purchase or import of military style semi-automatics and all handguns must be individually approved by, and registered with, the New Zealand police.

Without a valid and current firearms license, you cannot legally purchase any firearm other than a pellet gun anywhere in New Zealand. There is probably a black market or some other means of acquiring a firearm illegally, but firearms recovered from drug busts or other organised criminal activities typically amount to hunting rifles or pump action shot guns. Handguns and military style semi-automatics are rare, difficult to obtain, and very expensive.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Random home visits from the Arms Officer are not unheard of.
 
I was reading comments on Reddit last night and was shocked at some of the comments from locals.
One person stated that while they are glad that the person who was arrested with the gun (who stopped the 2nd shooting aka good guy with a gun) was able to stop it. BUT they feel that he should also be changed with firearm charges because of the resources (police power) that was involved and the confusion he caused.

Also, locals were talking about how their gun permits are issued over there. They were saying that interviews are conducted prior to issuing them. During the interview process, they ask a bunch of questions about WHY you want guns. If any of your answers show a hint of "self defense" attitude, it's an automatic denial. Self defense is a disqualifier. Reread that. They ask "gotcha" type questions like "if someone broke into your house, what would you do". Grabbing your locked up firearm is a no-no apparently.


LOL.

People like that are EXACTLY why the mosque got shot up in the first place.
 
Self defense is a disqualifier. Reread that. They ask "gotcha" type questions like "if someone broke into your house, what would you do". Grabbing your locked up firearm is a no-no apparently.

This is why I can't give in to anyone's argument about "reasonable", "common sense" gun control. The Slipper Slope is 100% real, and the frog-boiling starts with screening for mental issues, and evolves to the desire for guns is sociopathic mental issue to disqualify you from owning guns.

I've been saying for years, Gun Control is designed to get to a point of Catch-22 that Society agrees that "Belief in the Second Amendment" is both highly Patriotic and disqualifying for gun ownership.​
 
Back
Top Bottom