Shootings - A thread 🔫

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,923
407
83
44
VA
#42
I don't think I would focus on the veracity of the actual shooting itself. Fully legit or not, the lefties will use it to try to take rights away from law abiding citizens. I honestly didn't even realize NZ had any gun rights remaining. Looks like they'll be Australia in that regard post haste. The push should be to try to head that off, though I don't know what actual rights are granted the NZ'ers in their constitution. Many countries have surprisingly fewer guarantees than the US Constitution.
 

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,779
319
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
#43
Yeah, I thought NZ was the same as Australia regarding gun laws, but they basically had the same rights as most of us. The fact the PM can stand up one day and revoke those rights overnight is definitely what we should be focused on here. It's 100% what the Democrats want to do and you know they are studying how this plays out. Thank god for our constitution and our Conservative court for the next few years at least. If Trump can get 1 more young'in on the bench, I would feel much more comfortable since it would carry us until we are too old to matter.
 
Likes: ThunderDan19

G.I.*EDDIE

gobbles a LOT of cock
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
43,433
422
83
S.E. Mich :(
#46
I don't think I would focus on the veracity of the actual shooting itself. Fully legit or not, the lefties will use it to try to take rights away from law abiding citizens.
I made this point discussing it with my dad. FF or not, the masses bought it, and that's all that matters. If a scant handful don't buy it, so what.
 

G.I.*EDDIE

gobbles a LOT of cock
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
43,433
422
83
S.E. Mich :(
#47
It was certainly effective in stopping shootings, but they also seemed to have no problems handing them over after Port Arthur. No way it goes as smoothly here. Does Australia have ghettos full of gangsters?
Gun crime actually slowly ticked up there after the ban/buy back. Not by much, but it went up. While in that same period here, gun ownership went up and gun crime went down.

90+% of our gun crime (minus suicides) is gang related. In other words, crime committed by people who don't obey laws. If our lawmakers replicated NZ, the criminals wouldn't be effected at all because they already don't care.

So how would law abiding citizens react here? I guess it depends on how they approach it. One at a time randomly by saying he was "red flagged"? Might take a long time but I can see others wanting to keep a low profile so that they aren't next, minding their own business.

Or maybe they stage a FF here that makes the NZ thing look like a home robbery gone wrong by comparison. Something so horrific that (law abiding) people trip over each other to turn in their weapons.

A mass confiscation? Eh, doubt that. They know that won't go over well. It'll be something much more sneaky.
 

NSA

Brotherhood
Admin
Mar 13, 2011
25,383
371
83
Southern California
www.fighting118th.com
#48
I doubt gun culture was as ingrained there as it is here, though I don't really know, maybe PROVOST has a take on that.

With how small NZ is (4.7 million! LA has 4 million alone!) I don't see them having any real issue getting guns banned.

Australia's murders have gone down for a while, though if that is a 1:1 with the gun ban, I don't know. I doubt it, but I don't think it'd hurt anything. Likely people who were going to kill someone with a gun, but now couldn't, probably found another means.

Australia and NZ had about the same level of Murders per 100,000 at 0.94 and 0.99.. so a gun ban in one place and not the other likely had very little difference. The US on the other hand was sitting at 5.35.

If you ban guns in places where people are rarely killing each other anyway, does that make it a success? I don't think it makes it a failure, but it's also not a great barometer for other places.
 
Likes: PROVOST

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,779
319
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
#49

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,779
319
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
#52
Wow they did have a bunch.. 1987 was wild over there.

Still stuff since then, but it was definitely curtailed. Lots of stabbings and arson now.
It’s interesting that mass killings increased after 1997, yet the weapons changed. Isn’t this what we always say about gun bans? Though you could argue if they had guns it would be even worse. The thing I pull from those numbers is that humans are being driven to the breaking point more frequently in modern times.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,923
407
83
44
VA
#53
I really don't like your tense there. You stated it in a way that makes it sound like the A-holes who do this stuff are "being driven." That removes their agency/accountability from the equation. Mass killings are perpetrated by evil people by any means they can: guns, knives, hammers, trucks, planes, you name it. But they are responsible, and blaming others or inanimate objects doesn't come close to helping the intended victims. Teaching and expecting people to take personal responsibility, properly enforcing existing laws and, as a last resort, firing back does.
 
Likes: G.I.*EDDIE

NSA

Brotherhood
Admin
Mar 13, 2011
25,383
371
83
Southern California
www.fighting118th.com
#54
I don't know, it seems pretty consistent, at least according to that list (which has some pretty lax criteria for 'spree').

70's - 3
80's - 11
90's - 9
00's - 10
10's - 12 (and counting)

Deaths

70's - 30
80's - 58
90's - 76
00's - 52
10's - 60 (and counting)

The Port Arthur one definitely skews the 90s #s, but for a population of 12 million (1970) to 24 million (today) those don't seem "that bad" or increasing in any meaningful way. "SHOULD" there be twice as many incidents/deaths today compared to 1970? Well the population doubled, so maybe? Hopefully not, as you don't want that to happen, but it shouldn't be seen as some kind of omen or evil movement.

As to PCS's point, sure, they're responsible, but their issues/grievances/etc didn't happen in a vacuum. I am sure some people are just evil and woke up one day and decided to kill, but the ones who murder their whole family had to have something going on (societal or mental) to get to that point. The fact that social media is a thing now and CAN drive people to kill other people is a new wrinkle that can't just be waived away because we think people should be tougher or whatever.

G.I.*EDDIE Eddie.. probably best to keep your videos to that thread, most of us don't have time to watch a 30 minute video on gun debate.. we're in here to type back to each other stuff we can do on and off as we're doing things/working. If you want to post, it here, I guess also post a recap of the facts so we can use it in the conversation?
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,923
407
83
44
VA
#55
I see no scenario where anyone but the mass murderer is remotely responsible for the killing of innocents. Everybody receives negative stimulation. What a person does with that determines whether that person is good or evil.
 

NSA

Brotherhood
Admin
Mar 13, 2011
25,383
371
83
Southern California
www.fighting118th.com
#56
It's not about responsibility, it's about trying to understand how someone got from point A to point Mass Murder.

Whomever did it bears all the responsibility, but we should be finding out the how's and why's to prevent it from happening again (if possible). We do it here, and usually the person who did this was on a list or lists somewhere and shouldn't have access to guns/whatever and yet they did anyway and low and behold they did something bad. How do we find the issues and work to implement them better.

Defining people as good/evil is far too binary for real life. I don't think I know anyone I'd consider pure good, and only a few people (from media) that I'd consider pure evil. Most everyone is in the middle somewhere.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,923
407
83
44
VA
#57
I certainly agree that there is a spectrum of degrees, but murder (of an innocent person, not killing out of self/national/other defense) certainly puts a person directly in the evil category. No excuses. No watering it down.

Much of what drives people to that level of depravity falls on our broken society, true. And plenty of LE folks (and probably a few shrinks too) are doing everything they can to figure out what causes a person to get there. But I'd be willing to venture that if you were to ask the people closest to (oftentimes cleaning up/trying to figure out) these incidents, to an individual, they'll tell you that some people are just evil. Are they broken? Sure. Who isn't? But there is obviously a certain level of absolute evil that is necessary to straight up murder mass numbers of innocent men, women and children. No level of bad luck or bullying or any other negative stimulation can excuse the true evil that exists, and is fully embraced by some. And it's past time we acknowledge that again.
 

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,779
319
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
#58
I’m just saying technology is driving our society faster and faster, pushing us to perform more and more. Some people fail and snap. The increase of suicides supports this and I feel like some people would rather take out whomever they blame for their personal issues for a classic murder suicide.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,923
407
83
44
VA
#59
I'm certainly with you on the suicide snap. Those people (or their loved ones really) deserve our sympathy, even though that is still a selfish "way out." But I get it. In theory, they only harm themselves, though they are abandoning friends and family, potentially to those very same problems they could not cope with and more.

Heck, I even get the murder/suicide angle, particularly if somebody abused that person (perhaps as a kid even). If they off that person, that is understandable, if perhaps misguided and will never actually help to heal or bring back what was lost. I get that build up to a moment of passion. Them offing themselves would just reinforce how damaged they were.

But mass murderers "snapping," not so much. That $#!+ takes calculation and preparation. They get no pass. Failure as a person is no excuse. Previous abuse is no excuse. Even mental problems (legit or otherwise) is no excuse. Evil. Depraved. Not fit to live.
 

NSA

Brotherhood
Admin
Mar 13, 2011
25,383
371
83
Southern California
www.fighting118th.com
#60
This is all semantics on what you define as mass murder.. a family member killing 5 or 10 of their own family because they snapped or abuse or whatever.. is that mass murder? It's a lot of people!

If someone kills 10 people at random, or targeted at a Mosque or military or whatever.. that to me seems like a mass murder.. but in the end its the same # of people.

I suppose intent needs to matter.. but to what end? Both killers did a shitty thing and both should be held responsible.. and really neither should get a pass, just our understanding of what led them there and again to find a way to try and prevent it in the future if possible.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,923
407
83
44
VA
#61
You can't truly define what "causes" a person to murder an innocent person or 50. It's described as evil, and it's understood that the person was so selfish that he/she decided that, since he/she didn't have the life they thought they deserved, someone or many people must pay the price with their lives. Evil.
 

G.I.*EDDIE

gobbles a LOT of cock
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
43,433
422
83
S.E. Mich :(
#62
I "get it" when it's for some personal relationship reason that the murderer felt justified in his actions. But when it's completely innocent, total strangers, that's a whole other level of evil. Those people did literally nothing wrong and for all the murderer knows, they are pure angels.

In all cases, there's something genetically wrong with the persons brain. There is some defect. Societal influence, personal grievance, a snap in the moment, whatever. There's a defect up there that allows someone to justify that to themselves. Some defect that causes some to be weaker than others. Though Dexter suggested that it might be an evolutionary strength. 😬
 

G.I.*EDDIE

gobbles a LOT of cock
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
43,433
422
83
S.E. Mich :(
#63
G.I.*EDDIE Eddie.. probably best to keep your videos to that thread, most of us don't have time to watch a 30 minute video on gun debate.. we're in here to type back to each other stuff we can do on and off as we're doing things/working. If you want to post, it here, I guess also post a recap of the facts so we can use it in the conversation?
It was relevant to the NZ/Aus discussion.

Try this one. The first five minutes (2½ mins on 2x speed) are the nuggets from the other vid.

 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,923
407
83
44
VA
#65
Always sad to see a country's citizens lose any defense they would have against tyranny, particularly in what would be considered a western style government. Would strike me harder if I had realized they had any rights left prior. And the decline continues...
 
Likes: G.I.*EDDIE

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,779
319
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
#66
And there we have it in black & white folks. Registration is for rounding them up.

Mr. Alpers said the challenge for New Zealand would mainly be getting the ammunition and guns that already exist out of circulation. Half of Australia’s states had some kind of gun registration plan in place before the 1996 reforms, making it easier for the authorities to know what weapons were out there and what needed to be brought in.
New Zealand only registers 4 percent of its weapons. According to the police, about 250,000 people in the country own an estimated 1.2 million to 1.5 million firearms. It is unclear how many of them would be affected by the ban.
“New Zealand is at a considerable disadvantage to countries that have had registries, because there’s no way of tracing the firearms because they don’t know who’s got them,” Mr. Alpers said. “We’re relying entirely on the honesty of the gun owner to turn it in.”
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,923
407
83
44
VA
#67
I suspect that NZ has some blowback in their near future. I wouldn't want to be LE tasked with round up ops. If they were smart they'd stick to offering buybacks and taking weapons captured from suspects involved in other crimes. Otherwise, they are likely to receive significant pushback from otherwise fully law abiding citizens.
 

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,779
319
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
#69
How liberty dies. Better study this Q&A so you know what to expect in 2021.

Questions and Answers
  1. What semi-automatic firearms will be affected by the ban?
The ban will apply to all firearms are now defined as Military Style Semi-Automatics (MSSAs) and will also include assault rifles.
  1. What semi-automatic firearms will NOT be affected by the ban?
There is a balance to be struck between public safety and legitimate use. The changes exclude two general classes of firearms which are commonly used for hunting, pest control, stock management on farms, and duck shooting:
  • Semi-automatic .22 calibre rimfire firearms with a magazine which holds no more than ten rounds
  • Semi-automatic and pump action shotguns with a non-detachable tubular magazine which holds no more than five rounds
  1. What semi-automatic firearms are affected by today’s Order in Council?
Two types of firearms are now defined as Military Style Semi-Automatics (MSSAs):
  • A semi-automatic firearm capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges
  • A semi-automatic shotgun capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges
I have an A-Category firearms licence and now own MSSAs. What should I do?
It would normally be an offence for an A-Category licence holder to possess an MSSA, punishable by up to three years in prison or a $4000 fine. However a transitional period gives time for people to comply with the law, if they take certain steps. The transitional period will be confirmed next month. Firearms owners who unlawfully possess an MSSA now have three options:
  • Voluntarily surrender the firearm to Police for safe disposal.
  • Complete an online form on the Police website to arrange for the MSSA to be collected, while details are finalised for compensation under a buy back scheme
  • Sell or gift the firearm to a person who has an E-Category licence and a ‘permit to procure’ the weapon
  1. Are Police geared up to receive large numbers of MSSAs?
Yes. They will work with the New Zealand Defence Force to enable safe storage, transport and destruction of MSSAs. Police are establishing an online form which will make it easier for firearms owners to arrange for Police to collect the MSSAs. The online form will go live over the weekend. It will not be practicable for firearms owners to physically return their weapons to Police stations without prior approval. Where extra administrative staff are required they will be hired on fixed-term contracts.
  1. Will this lead to stockpiling of semi-automatics?
No. The changes under the Order in Council take effect immediately. Anyone who now unlawfully has an MSSA, which yesterday was a lawful firearm, needs to take steps to comply with the law.
  1. Will some firearms dealers be breaking the law if they have these MSSAs in stock?
Some firearms dealers only hold A-category licences. In order to comply with the law, they could sell their stock of semi-automatics to a Category E licence holder or return them to their supplier.
  1. What are the statistics for firearms licences and firearms in circulation?
  • There are 245,000 firearms licences
  • Of these, 7,500 are E-Category licences; and 485 are dealer licences
  • There are 13,500 firearms which require the owner to have an E-Cat licence, this is effectively the known number of MSSAs before today’s changes
  • The total number of firearms in New Zealand is estimated to be 1.2-1.5 million
  1. What further issues are being considered?
Cabinet will consider further steps on 25 March. These will include measures to:
  • Tighten firearms licensing and penalties
  • Impose greater controls over a range of ammunition
  • Address a number of other issues relevant to special interest groups such as international sports shooters and professional pest controllers, such as DoC.
  • Future proof the Arms Act to ensure it is able to respond to developments in technology and society
  1. How will the buyback work, and who will administer it?
Police, the Treasury and other agencies are working through the detail. More information will be available when the legislation is introduced next month. The compensation will be fair and reasonable based on firearm type, average prices and the age of firearms.
  1. What is the cost of the buyback likely to be?
That is very difficult to judge, given the limited information about the total number of firearms affected by this change. Preliminary advice suggests it could be in the range of $100m-$200m. The buyback will ensure these weapons are taken out of circulation and that we fulfil our obligations under the law.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,923
407
83
44
VA
#70
All that because one person decided it. Complete (over)reactionary bull$#!+ by a single individual with way too much power. They need a better constitution in NZ.

I wonder if some localities will decide not to enforce it. I know some towns, counties and states would become 2nd Amendment sanctuaries if something like this were to be perpetrated here.
 

PROVOST

Colonel in Chief
Officer Club
Jun 28, 2011
30,592
39
48
Terra Australis
#72
Since the Port Arthur masscare and subsequent tightening on gun ownership the people of Australia are quite ok with it with a tiny % of people making any noise about it.

From a democratic governance persepective then the gun control methods here are a success.

Of the deaths by firearms here since that time it's (to me) similiar in saying that death by automobile is still occuring despite the advent of SRS Airbags and other technological advancements for car safety.

A guy who had serious drug issues drove his car into a crowd of people on a street in Melbourne a couple of years ago and killed 6 and seriously injured 36.

Point being is that any device of the right type can be used to kill or maim even if it's primary purpose is not to harm at all.

This is on the person who chooses to alter the purpose and misuse the device/implement and also of course society has to bear some responsibility insomuch as what was the contribution or lack of help that was the status quo that helped along the problem for the killer.

24 or so million people here in AUS and our history from 1788 to now as opposed to the 320 million people in USA and the history from 1776 to now in USA is not really a good comparative as I see it.

The laws here changing were decided by an elected govt and at no time has there been any political or social movement to change it so what an American People would "accept" or not is immaterial to Australia.

Gun deaths here are mostly domestic suicide/homicide or terror attacks or organised crime criminal on criminal attacks/killings.

Illegal guns estimation is that there's at least 1 million of them in AUS (conservative estimate) and then there's times where a legal gun owner is targeted and their weapons stolen for resale or use in crimes.

New Zealand stats on gun ownership as at last friday was 1 in 4 Kiwi's possessed a firearm (they are a largely rural famers population) and there was no gun register for ownership and no ban on semi auto weapons.

I know quite a few New Zealanders and of which two are LE,the general population are quite liberal minded politically and yet hold a majority of time having more conservative party govts that have more centrist policies than right wing policies.

Just as the USA and it's people would reserve the right to have laws they deem fit for themselves,other nations like AUS and NZ reserve the same.

New Zealanders can always vote out the govt if they dislike the direction it's taking.
 
Last edited:

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,779
319
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
#75
Your absolutely right, it’s their choice if they want guns or not. As gun enthusiasts in the US, we are carefully monitoring this situation to see how NZ is doing it and what kind of actions the gun owning citizens are taking. This is as close of an example we will get to if the US tries to take ours away. I’m most interested in if the NZ police try to go door to door to seize the weapons and what they do if someone says they no longer own that particular firearm.
 
Likes: G.I.*EDDIE

NSA

Brotherhood
Admin
Mar 13, 2011
25,383
371
83
Southern California
www.fighting118th.com
#76
Two things always stick in my craw about this..

#1.. I'm still waiting for the evil government to abuse Australians since they've been stripped of their guns.

#2.. I still can't believe RIFLES are the target of every anti-gun person, yes, they're used in a couple high profile crimes, but the vast majority of violence is with handguns, and yet they always get off scott free?
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,923
407
83
44
VA
#77
I'll help you out:

#1.. All it takes is enough of a crisis and a Hitler type. Reference: 1920's-30's Germany. See also: Stalin. See also: Mao.

#2.. Rifles are weapons of self defense that can compete with modern military rifles. A few motivated regular Joes, with the appropriate weaponry, that can shoot and move relatively well can disorient and demoralize an occupying military unit 10x their size. If this happens often enough and spreads, the occupiers lose control of the populace.

Here's another commentary on the NZ shooter:

 
Likes: G.I.*EDDIE

G.I.*EDDIE

gobbles a LOT of cock
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
43,433
422
83
S.E. Mich :(
#78
Bill Whittle is just awesome.

#1.. I'm still waiting for the evil government to abuse Australians since they've been stripped of their guns.
You can't do this ⬆ until all free citizens of all countries are stripped of their weapons. If you become tyrannical before all free countries are stripped, you'll become another Hitler type ⬇ that free citizens of countries not disarmed will have to go and die to overthrow.
#1.. All it takes is enough of a crisis and a Hitler type. Reference: 1920's-30's Germany. See also: Stalin. See also: Mao.

Once we're ALL disarmed, NWO, here we come! Blue helmets everywhere.
 
Likes: ThunderDan19

PROVOST

Colonel in Chief
Officer Club
Jun 28, 2011
30,592
39
48
Terra Australis
#79
I’m most interested in if the NZ police try to go door to door to seize the weapons and what they do if someone says they no longer own that particular firearm.

In NZ -won't happen and as it is so far many have voluntarily handed in their relevant banned firearms.

And here in AUS there was no "door to door" round up of any firearms,there's an estimated 1 million + unreturned semi autos that never got handed in in AUS.
 

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,779
319
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
#80
In NZ -won't happen and as it is so far many have voluntarily handed in their relevant banned firearms.

And here in AUS there was no "door to door" round up of any firearms,there's an estimated 1 million + unreturned semi autos that never got handed in in AUS.
I read those numbers earlier about AUS and expect the same % from NZ. This is why a ban would be completely ineffective in the US at actually getting guns off the streets with our 300,000,000 laying about. Going door to door would just turn a few law abiding citizens into cop killers. Cold dead hands is a celebrated mantra around here.