Mass shooting in NZ

[mr friendly guy]

On my phone so difficult to link. But from what I could gather an Aussie wanker went into a mosque in New Zealand, shot up the place with 40 dead and 20 injured. While live streaming it. New Zealand have do far arrested 3 men and one woman.

[bilateralrope]

Two mosques hit near each other. IEDs found on some vehicles. Everything looks like a terrorist attack.

Stuff article about it. Regular updates, so I'll only quote the highlights:

What we know:
* A gunman walked into a mosque on Deans Ave, Christchurch carrying a semi-automatic weapon and opened fire
* A second shooting occurred at a mosque in Linwood
* At least 49 people were dead as of 9pm
* A man in his late 20s has been charged with murder and will appear in Christchurch District Court tomorrow.
* The gunman identified himself as Australian-born Brenton Tarrant.
* The shooter livestreamed the video of the attack
* Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the shooting was a terrorist attack.
* This is the deadliest mass shooting on record in New Zealand
* Witnesses have described the horror of their "brothers" being attacked
Do you know more? Email us at newstips@stuff.co.nz

Here is the Prime Minister's full speech.

“I have now had the opportunity to be fully briefed with the details of the unprecedented events that took place in Christchurch this afternoon,” Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said.

Addressing the nation from the Beehive tonight, the Prime Minister said: It is with extreme sadness that I tell you that as at 7pm tonight, we believe that 40 people have lost their lives in this act of extreme violence.

10 have died at Linwood Avenue Mosque, 3 of which were outside the mosque itself.

A further 30 have been killed at Deans Avenue Mosque.

There are also more than 20 seriously injured who are currently in Christchurch A&E.

It is clear that this can only be described as a terrorist attack.

From what we know, it does appear to have been well planned. Two explosive devices attached to suspects’ vehicles have been found and they have been disarmed.

There are currently four individuals who have been apprehended but three are connected to this attack and are currently in custody, one of which has publicly stated that they were Australian born.

These are people who I would describe as having extremist views that have absolutely no place in New Zealand and in fact have no place in the world.

While we do not have any reason to believe at this stage that there are other suspects, we are not assuming that at this stage. The joint intelligence group has been deployed and police are putting all of their resources into this situation.

The defence force are currently transporting additional police staff to the region.

Our national security threat level has been lifted from low, to high. This I want to assure people is to ensure that all our agencies are responding in the most appropriate way. That includes at our borders.

Air New Zealand has cancelled all turbo prop flights out of Christchurch tonight and will review the situation in the morning. Jet services both domestically and internationally are continuing to operate.

There is heightened security, so we can assure people of their safety and the police are working hard to ensure people are able to move around their city safely.

I have spoken this evening to the mayor of Christchurch and I intend to speak this evening to the imam, but I also want to send a message to those directly affected.

In fact, I am sure right now New Zealand would like me to share a message on their behalf too.

Our thoughts and our prayers are with those who have been impacted today. Christchurch was their home. For many, this may not have been the place they were born, in fact for many, New Zealand was their choice.

The place they actively came to, and committed to. The place they were raising their families. Where they were parts of communities that they loved and who loved them in return. It was a place that many came to for its safety. A place where they were free to practice their culture and their religion.

For those of you who are watching at home tonight, and questioning how this could have happened here.

We, New Zealand, we were not a target because we are a safe harbour for those who hate.

We were not chosen for this act of violence because we condone racism, because we are an enclave for extremism.

We were chosen for the very fact that we are none of those things.

Because we represent diversity, kindness, compassion. A home for those who share our values. Refuge for those who needs it. And those values will not and cannot be shaken by this attack.

We are a proud nation of more than 200 ethnicities, 160 languages. And amongst that diversity we share common values. And the one that we place the currency on right now is our compassion and support for the community of those directly affected by this tragedy.

And secondly, the strongest possible condemnation of the ideology of the people who did this.


You may have chosen us – we utterly reject and condemn you.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Bloody hell, I heard it was a bombing but a mass shooting is somehow more disturbing. Somehow this went on for more than 20 minutes, apparently 49 were killed.

[SolarpunkFan]

Bloody hell, I heard it was a bombing but a mass shooting is somehow more disturbing. Somehow this went on for more than 20 minutes, apparently 49 were killed.

Livestreamed too. And 4/8 Chan are already claiming he's a deep cover leftist.

I'm truly and honestly beginning to think we deserve extinction.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Bloody hell, I heard it was a bombing but a mass shooting is somehow more disturbing. Somehow this went on for more than 20 minutes, apparently 49 were killed.

Livestreamed too. And 4/8 Chan are already claiming he's a deep cover leftist.

I'm truly and honestly beginning to think we deserve extinction.

According to the news he was a far-right white-supremacy nutjob who'd painted specific dates and historical events on the magazines of his guns.

[Jub]

If I'm reading things right they got all of the attackers alive. That means we'll figure out who, if anybody, they were working with and get to see whatever their pathetic excuses for carrying out such a cowardly act were. It's more than we usually get out of mass shootings.

[SolarpunkFan]

According to the news he was a far-right white-supremacy nutjob who'd painted specific dates and historical events on the magazines of his guns.

No doubt. 4/8 are just claiming he's a leftist so they can shift blame.

And I have a strong feeling that nothing of any consequence will be done about ending this sordid state of affairs..

[MKSheppard]

one of his major motives was to provoke gun confiscation in the US, to accelerate the coming balkanisation of the US.

[Zaune]

one of his major motives was to provoke gun confiscation in the US, to accelerate the coming balkanisation of the US.

Tells you everything you need to know about how much actual brains he has. Even if such a measure actually got through Congress, which is currently unlikely, it's less likely to result in the Balkanisation of the US than the total massacre of anyone passionate enough about the 2nd Amendment to put up a fight. The federal government still has a monopoly on serious armoured vehicles, close air support and strategic bombing.

Oh, and if you weren't already convinced the guy was an idiot, his manifesto included the complete Navy SEAL copypasta.

[Broomstick]

Livestreamed too. And 4/8 Chan are already claiming he's a deep cover leftist.

Ah, what charming slime they are, no doubt egging one of their own on then dropping him like a hot potato as soon as he actually acts on the shit they spew and swallow and puke back up.

one of his major motives was to provoke gun confiscation in the US, to accelerate the coming balkanisation of the US.

There's proof he knows jackshit about the US - if we didn't do gun confiscation after our own all too frequent mass killings why the fuck did he think his little massacre would have any effect at all?

[MKSheppard]

Bloody hell, I heard it was a bombing but a mass shooting is somehow more disturbing. Somehow this went on for more than 20 minutes, apparently 49 were killed.

Total video that was uploaded was 17 minutes long, but actual time on location by shooter was 6 min, 35 seconds.

[MKSheppard]

Oh, and if you weren't already convinced the guy was an idiot, his manifesto included the complete Navy SEAL copypasta.

...and Australian journalists initially swallowed that hook line and sinker in early news reports.

Basically, the shooter was name dropping memes every other moment, from the scribblings on his weapons and magazines to the 'black sun' logo; it's like he deliberately set out to push as many buttons possible and succeeded.

[mr friendly guy]

VICE has a good summary of his strategy and memes

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

... and you guys wonder why I'm so authoritarian and that rights and freedoms are a fluid construct...

[bilateralrope]

There is now talk about tightening up our gun laws.

Christchurch terrorist attack: Ignore 'radical gun lobby' and swiftly change the law - Police Association

The Police Association is backing Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's call for a change to the country's gun laws, and wants any debate about it to be "short and swift".

On Friday, 49 people were killed and dozens injured in two attacks at mosques in central Christchurch.

One of the shooters held a category A gun license and was in the possession of five weapons at the time of the shooting. A firearms expert told Newshub one of these was an AR-15 rifle, same as those used in mass shootings in the US and Australia.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told media on Saturday morning that "gun laws will change" following the massacre.

"There have been attempts to change our laws in 2005, 2012 and after an inquiry in 2017. Now is the time for change," she said.

She has the full backing of Police Association president Chris Cahill.

"Jacinda Ardern has said emphatically that New Zealand's gun laws will change, and that now is the time for that change," he said.

"I absolutely agree with her, and I believe many New Zealanders will be aghast that in our country someone can amass a cache of weapons like that discovered in this Christchurch tragedy.

"It is sickening that it has taken this horrific event to wake us up to our vulnerability."

He said the debate about access to certain firearms should be short and swift, but also considerate of the victims and their families.

"There is no place in the upcoming debate for the radical gun lobby which has made its presence felt in previous attempts to make our country safer," he said.

"That input undoubtedly contributed to the rejection of most of the select committee recommendations on tightening our gun laws. We have seen what happens in the United States when gun radicals are involved - nothing. That is not good enough for New Zealand."

He said it was ironic that the alleged gunman, Brenton Tarrant, would not have been able to buy the weapons used in the Christchurch shooting in Australia, where he is a citizen.

"New Zealanders and our politicians now need to step in behind Prime Minister Ardern as she takes decisive action on access to lethal weapons. I can pledge that the association will do everything it can to assist her in cleaning up our gun laws."

Newshub.

I wonder how much noise the gun lobby will make over these changes.

... and you guys wonder why I'm so authoritarian and that rights and freedoms are a fluid construct...

Which rights do you think that, if restricted, would have prevented this terrorist attack ?
Be specific.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Which rights do you think that, if restricted, would have prevented this terrorist attack ?
Be specific.

Freedom of Information, gun rights, and the abolition of privacy for a start. We're now entering an era where memes can be (and are probably are) weapons, and that weaponizing them can be (and will be) catastrophic to those who have the highest freedom of information and speech.

[Gandalf]

Which rights do you think that, if restricted, would have prevented this terrorist attack ?
Be specific.

Freedom of Information, gun rights, and the abolition of privacy for a start. We're now entering an era where memes can be (and are probably are) weapons, and that weaponizing them can be (and will be) catastrophic to those who have the highest freedom of information and speech.

So... Oceania?

[bilateralrope]

Which rights do you think that, if restricted, would have prevented this terrorist attack ?
Be specific.

Freedom of Information, gun rights, and the abolition of privacy for a start. We're now entering an era where memes can be (and are probably are) weapons, and that weaponizing them can be (and will be) catastrophic to those who have the highest freedom of information and speech.

That's not specific enough. What limits do you want to apply on speech ?
What limits do you want to apply on guns ?
Remember that we are talking about New Zealand gun law here. Don't make the mistake of suggesting something we are already doing.

As for privacy, you don't need to be more specific there.

Then explain why you think the restrictions you suggest will help. For example, abolishing privacy isn't going to accomplish anything without the algorithms to sift through all that data. So you'll have to show that such capable algorithms exist to convince me that abolishing privacy is helpful. And to convince me, you'll need to show that they have been successful in the past. Do that and then we can start discussing if we prefer occasional terrorist attacks or the costs that come with abolishing privacy.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

So... Oceania?

Wee little problem with your assumption, Orwell is wrong (i.e. you have to fear the state) and Huxley is right. Then there is the fact that memes can be weaponized (which is somewhat proven by the 2016 US elections and Brexit).

That's not specific enough. What limits do you want to apply on speech ?

Limitations across the board, specifically ensuring that certain ideologies (like Nazism) are kept in the history books till the end of time. Going through all data and erase any mimetic weaponry within them. That sort of thing.

What limits do you want to apply on guns ?
Remember that we are talking about New Zealand gun law here. Don't make the mistake of suggesting something we are already doing.

First off, they'll have to mate psychological evaluation (which are free of charge and are done with five psychologists and are recorded to ensure fairness) with gun licences. If you fail the psychological exams, then you can't get a firearm at all. You must have a licence for every firearm you own and must take the psychological exams every half to full year. If you fail these supplementary exams, then your weapons will be confiscated and put into high-security storage. If you fail consistently with your psychological evaluations for several years (3-5 IMHO) while in storage, then they will be destroyed.

Automatics are locked behind further licencing and psychological evaluation. Anyone with armaments that they aren't licenced for will have all their weapons confiscated and destroyed and then sent to a prison with psychology facilities for months (handguns) to years (automatic rifles or destructive devices).

As for privacy, you don't need to be more specific there.

Then explain why you think the restrictions you suggest will help. For example, abolishing privacy isn't going to accomplish anything without the algorithms to sift through all that data. So you'll have to show that such capable algorithms exist to convince me that abolishing privacy is helpful. And to convince me, you'll need to show that they have been successful in the past. Do that and then we can start discussing if we prefer occasional terrorist attacks or the costs that come with abolishing privacy.

Here's the thing, we do have the programs and sensor density has been increasing every day as Moore's Law marches ever forward (we're getting close to 'smart dust' grade digital cameras within a decade or so). Then add onto the fact that we're also in an era where the entry into bioweapons has been steadily decreasing (also thanks to Moore's Law) and biotech has pretty much destroyed much of what we have assumed as possible. That shifts the moral calculus immensely (and before you say that this is monstrous, remember that when you actually look at it, we're already chest deep into relative morality, black and white moral thinking is a detriment to looking at a problem).

Privacy is going to die no matter what we do. Period.

[K. A. Pital]

Do unto them nazis like like Ali Hoehler did.

That would be all.

[bilateralrope]

Limitations across the board, specifically ensuring that certain ideologies (like Nazism) are kept in the history books till the end of time. Going through all data and erase any mimetic weaponry within them. That sort of thing.

You'll need to be more specific than that. How exactly do you define speech that you want suppressed ?

First off, they'll have to mate psychological evaluation (which are free of charge and are done with five psychologists and are recorded to ensure fairness) with gun licences. If you fail the psychological exams, then you can't get a firearm at all. You must have a licence for every firearm you own and must take the psychological exams every half to full year.

How much do you expect such exams to cost the taxpayer ?
Are there enough trained psychologists to perform as many exams as you suggest ?

Automatics are locked behind further licencing and psychological evaluation.

Why are you allowing civilian ownership of automatics at all ?

The most important question is: Was any part of any of the firearms used in this attack legally purchased ?
If nothing was legally purchased, then tightening up the laws for legal gun owners won't help at all.

Sure, I'm no fan of gun ownership. But if you're going to use a terrorist attack as a reason for putting any law change through, I believe that it needs to be a law change that could help prevent future attacks.

Here's the thing, we do have the programs

I demand that you show me your evidence for this claim.

[K. A. Pital]

FYI, Nazi used five guns, two of them semi-automatic, that had all been obtained legally with an A-class gun license.

[MKSheppard]

There's proof he knows jackshit about the US - if we didn't do gun confiscation after our own all too frequent mass killings why the fuck did he think his little massacre would have any effect at all?

in the manifesto, he details it further.

Why did you choose to use firearms?

I could have chosen any weapons or means.A TATP filled rental van. Household flour, a method of dispersion and an ignition source.A ballpeen hammer and a wooden shield.Gas,fire,vehicular attacks,plane attacks, any means were available. I had the will and I had the resources.

I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states and thereby the political situation of the world.

The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.

With enough pressure the left wing within the United states will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the US will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty.

This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the US along cultural and racial lines.

...SNIP much later....SNIP....

Won’t your attack result in calls for the removal of gun rights from Whites in the United states?

Yes, that is the plan all along, you said you would fight to protect your rights and the constitution, well soon will come the time.

Won’t your attack result in calls for the removal of gun rights in the New Zealand?

The gun owners of New Zealand are a beaten, miserable bunch of baby boomers, who have long since given up the fight.When was the last time they won increased rights? Their loss was inevitable.I just accelerated things a bit.

They had long since lost their cities, take a look at Auckland. Did you really expect they would not also lose their rights?

The government (at least the PM and Attorney General) of NZ are now talking about heavier gun restrictions (the AG initially called for banning semi automatics); with a cabinet meeting on monday to talk about it.

Here in the US things are getting heated.

In Maryland:

The Democrats put forth a whole host of gun control bills; including one to require fingerprinting and a "long gun license" to own shotguns and rifles; one gun a month, registration of all long guns, etc etc. I don't know if the hearings are still going on, but "we" made national news when Mom's Demand Action's Shannon Watts said: "100+ gun extremists in Maryland wearing "We will not COMPLY" t-shirts at a hearing today."

Additionally, at one of the hearings, Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis told Maryland lawmakers if they pass legislation regulating ownership of rifles and shotguns: His office will not comply. “The way the bill is written, it is impossible to comply,” Lewis said Monday. “I can’t send (my deputies) on a suicide mission.”

Over in Washington State:

So, Washington State passed I-1639; which was something like 50 pages of gun control measures via popular vote ballot, via condensing the 50 pages down to this wordage on the ballot:

Initiative Measure No. 1639

Initiative Measure No. 1639 concerns firearms. This measure would require increased background checks, training, age limitations, and waiting periods for sales or delivery of semiautomatic assault rifles; criminalize noncompliant storage upon unauthorized use; allow fees; and enact other provisions.
Should this measure be enacted into law? YES NO

Buried in the fine print of I-1639 was this:

"Semiautomatic assault rifle" means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.

"Semiautomatic assault rifle" does not include antique firearms, any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, or any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.

So basically, any semi automatic rifle, even a Ruger 10/22 or a Marlin Model 60 (since 1960) is now considered an 'assault weapon'.

Lots of pushback in WA state:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/13/us/fergu ... index.html

(CNN)Police chiefs who refuse to enforce Washington state's new gun restrictions could be liable if that refusal results in someone buying a gun and committing a crime, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson says.

The new law, ballot Initiative 1639, adds background checks for buyers of semiautomatic assault rifles, and includes storage requirements and waiting periods for buying firearms. It also raises the age to buy semiautomatic rifles to 21.

The section raising the minimum purchasing age went into effect January 1. The rest of the law, including the enhanced background checks, is to be implemented July 1. The new background checks would be identical to those the state has been performing for handgun buyers for years.

The Seattle Times reported that sheriffs from 13 of the state's 39 counties have signaled they won't enforce the law. The Chinook Observer put that number at 20.

In an open letter on Tuesday, Ferguson called out police chiefs and sheriffs who are refusing to enforce the law: "In the event a police chief or sheriff refuses to perform the background check required by Initiative 1639, they could be held liable if there is a sale or transfer of a firearm to a dangerous individual prohibited from possessing a firearm and that individual uses that firearm to do harm."

The letter also said, "Local law enforcement officials are entitled to their opinions about the constitutionality of any law, but those personal views do not absolve us of our duty to enforce Washington laws and protect the public."

The sheriff for Pacific County, a coastal county where 58% of voters opposed the measure, published a statement saying his office "will continue to investigate all complaints from our community members but until the legality of Initiative 1639 is resolved by the courts these initiative matters will be documented only."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbauma ... y-n2542870

Those who follow the gun control debate closely have had their eyes on Washington State. Ever since I-1639 passed in November, the issue of the initiative's constitutionality has been called into question. The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation filed lawsuits over this very issue. Some Sheriffs believe the initiative violates the Second Amendment, which is why they've refused to enforce the law. Their refusal has sparked death threats and even letters from Secretary of State Bob Ferguson (D), threatening to prosecute those sheriffs who refuse to perform background checks. Ferguson also said those sheriffs can be "held liable if there is a sale or transfer of a firearm to a dangerous individual prohibited from possessing a firearm and that individual uses that firearm to do harm."

Now another letter is making its way across the state, this one to Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), threatening them with similar legal action. According to the Seattle Times, the letter, co-signed by Ferguson and Gov. Jay Inslee, was sent to 262 gun dealers in 13 counties where the sheriff refused to honor the new gun control law.

STATE OF WASHINGTON

March 7, 2019
Letter to gun dealers

Dear __________________:

As you know, in November 2018 the people of Washington overwhelmingly passed Initiative 1639 to reduce gun violence in our state. Initiative 1639 imposes several firearms safety requirements, most of which take effect on July 1, 2019. One provision has already taken effect: a ban on selling semiautomatic assault rifles to those under age 21.

We understand certain officials in your county have publicly said they will not enforce Initiative 1639 because they believe it is unconstitutional. They are entitled to their personal views, but it is important to emphasize that, once passed by the people or the legislature, a law is in effect until a court declares it unconstitutional. No court has declared Initiative 1639 unconstitutional.

We want to prevent you and your business from finding yourself in legal jeopardy because of a misunderstanding of the law caused by statements made by elected officials in your area. We hope the following information will provide clarity.

As a federal firearms licensee, you are aware that there are significant consequences for failing to comply with state and federal law.

First, federal law requires licensed firearms dealers to comply with federal and state law. 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(2). Because no court has found any provision of Initiative 1639 to be unconstitutional, you are required to comply with this new state law. The Washington State Department of Licensing is statutorily required to inform the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) if any licensed firearms dealer in Washington State is out of compliance with state law. Should any violation of state law be found, this may be reported to the ATF and state law enforcement.
Second, the ATF has the authority to find you have violated state law, which may affect your federal firearms license and could potentially lead to federal criminal charges.

Finally, violations of Initiative 1639 constitute violations of state law and could be punished accordingly. Violations of state law could be investigated by either local law enforcement or the Washington State Patrol, and such an investigation could lead to state criminal charges.

It is our responsibility to defend the constitutionality of initiatives enacted by the voters, and we are confident that we will successfully perform that role in the same way that we defeated the constitutional challenge to Initiative 594, which expanded background checks. You are certainly entitled to agree or disagree with the policy decision made by the voters in enacting Initiative 1639, but that does not change the obligation to comply with the law.

Thank you for honoring the will of Washington voters and respecting the rule of law.

Sincerely

/S/
JAY INSLEE
Governor

/S/
BOB FERGUSON
Attorney General

Most of the stuff doesn't take effect until 1 July 2019; so we have 90 days or so to see what happens in this war of words between Inslee/Ferguson and the rural parts of Washington State.

https://www.tri-cityherald.com/article227334154.html

LOCAL SHERIFFS OPPOSE INITIATIVE

Franklin County was one of the first to formally oppose the new regulations after the beginning of the year, and Sheriff Jim Raymond said the letter won’t change what he’s doing.

“Shame on the attorney general and governor for sending out letters to honest and compliant gun businesses with threatening remarks to take away their business licenses,” he said. “Sounds to me like government trying to vilify businesses with veiled threats.”

Raymond promised not to arrest anyone for violating the new regulations that made it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 buy a semi-automatic rifle after Jan. 1. Instead, he told deputies to file a report with the prosecutor’s office.

Benton County Sheriff Jerry Hatcher made a similar promise in January when he announced his opposition to the initiative.

“I have worked closely with all of the chiefs and sheriffs in Benton and Franklin counties and the Benton County prosecuting attorney on I-1639,” he said in a Jan. 30 letter to residents. “We unanimously feel without clarification the initiative as written is non-enforceable.”

He did not make any comment about Ferguson’s and Inslee’s comments.

Neither Franklin County Prosecutor Shawn Sant nor Benton County Prosecutor Andy Miller have received any referrals from police about violations.

[MKSheppard]

If I had to peg the Christchurch Shooter; based off his manifesto and what descriptions I've seen of his gear, it would be:

right leaning accelerationist utilizing meme warfare (so to speak) to hit all the "hot buttons" to ensure wider dissemination (wear black sun patch, write '14 words' (literally) on his rifle, etc).

Even his manifesto is full of irregularities designed to spread confusion amongst the not-internet-saavy:

Is there a particular person that radicalized you the most?

Yes, the person that has influenced me above all was Candace Owens. Each time she spoke I was stunned by her insights and her own views helped push me further and further into the belief of violence over meekness. Though I will have to disavow some of her beliefs, the extreme actions she calls for are too much, even for my tastes.

The new wrinkle he utilized was his method of dissemination for his manifesto and attack video.

He went onto one of the chans and basically said "Hi guys, I'm gonna do an attack", and then dumped a whole series of links including one to his personal facebook page.

Thus, the army of autists on the chans preserved everything in real time, including all the stuff on his facebook page or twitter before Facebook/Twitter scrubbed them at the behest of the authorities. It's why the manifesto and video are viral on the internet, despite efforts to remove it by the NZ Authorities.

[bilateralrope]

FYI, Nazi used five guns, two of them semi-automatic, that had all been obtained legally with an A-class gun license.

Fair enough. Gun control in NZ will probably help if it's intelligently written. What worries me is that we might get a bad law pushed through in a panicked hurry.

As for gun control in the US, I'm not going to pay much attention to that discussion unless someone has a plan that includes how they plan to keep the Supreme Court from striking it down with the Second Amendment.