Christchurch Terrorist Attack and NZG Response.

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
From an emergency response module that I teach answers the question of "What is Terrorism?" as;

"The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
While the above is not a legal definition, it does provide a fairly decent framework for people to consider what could be an act of terrorism, as well as why. It is also why I am uncomfortable with what seems like a rush towards gun control as a solution. If a person or group is willing to use force/violence to further a political or social objective, at best gun control would eliminate firearms as a tool to use force/violence. For what I hope are understandable reasons I do not wish to get into what some of the readily available alternative tools/weapons available to potential terrorists are, apart from various suitable materials being common enough that someone with the proper knowledge could likely go into any home and find what they need. Yes, some of the materials are that common, and keeping track of all of them is impossible from a practical standpoint.

With that fact in mind, it would be much better IMO if those individuals and groups who are willing to achieve their political/social objectives through the use of force/violence, could be identified before they become able to use force/violence. Unfortunately that goal, aside from just being hard to accomplish, lends itself to both a potential level of intrusion into the lives of ordinary people which might be considered as infringement upon a free society, as well as possible abuses by those in power against those they oppose politically or socially that has nothing to do with securing a nation.

One possible area would be for nations to become better at monitoring cyberspace, including some of the darker corners. It has been observed in some cases that there have been communications and interactions/exchanges between individuals and groups with various extremist views without the participants needing to travel or actually meet in person. This in turn is believed to sometimes reinforce the extremist views being held, as the participants start to view themselves as belonging to a larger group of like-minded people.

What would be interesting to see is if NZ security agencies have the ability to monitor Kiwi internet traffic between websites/IP addresses associated with certain specific known websites and internet users in NZ. If not, or if the latent ability is there but not the authority to use it, then creating the ability and authority might be a way to keep some of the people/groups with extremist views more isolated and possibly less prone to act.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Would you agree that if individuals or groups who have been monitored as mentally ill or have espoused dangerous or illegal anti social rhetoric should be denied access to firearms ?
As a society we are developing technologies of monitoring that are slowly mirroring George Orwell's 1984 in its abilities
Honestly the answer really depends. Describing someone as mentally ill can cover a very broad range and degree of conditions. The usual benchmark I use to make a decision on what to do about someone who is or might have a mental health issue is to consider whether they are a danger to themselves and/or others. If the answer to that question is, "yes," then I become concerned about them being able to circulate in public. Prior to some legal changes in the US state of New York following the December 14th, 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, there had been a number of people killed in the New York City subway systems who were pushed into the path of oncoming subway trains by mentally ill people who really should not have been out in public. For people who are or were in this sort of condition, their access to firearms should (IMO anyway) not be a concern, since they are a potential danger without a firearm.

As for those who have espoused what some would consider dangerous, illegal and/or anti-social rhetoric, that too is not all that clear cut since it might depend on what the rhetoric is, as well as who/what the person observing the rhetoric is. Since this touches on rhetoric, it is distinctly possible that a person/group could have a POV that is unpopular, without that POV being directly illegal. Now if the rhetoric was to advocate the commissioning of illegal acts, especially violent/destructive illegal acts that would be one thing. OTOH if the rhetoric was to protest for or against something, but in a peaceful manner, then IMO what the rhetoric was should have no bearing on whether or not someone should be denied access to firearms.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
At first glance the new gun laws look very reasonable to me and hopefully will be unlikely to cause the upset to shooters that we saw in Australia with the gun laws brought in after Port Arthur.

The ban on military style semi auto high power rifles to anyone without the most restrictive category of gun licence is hard to argue with. This was what I expected would happen when the Australian laws were announced but they went much further.

Unlike Australian shooters New Zealanders will still have access to semi auto and pump action shotguns (with max mag capacity of 5) and semi auto and pump action .22 rimfire rifles (mag capacity up to 10). It was the banning of these firearms that caused so much angst to Australian sporting shooters, hunters and farmers.

Another change in the Australian laws concerned the definition of a legitimate reason to own a firearm. Just stating ‘hunting’, for example, was no longer adequate and (in Tasmania at least) shooters need written authority from an approved landowner to be granted a licence and this needs to be renewed when licences expire every 5 years.

The NZ PM mentioned that storage requirements will be looked at. I have no issue with that but in Australia the definition of ‘suitable’ has been left to state Police Commissioners and in Tasmania that has led to requirements becoming more draconian as time has gone on. Even one rimfire rifle now requires a steel safe bolted in position. Safes need to be inspected and approved and the bar for approval has been steadily raised.

Although the Australian laws are often heralded as the ‘gold standard’ for gun regulations it has not stopped continuous demands from anti gun lobby groups for even tougher restrictions. Some won’t be satisfied until there is a total ban on private gun ownership.

Of course criminals still seem to be able to acquire guns with ease but at least we have not seen a mass shooting involving assault rifles or similar since Port Arthur.

I hope the new laws in New Zealand will prove effective and will be widely accepted by shooters and non shooters alike.

Tas
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
You are very right in this and I also believe that there is no simple solution. It is highly unlikely we can eliminate terrorism in the near future as not only do we have to guard against terrorist attacks and minimise the harm they can do, we also need to address the basic causes that lead to terrorism. Why do people need to become terrorists is a question which probably has a huge number of individual answers. The problem is also compounded in that we cannot remove all the popular weapons of choice as has been shown in europe with the use of the bomb and the motor vehicle to cause maximum casualties, the best we can achieve is a reduction in harm at this stage. It is also evident that we must give our intelligent services greater backing and more tools to achieve the best results. but we must not fool ourselves that we will ever be totally on top of the problem. I am also in the teaching of life skills in school group and these should include mental skills to give a more positive outlook on life.
This a Bravo Zulu for a thoughtful and well structured post. (BZ = well done)

upload_2019-3-21_21-15-41.png
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I would think the hunters and target shooters in NZ must be relieved with Jacinda’s proposals. This is more reasonable than Australia’s legislation IMO. The other requirement is proper punishment for gun smugglers and those who threaten to use or actually use a gun in the commission of a crime. Canada is pi$$-poor when it comes to punishing gun smuggling.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Is there a register of firearm owners and their firearms that can be accessed by police in New Zealand ?
In New Zealand there was a high court decision in march 2010 to overturn by police a bid to reclassify certain types of civilian semi automatic firearms as military as a result of a challenge by the National Shooters Association,s president Richard Lincoln so it would be interesting o hear of their current views .
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Is there a register of firearm owners and their firearms that can be accessed by police in New Zealand ?
In New Zealand there was a high court decision in march 2010 to overturn by police a bid to reclassify certain types of civilian semi automatic firearms as military as a result of a challenge by the National Shooters Association,s president Richard Lincoln so it would be interesting o hear of their current views .
There is a register of firearms owners, but not a register of individual weapons. When I bought my first firearm back in 1977 the weapon's type and serial number was recorded against my name, address and firearms licence number. At some stage that was changed and the weapons register was discontinued which was a huge mistake. Now the authorities have no idea how many weapons are in the country and who has what. I know some people have 50 cal rifles and an old hunting mate of mine say's what the hell would you want to hump one of those things which weigh a tone into the mountains for? You shoot a deer or thar two miles away and you then have to climb down one range and up another bloody range to get it. He considers that heart attack material. He has his trusty Ruger 223 and a 308 and reckons if you can't get them with one of those, you should just stay at home in your rocker.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Yep been there done that but without a register how do you know who the firearms have been sold on too ,whats the requirement for the onselling of a firearm ?
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There is a register of firearms owners, but not a register of individual weapons. When I bought my first firearm back in 1977 the weapon's type and serial number was recorded against my name, address and firearms licence number. At some stage that was changed and the weapons register was discontinued which was a huge mistake. Now the authorities have no idea how many weapons are in the country and who has what. I know some people have 50 cal rifles and an old hunting mate of mine say's what the hell would you want to hump one of those things which weigh a tone into the mountains for? You shoot a deer or thar two miles away and you then have to climb down one range and up another bloody range to get it. He considers that heart attack material. He has his trusty Ruger 223 and a 308 and reckons if you can't get them with one of those, you should just stay at home in your rocker.
My take on some of the people who have to have oversized guns or automatics or other more over the top toys to express themselves, is maybe they think their personal equipment is not big enough and have to compensate for that.
You may take this whatever way you want.
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #31
There is a register of firearms owners, but not a register of individual weapons. When I bought my first firearm back in 1977 the weapon's type and serial number was recorded against my name, address and firearms licence number. At some stage that was changed and the weapons register was discontinued which was a huge mistake. Now the authorities have no idea how many weapons are in the country and who has what. I know some people have 50 cal rifles and an old hunting mate of mine say's what the hell would you want to hump one of those things which weigh a tone into the mountains for? You shoot a deer or thar two miles away and you then have to climb down one range and up another bloody range to get it. He considers that heart attack material. He has his trusty Ruger 223 and a 308 and reckons if you can't get them with one of those, you should just stay at home in your rocker.
What's your take on talk of changing our Crusaders rugby team name in light of the attacks, a bit too pc? cavalier might be a compromise
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
What's your take on talk of changing our Crusaders rugby team name in light of the attacks, a bit too pc? cavalier might be a compromise
I don't think that it's pc given what's happened, because it's a discussion that should be had; I just think that right now is not the time. Let the families and community have some space and undertake their grieving, then the Crusaders have an in depth discussion with the families, the Canterbury Muslim community, sponsors, Ngai Tahu, Crusaders supporters, and the wider community. From that a properly informed decision can be made. I always thought that Tod was God but he's only a demigod now because Razor has supplanted him. What I don't want is a bunch of outsiders, like those from the Jafa territory, telling us what we should or shouldn't be doing; just because they can't beat us on the footy pitch :D:p Now watch a certain Mod fume :)

The discussion about the Crusaders is, IMHO an exemplar of the wider discussion that has to be had within NZ, about what has happened and about the wider issue of discrimination that is prevalent within NZ society. It will not be nice, but I believe that in the long term it will make for a better NZ. As they say the proof is in the pudding, so we shall have to wait and see.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
What I don't want is a bunch of outsiders, like those from the Jafa territory, telling us what we should or shouldn't be doing; just because they can't beat us on the footy pitch :D:p Now watch a certain Mod fume :)
That won't happen because Aucklander's really don't care and couldn't be bothered what the sad little town of Christchurch calls their one and only claim to fame. The only thing we think about when going through Christchurch on our way to Queenstown is to remember to turn our Girard-Perregaux's back to 1994 while in town. :p
 

King Wally

Active Member
Funny that I can't walk my Dog around the block over here without full detailed registration but in NZ you can own an arsenal of firearms without any gov tracking or database? Certainly an area to amend I would think.

What's your take on talk of changing our Crusaders rugby team name in light of the attacks, a bit too pc? cavalier might be a compromise
Coming up next "Christchurch" to be renamed "FlexiProphet-NondenominationalPlaceOfWorship-City"

Nah seriously though, we guys in the West have a rather sick one sided narrative around the Crusades.. when you read up on them they were a time in history certainly not suitable for glamorising. I'd be happy to see it's name changed all jokes aside.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
I cant find any time in the history of that section of the world for glamorising ,using religion as an excuse for conquest was standard by everyone and causes problems there today
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #36
Funny that I can't walk my Dog around the block over here without full detailed registration but in NZ you can own an arsenal of firearms without any gov tracking or database? Certainly an area to amend I would think.



Coming up next "Christchurch" to be renamed "FlexiProphet-NondenominationalPlaceOfWorship-City"

Nah seriously though, we guys in the West have a rather sick one sided narrative around the Crusades.. when you read up on them they were a time in history certainly not suitable for glamorising. I'd be happy to see it's name changed all jokes aside.
Hadn't thought of Christchurch name change, ironic because there probably are more pubs, nightclubs here than churches! I'd say a good proportion of the population aren't religious let alone Christian. Even our PM is agnostic
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think they need a name change after the terrible performance on Saturday.
Seriously though, there is no problem with the name it’s simple identity politics to even consider a change, what else? Are they renaming the city as well, sounds more of an infidel name than Crusader.

Multi culturalism is a wonderful thing and you only have to visit certain suburbs in Sydney to see how exciting and diverse they have become, forget the emphasis on dividing and naming, the actions of the Christchurch people speak far louder than any name change could.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
All frontline Police within NZ will remain armed until further notice.

Police officers in every part of New Zealand will continue to carry guns

There will be a Royal Commission of Enquiry into the NZ security agencies as a result of the Christchurch terror attack. The agencies that the enquiry will investigate with regard to this attack are: NZSIS, GCSB, NZ Police, Customs, Immigration and any other relevant Government agencies or departments. Terms of reference will be finalised within the next two weeks.

Royal Commission of Inquiry announced following the Christchurch terror attacks
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hadn't thought of Christchurch name change, ironic because there probably are more pubs, nightclubs here than churches! I'd say a good proportion of the population aren't religious let alone Christian. Even our PM is agnostic
Pffft. Then you probably missed the significance of Canterbury as well. Daft rabbit hole to go down because there's a complete warren down there

oldsig
 
Top