Friday, March 15, 2019

Tragedy In New Zealand

     Some half-baked loser or group of losers has killed a lot of people in mosques in New Zealand.  Some kind of racist manifesto supposedly linked to the murders has been posted to Web on social media, and is being taken down when found by people who run those venues.

     Part of it allegedly claims one of the reasons the shooter(s) used guns was to get Second Amendment attention here in the United States, which is why I'm commenting.

     I condemn the killings, as any decent person would.  These people were defenseless, at prayer.  It was a heinous attack.

     New Zealand has strict firearms laws, a program of vetting and licensing owners, and restricts access to "military-style semiautomatic rifles."  As ever, evil people intent on evil acts were not deterred by the law. 

     Police in New Zealand have several people in custody.  I expect the rest of the murderous punks will be rounded up shortly.  Say what you will of our modern world, those who commit wicked acts have fewer and fewer places to run, fewer and fewer places to hide.  They will be found and brought to trial.


Anonymous said...

Its very sad indeed. The people who commit these acts claim it is in retaliation for acts committed elsewhere, BUT WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE KILLED ? They weren't (as far as I know) involved in those acts.

And so people will point and say 'Ban All the Things!' They will blame individuals who own firearms are responsible of the person's actions of the massacre. Sounds familiar - blaming people who had no connection with the killers.

Very sad indeed. Prayers for all of those who are directly affected by this.

rickn8or said...

As ever, evil people intent on evil acts were not deterred by the law.

But legislators will insist that "just one more teeny tiny necessary infringement" will change this.

Roberta X said...

New Zealand hasn't got a Second Amendment. So "infringement" isn't an accurate word.

What they do have are licensing of gun owners (ten years with renewal), "secure storage" requirements and a not-quite assault-weapons ban. The AR-15-pattern rifle used in the attacks would have required an "E endorsement," calling for additional vetting of the owner and additional security. If, as is being reported, this murderer purchased the gun legally, then the once-per-decade background check for his license didn't catch him.

I think we'll probably see the government there calling for a ban on "military-style semi automatic" firearms at the very least. No, it wouldn't have stopped him, but they will have Done Something and I'm sure they'll be very proud.

rickn8or said...

You're quite right; NZ doesn't have a Second Amendment equivalent, so .gov can do whatever it pleases in regard to our self-defense implements.

And I do agree that whatever they do wouldn't have stopped this shooter, or the next one for that matter. People intent on murder an mayhem don't seem to have much concern for the same same laws that deter us.

Roberta X said...

Indeed. I still think self-defense is an inherent human right -- but the laws in most countries don't agree.

Minion Beta said...

Yep, our PM made a comment to the effect that "We will be looking at gun laws here in NZ".
The general social culture here in NZ is that of tolerance and acceptance; "You do your thing over there and I'll do mine over here", to the point that the vast majority of people don't feel the need for that sort of self-defense/protection.
It's just not part of the social contract. *shrug*
We're all just Kiwi's; some of us are European, some of us are Maori, some of us are all sorts of races/nationalities/cultures from all over the globe, but we're all immigrants who chose to come and live here.

markm said...

And the one thing your politicians will never consider is the one thing that stops murderous nuts like that before they've done what they came to do: several of their victims shooting back.