New Zealand mosque attack: PM confirms gun law reforms

Homesteading & Country Living Forum

Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

SHOOTER13

SNIPER
Neighbor
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
8,649
Location
PENNSYLVANIA
ANY AND ALL CHANCES...REGARDLESS OF THE BODY COUNT...TO FURTHER THEIR LIBERAL SOCIALIST ANTI-GUN AGENDA

New Zealand's government has agreed to reform the country's gun laws in the wake of last Friday's massacre at two mosques, in which 50 people were killed, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has confirmed.

Ardern said that the "worst act of terrorism on our shores" had exposed a range of weaknesses in New Zealand's gun laws.

Speaking after her weekly Cabinet meeting Monday evening local time, Ardern told reporters that ministers had agreed "in principle" to reform gun laws.

"Within 10 days of this horrific act of terrorism we will have announced reforms which will, I believe, make our community safer," she said.

While acknowledging that "for a short period" planned reforms might create uncertainty for some gun owners, Ardern said: "I strongly believe that the vast majority of gun owners in New Zealand will agree with the sentiment that change needs to occur."

Earlier Monday, popular New Zealand e-commerce website TradeMe ended the sale of semiautomatic guns on its online marketplace.

"We have listened to public sentiment following Friday's terrorist attack in Christchurch and decided to remove all semi-automatic firearms sales and parts associated," TradeMe wrote in a statement.

Inquiry to be launched into attack

The Prime Minister also announced that there would be an inquiry into the specific circumstances leading up to Friday's attack.

The inquiry will look into what agencies knew -- or should have known -- about the gunman's access to weapons or any impediments into the sharing of information, she said.

It will also look at the individual's travel movements, activities in New Zealand, use of social media and contact with others.

Three days after the shootings, Brenton Harris Tarrant, 28, appears to be the only person in custody who has been linked to the attack.

"We believe that there is only one attacker responsible for this horrendous event," the commissioner said, adding that it was possible the suspect still could have received support from others.

Bush said the threat level in New Zealand remained high and there would be high visibility from police and emergency service partners "for weeks to come."

Graphic video raises questions over offensive content

The attack was broadcast live on Facebook and the graphic video was copied and shared by users of the platform.

Facebook removed 1.5 million videos of the mosque attack in the first 24 hours, the social media company tweeted Sunday.

Of the 1.5 million deleted videos, Facebook said more than 1.2 million were blocked at the point of upload.

Additionally, all edited versions of the video that don't show the graphic content were also removed "out of respect for the people affected by this tragedy and the concerns of local authorities," Mia Garlick of Facebook New Zealand, said on Twitter.

Friday's video has reignited questions about how social media platforms handle offensive content, with many questioning if companies are doing enough to try to catch this type of hate-filled content.

Tarrant also sent an 87-page manifesto to Ardern minutes before the attack.

The document, also posted on social media before the shooting, was filled with anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim screeds. Authorities have declined to discuss potential motives for the attack.

Tarrant, who is facing one murder charge, made a hand gesture associated with white supremacists when he appeared in court on Saturday.

Suspect traveled to Turkey and Pakistan

Tarrant is an Australian citizen who had been living in the southern city of Dunedin, about 225 miles from Christchurch, according to Ardern. He had traveled around the world and was in New Zealand sporadically, she added.

Officials said he had no criminal history in New Zealand or Australia and had not drawn the attention of the intelligence community for extremist views.

Tarrant visited Pakistan last October and a senior Turkish official told CNN that Tarrant traveled to Turkey a number of times and spent "an extended period of time" there. Turkey is "currently investigating the suspect's movements and contacts within the country," the official told CNN. The suspect may also have traveled to other countries in Europe, Asia and Africa, the official added.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Predictably, it's the gun's fault:rolleyes:.
Disarm the law-abiding citizens, that's the solution!:Angie:
 
It's always the inanimate object...not the dark heart of the killer

The firearm is ONLY a tool...the users will IS the weapon.

.
 
Why no one can figure that ^^ out is beyond me.
 
From the link Top posted above...


Although Tripple sold numerous firearms to Tarrant, he said the AR-15 that was used in the attack was not one his business sold, Newshub reported.

"I watched the video, I saw the rifle and I know for sure where it came from if it has a serial number I expect and it is not affiliated with any Gun City store," Tripple told the media during a press conference.

The media was quick to come after Tripple for selling firearms to the shooter.

One reporter asked if Tripple felt responsible for the attack, to which he replied, "No, I do not." He said it was the responsibility of police to vet those who applied for a "class A firearms license," which Tarrant had.

"What we are doing is legal and the majority of people have put in place the Government that set those laws and we are abiding by those laws, which enables us as citizens to peacefully enjoy legitimate activity," he said, Stuff reported.

...

Reporters asked Tripple if he would close his store if the victims' families asked him to do so. He responded by telling a story about his grandson. And it clearly translated to "No."

"I had my grandson ask me 'granddad why would people say guns are the problem? The guy was crazy.' He's six," he replied.

Others tried baiting him into talking about gun control, something Tripple said he wasn't having.

"This man wrote in his manifesto that the purpose of using a firearm was to divide us; if we allow him to make changes in our ideology and our behaviour then he's won," Tripple said.

The media is so quick to spin facts to fit their progressive, anti-gun agenda that they're willing to place blame on the gun dealer, even when his company did nothing wrong.

1) Every firearm Gun City sold was sold legally. If anyone takes issue with the gunman obtaining firearms, they need to take it up with the authorities. They're the ones who approved Brenton Tarrant's class A license.

2) Tarrant didn't seem suspicious when he purchased his firearms. And he had been vetted by police because he had said license.

3) The AR-15 that was used in the attack wasn't purchased at Gun City. Trying to connect the two because he bought other firearms there is stupid. And it's like comparing apples to oranges.

4) Even if Gun City did legally sell the firearm to Tarrant, they can't be held responsible. The buyer was licensed. He wasn't acting suspiciously. And the gun dealer didn't pull the trigger.

Placing blame on the gun dealer does nothing but remove personal responsibility from the equation.

If people know they'll never be held responsible for their actions. Get in an accident? Blame the car. Gain weight? Sue the soda company. Fall from a latter? Go after the manufacturer.

At what point do we stop blaming everyone else for this massacre?

He took 50 lives.

Not the gun dealer.

Not the ammo manufacturer.

Not the gun maker.

Him.

Period

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, at least it'll be easy for them to round them up because each one is registered to a person's license:wait:.
Like Australia, handguns will be next, also all registered. Nobody don't need no guns:rolleyes:.

If nothing else, we can watch in painful slow-motion the process work and perhaps learn from it.
The entire process hinges on registration, something Hawaii, California and others have already done.
Beware!
It's innocent enough to start with...
And New Zealand will show us how it ends:cry:.
 
It ends with the population disarmed and subjugated... sheep left unguarded... at the mercy of the wolves.

Well...not this guy.

Preparations have already been made...well in advance.

...15+ years by my count.

Bring It...!!

:cool:

.
 
Per link above provided by Top...

Well, there are a few reasons why they can’t, but there’s one really big one.

Section 3. of the Order (effectively clarifying legislation for New Zealand’s 1983 Arms Act) rules that most semi-automatic firearms are now to be regarded as “military-style weapons.” The order declares that illegal firearms will now include:

[A] semi-automatic firearm that is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch or less rimfire cartridges) that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges [and] a semi-automatic firearm that is a shotgun and that is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges.

Five cartridges means five rounds. And “a semi-automatic firearm that is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine,” means the vast majority of handguns relied upon by Americans to protect their families and homes.

This is the key issue. Such a ban in America would explicitly conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the most relevant Second Amendment case, District of Colombia v. Heller. And don’t take my word for it — read Antonin Scalia’s rationale for why most semi-automatic handguns used to defend American homes are constitutionally protected: “There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

That’s a big issue.

That particular article does point out that while the Court has refused to hear cases involving magazine capacity, this is a bit different. They’re right.

You see, while I argue even a 10-round magazine capacity is unconstitutional, at least those laws don’t ban firearms capable of using a larger magazine. Words matter when it comes to laws, even in New Zealand. It seems that the use of the word “capable” means anything that can accept a larger magazine is soon to be forbidden.

As noted above, that would render most semi-automatic handguns as illegal, seeing as how pretty much all of them are capable of accepting a magazine of greater than five rounds.

For American anti-gunners, that’s a small price to pay.

Few of them seem to adhere to the idea that an individual has a right to defend themselves with lethal force. If a few innocent people have to die so that they can live in their Utopia, that’s a price they’re willing to pay.

Luckily for us, they’ll never get that Utopia thanks to the Second Amendment.


AMEN !!

:smilie flag:

.
 
It ends with the population disarmed and subjugated... sheep left unguarded... at the mercy of the wolves.

Well...not this guy.

Preparations have already been made...well in advance.

...15+ years by my count.

Bring It...!!

:cool:

.


a ban guns rev.jpg
 

Latest posts

Back
Top