New Zealand’s Homicide Rate Doubles in One Day

by Jack

An attack on a New Zealand mosque took the lives of 49 worshippers Friday and left dozens more wounded when a white male opened fire and live-streamed the shootings.

In the wake of this disaster, government officials are stunned and feeling compelled to pass a new law to prevent such a thing from ever happening again.   But, they are running out of options.  Murder is already illegal.  Gun regulations in NZ are among the strictest in the world. The shooter was 100% compliant with regulation, registration, license and background check.  Now what?

New Zealand is known for its low crime. In 2010 they only had a total of 46 homicides and for a population of 4.7 million that’s amazingly low.  Tijuana has more homicides in any given week than the whole of New Zealand, so by any measure this is a very safe country, even with this mass killing by one single person.

However, government always feels compelled to DO SOMETHING to fix it, even if its virtually perfect already.  It’s some flaw in our human nature.  So what do you think the first thing the liberals in power have come up with?   Yes, of course, more gun control!

The killer used a semi-automatic rifle… therefore it stands that all semi-auto rif.., nay, make that any rifle… must go!  It made little difference that the shooter’s weapon was 100% California legal, that danged rifle must be banned! Does this mean flint locks and other single-shot, muzzle loaders?  I don’t know, but probably.   Then in theory, they will be 100% safe or at least safe until the next killer comes along and discovers you can make a very devastating WMD from household cleaning products.

This entry was posted in Police, Crime, Security and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to New Zealand’s Homicide Rate Doubles in One Day

  1. Post Scripts says:


    Fraser Anning, a senator from Queensland, was criticized over tweets on Friday, including one that said, “Does anyone still dispute the link between Muslim immigration and violence?”

    “I am utterly opposed to any form of violence within our community, and I totally condemn the actions of the gunman,” he wrote in a statement. “However, whilst this kind of violent vigilantism can never be justified, what it highlights is the growing fear within our community, both in Australia and New Zealand, of the increasing Muslim presence.”

    “The real cause of the bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand.

    • Chris says:

      Thank you for sharing those hideous comments, Jack. I hope we can agree they were entirely inappropriate and victim-blaming.

      I also hope you will take a step further and recognize that the comments from our own president were not very far off from Anning’s. He condemned the attack, but then immediately changed the subject from the mass killing, which the shooter said was his response to the “invasion” of Muslim immigrants, to what Trump called an “invasion” of our own southern border. That was extremely irresponsible and only served to justify the ideology behind the attack.

      The cause of this man’s outburst was not immigrants, but a hateful white supremacist ideology that radicalized him through the Internet. His manifesto is littered with memes that only the extremely online would understand. The subculture of white supremacists is spreading through those memes on social media and via YouTube, which not only fails to delete videos from actual, self-professed Nazis, but even recommends such videos to unsuspecting visitors, including children, through its algorithm.

      I don’t know if more gun control is the proper response, or even if any type of government intervention will prevent such attacks in the future. I think social media companies need to do more to get Nazis off of their platforms and stop them from spreading their hateful ideas. There are no free speech concerns here, as these are private companies that have every right to decide who can and cannot post on their websites–just as you have that right here on Post Scripts. I’d personally rather see Western culture root out the toxic ideologies that motivate people like this in the first place rather than just trying to eliminate the weapons used to act on them.

      • Post Scripts says:

        Chris, sometimes S H – – just happens and all the new legislation in the world can’t stop it. This micro aggression is nothing new, but then neither is how politicians react to it. Their motives for new legislation are always the same: Capitalizing on a tragedy to gain political advantage or personal advantage, either way is a win. Doing it with the best interests of the people in mind likely never enters into it.

        • Libby says:

          “This micro aggression is nothing new, …”

          Definition: brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group.

          And this, you apply to mass murder. Don’t you think that’s, like, EVIL.

          • Post Scripts says:

            Libby, the mindset between myself and that wacko in New Zealand are about as close as yours and Donald Trump’s! But, now that you brought mind set up, there are early indications that the shooter may have had serious psychiatric problems due to family issues. I don’t want to get too far ahead of this part of the news, so I’m qualifying my remarks as “may have.” In time I’m sure it will all come out.

            Lastly, and as always, thanks a bunch for your unsolicited opinion about my character.

          • Post Scripts says:

            Libs, I’ll give you one. I may have used the wrong term, I was looking for word that expressed something that was a one time event, unrelated to other past events, an act done by only one person.

          • Chris says:

            Jack, I didn’t read the term “microaggression” to refer to the mass shooting, but to Fraser Anning’s comments.

            I’ll take your word for it that you just weren’t that familiar with the term—it has only recently entered the mainstream of American discourse. But it really doesn’t apply to either situation. You’ve already shown you understand it doesn’t apply to the attack, but Anning’s statements also go far past microaggression.

            A microaggression would be thoughtlessly asking a Muslim person a stereotypical question. Anning is coming right out and saying he objects to the presence of Muslims in his country. That is far from micro. It’s open, blatant bigotry. Again, I hope you will join me in condemning this.

    • J Soden says:

      And later during the interview, a smart-ass kid smashed an egg on the head of Senator Anning while videoing it for posting online.
      I think I’d have taken away his phone and accidentally stepped on it. HARD!

  2. Libby says:

    But … a person’s mindset, belief system, and intelligence quotient are ENTIRELY relevant to their inclination to mass murder. And, Jack, you and this guy seem to have some beliefs in common.

    Have you not, many times, posted your belief that Islam is a threat to our nation?


    • Chris says:

      Jack has a point that the guy clearly had mental issues. But the *target* of a psychopath’s violent rage is absolutely shaped by his environment and by society. We all know who the leading voices against Muslim immigration are. Republicans made one of the loudest of those voices President. Others broadcast on Fox News daily—which is where the President gets most of his information. The very least they could do now is think about the dangers of that rhetoric and how it might lead someone already close to the deep end right off of it.

  3. Harold says:

    It is my opinion that we have worn through the very thin veneer of social behavior especially when it relates to Internet posts.

    Gone it seems is the respect one might expect with a face to face discussion, as well as the protected unanimity provided by a keyboard and false names.

    It’s viral disease has even insisted violent outbreaks where free speech was once sacred ground. Drown out the voice of opposing view points by any means is now the preferred path of radical political positions, all very Alinsky in nature.

    As to which party favors this more, as of late it is the far left liberals. However as they continue to push the envelope open further, due in large part to the left’s hatred of Trumps Presidency it ‘s effect has lead to causing the opposition to fight back in a equal manner, such will destroy the democracy and free speech we have known in the past.

    I site the remark made by Rep. Steve King, the left would view it as racist and out of line. However when viewed by the right it is anything but that. It was a comment by the mind set of ones political views.

    Self reliance is more in keeping with Kings statement about self resolve and helping others overcome the situation at hand, a corner stone of conservative philosophy.

    While the Governor of Louisiana would depend more on Government assistance for his constituents, possibly because of economics they are more dependent on Government.

    Both politicians played to their voting base, as would be expected, and we should understand that as well. However if the first thing out of your mouth in challenging a comment is your use of the race card to oppose their view point, you are on the very thin edge of it your self.

    If you need, call out the other person for his comments, ask for explanations, but don’t try to apply a label to it, especially one that is charged with lack of thought and political bias.

    I myself lean toward self reliance, however I do understand the need for a hand up, but a hand out is just a wasted effort.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *