Discussion:
[OT] New Zealand Shooter: Live Vid From The Shooter
(too old to reply)
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-15 02:48:53 UTC
Permalink
This is pretty fucked up.

It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.

YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
Rhino
2019-03-15 02:59:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
Yeah, it's gone.
--
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-15 03:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
Yeah, it's gone.
It’s one fucked up video and I’m sure it’ll pop up somewhere, torrent sites for sure.

It starts after he’s killed all those people and he’s driving around in his mini-van,
then he pulls into a driveway and gets out to fire off a few rounds up and down
the street (no people around that I could see, just parked cars).

Then apparently his rifle jams, so he walks back to the mini-van and gets another
out of the back (there were also two plastic gas cans there) then runs to the mosque
and stands in the driveway and shoots a bunch of rounds at nothing that I could tell
(the side of a building way far away?)

Then he goes into the mozque and there are dead people scattered all over the place,
laying in hallways and doorways and he goes into the main room(?) and there is a huge
pile of dead people (a couple of dozen) and he procedes to shoot the bodies again and
again.

Then he drives off muttering about stuff (somethingsomething “funeral, don’t matter”)
Rhino
2019-03-15 04:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Rhino
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
Yeah, it's gone.
It’s one fucked up video and I’m sure it’ll pop up somewhere, torrent sites for sure.
It starts after he’s killed all those people and he’s driving around in his mini-van,
then he pulls into a driveway and gets out to fire off a few rounds up and down
the street (no people around that I could see, just parked cars).
Then apparently his rifle jams, so he walks back to the mini-van and gets another
out of the back (there were also two plastic gas cans there) then runs to the mosque
and stands in the driveway and shoots a bunch of rounds at nothing that I could tell
(the side of a building way far away?)
Then he goes into the mozque and there are dead people scattered all over the place,
laying in hallways and doorways and he goes into the main room(?) and there is a huge
pile of dead people (a couple of dozen) and he procedes to shoot the bodies again and
again.
Then he drives off muttering about stuff (somethingsomething “funeral, don’t matter”)
What kind of accent did the shooter have? New Zealander, I'm
guessing.... Then again, if someone put together a false flag incident
and got sloppy, the shooters could be from damn near anywhere.
--
Rhino
Robin Miller
2019-03-15 04:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Rhino
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
Yeah, it's gone.
It’s one fucked up video and I’m sure it’ll pop up somewhere, torrent
sites for sure.
It starts after he’s killed all those people and he’s driving around in his mini-van,
then he pulls into a driveway and gets out to fire off a few rounds up and down
the street (no people around that I could see, just parked cars).
Then apparently his rifle jams, so he walks back to the mini-van and gets another
out of the back (there were also two plastic gas cans there) then runs to the mosque
and stands in the driveway and shoots a bunch of rounds at nothing that I could tell
(the side of a building way far away?)
Then he goes into the mozque and there are dead people scattered all over the place,
laying in hallways and doorways and he goes into the main room(?) and there is a huge
pile of dead people (a couple of dozen) and he procedes to shoot the bodies again and
again.
Then he drives off muttering about stuff (somethingsomething “funeral,
don’t matter”)
What kind of accent did the shooter have? New Zealander, I'm
guessing.... Then again, if someone put together a false flag incident
and got sloppy, the shooters could be from damn near anywhere.
He posted a manifesto. He says he's from Australia originally:

https://www.scribd.com/document/401941994/NEW-ZEALAND-SHOOTER-S-MANIFESTO

--Robin
Rhino
2019-03-15 16:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin Miller
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Rhino
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
Yeah, it's gone.
It’s one fucked up video and I’m sure it’ll pop up somewhere, torrent
sites for sure.
It starts after he’s killed all those people and he’s driving around
in his mini-van,
then he pulls into a driveway and gets out to fire off a few rounds up and down
the street (no people around that I could see, just parked cars).
Then apparently his rifle jams, so he walks back to the mini-van and gets another
out of the back (there were also two plastic gas cans there) then runs to the mosque
and stands in the driveway and shoots a bunch of rounds at nothing that I could tell
(the side of a building way far away?)
Then he goes into the mozque and there are dead people scattered all over the place,
laying in hallways and doorways and he goes into the main room(?) and there is a huge
pile of dead people (a couple of dozen) and he procedes to shoot the bodies again and
again.
Then he drives off muttering about stuff (somethingsomething
“funeral, don’t matter”)
What kind of accent did the shooter have? New Zealander, I'm
guessing.... Then again, if someone put together a false flag incident
and got sloppy, the shooters could be from damn near anywhere.
https://www.scribd.com/document/401941994/NEW-ZEALAND-SHOOTER-S-MANIFESTO
Thanks Robin. I've been looking at some of today's stories on this
and saw that he's been confirmed as an Australian living in NZ.

I'm surprised they took him alive; that's not how these things usually
turn out.
--
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-15 05:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
Then he drives off muttering about stuff (somethingsomething
“funeral, don’t matter”)
What kind of accent did the shooter have? New Zealander, I'm
guessing.... Then again, if someone put together a false flag incident
and got sloppy, the shooters could be from damn near anywhere.
He’s apparently Australian but the first video I saw (the YouTube one)
was mostly him driving around and I knew it would be take down soon,
so I FF thru it until I got to the shooting parts.

In the video that Robin Miller posted, (which was the actual killing of
the people in the mosque) I didn’t hear him say anything.

Stuff he had written on his rifle and gear with a paint-pen;

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Loading Image...
Rhino
2019-03-15 17:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Rhino
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
Then he drives off muttering about stuff (somethingsomething
“funeral, don’t matter”)
What kind of accent did the shooter have? New Zealander, I'm
guessing.... Then again, if someone put together a false flag incident
and got sloppy, the shooters could be from damn near anywhere.
He’s apparently Australian but the first video I saw (the YouTube one)
was mostly him driving around and I knew it would be take down soon,
so I FF thru it until I got to the shooting parts.
In the video that Robin Miller posted, (which was the actual killing of
the people in the mosque) I didn’t hear him say anything.
Stuff he had written on his rifle and gear with a paint-pen;
https://i.postimg.cc/gJv3hK8W/1552624499609.jpg
"Crab remover"? Am I reading that right? It's hard to make out the first
of those two words.
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://i.postimg.cc/vTh9qH02/1552618077809.png
I can't find anyone named Josue Estabanez in Wikipedia. I did find
someone named Feliks Potocki, who the Poles apparently see as a traitor
although I don't see any obvious connection to efforts to stop the
spread of Islam so maybe this isn't who the shooter meant. 1683 is an
obvious reference to the battle at the Gates of Vienna.
Sigismund of Luxembourg *does* have a connection to Islam in that he
conceived a crusade to liberate Bulgaria from the Ottomans in 1396 but
it failed. Maybe the shooter is keen to be seen as someone who TRIED to
fight Islam, not necessarily successfully??
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://i.postimg.cc/02576DNT/1552618218686.png
Rotherham is an obvious reference to the grooming gangs of South Asian
Muslims who molested girls there for decades. Alexandre Bissonette is
the young man that shot up a mosque in Quebec a couple of years back;
he's only just been sentenced to 40 years in prison.

I had to look up Luca Traini and found this in an article about the 2018
election in Italy:

=========================================================================
Macerata murder and attack
Salvini speaks at the final rally of his electoral campaign in Milan

On 3 February 2018, a drive-by shooting event occurred in the city of
Macerata, Marche in Central Italy where six African migrants were
seriously wounded.[68] A 28-year-old local man, Luca Traini, was
arrested and charged with attempted murder, and was also charged for the
attack against the local headquarters of the ruling PD party.[69] After
the attack, Traini reportedly had an Italian flag draped on his
shoulders and raised his arm in the fascist salute.[70] Traini stated
that the attack was "revenge" for Pamela Mastropietro, an 18-year-old
Roman woman whose dismembered body had been found few days earlier,
stuffed into two suitcases and dumped in the countryside; for this,
three Nigerian drug dealers were arrested, the main suspect being
29-year-old failed asylum seeker, named Innocent Oseghale.[71][72][73]
Missing body parts had sparked allegations of the murder having been a
muti killing, also involving cannibalism.[74]

The case sparked anger and anti-immigrant sentiment in Macerata.
Traini's lawyer reported "alarming solidarity" for Traini expressed by
the populace, while Mastropietro's mother publicly thanked Traini for
"lighting a candle" for her daughter.[75] A second autopsy of the girl's
remains, published after the attack against the African migrants,
revealed that Mastropietro had been strangulated, stabbed, and then
flayed while still alive.[76] The murder of Mastropietro and the attack
by Traini, and their appraisal by Italian media and the public were "set
to become a decisive factor" in the national elections.[77]

Traini was a member and former local candidate of the Lega, and many
political commentators, intellectuals and politicians harshly criticized
party leader Matteo Salvini, in connection with the attack, accusing him
of having "spread hate and racism" in the country. Particularly, Roberto
Saviano, the notable anti-mafia writer, labeled Salvini as the "moral
instigator" of Traini's attack.[78] Salvini responded to critics by
accusing the centre-left government of responsibility for Mastropietro’s
death through allowing migrants to stay in the country and having "blood
on their hands", asserting that the blame lies with those who "fill
[Italy] with illegal immigrants".[79]

Prime Minister Gentiloni stated that he "trusts in the sense of
responsibility of all political forces. Criminals are criminals and the
state will be particularly harsh with anyone that wants to fuel a spiral
of violence." Gentiloni added that "hate and violence will not divide
Italy".[80] Also, Minister of the Interior Marco Minniti harshly
condemned the attack against the Africans, saying that any political
party must "ride the hate".[81] Renzi, whose party was also accused
about its position on immigration, stated that "calm and responsibility"
from all political forces would now be necessary.[82]

Eventually, in the constituency of Macerata, the centre-right coalition
led by Traini's former party, the Lega, won a plurality of the votes in
the ballot, electing candidate Tullio Patassini, and showed an increase
from 0.4% of the vote in 2013 to 21% in 2018, five years later.
=========================================================================

I can't make out the Cyrillic names but I did find Sebastiano Venier, a
15th century Venetian general who led a war against the Ottomans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastiano_Venier

I also found an article about the Shipka Pass, which was the site of a
battle between a coalition of Russians and Bulgarians against the
Ottoman Empire during the Russo-Turkish War in 1877:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shipka_Pass

Novak Vukosevik was a hero of a battle between Montenegro and the
Ottomans the previous year:
==========================================================================
Novak Vujošević from Kuči tribe was the biggest hero of the battle,
killing 28 enemy soldiers; he later received an award from the Russian
emperor. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fundina]
==========================================================================
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://i.postimg.cc/HWzyCntB/1552622929970.png
There are multiple Marcantonio Colonna's but it seems likely this is a
reference to this soldier who played a key role in the Battle of Lepanto
against the Ottomans in 1571.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcantonio_Colonna

I can't find anything about someone named Josue Sigis. Sebastiano Venier
was mentioned previously and I've already identified him above. Mihaly
is a very common first name in Hungary (essentially the Hungarian form
of Michael) but I don't know which of many Mihaly's he means. I can't
find Pelayu (or Mihaly Pelayu) anywhere.
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://i.postimg.cc/ZqzRNzcW/1552623485503.png
https://i.postimg.cc/RFVv1SnZ/1552623724654.png
I'm not going to do the last couple; I've already seen more than enough
to satisfy myself that he's enumerating people that were significant in
the struggle to resist Islam. Given the slaughter at the mosques, he
obviously sees himself as a hero in the same mold or at least aspires to
be seen like they were.

Of course he's completely overlooked the fact that those other people
were fighting armed soldiers, not unarmed civilians. I can't help but
wonder why he didn't enlist in an army that was fighting actual Muslim
combatants in Afghanistan or the caliphate rather than taking on
civilians in a massively unequal fight.
--
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-15 19:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
Stuff he had written on his rifle and gear with a paint-pen
”Crab remover"? Am I reading that right? It's hard to make
out the first of those two words.
“Kabob remover”, as in shish kabob.
I did find someone named Feliks Potocki, who the Poles
apparently see as a traitor
Yeah, that Feliks Potocki was an asshole, I’m guessing the
shooter meant this one, who fought the Turks and Tatars;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feliks_Kazimierz_Potocki
Rhino
2019-03-15 20:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
Stuff he had written on his rifle and gear with a paint-pen
”Crab remover"? Am I reading that right? It's hard to make
out the first of those two words.
“Kabob remover”, as in shish kabob.
That makes more sense! I couldn't see any obvious connection between
crabs and Muslims :-)
Post by Ed Stasiak
I did find someone named Feliks Potocki, who the Poles
apparently see as a traitor
Yeah, that Feliks Potocki was an asshole, I’m guessing the
shooter meant this one, who fought the Turks and Tatars;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feliks_Kazimierz_Potocki
Yes, I think he's a better fit than the one I found. Strange that he
mentions two people that fought with Jan Sobieski but not Sobieski
himself, whose probably the best known of the people at the Gates Of Vienna.

By the way, Ed, how is the little l with the diagonal stroke through it
pronounced? Is it anything like an English 'l' or is it very different?
--
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-15 21:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Rhino
By the way, Ed, how is the little l with the diagonal stroke through it
pronounced? Is it anything like an English 'l' or is it very different?
The letter Ł is for the “W” sound in Polish, while W is pronounced as "V".
Rhino
2019-03-15 23:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Rhino
Rhino
By the way, Ed, how is the little l with the diagonal stroke through it
pronounced? Is it anything like an English 'l' or is it very different?
The letter Ł is for the “W” sound in Polish, while W is pronounced as "V".
'W' being pronounced like 'V' is familiar to me from German: Germans
always pronounce the US capital as "Vashington" (unless of course they
grew up here!). (And 'V' is pronounced 'F' by Germans so Germans
pronounce "Volkswagen" as if it was spelled "Folksvagen").

You don't write "Warsaw" as "ŁARSAŁ" do you? I've never seen a
Polish-language map that I recall. Oh, wait, you write it "Warsaw" but
pronounce it "Varsav", right?
--
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-16 00:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
The letter Ł is for the “W” sound in Polish, while W is pronounced as "V".
You don't write "Warsaw" as "ŁARSAŁ" do you? I've never seen a
Polish-language map that I recall. Oh, wait, you write it "Warsaw"
but pronounce it "Varsav", right?
“Varshava”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pl-Warszawa.ogg
Rhino
2019-03-16 01:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Rhino
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
The letter Ł is for the “W” sound in Polish, while W is pronounced as "V".
You don't write "Warsaw" as "ŁARSAŁ" do you? I've never seen a
Polish-language map that I recall. Oh, wait, you write it "Warsaw"
but pronounce it "Varsav", right?
“Varshava”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pl-Warszawa.ogg
Cool! At least now if I hear Poles speaking I will recognize the name of
the capital if I hear it!
--
Rhino
anim8rfsk
2019-03-16 02:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Rhino
Rhino
By the way, Ed, how is the little l with the diagonal stroke through it
pronounced? Is it anything like an English 'l' or is it very different?
The letter Ł is for the “W” sound in Polish, while W is pronounced as "V".
'W' being pronounced like 'V' is familiar to me from German: Germans
always pronounce the US capital as "Vashington" (unless of course they
grew up here!). (And 'V' is pronounced 'F' by Germans so Germans
pronounce "Volkswagen" as if it was spelled "Folksvagen").
You don't write "Warsaw" as "ŁARSAŁ" do you? I've never seen a
Polish-language map that I recall. Oh, wait, you write it "Warsaw" but
pronounce it "Varsav", right?
It's pronounced "Throat Warbler Mangrove"
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Rhino
2019-03-16 01:16:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Rhino
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
Then he drives off muttering about stuff (somethingsomething
“funeral, don’t matter”)
What kind of accent did the shooter have? New Zealander, I'm
guessing.... Then again, if someone put together a false flag incident
and got sloppy, the shooters could be from damn near anywhere.
He’s apparently Australian but the first video I saw (the YouTube one)
was mostly him driving around and I knew it would be take down soon,
so I FF thru it until I got to the shooting parts.
In the video that Robin Miller posted, (which was the actual killing of
the people in the mosque) I didn’t hear him say anything.
Stuff he had written on his rifle and gear with a paint-pen;
https://i.postimg.cc/gJv3hK8W/1552624499609.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/vTh9qH02/1552618077809.png
https://i.postimg.cc/02576DNT/1552618218686.png
https://i.postimg.cc/HWzyCntB/1552622929970.png
https://i.postimg.cc/ZqzRNzcW/1552623485503.png
https://i.postimg.cc/RFVv1SnZ/1552623724654.png
I finally stumbled on the video by accident. I was reading an item about
it and a commenter provided this link. Much to my surprise, it still
worked:

https://trendingviews.co/video/mass-shooter-livestreams-new-zealand-christchurch-mosque-attack-4-dead-or-injured-5810.html

I'm not sure if this is the complete livestream. It's just 16 minutes
long and it starts when he's getting in his car about to go to the first
mosque but ends before he enters the second mosque. I'm not sure if he
livestreamed all the way to his capture or if he turned off the camera
after the first mosque.

Some weird things in the video beyond what anyone else has mentioned:
1. The first music he plays in the car radio - I'm guessing its a CD or
MP3 playlist - sounds like it might be south-east European. (One article
I read said there is speculation that he is a Serb who emigrated to
Australia, then moved to New Zealand.) I don't pretend to know either
Serbian or middle eastern music very well but I have heard bits and
pieces and this music sounded more European than middle-eastern; I don't
think the Arabs use accordions in their music! This might tend to
support the idea that he is Serbian or at least from that part of Europe.
2. Near the end of the video, he apparently fires a shotgun out his own
front windshield as he is driving, yet we see no glass flying and no
obvious starring of the glass. I don't know if he fired a blank or he
had some kind of round that would go through glass and just leave a
clean hole with no starring. Knowing very little about guns, I would
have expected to see a lot more damage to the windshield. He also fires
a couple of times out the passenger side window and again the glass is
not shattered, even though the window appears to be up. I don't know
what to make of that.
--
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-16 02:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Rhino
I'm not sure if this is the complete livestream. It's just 16 minutes long
That’s all there was, he got cut-off by the streaming host at that point.
1. The first music he plays in the car radio
It’s from a really bad Serbian music video made during the Yugoslav
civil war that became a meme.


2. Near the end of the video, he apparently fires a shotgun out his
own front windshield
A car windshield is made of layers of glass and plastic and is made
not to shatter but we can see “fogging” of the windshield right above
the dash board and I think the holes just don’t show up well on video
with a GoPro camera
He also fires a couple of times out the passenger side window and
again the glass is not shattered
No, the passenger side window does shatter into tiny bits.
Rhino
2019-03-16 04:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Rhino
I'm not sure if this is the complete livestream. It's just 16 minutes long
That’s all there was, he got cut-off by the streaming host at that point.
1. The first music he plays in the car radio
It’s from a really bad Serbian music video made during the Yugoslav
civil war that became a meme.
http://youtu.be/FIcxqVRLEWI
I'm dead impressed: I never imagined you actually knew the song in
question! I figured if I was very lucky you might agree that it sounded
more European than Arabic....

By the way, just after I wrote that bit about the shooter maybe being
Serbian, I scrolled down the page just beyond what was visible and it
says he's Australian born and his name doesn't look very Serbian. Then
again, his father might have been Aussie while his mother is/was a Serb.
I suppose some of that will come out in due course. Or maybe he just
hung out with Serbian-Aussies and came to like their music. I'm guessing
someone else with familiarity with Serbia's music may have recognized
the song like you did and started the speculation that he was Serbian
based on that, before his name was known....
Post by Ed Stasiak
2. Near the end of the video, he apparently fires a shotgun out his
own front windshield
A car windshield is made of layers of glass and plastic and is made
not to shatter but we can see “fogging” of the windshield right above
the dash board and I think the holes just don’t show up well on video
with a GoPro camera
I thought that might be the case.... I just expected a more dramatic and
visible result. (A truck spit a stone up at me one time and my window
cracked all the way across. I thought a shotgun blast would even more
visible damage!) I was also astounded at how quiet the shotgun was,
especially within the confines of a car. I would have expected it to be
damn near deafening.
Post by Ed Stasiak
He also fires a couple of times out the passenger side window and
again the glass is not shattered
No, the passenger side window does shatter into tiny bits.
I *did* see some stuff fall from the passenger window but it wasn't
until the final shot. Would he really have to shoot it multiple times
from point blank range to break the glass?
--
Rhino
BTR1701
2019-03-16 02:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
I finally stumbled on the video by accident. I was reading an item about
it and a commenter provided this link. Much to my surprise, it still
https://trendingviews.co/video/mass-shooter-livestreams-new-zealand-christchur
ch-mosque-attack-4-dead-or-injured-5810.html
2. Near the end of the video, he apparently fires a shotgun out his own
front windshield as he is driving, yet we see no glass flying and no
obvious starring of the glass. I don't know if he fired a blank or he
had some kind of round that would go through glass and just leave a
clean hole with no starring. Knowing very little about guns, I would
have expected to see a lot more damage to the windshield.
He it the window near the bottom and it left a large hole.
Post by Rhino
He also fires a couple of times out the passenger side window and again
the glass is not shattered, even though the window appears to be up. I
don't know what to make of that.
Umm... the side window did shatter, almost completely.

The question is why he was doing that. Was he planning doing a
run-and-gun and just shooting random pedestrians along the road
throughout the city? If so, that'd kinda give lie to his whole rant
about his Muslim motivation.
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-15 03:03:55 UTC
Permalink
Ed Stasiak
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
Already gone.

Crazy White guy with an AR rifle (with all kinda stuff written on it in paint pen)
wearing a GoPro camera going around shooting dozens of Muslims in a mosque.
Your Name
2019-03-15 05:09:46 UTC
Permalink
Ed Stasiak
Post by Ed Stasiak
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
Already gone.
Crazy White guy with an AR rifle (with all kinda stuff written on it in
paint pen) wearing a GoPro camera going around shooting dozens of
Muslims in a mosque.
Short version: Another lunatic. :-(
Robin Miller
2019-03-15 03:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
As of right now you can watch some of it here:

https://twitter.com/Realjackdawkins/status/1106380097278361600

It is horrific.

--Robin
anim8rfsk
2019-03-15 04:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:12:57 -0700 Robin Miller<***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!

You cansearch Twitter (https://twitter.com/search-home)using the search box
below orreturn to the homepage (https://twitter.com/).
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Rhino
2019-03-15 04:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rfsk
Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!
You cansearch Twitter (https://twitter.com/search-home)using the search box
below orreturn to the homepage (https://twitter.com/).
If it violated the YouTube terms of reference, it probably violated the
Twitter terms as well.
--
Rhino
Robin Miller
2019-03-15 04:39:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rfsk
Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!
You cansearch Twitter (https://twitter.com/search-home)using the search box
below orreturn to the homepage (https://twitter.com/).
They were on that quick.

--Robin
Rhino
2019-03-15 04:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin Miller
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
https://twitter.com/Realjackdawkins/status/1106380097278361600
It is horrific.
I believe you but it's gone from Twitter now too.
--
Rhino
Your Name
2019-03-16 01:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin Miller
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
https://twitter.com/Realjackdawkins/status/1106380097278361600
It is horrific.
--Robin
Then stop posting links to it!!! :-\
Rhino
2019-03-16 01:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin Miller
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
https://twitter.com/Realjackdawkins/status/1106380097278361600
It is horrific.
--Robin
Then stop posting links to it!!!  :-\
Nobody's making you watch. You know that, right?
--
Rhino
Your Name
2019-03-16 02:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/IDIOTIC_LINK
https://twitter.com/IDIOTIC_LINK
It is horrific.
--Robin
Then stop posting links to it!!!  :-\
Nobody's making you watch. You know that, right?
I haven't watched it and don't want to. Giving more and more publicity
to these types of morons is idiotic.
EGK
2019-03-16 04:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Robin Miller
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
https://twitter.com/Realjackdawkins/status/1106380097278361600
It is horrific.
--Robin
Then stop posting links to it!!!  :-\
Nobody's making you watch. You know that, right?
Yet you guys are discussing it like it's just another fucking TV show.
t***@gmail.com
2019-03-16 05:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by EGK
Post by Rhino
Post by Robin Miller
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
https://twitter.com/Realjackdawkins/status/1106380097278361600
It is horrific.
--Robin
Then stop posting links to it!!!  :-\
Nobody's making you watch. You know that, right?
Yet you guys are discussing it like it's just another fucking TV show.
It's not another TV show... there were no commercials



------------

Too soon?

anim8rfsk
2019-03-16 02:34:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin Miller
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
https://twitter.com/Realjackdawkins/status/1106380097278361600
It is horrific.
--Robin
Then stop posting links to it!!! :-\
Hey, Robin posts about horrific TV almost every day!!
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
anim8rfsk
2019-03-15 03:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
This video has been removed for violating YouTube's policy on violent or
graphic content.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
RichA
2019-03-15 06:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no one available to defend the people because the only people (aside from police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North Korea) with guns are criminals.
Your Name
2019-03-15 06:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside from
police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North Korea)
with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far more
than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be anti-social
criminal morons who smuggle weapons, for example.

ONE shooting in New Zealand in how many months / years?? How many more
shootings in America during the same time period??

A few people killed in New Zeland - how many *hundreds* (if not
thousands) killed in Amerca??

Even accounting for the massive difference in population, the sheer
numbers prove America has not got it right.
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-15 06:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside from
police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North Korea)
with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far more
than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be anti-social criminal
morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
Except gun control laws can’t and won’t do shit, as you point out yourself
and as this incident brutally proves; gun control does nothing but leave
the law abiding victims completely defenseless.

Video of the killing for those who might have missed it:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/

As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away except
you can’t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried to stop the shooter,
only got mowed down as he could do nothing except to desperately try and
tackle the killer with his bare hands.
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-15 07:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Ed Stasiak
Your Name
Post by RichA
RichA
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside from
police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North Korea)
with guns are criminals.
Sorry, that should have been lebled as a quote from RichA, dunno how I got
my name in there.
BTR1701
2019-03-15 14:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside from
police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North Korea)
with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far more
than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be anti-social
criminal morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
Except gun control laws can't and won't do shit, as you point out yourself
and as this incident brutally proves; gun control does nothing but leave
the law abiding victims completely defenseless.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/
"This video has been blocked for breaching the site community
guidelines, and is currently unavailable."
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-15 15:28:06 UTC
Permalink
BTR1701
Ed Stasiak
“This video has been blocked for breaching the site community
guidelines, and is currently unavailable."
I have webm video files of the shooting but I don’t know how to post
them here.

It’s been claimed that the New Zealand and Australian governments
are the ones demanding various websites pull the videos, no doubt
to control the narrative.

I’d suggest going to 4chan’s “politically incorrect” board and checking
one of the threads about this incident, which is where I got the webms
in the first place.
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-15 15:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Ed Stasiak
It’s been claimed that the New Zealand and Australian governments
are the ones demanding various websites pull the videos, no doubt
to control the narrative.
Also, the shooter’s Twitter account was quickly suspended but not
before it was archived by others.

Supposedly, the account was only set-up a couple of days before the
attack and then filled with all kinda White nationalist stuff by the shooter.

https://archive.fo/search/?q=aC2FQ
BTR1701
2019-03-15 18:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
BTR1701
Ed Stasiak
“This video has been blocked for breaching the site community
guidelines, and is currently unavailable."
I have webm video files of the shooting but I don’t know how to post
them here.
It’s been claimed that the New Zealand and Australian governments
are the ones demanding various websites pull the videos, no doubt
to control the narrative.
Speaking of controlling the narrative...

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190225/17305941673/new-florida-bill-seeks-to-bury-recordings-mass-shootings.shtml

New Florida Bill Seeks to Bury Recordings of Mass Shootings

Florida legislators are thinking about handing some opacity back to Florida
law enforcement agencies in the wake of the Parkland school shooting. The
tragedy of the event was compounded by on-site law enforcement's response:
that is, there wasn't any. Faced with increased scrutiny over a handful of
mass shootings in the state, at least one legislator's response has been to
bury the bad news under a new public records exemption.

In less than three years, Florida has seen the
second-deadliest mass shooting-- Pulse
nightclub-- and the second-deadliest school
shooting-- Marjory Stoneman Douglas High
School. One gunman killed five at the Fort
Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.
Another killed five at a Sebring bank.

Yet Senate Bill 186 would create an exemption to
the state’s public records law for all photographs
and audio and video recordings that relate to the
"killing of a victim of mass violence". The bill
defines mass violence as the killing of at least
three people, not including the perpetrator.
Violation would be a third-degree felony,
punishable by up to five years in prison.

Senator Tom Lee's bill is a gift to the government at large, even if law
enforcement agencies and schools will be the most direct recipients of this
largesse. If this "privacy protection" had been in place a few years ago,
the public would have had no idea how badly the Broward County Sheriff's
Department botched its response to the school shooting. Not only would that
have kept the BCSD relatively free of criticism, it would have shielded its
oversight -- state legislators -- from being asked what they were doing to
prevent school shootings and/or ensure better response from those expected
to serve and protect the public.

Supporters of bills like these claim it's all about protecting the privacy
of crime victims and their families. But as the excellent Sun Sentinel
op-ed points out, most requests to block release of recordings originates
with governments and businesses rather than the victims and their loved
ones. These requests have prevented the public from accessing key details
in everything from Dale Earnhardt's Daytona crash to an inmate's death at
the hands of jailers.

The law already blocks the release of recordings containing the death of a
law enforcement officer. This addition could be read to cover any deadly
incident in which more than one person is killed. Any whistleblower
releasing recordings to show the public what really happened -- rather than
the official narrative -- will now face felony criminal charges for doing
the right thing. This isn't going to restore confidence in government
agencies and their response to deadly incidents. All it will do is drive a
wedge between them and the people they serve.
t***@gmail.com
2019-03-15 18:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
BTR1701
Ed Stasiak
“This video has been blocked for breaching the site community
guidelines, and is currently unavailable."
I have webm video files of the shooting but I don’t know how to post
them here.
It’s been claimed that the New Zealand and Australian governments
are the ones demanding various websites pull the videos, no doubt
to control the narrative.
Speaking of controlling the narrative...
Any whistleblower
releasing recordings to show the public what really happened -- rather than
the official narrative -- will now face felony criminal charges for doing
the right thing. This isn't going to restore confidence in government
agencies and their response to deadly incidents. All it will do is drive a
wedge between them and the people they serve.
You Never Can Tell - Loretta Lynch
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/a1NznIVDWj4/YW7vAFlrBgAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/voXzVAd6Uec/C-TRyO6RBQAJ
Rhino
2019-03-15 18:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
BTR1701
Ed Stasiak
“This video has been blocked for breaching the site community
guidelines, and is currently unavailable."
I have webm video files of the shooting but I don’t know how to post
them here.
It’s been claimed that the New Zealand and Australian governments
are the ones demanding various websites pull the videos, no doubt
to control the narrative.
Speaking of controlling the narrative...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190225/17305941673/new-florida-bill-seeks-to-bury-recordings-mass-shootings.shtml
New Florida Bill Seeks to Bury Recordings of Mass Shootings
Florida legislators are thinking about handing some opacity back to Florida
law enforcement agencies in the wake of the Parkland school shooting. The
that is, there wasn't any. Faced with increased scrutiny over a handful of
mass shootings in the state, at least one legislator's response has been to
bury the bad news under a new public records exemption.
In less than three years, Florida has seen the
second-deadliest mass shooting-- Pulse
nightclub-- and the second-deadliest school
shooting-- Marjory Stoneman Douglas High
School. One gunman killed five at the Fort
Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.
Another killed five at a Sebring bank.
Yet Senate Bill 186 would create an exemption to
the state’s public records law for all photographs
and audio and video recordings that relate to the
"killing of a victim of mass violence". The bill
defines mass violence as the killing of at least
three people, not including the perpetrator.
Violation would be a third-degree felony,
punishable by up to five years in prison.
Senator Tom Lee's bill is a gift to the government at large, even if law
enforcement agencies and schools will be the most direct recipients of this
largesse. If this "privacy protection" had been in place a few years ago,
the public would have had no idea how badly the Broward County Sheriff's
Department botched its response to the school shooting. Not only would that
have kept the BCSD relatively free of criticism, it would have shielded its
oversight -- state legislators -- from being asked what they were doing to
prevent school shootings and/or ensure better response from those expected
to serve and protect the public.
Supporters of bills like these claim it's all about protecting the privacy
of crime victims and their families. But as the excellent Sun Sentinel
op-ed points out, most requests to block release of recordings originates
with governments and businesses rather than the victims and their loved
ones. These requests have prevented the public from accessing key details
in everything from Dale Earnhardt's Daytona crash to an inmate's death at
the hands of jailers.
The law already blocks the release of recordings containing the death of a
law enforcement officer. This addition could be read to cover any deadly
incident in which more than one person is killed. Any whistleblower
releasing recordings to show the public what really happened -- rather than
the official narrative -- will now face felony criminal charges for doing
the right thing. This isn't going to restore confidence in government
agencies and their response to deadly incidents. All it will do is drive a
wedge between them and the people they serve.
Agreed!

Giving the government the ability to hide its own incompetence from
scrutiny does no one any favours except the momentary benefit that
government has in not being held up to scrutiny after major incidents.
But the chance of actually LEARNING from these incidents so that future
situations are handled better are lost and that is WAY more important
than any avoidance of embarrassment by government and its agencies.

If they still want to obscure faces of victims and withhold names to
protect the sensibilities of the victims' families, I think most people
would be sympathetic to that. But just suppressing all of these
recordings is going way beyond what they should be doing.
--
Rhino
Rhino
2019-03-15 17:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside from
police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North Korea)
with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far more
than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be anti-social criminal
morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
Except gun control laws can’t and won’t do shit, as you point out yourself
and as this incident brutally proves; gun control does nothing but leave
the law abiding victims completely defenseless.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/
As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away except
you can’t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried to stop the shooter,
only got mowed down as he could do nothing except to desperately try and
tackle the killer with his bare hands.
I've seen multiple accounts that one of the people in the mosque managed
to escape and came back with a rifle or shotgun; apparently the shooter
had fled by then but the Muslim might have ended the shooter's spree a
lot earlier if he'd had arms at hand. Also, the shooting might have been
deterred altogether if some of the congregants had been armed.
--
Rhino
Your Name
2019-03-15 21:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside from
police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North Korea)
with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far more
than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be anti-social
criminal morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
Except gun control laws can’t and won’t do shit, as you point out yourself
and as this incident brutally proves; gun control does nothing but leave
the law abiding victims completely defenseless.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/
As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away except
you can’t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried to stop the shooter,
only got mowed down as he could do nothing except to desperately try and
tackle the killer with his bare hands.
I've seen multiple accounts that one of the people in the mosque
managed to escape and came back with a rifle or shotgun; apparently the
shooter had fled by then but the Muslim might have ended the shooter's
spree a lot earlier if he'd had arms at hand. Also, the shooting might
have been deterred altogether if some of the congregants had been armed.
If they were no guns at all, it wouldn't have happened at all. :-\

There is absolutely zero sensible reason for the general public to ever
own a gun.
t***@gmail.com
2019-03-15 21:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Post by Rhino
Your Name
I've seen multiple accounts that one of the people in the mosque
managed to escape and came back with a rifle or shotgun; apparently the
shooter had fled by then but the Muslim might have ended the shooter's
spree a lot earlier if he'd had arms at hand. Also, the shooting might
have been deterred altogether if some of the congregants had been armed.
If they were no guns at all, it wouldn't have happened at all. :-\
There is absolutely zero sensible reason for the general public to ever
own a gun.
As both an antiwar activist and 2nd amendment gun owner I say, Bullshit!

Besides, the shooter didn't need guns to do what he set out to do, he says as much in his manifesto. Have we forgotten Boston marathon's pressure cooker and 9/11's airplanes?
BTR1701
2019-03-15 21:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside from
police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North Korea)
with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far more
than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be anti-social
criminal morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
Except gun control laws can’t and won’t do shit, as you point out yourself
and as this incident brutally proves; gun control does nothing but leave
the law abiding victims completely defenseless.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/
As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away except
you can’t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried to stop the shooter,
only got mowed down as he could do nothing except to desperately try and
tackle the killer with his bare hands.
I've seen multiple accounts that one of the people in the mosque
managed to escape and came back with a rifle or shotgun; apparently the
shooter had fled by then but the Muslim might have ended the shooter's
spree a lot earlier if he'd had arms at hand. Also, the shooting might
have been deterred altogether if some of the congregants had been armed.
If they were no guns at all, it wouldn't have happened at all. :-\
There is absolutely zero sensible reason for the general public to ever
own a gun.
My sister is alive today because she not only owned a gun but had it in her
purse when she was attacked by a man who later turned out to have raped and
murdered two other women.

I suspect she'd disagree with you that there is no sensible reason for her
to own a gun.
Rhino
2019-03-15 22:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals.  New
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens.  And no
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside from
police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North Korea)
with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far more
than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be anti-social
criminal morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
Except gun control laws can’t and won’t do shit, as you point out yourself
and as this incident brutally proves; gun control does nothing but leave
the law abiding victims completely defenseless.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/
As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away except
you can’t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried to stop the shooter,
only got mowed down as he could do nothing except to desperately try and
tackle the killer with his bare hands.
I've seen multiple accounts that one of the people in the mosque
managed to escape and came back with a rifle or shotgun; apparently
the shooter had fled by then but the Muslim might have ended the
shooter's spree a lot earlier if he'd had arms at hand. Also, the
shooting might have been deterred altogether if some of the
congregants had been armed.
If they were no guns at all, it wouldn't have happened at all.   :-\
There is absolutely zero sensible reason for the general public to ever
own a gun.
And how do you plan to keep the criminals from getting them? Or are you
assuming they're so decent that they just won't get them?
--
Rhino
Your Name
2019-03-16 01:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals.  New
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens.  And no
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside from
police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North Korea)
with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far more
than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be anti-social
criminal morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
Except gun control laws can’t and won’t do shit, as you point out yourself
and as this incident brutally proves; gun control does nothing but leave
the law abiding victims completely defenseless.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/
As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away except
you can’t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried to stop the
shooter, only got mowed down as he could do nothing except to
desperately try and tackle the killer with his bare hands.
I've seen multiple accounts that one of the people in the mosque
managed to escape and came back with a rifle or shotgun; apparently the
shooter had fled by then but the Muslim might have ended the shooter's
spree a lot earlier if he'd had arms at hand. Also, the shooting might
have been deterred altogether if some of the congregants had been armed.
If they were no guns at all, it wouldn't have happened at all.   :-\
There is absolutely zero sensible reason for the general public to ever
own a gun.
And how do you plan to keep the criminals from getting them? Or are you
assuming they're so decent that they just won't get them?
That has nothing to do with the general public having a gun. :-\
Giving every wannbe Rambo a gun to "protect themselves" is an idiotic nonsense.

You obviously can't stop everyone (well, you can by allowing Trump the
Chump to push his big red button and wiping human beings ut of
existence) ... but if there are fewer guns around it is obvioulsy more
difficult for morons to get hold of one. Simple statistical fact, one
already proven by far fewer gun-related crimes in countries that
already have tougher gun laws vs the large number in America every week.
Rhino
2019-03-16 01:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals.  New
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens.
And no
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside from
police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North Korea)
with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far more
than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be
anti-social criminal morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
Except gun control laws can’t and won’t do shit, as you point out yourself
and as this incident brutally proves; gun control does nothing but leave
the law abiding victims completely defenseless.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/
As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away except
you can’t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried to stop
the shooter, only got mowed down as he could do nothing except to
desperately try and tackle the killer with his bare hands.
I've seen multiple accounts that one of the people in the mosque
managed to escape and came back with a rifle or shotgun; apparently
the shooter had fled by then but the Muslim might have ended the
shooter's spree a lot earlier if he'd had arms at hand. Also, the
shooting might have been deterred altogether if some of the
congregants had been armed.
If they were no guns at all, it wouldn't have happened at all.   :-\
There is absolutely zero sensible reason for the general public to
ever own a gun.
And how do you plan to keep the criminals from getting them? Or are
you assuming they're so decent that they just won't get them?
That has nothing to do with the general public having a gun.  :-\
Giving every wannbe Rambo a gun to "protect themselves" is an idiotic nonsense.
Sure it is. Right up until you come face to face with an armed thug who
means to harm you or yours. THEN, you may well wish you were armed
yourself but it'll be too late. And while you're realizing that fact and
thinking about calling the police - assuming an opportunity to do that
even exists - remember that they are at least minutes away while the
thug is right there and probably ready to do whatever he plans to do.
That's a really lousy situation to be in. I wouldn't wish that on you
but you might persuade your politicians to ensure that is how things
work out, in which case your demise or that of your loved ones is
self-inflicted.
You obviously can't stop everyone (well, you can by allowing Trump the
Chump to push his big red button and wiping human beings ut of
existence) ... but if there are fewer guns around it is obvioulsy more
difficult for morons to get hold of one. Simple statistical fact, one
already proven by far fewer gun-related crimes in countries that already
have tougher gun laws vs the large number in America every week.
You're right in a sense. The UK has fairly strict gun control so their
thugs are more likely to use knives, acid, or bombs. I saw a video the
other day where London mayor Sadiq Khan literally rolled his eyes when
someone asked him what the London police were doing about knife crime.
(They have almost 900 officers dedicated to monitoring the internet for
"hate crimes"; that is apparently a much higher priority than preventing
knife attacks.)

But even the UK has gun crime because their bad guys are able to get
guns. I remember two constables being shot dead in Manchester (?) a
couple of years ago when they responded to an "unknown trouble" call at
a vacant house. Someone was lying in wait for them and shot them both.
They, of course, were unarmed. I never heard if the shooter was
eventually caught but he hadn't been when I heard about the story.
Are New Zealand police armed with firearms? Or do they do the same as
the Brits and leave their officers unarmed with only a few armed
response units on call if armed force is needed? Any idea how long you
have to wait for them to show up if you're in need of an armed officer?
I'm betting it's more likely to take hours than seconds, especially if
you're not in a major city.
--
Rhino
anim8rfsk
2019-03-16 02:36:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens.
And no
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside
from
police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North
Korea)
with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far
more
than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be
anti-social criminal morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
Except gun control laws can’t and won’t do shit, as you point out
yourself
and as this incident brutally proves; gun control does nothing but
leave
the law abiding victims completely defenseless.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/
As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away
except
you can’t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried to stop
the shooter, only got mowed down as he could do nothing except to
desperately try and tackle the killer with his bare hands.
I've seen multiple accounts that one of the people in the mosque
managed to escape and came back with a rifle or shotgun; apparently
the shooter had fled by then but the Muslim might have ended the
shooter's spree a lot earlier if he'd had arms at hand. Also, the
shooting might have been deterred altogether if some of the
congregants had been armed.
If they were no guns at all, it wouldn't have happened at all. :-\
There is absolutely zero sensible reason for the general public to
ever own a gun.
And how do you plan to keep the criminals from getting them? Or are
you assuming they're so decent that they just won't get them?
That has nothing to do with the general public having a gun. :-\
Giving every wannbe Rambo a gun to "protect themselves" is an idiotic nonsense.
Sure it is. Right up until you come face to face with an armed thug who
means to harm you or yours. THEN, you may well wish you were armed
yourself but it'll be too late. And while you're realizing that fact and
thinking about calling the police - assuming an opportunity to do that
even exists - remember that they are at least minutes away while the
thug is right there and probably ready to do whatever he plans to do.
That's a really lousy situation to be in. I wouldn't wish that on you
but you might persuade your politicians to ensure that is how things
work out, in which case your demise or that of your loved ones is
self-inflicted.
You obviously can't stop everyone (well, you can by allowing Trump the
Chump to push his big red button and wiping human beings ut of
existence) ... but if there are fewer guns around it is obvioulsy more
difficult for morons to get hold of one. Simple statistical fact, one
already proven by far fewer gun-related crimes in countries that already
have tougher gun laws vs the large number in America every week.
You're right in a sense. The UK has fairly strict gun control so their
thugs are more likely to use knives, acid, or bombs. I saw a video the
other day where London mayor Sadiq Khan literally rolled his eyes when
someone asked him what the London police were doing about knife crime.
(They have almost 900 officers dedicated to monitoring the internet for
"hate crimes"; that is apparently a much higher priority than preventing
knife attacks.)
But even the UK has gun crime because their bad guys are able to get
guns. I remember two constables being shot dead in Manchester (?) a
couple of years ago when they responded to an "unknown trouble" call at
a vacant house. Someone was lying in wait for them and shot them both.
They, of course, were unarmed. I never heard if the shooter was
eventually caught but he hadn't been when I heard about the story.
Are New Zealand police armed with firearms? Or do they do the same as
the Brits and leave their officers unarmed with only a few armed
response units on call if armed force is needed? Any idea how long you
have to wait for them to show up if you're in need of an armed officer?
I'm betting it's more likely to take hours than seconds, especially if
you're not in a major city.
I think it was THE BODYGUARD that gave me a chuckle when they'd enter
shouting ARMED POLICE. Meaning if they *don't* yell that, they're sitting
ducks.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
BTR1701
2019-03-16 03:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rfsk
I think it was THE BODYGUARD that gave me a chuckle when they'd enter
shouting ARMED POLICE. Meaning if they *don't* yell that, they're sitting
ducks.
Or it's illegal to shoot someone in self-defense unless they've warned
them they're armed first.
Your Name
2019-03-16 03:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals.  New
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside from
police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North Korea)
with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far more
than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be anti-social
criminal morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
Except gun control laws can’t and won’t do shit, as you point out yourself
and as this incident brutally proves; gun control does nothing but leave
the law abiding victims completely defenseless.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/
As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away except
you can’t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried to stop the
shooter, only got mowed down as he could do nothing except to
desperately try and tackle the killer with his bare hands.
I've seen multiple accounts that one of the people in the mosque
managed to escape and came back with a rifle or shotgun; apparently the
shooter had fled by then but the Muslim might have ended the shooter's
spree a lot earlier if he'd had arms at hand. Also, the shooting might
have been deterred altogether if some of the congregants had been armed.
If they were no guns at all, it wouldn't have happened at all.   :-\
There is absolutely zero sensible reason for the general public to ever
own a gun.
And how do you plan to keep the criminals from getting them? Or are you
assuming they're so decent that they just won't get them?
That has nothing to do with the general public having a gun.  :-\
Giving every wannbe Rambo a gun to "protect themselves" is an idiotic nonsense.
Sure it is. Right up until you come face to face with an armed thug who
means to harm you or yours. THEN, you may well wish you were armed
yourself but it'll be too late. And while you're realizing that fact
and thinking about calling the police - assuming an opportunity to do
that even exists - remember that they are at least minutes away while
the thug is right there and probably ready to do whatever he plans to
do. That's a really lousy situation to be in. I wouldn't wish that on
you but you might persuade your politicians to ensure that is how
things work out, in which case your demise or that of your loved ones
is self-inflicted.
You obviously can't stop everyone (well, you can by allowing Trump the
Chump to push his big red button and wiping human beings ut of
existence) ... but if there are fewer guns around it is obvioulsy more
difficult for morons to get hold of one. Simple statistical fact, one
already proven by far fewer gun-related crimes in countries that
already have tougher gun laws vs the large number in America every week.
You're right in a sense. The UK has fairly strict gun control so their
thugs are more likely to use knives, acid, or bombs. I saw a video the
other day where London mayor Sadiq Khan literally rolled his eyes when
someone asked him what the London police were doing about knife crime.
(They have almost 900 officers dedicated to monitoring the internet for
"hate crimes"; that is apparently a much higher priority than
preventing knife attacks.)
But even the UK has gun crime because their bad guys are able to get
guns. I remember two constables being shot dead in Manchester (?) a
couple of years ago when they responded to an "unknown trouble" call at
a vacant house. Someone was lying in wait for them and shot them both.
They, of course, were unarmed. I never heard if the shooter was
eventually caught but he hadn't been when I heard about the story.
As I said, you can't ever stop all the morons, but you can make it far
more difficult for tham, and it DOES reduce the number of gun crimes
and the number of deaths. A rapid-fire gun can quickly kill far more
people than a knife ever can. Getting rid of easy access to guns DOES
work.
Post by Rhino
Are New Zealand police armed with firearms? Or do they do the same as
the Brits and leave their officers unarmed with only a few armed
response units on call if armed force is needed? Any idea how long you
have to wait for them to show up if you're in need of an armed officer?
I'm betting it's more likely to take hours than seconds, especially if
you're not in a major city.
The New Zealand police have specially trained Armed Response Units.
Regular police do not carry guns. In some cases (rural areas for
example), they maybe the doing both jobs, but they still do not
regularly carry a gun.

Regular police do not carry dogs either (ther are specific Dog Units)
... do you expect them all to carry a dog around too in case they need
to track someone?!?

There is NO need for the general public to have a gun. There is NO need
for the gernal police to carry a gun. It's a incredibly simple fact
proven in most countries by the far lower statistics than occur in
gun-fanatic America.
A Friend
2019-03-15 22:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Post by Rhino
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside from
police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North Korea)
with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far more
than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be anti-social
criminal morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
Except gun control laws can¹t and won¹t do shit, as you point out yourself
and as this incident brutally proves; gun control does nothing but leave
the law abiding victims completely defenseless.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/
As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away except
you can¹t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried to stop the
shooter,
only got mowed down as he could do nothing except to desperately try and
tackle the killer with his bare hands.
I've seen multiple accounts that one of the people in the mosque
managed to escape and came back with a rifle or shotgun; apparently the
shooter had fled by then but the Muslim might have ended the shooter's
spree a lot earlier if he'd had arms at hand. Also, the shooting might
have been deterred altogether if some of the congregants had been armed.
If they were no guns at all, it wouldn't have happened at all. :-\
There is absolutely zero sensible reason for the general public to ever
own a gun.
And that's nonsense. Self-defense is a very sensible reason.
Your Name
2019-03-15 21:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New> >
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no>
Post by RichA
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside
from> > police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North
Korea)> > with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far
more> than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be
anti-social criminal
morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
Except gun control laws can’t and won’t do shit, as you point out yourself
and as this incident brutally proves; gun control does nothing but leave
the law abiding victims completely defenseless.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/
As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away except
you can’t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried to stop
the shooter,
only got mowed down as he could do nothing except to desperately try and
tackle the killer with his bare hands.
Completely wrong.

Tough gun laws means there are less guns on the streets, so it's more
difficult for scumbags to get hold of them, especially rapid-fire
machine guns. Unlike America, where any looney can, and does, easily
get hold of a rapid-fire gun and simply spray bullets around.
BTR1701
2019-03-15 21:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New> >
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no>
Post by RichA
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside
Post by RichA
police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North
Korea)> > with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far
than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be
anti-social criminal
morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
Except gun control laws can’t and won’t do shit, as you point out yourself
and as this incident brutally proves; gun control does nothing but leave
the law abiding victims completely defenseless.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/
As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away except
you can’t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried to stop
the shooter,
only got mowed down as he could do nothing except to desperately try and
tackle the killer with his bare hands.
Completely wrong.
Tough gun laws means there are less guns on the streets, so it's more
difficult for scumbags to get hold of them, especially rapid-fire
machine guns. Unlike America, where any looney can, and does, easily
get hold of a rapid-fire gun and simply spray bullets around.
That's simply wrong. Automatic weapons are *not* in any way, shape or form
easily available in the U.S.
Your Name
2019-03-16 01:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New> >
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no>
Post by RichA
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside
from> > police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North
Korea)> > with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far
more> than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be
anti-social criminal
morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
Except gun control laws can’t and won’t do shit, as you point out yourself
and as this incident brutally proves; gun control does nothing but leave
the law abiding victims completely defenseless.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/
As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away except
you can’t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried to stop the
shooter, only got mowed down as he could do nothing except to
desperately try and tackle the killer with his bare hands.
The absolute last thing such a situation needs is another idiotic
gun-totting moron from the general public trying to be a wannbe hero.
Rhino
2019-03-16 01:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Post by Ed Stasiak
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals.
New> > Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still
happens.  And no> > one available to defend the people because the
only people (aside from> > police who can't be everywhere at once,
unless you are in North Korea)> > with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far
more> than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be
anti-social criminal
morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
Except gun control laws can’t and won’t do shit, as you point out yourself
and as this incident brutally proves; gun control does nothing but leave
the law abiding victims completely defenseless.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/
As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away except
you can’t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried to stop the
shooter, only got mowed down as he could do nothing except to
desperately try and tackle the killer with his bare hands.
The absolute last thing such a situation needs is another idiotic
gun-totting moron from the general public trying to be a wannbe hero.
And what about, say, a present or former police officer or present or
former
soldier with proper training?
--
Rhino
Your Name
2019-03-16 03:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Post by Ed Stasiak
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New> >
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens.  And no>
Post by RichA
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside
from> > police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North
Korea)> > with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far
more> than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be
anti-social criminal morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
Except gun control laws can’t and won’t do shit, as you point out yourself
and as this incident brutally proves; gun control does nothing but leave
the law abiding victims completely defenseless.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/
As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away except
you can’t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried to stop the
shooter, only got mowed down as he could do nothing except to
desperately try and tackle the killer with his bare hands.
The absolute last thing such a situation needs is another idiotic
gun-totting moron from the general public trying to be a wannbe hero.
And what about, say, a present or former police officer or present or former
soldier with proper training?
The chances are low, but since they are "former" or off duty they are
now just the general public and shouldn't have a gun either.

For a start, when the actual police arrive they won't be able to tell
the difference between two gun totting morons (hell, it's even a
standard TV plot that the baddie pretends to be a goodie to get away).
The wannbe "hero" is simply likely to get themselves killed.
BTR1701
2019-03-16 03:20:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Post by Your Name
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New> >
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens.  And no>
Post by RichA
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside
from> > police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North
Korea)> > with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far
more> than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be
anti-social criminal morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
Except gun control laws can’t and won’t do shit, as you point out yourself
and as this incident brutally proves; gun control does nothing but leave
the law abiding victims completely defenseless.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ik6VYAJGF7os/
As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away except
you can’t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried to stop the
shooter, only got mowed down as he could do nothing except to
desperately try and tackle the killer with his bare hands.
The absolute last thing such a situation needs is another idiotic
gun-totting moron from the general public trying to be a wannbe hero.
And what about, say, a present or former police officer or present or former
soldier with proper training?
The chances are low, but since they are "former" or off duty they are
now just the general public and shouldn't have a gun either.
For a start, when the actual police arrive they won't be able to tell
the difference between two gun totting morons
Why do you keep saying 'gun-totting'?

Is that some kiwi phrase? 'Cause here if you want to throw out that lame
epithet, it's 'gun-toting'.
Post by Your Name
The wannbe "hero" is simply likely to get themselves killed.
We've had plenty of armed citizens stop criminals in the act and they
rarely, if ever, are shot by the police. I can't think of any off the
top of my head.
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-16 02:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away
except you can’t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried
to stop the shooter, only got mowed down as he could do nothing
except to desperately try and tackle the killer with his bare hands.
The absolute last thing such a situation needs is another idiotic
gun-totting moron from the general public trying to be a wannbe hero.
Yes, it’s much better that 50 people get slaughtered like sheep so you
can play the useful idiot….
Your Name
2019-03-16 03:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Your Name
Ed Stasiak
As you can see, the victims could do nothing but try and run away
except you can’t out run a bullet and the only guy who even tried
to stop the shooter, only got mowed down as he could do nothing
except to desperately try and tackle the killer with his bare hands.
The absolute last thing such a situation needs is another idiotic
gun-totting moron from the general public trying to be a wannbe hero.
Yes, it’s much better that 50 people get slaughtered like sheep so you
can play the useful idiot….
50 people in how many years?? Compared to how many hundres in Amerca
every week??

The idiots are those who simply want to play with guns and don't give a
crap about anyone else!
RichA
2019-03-15 06:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside from
police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North Korea)
with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far more
than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be anti-social
criminal morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
ONE shooting in New Zealand in how many months / years?? How many more
shootings in America during the same time period??
A few people killed in New Zeland - how many *hundreds* (if not
thousands) killed in Amerca??
Even accounting for the massive difference in population, the sheer
numbers prove America has not got it right.
No, it proves (since the Swiss all have guns and don't use them on each other) that demographics matters a lot more than guns.
BTR1701
2019-03-15 14:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New
Zealand, and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no
one available to defend the people because the only people (aside from
police who can't be everywhere at once, unless you are in North Korea)
with guns are criminals.
Tough guns laws don't (and can't) stop everyone, but they stop far more
than having weak / no laws at all. There will alsways be anti-social
criminal morons who smuggle weapons, for example.
ONE shooting in New Zealand in how many months / years?? How many more
shootings in America during the same time period??
How much bigger and more populous is America compared to New Zealand?
Post by Your Name
Even accounting for the massive difference in population, the sheer
numbers prove America has not got it right.
If 'right' means the full confiscation the Left wants (but won't say out
loud), then yeah we do currently have it right.

But it's interesting that (according to the media here), a shooting in a
foreign country on the other side of the world is proof that America
"needs gun control now!"
BTR1701
2019-03-15 14:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New Zealand,
and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no one available to
defend the people because the only people (aside from police who can't be
everywhere at once, unless you are in North Korea) with guns are criminals.
In fact, the news reported that two people who showed up with guns to
defend one of the mosques were also arrested for having guns, so even if
there are people to act in defense, they have to do so at the risk of
their own freedom.
RichA
2019-03-15 22:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New Zealand,
and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no one available to
defend the people because the only people (aside from police who can't be
everywhere at once, unless you are in North Korea) with guns are criminals.
In fact, the news reported that two people who showed up with guns to
defend one of the mosques were also arrested for having guns, so even if
there are people to act in defense, they have to do so at the risk of
their own freedom.
Liberals...
Your Name
2019-03-16 01:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
More proof gun control only works for the benefit of criminals. New
Zealand,> > and island, with gun control and this still happens. And no
one available to> > defend the people because the only people (aside
from police who can't be> > everywhere at once, unless you are in North
Korea) with guns are criminals.
In fact, the news reported that two people who showed up with guns to>
defend one of the mosques were also arrested for having guns, so even
if> there are people to act in defense, they have to do so at the risk
of> their own freedom.
Liberals...
Of course they were arrested. How are the police in the middle of the
event meant to know someone moron waving a gun around is a terrorist or
simply a wannabe "hero"??

At least one of those fools was later let go as not being involved.
(The police / TV news hasn't said whether or not they were charged with
anything else.)
RichA
2019-03-15 06:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-15 07:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.

I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
RichA
2019-03-15 07:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
A torrent site would mean it would survive a lot longer than a P.C. site like Youtube.

https://proxyproxyproxy.net
Rhino
2019-03-15 17:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
--
Rhino
t***@gmail.com
2019-03-15 17:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
RichA
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
First person shooter preview:


///


Fgernzrq sebz zl TbCeb jvgu uggcf -_yvir4.vb_i #YVIR4tbceb-2350426065176752.zc4.gbeerag
EGK
2019-03-15 17:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
Why do people want to watch that? Ed acts like he's positively having
orgasms over the videos.

I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't imagine
any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
Rhino
2019-03-15 18:48:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by EGK
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
Why do people want to watch that? Ed acts like he's positively having
orgasms over the videos.
I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't imagine
any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
Sometimes there's an intangible benefit in seeing something unedited and
uncensored, just so you can see an event as it actually happened, rather
than one that has been described by second or third-hand observers who
may impart their own biases on it. Watching that could potentially give
a person an insight into whether the shooter seemed crazy or just evil.

I watched the video that "incel killer" made in Santa Barbara a few
years ago, just before he went on his shooting rampage. It was strange
to look in his eyes and see whatever that was - rage, I suppose - as he
set out to murder people.

Mind you, I remember stumbling across videos of people jumping out of
high windows in the Twin Towers when they came down. I only lasted a few
seconds and had to turn that off. I couldn't watch those poor bastards
jump to a certain death knowing it was that or being burned alive. It
felt horribly intrusive to witness those horrific scenes. I don't envy
anyone who witnessed that in person. I can't imagine it would ever stop
haunting you.
--
Rhino
Robin Miller
2019-03-15 19:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:13:25 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
Why do people want to watch that?   Ed acts like he's positively having
orgasms over the videos.
I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't imagine
any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
Sometimes there's an intangible benefit in seeing something unedited and
uncensored, just so you can see an event as it actually happened, rather
than one that has been described by second or third-hand observers who
may impart their own biases on it. Watching that could potentially give
a person an insight into whether the shooter seemed crazy or just evil.
I watched the video that "incel killer" made in Santa Barbara a few
years ago, just before he went on his shooting rampage. It was strange
to look in his eyes and see whatever that was - rage, I suppose - as he
set out to murder people.
Mind you, I remember stumbling across videos of people jumping out of
high windows in the Twin Towers when they came down. I only lasted a few
seconds and had to turn that off. I couldn't watch those poor bastards
jump to a certain death knowing it was that or being burned alive. It
felt horribly intrusive to witness those horrific scenes. I don't envy
anyone who witnessed that in person. I can't imagine it would ever stop
haunting you.
Why do people slow down to look at accidents on the highway? There is a
certain fascination.

That said, a few years ago I watched a video from Syria of an ISIS cell
drowning a group of men in a cage they lowered into a lake using a
crane. They showed it going down and then coming back up. I can't get it
out of my mind.

--Robin
t***@gmail.com
2019-03-15 19:46:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin Miller
Post by Rhino
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:13:25 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
Why do people want to watch that?   Ed acts like he's positively having
orgasms over the videos.
I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't imagine
any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
Sometimes there's an intangible benefit in seeing something unedited and
uncensored, just so you can see an event as it actually happened, rather
than one that has been described by second or third-hand observers who
may impart their own biases on it. Watching that could potentially give
a person an insight into whether the shooter seemed crazy or just evil.
I watched the video that "incel killer" made in Santa Barbara a few
years ago, just before he went on his shooting rampage. It was strange
to look in his eyes and see whatever that was - rage, I suppose - as he
set out to murder people.
Mind you, I remember stumbling across videos of people jumping out of
high windows in the Twin Towers when they came down. I only lasted a few
seconds and had to turn that off. I couldn't watch those poor bastards
jump to a certain death knowing it was that or being burned alive. It
felt horribly intrusive to witness those horrific scenes. I don't envy
anyone who witnessed that in person. I can't imagine it would ever stop
haunting you.
Why do people slow down to look at accidents on the highway? There is a
certain fascination.
That said, a few years ago I watched a video from Syria of an ISIS cell
drowning a group of men in a cage they lowered into a lake using a
crane. They showed it going down and then coming back up. I can't get it
out of my mind.
--Robin
When we look into the abyss we sometimes absorb some of the ugly darkness, that is the danger.

Pray for peace, but work like bats out of hell for justice.
anim8rfsk
2019-03-15 20:15:14 UTC
Permalink
[OT] New Zealand Shooter: Live Vid From The Shooter
March 15, 2019 at 12:33:26 PM MST
Post by Rhino
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:13:25 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
Why do people want to watch that? Ed acts like he's positively having
orgasms over the videos.
I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't imagine
any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
Sometimes there's an intangible benefit in seeing something unedited and
uncensored, just so you can see an event as it actually happened, rather
than one that has been described by second or third-hand observers who
may impart their own biases on it. Watching that could potentially give
a person an insight into whether the shooter seemed crazy or just evil.
I watched the video that "incel killer" made in Santa Barbara a few
years ago, just before he went on his shooting rampage. It was strange
to look in his eyes and see whatever that was - rage, I suppose - as he
set out to murder people.
Mind you, I remember stumbling across videos of people jumping out of
high windows in the Twin Towers when they came down. I only lasted a few
seconds and had to turn that off. I couldn't watch those poor bastards
jump to a certain death knowing it was that or being burned alive. It
felt horribly intrusive to witness those horrific scenes. I don't envy
anyone who witnessed that in person. I can't imagine it would ever stop
haunting you.
Why do people slow down to look at accidents on the highway? There is a
certain fascination.
The same reason we read Ian's "what did you watch" posts.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Rhino
2019-03-15 20:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin Miller
Post by Rhino
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:13:25 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
Why do people want to watch that?   Ed acts like he's positively having
orgasms over the videos.
I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't imagine
any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
Sometimes there's an intangible benefit in seeing something unedited
and uncensored, just so you can see an event as it actually happened,
rather than one that has been described by second or third-hand
observers who may impart their own biases on it. Watching that could
potentially give a person an insight into whether the shooter seemed
crazy or just evil.
I watched the video that "incel killer" made in Santa Barbara a few
years ago, just before he went on his shooting rampage. It was strange
to look in his eyes and see whatever that was - rage, I suppose - as
he set out to murder people.
Mind you, I remember stumbling across videos of people jumping out of
high windows in the Twin Towers when they came down. I only lasted a
few seconds and had to turn that off. I couldn't watch those poor
bastards jump to a certain death knowing it was that or being burned
alive. It felt horribly intrusive to witness those horrific scenes. I
don't envy anyone who witnessed that in person. I can't imagine it
would ever stop haunting you.
Why do people slow down to look at accidents on the highway? There is a
certain fascination.
That said, a few years ago I watched a video from Syria of an ISIS cell
drowning a group of men in a cage they lowered into a lake using a
crane. They showed it going down and then coming back up. I can't get it
out of my mind.
I saw the one where they put a Jordanian pilot in a cage, doused him in
gasoline, then set him alight. That was pretty awful....
--
Rhino
FPP
2019-03-15 22:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Robin Miller
Post by Rhino
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:13:25 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
Why do people want to watch that?   Ed acts like he's positively having
orgasms over the videos.
I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't imagine
any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
Sometimes there's an intangible benefit in seeing something unedited
and uncensored, just so you can see an event as it actually happened,
rather than one that has been described by second or third-hand
observers who may impart their own biases on it. Watching that could
potentially give a person an insight into whether the shooter seemed
crazy or just evil.
I watched the video that "incel killer" made in Santa Barbara a few
years ago, just before he went on his shooting rampage. It was
strange to look in his eyes and see whatever that was - rage, I
suppose - as he set out to murder people.
Mind you, I remember stumbling across videos of people jumping out of
high windows in the Twin Towers when they came down. I only lasted a
few seconds and had to turn that off. I couldn't watch those poor
bastards jump to a certain death knowing it was that or being burned
alive. It felt horribly intrusive to witness those horrific scenes. I
don't envy anyone who witnessed that in person. I can't imagine it
would ever stop haunting you.
Why do people slow down to look at accidents on the highway? There is
a certain fascination.
That said, a few years ago I watched a video from Syria of an ISIS
cell drowning a group of men in a cage they lowered into a lake using
a crane. They showed it going down and then coming back up. I can't
get it out of my mind.
I saw the one where they put a Jordanian pilot in a cage, doused him in
gasoline, then set him alight. That was pretty awful....
TMI.
--
"An immigrant who achieves the American Dream didn’t steal anything from
you or your family. They just wanted it more than you and worked harder
than you. And they did it with all the odds stacked against them. If
your life sucks lemons, a wall isn’t going to turn it to lemonade."
FPP
2019-03-15 22:54:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin Miller
Post by Rhino
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:13:25 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
Why do people want to watch that?   Ed acts like he's positively having
orgasms over the videos.
I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't imagine
any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
Sometimes there's an intangible benefit in seeing something unedited
and uncensored, just so you can see an event as it actually happened,
rather than one that has been described by second or third-hand
observers who may impart their own biases on it. Watching that could
potentially give a person an insight into whether the shooter seemed
crazy or just evil.
I watched the video that "incel killer" made in Santa Barbara a few
years ago, just before he went on his shooting rampage. It was strange
to look in his eyes and see whatever that was - rage, I suppose - as
he set out to murder people.
Mind you, I remember stumbling across videos of people jumping out of
high windows in the Twin Towers when they came down. I only lasted a
few seconds and had to turn that off. I couldn't watch those poor
bastards jump to a certain death knowing it was that or being burned
alive. It felt horribly intrusive to witness those horrific scenes. I
don't envy anyone who witnessed that in person. I can't imagine it
would ever stop haunting you.
Why do people slow down to look at accidents on the highway? There is a
certain fascination.
That said, a few years ago I watched a video from Syria of an ISIS cell
drowning a group of men in a cage they lowered into a lake using a
crane. They showed it going down and then coming back up. I can't get it
out of my mind.
Which is exactly what they WANT.
That *IS* the point of terrorism, is it not? To terrorize people...
--
"An immigrant who achieves the American Dream didn’t steal anything from
you or your family. They just wanted it more than you and worked harder
than you. And they did it with all the odds stacked against them. If
your life sucks lemons, a wall isn’t going to turn it to lemonade."
anim8rfsk
2019-03-15 20:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
Why do people want to watch that? Ed acts like he's positively having
orgasms over the videos.
I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't imagine
any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
Sometimes there's an intangible benefit in seeing something unedited and
uncensored, just so you can see an event as it actually happened, rather
than one that has been described by second or third-hand observers who
may impart their own biases on it. Watching that could potentially give
a person an insight into whether the shooter seemed crazy or just evil.
The Rodney King video is a good example. The jury that saw it unedited found
King guilty as Hell. The jury that saw the edited video, manipulated to make
it look like King was being attacked rather than being the attacker,
incorrectly found the other way.
Post by Rhino
I watched the video that "incel killer" made in Santa Barbara a few
years ago, just before he went on his shooting rampage. It was strange
to look in his eyes and see whatever that was - rage, I suppose - as he
set out to murder people.
Mind you, I remember stumbling across videos of people jumping out of
high windows in the Twin Towers when they came down. I only lasted a few
seconds and had to turn that off. I couldn't watch those poor bastards
jump to a certain death knowing it was that or being burned alive. It
felt horribly intrusive to witness those horrific scenes. I don't envy
anyone who witnessed that in person. I can't imagine it would ever stop
haunting you.
Well, Charlie Sheen saw the original broadcast live, when it was Cessnas
flying into the towers, before they were replaced with jetliners via CGI for
repeat performances.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Rhino
2019-03-15 20:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
Why do people want to watch that? Ed acts like he's positively having
orgasms over the videos.
I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't imagine
any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
Sometimes there's an intangible benefit in seeing something unedited and
uncensored, just so you can see an event as it actually happened, rather
than one that has been described by second or third-hand observers who
may impart their own biases on it. Watching that could potentially give
a person an insight into whether the shooter seemed crazy or just evil.
The Rodney King video is a good example. The jury that saw it unedited found
King guilty as Hell. The jury that saw the edited video, manipulated to make
it look like King was being attacked rather than being the attacker,
incorrectly found the other way.
Post by Rhino
I watched the video that "incel killer" made in Santa Barbara a few
years ago, just before he went on his shooting rampage. It was strange
to look in his eyes and see whatever that was - rage, I suppose - as he
set out to murder people.
Mind you, I remember stumbling across videos of people jumping out of
high windows in the Twin Towers when they came down. I only lasted a few
seconds and had to turn that off. I couldn't watch those poor bastards
jump to a certain death knowing it was that or being burned alive. It
felt horribly intrusive to witness those horrific scenes. I don't envy
anyone who witnessed that in person. I can't imagine it would ever stop
haunting you.
Well, Charlie Sheen saw the original broadcast live, when it was Cessnas
flying into the towers, before they were replaced with jetliners via CGI for
repeat performances.
He must have been drunk on tiger blood that day....
--
Rhino
anim8rfsk
2019-03-15 20:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
Why do people want to watch that? Ed acts like he's positively having
orgasms over the videos.
I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't imagine
any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
Sometimes there's an intangible benefit in seeing something unedited and
uncensored, just so you can see an event as it actually happened, rather
than one that has been described by second or third-hand observers who
may impart their own biases on it. Watching that could potentially give
a person an insight into whether the shooter seemed crazy or just evil.
The Rodney King video is a good example. The jury that saw it unedited found
King guilty as Hell. The jury that saw the edited video, manipulated to make
it look like King was being attacked rather than being the attacker,
incorrectly found the other way.
Post by Rhino
I watched the video that "incel killer" made in Santa Barbara a few
years ago, just before he went on his shooting rampage. It was strange
to look in his eyes and see whatever that was - rage, I suppose - as he
set out to murder people.
Mind you, I remember stumbling across videos of people jumping out of
high windows in the Twin Towers when they came down. I only lasted a few
seconds and had to turn that off. I couldn't watch those poor bastards
jump to a certain death knowing it was that or being burned alive. It
felt horribly intrusive to witness those horrific scenes. I don't envy
anyone who witnessed that in person. I can't imagine it would ever stop
haunting you.
Well, Charlie Sheen saw the original broadcast live, when it was Cessnas
flying into the towers, before they were replaced with jetliners via CGI for
repeat performances.
He must have been drunk on tiger blood that day....
I particularly like the part where he watched the first plane strike live on
TV.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
BTR1701
2019-03-15 20:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
Why do people want to watch that? Ed acts like he's positively having
orgasms over the videos.
I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't imagine
any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
Sometimes there's an intangible benefit in seeing something unedited and
uncensored, just so you can see an event as it actually happened, rather
than one that has been described by second or third-hand observers who
may impart their own biases on it. Watching that could potentially give
a person an insight into whether the shooter seemed crazy or just evil.
The Rodney King video is a good example. The jury that saw it unedited found
King guilty as Hell. The jury that saw the edited video, manipulated to make
it look like King was being attacked rather than being the attacker,
incorrectly found the other way.
There are two sides to every story...

Loading Image...
anim8rfsk
2019-03-15 20:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
Why do people want to watch that? Ed acts like he's positively having
orgasms over the videos.
I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't imagine
any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
Sometimes there's an intangible benefit in seeing something unedited and
uncensored, just so you can see an event as it actually happened, rather
than one that has been described by second or third-hand observers who
may impart their own biases on it. Watching that could potentially give
a person an insight into whether the shooter seemed crazy or just evil.
The Rodney King video is a good example. The jury that saw it unedited found
King guilty as Hell. The jury that saw the edited video, manipulated to make
it look like King was being attacked rather than being the attacker,
incorrectly found the other way.
There are two sides to every story...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ub047ft14minrze/sides.jpg?dl=0
heh
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
FPP
2019-03-15 22:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
Why do people want to watch that? Ed acts like he's positively having
orgasms over the videos.
I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't imagine
any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
Sometimes there's an intangible benefit in seeing something unedited and
uncensored, just so you can see an event as it actually happened, rather
than one that has been described by second or third-hand observers who
may impart their own biases on it. Watching that could potentially give
a person an insight into whether the shooter seemed crazy or just evil.
The Rodney King video is a good example. The jury that saw it unedited found
King guilty as Hell. The jury that saw the edited video, manipulated to make
it look like King was being attacked rather than being the attacker,
incorrectly found the other way.
There are two sides to every story...
Yeah, funny how people will believe their own lying eyes, isn't it?
--
"An immigrant who achieves the American Dream didn’t steal anything from
you or your family. They just wanted it more than you and worked harder
than you. And they did it with all the odds stacked against them. If
your life sucks lemons, a wall isn’t going to turn it to lemonade."
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-15 19:05:01 UTC
Permalink
E Gk
Post by Rhino
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
They’re also deleting the vids.
Why do people want to watch that?   Ed acts like he's positively
having orgasms over the videos.
What the fuck, E Gk?! I’m just as shocked as everybody else but
I’d ask why you think the government should be strong arming these
websites into deleting the video and preventing people from seeing it?

It’s a newsworthy event and we’re all adults here and perfectly capable
of deciding for ourselves whether we want to see the videos or not.
I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't
imagine any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
My concern is that the Powers That Be will memory hole these videos
and fabricate a narrative, as seems to be already happening with calls
for censorship of any website or person who disagrees with the policy
of uncontrolled mass migration into the West.
FPP
2019-03-15 22:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by EGK
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
Why do people want to watch that? Ed acts like he's positively having
orgasms over the videos.
I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't imagine
any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
The mass murders WANT you to watch it. That's reason enough for decent
people to NOT want to watch it.
--
"An immigrant who achieves the American Dream didn’t steal anything from
you or your family. They just wanted it more than you and worked harder
than you. And they did it with all the odds stacked against them. If
your life sucks lemons, a wall isn’t going to turn it to lemonade."
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-16 00:33:08 UTC
Permalink
FPP
Post by EGK
EGK
I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't imagine
any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
The mass murders WANT you to watch it.  That's reason enough for decent
people to NOT want to watch it.
The Powers That Be don’t want you to watch the video because they don’t want you
to see helpless victims who were disarmed by their government being shot like fish
in a barrel.

The average person seeing the video isn’t thinking “golly, we need more gun control”,
they’re thinking “fuck that, I will NOT be slaughtered like those people, I’m getting
a gun!”
Your Name
2019-03-16 01:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by EGK
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
Why do people want to watch that? Ed acts like he's positively having
orgasms over the videos.
I'm not queasy or offended when I see things on the news but I can't imagine
any reason to seek it out except for prurient reasons.
The mass murders WANT you to watch it. That's reason enough for decent
people to NOT want to watch it.
It also encourages copy-cat morons.

Same with the on-going media reporting. Once the event is reported as
having occured and the moron arrested (or evn better killed by police),
it should then be ignored by the media ... NOT coninutally repeated for
days on end, or brought up again and again when the next moron does
something stupid. The people involved know what's happening. Nobody
else needs to know anything more.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
BTR1701
2019-03-16 03:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by EGK
Post by Rhino
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
Shooters(s?) were apparently engaging in "Reconquista."
Yeah, apparently there were at least two more shooters.
I have a webm video of a cellphone vid showing two other
armed guys elsewhere, is there some kinda video hosting
site I could post it to?
Bitchute?
Why do people want to watch that?
It's so much that I want to watch the slaughter, but I do want to know
what actually happened during incidents like this, as opposed to what
the politicians and their media stenographers tell me happened.

The first reaction of the politicians in cities where things like this
occur is to clamp down on all access to reporting so they can spin
things to put themselves in the best light.

We're already seeing this in Florida, as I pointed out elsewhere in the
thread, where the state legislature is considering a bill to prohibit
sharing a video like this, because the incompetence of the Broward
Sheriff's Department really stung the government at all levels. So of
course the natural reaction of politicians and bureaucrats is to make
embarrassing them a crime.

And then there's the Mandalay Bay incident, where the city of Las Vegas
continues to defy a series of court orders to turn over the all the
video footage they have to the media.
t***@gmail.com
2019-03-15 19:20:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
CHRISTCHURCH SHOOTING FOOTAGE: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T WATCH THE VIDEO, AND WHAT TO DO IF YOU DID
DIMI REIDER 3/15/19
https://www.newsweek.com/christchurch-shooting-video-footage-watch-trauma-1364436



Horrific videos like the ones posted by the Christchurch mosque shooting suspect Brenton Tarrant are geared to appeal to the morbidly curious, and appeal it did. Dozens of copies of what appears to be footage from a helmet-mounted camera are circulating on the darker corners of the internet and are being persistently posted on more mainstream platforms such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, which don't always manage to catch the video before it goes up.

Some of us, like journalists and police, are professionally obliged to view distressing imagery to try and discern valuable new information, whether for investigation purposes or to better inform debate. A small minority of us might be scanning the footage in desperate hope to establish the whereabouts of our loved ones.

But plenty of people are today looking at the Christchurch video for no real good reason—just because the draw of the drama and the apparent safety of viewing it from miles away, behind a computer screen.

You don’t need to be an 8chan denizen to be tempted by first-hand footage of an event dominating the news cycle, just as most people probably wouldn’t look away if they came by the scene of an attack—or even a particularly bad accident—in real life. And you don’t even need to on 8chan to stumble on the footage, as search engines’ predictive search will actively encourage you to browse for it when you type a related term (I’m looking at you, Google and YouTube—not to mention Facebook, which hosted the live stream to begin with.)

The very fact terrorists exploit people’s interest in dramatic events should caution you against typing in that search string, and certainly against sharing it with others.

Firstly, by doing so you’d be playing up to the narcissism of someone who couldn’t come up with any more adequate way to generate renown than to massacre innocent people. Whatever false modesty Tarrant might profess in the tedious manifesto ascribed to him, a quality shared universally by terrorists of all ilks is the desire to stand out from the crowd, to be seen—if only by themselves—as heroes and possibly martyrs. There’s plenty to be said for simply declining to oblige their desire for notoriety.

Secondly, it is difficult to imagine a more intimate moment in any person’s life than dying. Tarrant not only brutally brought this moment forward for dozens of innocent people, who had so many more years to live and so much more than him to give to their families, communities and to the country they made their home. He was determined to humiliate them, to make them look like targets in a video game. If you want to know more about the victims, wait for their life stories to emerge. By looking through the killer’s helmet camera, you are adopting his gaze, and actively participating in this indignity.

Thirdly, and as importantly, just because you’re not at the scene and not in any immediate risk, this does not mean that you will not be affected. Huge swathes of culture—especially visual culture—is premised on our ability to viscerally experience violence indirectly. Every time you feel your heartbeat accelerating during a tense scene in a thriller, or jump when a dark figure rushes the screen, you’re having a vicarious experience—and it can be as impactful as anything you are a part of, in real life. This isn't to say a single viewing of the footage will irreparably scar you—in fact, it's repeated exposure that carries the worst of the risk—but it will be, at the very least, far more unsettling than you probably bargained for.

The British Medical Association describes vicarious trauma as "the process of change resulting from empathetic engagement with trauma survivors." It notes that "anyone who engages empathetically with survivors of traumatic incidents, torture, and material relating to their trauma, is potentially affected, including doctors and other health professionals."

There is growing recognition that the same is true for those of us not engaging directly with victims and survivors: Storytelling in all forms is built precisely on not needing to meet someone in the flesh to empathise with them, to experience their suffering, fear and sorrow as yours.

Still, suppose you went against your better instincts and watched it anyway, or were professionally obligated to. How can you limit the damage to yourself and others—especially if you’re in the latter category, and your work entails the likelihood of similar footage still to come?

The Dart Centre for Journalism and Trauma at the Columbia Journalism School in New York offers a number of resources on how to deal with traumatic imagery, designed mostly to put even more distance between yourself and what is happening (full disclosure—I attended Dart training in 2016 and remain involved with journalism and trauma work.)

Don’t watch unless you have to; if you have to watch it, don’t watch more times than you have to; if you must watch the footage over and over again, watch it on a small screen—and I, personally, found it helpful to watch with the sound off.

Dart also suggests to plan your viewing carefully before you hit play, assigning yourself regular breaks to catch your breath and distance yourself from the event. It suggests pausing the footage, getting up, watching from a standing or a less than comfortable position—everything that you wouldn’t do when you want to immerse yourself in a fictional movie experience, deliberately do it now.

Finally, breathe. Distressing footage forces our brain to simulate its response to real-life emergencies. It accelerates our heartbeat and hastens our breath, floods us with adrenalin to gear us up to a fight-or-flight response. It also sharpens our attention with laser-like hyper-awareness, focusing us on the most threatening and therefore most distressing details: wounds, the faces of the dying, the shots, the screams. Anxiety creates these physical symptoms, and these symptoms feed back and prolong anxiety. Gently push back. Look away at something that suggests comfort, safety, or even routine. Breathe in. Breathe out. Slow it all down.

News and social media, especially in this highly interactive age, feeds on our fear of missing out and fear of losing control. When you post a comment or retweet new information you find particularly galling, you might feel like you’re participating—like you’re alerting people and pushing back against the horror that broke out on a peaceful Friday afternoon in a quiet New Zealand mosque.

The reality is, there is nothing you can do about what had already happened. The suspects are in custody. The dead are already dead. But beyond reaching out and supporting the survivors, the families and the first responders, you can influence and limit the impact of one man’s action going forward. You can protect yourself, your colleagues and your loved ones from what he’s done. It might not instantly make the world a better place, but it’ll help make it that bit less miserable than Tarrant wants it to be.
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-15 19:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Some of us, like journalists and police, are professionally obliged to view
distressing imagery to try and discern valuable new information
But you ignorant peasants should just shut the fuck up and do what you’re told…
Rhino
2019-03-15 20:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by t***@gmail.com
Some of us, like journalists and police, are professionally obliged to view
distressing imagery to try and discern valuable new information
But you ignorant peasants should just shut the fuck up and do what you’re told…
Exactly right, Ed: that's the patronizing undertone when you see edited
footage.
--
Rhino
RichA
2019-03-15 22:44:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
New Zealand prime minister now proposes (of course) stronger gun laws which will do NOTHING to prevent another massacre (as we've seen in London, Paris) but WILL disarm law-abiding gun owners and potential thwarters of the next gun attack.
Your Name
2019-03-16 01:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
New Zealand prime minister now proposes (of course) stronger gun laws
which will do NOTHING to prevent another massacre (as we've seen in
London, Paris)
Of course it will. Fewer guns on the street means it's more difficult
for scumbags to get hold of one.

Short of a mental labotomy for every newborn baby or exterminating the
entire human race, there's no way you can stop some moron from doing
something stupid.
Post by RichA
but WILL disarm law-abiding gun owners and potential thwarters of the
next gun attack.
There is no sensible reason for the general public to own a gun anyway.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
A Friend
2019-03-16 02:40:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It¹s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
New Zealand prime minister now proposes (of course) stronger gun laws
which will do NOTHING to prevent another massacre (as we've seen in
London, Paris)
Of course it will. Fewer guns on the street means it's more difficult
for scumbags to get hold of one.
Short of a mental labotomy for every newborn baby or exterminating the
entire human race, there's no way you can stop some moron from doing
something stupid.
Post by RichA
but WILL disarm law-abiding gun owners and potential thwarters of the
next gun attack.
There is no sensible reason for the general public to own a gun anyway.
More nonsense. For one example, people go hunting, even in New Zealand.
shawn
2019-03-16 04:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Friend
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Post by Ed Stasiak
This is pretty fucked up.
It¹s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
YouTube will probably delete this pretty soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=881&v=GrJ44gKBZLE
New Zealand prime minister now proposes (of course) stronger gun laws
which will do NOTHING to prevent another massacre (as we've seen in
London, Paris)
Of course it will. Fewer guns on the street means it's more difficult
for scumbags to get hold of one.
Short of a mental labotomy for every newborn baby or exterminating the
entire human race, there's no way you can stop some moron from doing
something stupid.
Post by RichA
but WILL disarm law-abiding gun owners and potential thwarters of the
next gun attack.
There is no sensible reason for the general public to own a gun anyway.
More nonsense. For one example, people go hunting, even in New Zealand.
True and I don't think anyone is talking about outlawing that. Just
what weapons do you need if you are going hunting would be the natural
question. Most hunters can get by with shotguns and bow/arrow. Rifles
make it easier to take down deer, elk and other animals at a distance
but even then you don't need to take multiple shots in a short time.
Though I can't say I've heard of a mass murder shooter using something
less powerful like a .22.

So while I can see some additional restrictions being placed on gun
ownership such as background checks for all purchase of weapons I
can't see justification for outlawing all weapons. In addition we
still ought to be asking why these mass shootings are happening and
what might be done to stop them outside of or in addition to weapon
control. At least with gang violence or robberies we understand the
motivation behind the shooting, but even then we don't have a solution
to stop or even limit it but to try and put the perpetrators behind
bars.
Ed Stasiak
2019-03-16 01:05:20 UTC
Permalink
Ed Stasiak
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
https://boost.catbox.moe/bsckol.mp4

Fast-forward to 6:20 for the attack.
Rhino
2019-03-16 01:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Ed Stasiak
It’s live GoPro cam video from the actual shooter in New Zealand.
https://boost.catbox.moe/bsckol.mp4
Fast-forward to 6:20 for the attack.
It's also here:
https://trendingviews.co/video/mass-shooter-livestreams-new-zealand-christchurch-mosque-attack-4-dead-or-injured-5810.html
--
Rhino
Loading...