Forty-one were killed at the Dean Ave. mosque, the first one that was targeted, where the murderer had plenty of time and at one point returned to his vehicle to reload. There were only seven killed at the Linwood mosque because one of the worshippers was armed.
– John Hinderaker, Observations on Christchurch, referencing this article in the New Zealand Herald. (Via Instapundit.)
Edit: When I read the NZ Herald report quoted by John Hinderaker it said the following:
A second shooting happened at a mosque in the Linwood area of the city.
One Friday prayer goer returned fire with a rifle or shotgun.
Witnesses said they heard multiple gunshots around 1.45 pm.
A well known Muslim local chased the shooters and fired two shots at them as they sped off.
He was heard telling police officers he was firing in “self defence”.
However as Hinderaker said in his very next sentence, “Early reports of catastrophic events like these always turn out to be wrong in some respects” and several later accounts such as this one in the UK Telegraph say that a worshipper, Abdul Aziz, grabbed one of the killer’s own abandoned weapons, tried to fire it but found it empty, but then used it to smash Tarrant’s windscreen. (Tarrant had gone back to his car to get more weapons or ammunition.) The Telegraph and other sources quote Mr Aziz as saying that it was because the windscreen shattered that Tarrant got scared. I presume Tarrant thought the gun had been fired and could be used against him, since I cannot see why the threat of being hit with a blunt object would cause an armed man in the middle of a murder spree to break it off and flee.
Thanks to SkippyTony and John Galt for pointing this out. As John Galt says, “Presumably the now disarmed New Zealand public should go looking for guns dropped by active shooters in future events.”
But of course the NZ political class has immediately drawn completely the wrong conclusion.
As in Dunblane, Tarrant should never have been issued a licence under the existing laws. But somehow, the people who failed to prevent a homicidal lunatic from owning guns will be 100% effective at preventing anyone from owning them. (What? Armed robbery increased after the gun ban? Oh, but that’s just part of living in a vibrant modern city. Right, Sadiq?)
We should have learned by now that any atrocity like Christchurch will be used to:
1) Shut people up
2) Remove their rights
3) Enable more police authoritarianism
Does it even rate discussion any more? We’re just tilting at windmills if we expect anything different..
We had a sweep on how long it would take nz’s Labour Prime Minister to announce plans to toughen gun laws. I won on 24 hours.
I don’t believe someone at the mosque was armed, local gossip has it that they disarmed one of the attackers causing them to flee.
While people can and do own guns here, vast majority are for duck or game hunting. It’s almost impossible to get a handgun licence and pretty much unheard of for people to go around armed.
No doubt more will come out, but apparently the gun club the shooter belonged to had been reported to the police due to the behaviour of some of the members….so they may not have been on a list, but again the clues were there.
There is some truth to it in that it was one of the attackers other guns.
Presumably the now disarmed New Zealand public should go looking for guns dropped by active shooters in future events.
Personally I remain unconvinced.
Laminated glass windscreens don’t ‘shatter’ in response to a blow.
The account I heard said he grabbed a card-reader (the only moderately heavy blunt object he had to hand) and threw that before picking up the weapon. This was not stupid. Children trapped in a classroom in an active shooter situation are well advised to pelt the shooter with books and other heavy objects. It is surprisingly easy to degrade a criminal’s performance with such tactics.
I too noticed the evolving story and found myself wondering if the courageous resister had decided, by the time he gave his statement, to rephrase “the gun (but not license) I happened to have” into “the gun I saw him drop”. I mention the thought for its comment on the general “only criminals can have guns” approach of our ruling class, not because I think it is the explanation. ‘Initial reporting got it wrong’ is, as usual, far more probable.
“…and found myself wondering if the courageous resister had decided, by the time he gave his statement, to rephrase “the gun (but not license) I happened to have” into “the gun I saw him drop”. “
Easy to prove one way or the other. There should be video of this, since the killer livestreamed his action. Why hasn’t anyone seen it?
Hopefully law abiding New Zealand firearms owners hit back with if you failed with those gun laws you have, why are you asking for more that you will fail at?
In the future the newly and more completely disarmed Kiwi’s will post someone at the entrance to their houses of worship fitted with a bomb vest and a dead man switch. Anyone assaulting the place will have to kill the guard first, setting off the bomb which will kill the shooter, saving everybody else.
Think of the interfaith outreach this will engender as the faiths with less experience invite devotees of those with more experience over to show them how it’s done.
I have mixed feelings on the Canterbury incident but I do note the following:
1) Jacinda Ardern has decided that parliament is no longer needed “Firearms law WILL change” without debate or a sober consideration of the facts (https://www.rt.com/news/453965-new-zealand-gun-law-mosque/).
2) The Police Association said “there was no place in the upcoming debate for the radical gun lobby.” So acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner, they have arbitrarily declared anyone who may object to their rights being removed and their property confiscated without first being condemned in a court of law is part of “the radical Gun Lobby”. (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12213320).
3) I listened to the radio in the car as I drove into Nelson on Saturday and the comments from the talk show host was that the killer was a hard right wing Nazi white supremacist and everyone who disagreed with this judgement was a hard right wing Nazi white supremacist. He urged people NOT to read the manifesto that he had published and that it should be taken down from social media and the internet and no one should be allowed to access it. However, it comes out from the manifesto that:
He claims to be an environmental fascist, former communist/atheist and not a Christian
He accused President Trump of being a White supremacist
He deliberately selected firearms to commit the atrocity because he wanted the 2nd Amendment in America to be overturned and that he wanted Civil War to break out in the USA.
Yup – seems like a hard right wing Nazi white supremacist to me … NOT! But never read what he has written as it may actually contradict the mainstream media and that would never do, eh?
I note that Ardern immediately on being elected wanted to introduce new firearms laws to restrict firearms without any real justification. Similarly, the Police Association were agitating for more restrictions and were rolling out horror stories about evil guns (1 in 5 police officers were confronted with guns in the course of their duties – which I find hard to credit). Plus the continuous sniping and search for “Shock! Horror!” stories and sensationalising anything to do with guns by the press is a constant theme from the left wing journalists who are in lock step with the government.
So no doubt they all will be dancing in the blood of the slain and gleefully grasping this opportunity. Never let a crisis go to waste, eh? As Hungerford and Dunblane in the UK has amply demonstrated, pushing through ill considered laws (“something must be done”) which will not address the perceived problem and reacting to a one off incident to criminalise well over 300,000 law abiding people, confiscate their property, expend Police time, resource and effort to harass the innocent and heap more restrictions on them is BOUND to work, eh?
Just remember, DO NOT track down the killers manifesto and read it. You will be giving him “the oxygen of publicity” and you might become a hard right wing Nazi white supremacist yourself if you realise that the politicians, police and main stream media are lying, consistently and persistently. Diversity is our strength (unless you have a different opinion to them – they don’t like diversity of thought).
Currently kayaking and fishing throughout the Florida keys. Was at a local bar when this shooting took place, with the news of it on the small bar tv.
One commentator said something like “this is going to strengthen our gun laws.”
The entire bar erupted in laughter. I think everyone there was armed.
Give up that right, and become subjects. Keep it, and be citizens.
“Yup – seems like a hard right wing Nazi white supremacist to me … NOT! But never read what he has written as it may actually contradict the mainstream media and that would never do, eh?”
That’s the problem with not letting people see the arguments of dissentients – people can make any sort of assertion they like about them and nobody can check. They might have a point. They might not. But you can’t refute *either* claim without everybody being able to read what they actually said.
The same applies to preachers of jihad, perpetrators of Islamic terrorism, and the explanations and manifestos they publish. “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”
For what it’s worth, the bits I’ve seen make it clear that his primary reasons were very clearly those associated with the ‘white genocide’, anti-Muslim, anti-immigration position, which I think is generally identified as ‘right wing’. Any stuff about environmentalism or communism seem to be bits and pieces taken out of context. But there’s no way to check without the document.
Most people have a mixture of views associated with both the left and the right – few are that ideologically pure. And someone of limited intelligence and education, possibly with a grab-bag of conspiracy theories and internet rumour, is very likely to have all sorts of weird and hard-to-classify beliefs. But then, that goes for all of them; Jihadis and school-shooters and serial killers and all. It’s only important if you’re trying to somehow use it as a proxy for “us” and “them” ideological battles, which is logically invalid anyway.
It doesn’t actually matter if he *does* hold right-wing beliefs. His actions are *no* reflection on anybody else holding any subset of the same beliefs but with no intention of carrying out the same sort of actions. Using individual murderers as a proxy for an entire belief system is a particularly evil form of propaganda. That’s true *whoever* is doing it.
Phil B (March 17, 2019 at 5:19 pm) correctly notes some suppressio veri in reporting that classifies the perp exactly as the PC wish him classified. That said, his murder of muslims is naturally more attention-grabbing than his manifesto, so it is only fair to note that their one-sided reporting is not quite as blatantly so as usual.
Obviously, people who murder may also lie. Did the perp shout out to Candace Owens because he likes her, because he dislikes her (e.g. he really is an old-style racist and hates black people being noticed on the right), or because he just wants to stir up trouble? Did his ‘eco-fascism’ target muslims because they have a high birthrate, or does he have some other quarrel with muslims, or did he just want to stir up trouble? Does he want 2nd amendment opponents and supporters to start a civil war in the US because he wants to diminish its world-wide influence, or because he hates individualism as much as he says, or just to stir up trouble? Does he really like the Chinese state as much as he says – or at all?
If the perp just wanted to be as noticed as possible by stirring up as much trouble as possible by offering as many handles to as many narratives as possible, that would fit with the live-streaming – perhaps also with the choice of target. But of course, the perp’s biggest lie may be to himself – making himself think his manifesto means anything much.
Tarrant’s manifesto, “The Great Replacement,” is at
https://katana17.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/the-great-replacement-manifesto-of-new-zealand-mosque-shooter-mar-2019/
though I certainly don’t vouch for the authenticity of the document, and it may be pulled pretty soon (the Internet and USA Today don’t want us to be reading such stuff).
However, there is an analysis by Rod Dreher that seems pretty reasonable, at
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/radicalization-degeneration-brenton-tarrant-white-supremacist/
Exerpts:
Interesting discussion continues.
.
And another take by a Robert Evans, at
bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-world/2019/03/15/shitposting-inspirational-terrorism-and-the-christchurch-mosque-massacre/
.
Also, there’s a 2:15 video which claims to be a reading of the whole 74-page manifesto, at
yoo-of-the-toob .com/watch?v=GSkX9EAoN34
.
If you’re curious and you can stand the idea of giving clicks to Think Progress, it’s got a posting which leads with the statement that “You’ve heard this terrorist’s words before, right from the mouths of influential right-wing figures.” It mentions Pres. Trump, Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson (!), Jeff Sessions. I didn’t read the whole thing.
“The dark history of the New Zealand killer’s ‘great replacement’”:
https://thinkprogress.org/new-zealand-mosque-murders-mainstream-racist-ideas-8a5dd076c45f/
I see Non-Intelligently Verbose is here to tell us what the manifesto is really about, despite not having read it himself… 😕
Also, from breitbart, h/t instapundit:
As with my comment above, I note that a massacre in “safest place in the world” New Zealand, is, to a degree, genuinely more newsworthy than a massacre in “sadly, not in contention for that title” Nigeria, while also noting the bias that the MSM’s silence reveals.
@Julie, thanks for the link to the Rod Dreher article, good read. I liked this particular quote:
This is a good related review of Dreher’s book – The Benedict Option: https://theworthyhouse.com/2017/03/14/book-review-the-benedict-optionrod-dreher/
Some truth in this line as well, sadly, from one of the other articles he quotes:
You’re not missing much. While structured sequentially to make it readable it is little more than a flawed, incoherent and logically inconsistent eco rant which misidentifies effects as root causes with a liberal dash of “blood and soil” idiocy thrown in.
Your mileage may vary.
EdMJ, 🙂
The National Socialist (he believes that worker coops should control everything – oddly enough the same position as J.S. Mill finally came to) murdered around 50 people.
Predictably more “gun control” laws are being demanded by the media and the rest of the left – even though it was “gun control” that lead to people being helpless against mass shooters.
People can not only modify weapons – they can also MAKE weapons. And someone who is prepared to commit mass murder is hardly unlikely to think “oh I must not make firearms – because there is a regulation saying they should not be made by private citizens”.
As for Islam – Dr David Woods (and others) have attacked, for many years, people who think this is an ETHNIC (a RACIAL) conflict. The regulations and policies that seek to prevent attacks upon Islam in terms of theology and political philosophy – of course TURN THIS INTO AN ETHNIC CONFLICT. Instead of competing philosophies seeking to convert people to their point of view, the P.C. establishment elite have CREATED an ethnic conflict (where none needed to have existed).
The mass murderer in Christchurch is not a Christian – any more than Mr Himmler (the head of the SS who also followed the sign of the Black Sun) was a Christian. The actions of men such as the Christchurch were predicted years ago – just as the reaction of the establishment elite (even MORE censorship, even MORE pro Islam stuff) were predicted years ago.
Conflict is inevitable – but it does NOT have to be ethnic (racial) conflict. It could be a conflict of IDEAS – of
pro and anti Islamic ARGUMENTS. But the alliance (and it is a de facto alliance) between the establishment elite and such people as the National Socialist mass murderer of Christchurch prevent that happening.
Instead of a conflict of ideas with the objective being to CONVERT the Muslims – the establishment elite (and their de facto allies – such as the National Socialist mass murderer of Christchurch) have created an ETHNIC (a RACIAL) conflict. Where there is no effort convert people – just to kill them.
The National Socialist mass murderer of Christchurch wants the same tactical thing the establishment elite want – even MORE censorship. He wants this in order to PREVENT a conflict of ideas (how can there be a conflict of ideas if it is impossible to freely oppose Islam), so that the conflict instead takes the form of an ethnic (a RACIAL) conflict.
This last point is what the establishment elite do not understand – by preventing a conflict of ideas, they CREATE a racial conflict.
The ultimate nightmare of a National Socialist such as the Christchurch mass murderer is someone like former Bishop Ali (a brown man from Pakistan).
And people such as Bishop Ali are exactly what I want to see much more of.
A bad man did a bad thing. It doesn’t mean anything about anyone who didn’t do it.
There are millions of angry losers. Stop making this one a star, the others are watching.
“Tarrant’s manifesto, “The Great Replacement,” is at”
Thanks.
“I see Non-Intelligently Verbose is here to tell us what the manifesto is really about, despite not having read it himself…”
Abuse?! Tut! Tut! I always thought you were better than that. 🙂
Well, I *have* read it now, and I’ve not changed my opinion. About the nearest he gets to ‘eco’-anything is that he likes woods and meadows and pretty countryside. (Plus a brief paragraph about over-population causing climate change, but that seems more like an answer to people that care more about climate change than something he cares much about himself. It’s not mentioned again.) The nearest he gets to ‘left-wing’ is using minimum wage laws and unions to protect white jobs from cheap immigrant labour. (I raised an eyebrow at him claiming to have been a libertarian, too.) Although it’s hard to tell if he’s serious about those – there are plenty of bits where he’s clearly taking the piss.
So how come everyone else gets to talk about what his beliefs are without having read the document, but I don’t?
That is more than near enough for government work 🙂 – just as it was more than near enough for the progressive ‘new deal’, etc. Use of minimum wage laws to protect whites from black competition while being impeccably left-wing is very well precedented. It was done in the 1930s in the United States – there was good reason why blacks rechristened ‘The National Recovery Act’ as ‘The Negro Runaround Act’ – and by Afrikaaners in the 1920s to overturn fairer arrangements in the formerly-Empire-ruled parts of the union of South Africa (“The government destroyed the rentability of the railroads overnight when it sacked blacks and forced them to hire whites at rates that were 200% or 300% higher.” Hannah Arendt, Origins of Totalitarianism). If robots were sentient, they would demand minimum wage laws – for humans.
(As per my earlier comments, I agree the ‘manifesto’ is untrustworthy as a guide to the shooter’s motives except perhaps in a meta-sense – that he wants to be noticed by, and stir up trouble between, as many groups as possible.)
I cannot speak for JuliaM who made the remark. Your earlier comment states your opinions and then says
which could be read as if you were intentionally expressing opinions based on partial information and/or intentionally not reading either the manifesto or the various detailed summaries of it. (Since the MSM take on the manifesto was obviously biased, good judgement would recommend having some other source of info on it.) For myself, I agree with Oliver Wendell Homes:
so I do not criticise your comments for being based on imperfect knowledge, any more than my own comments (dissenting from yours) which are based sometimes (IMNSHO) on more, or more relevant, but always on imperfect knowledge.