Here we are, exactly as predicted, these events are being used to end free speech and 2nd amendment rights. I am sure all the shooters used Facebook too. Why is it Facebook is not responsible for radicalizing them?
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/network-provider-cloudflare-drop-8chan-after-el-paso-shooting-n1039151
Topic: New Zealand ChristChurch mass shootings >:( >:( - page 2. (Read 1882 times)
With the kind of nation NZ is, if cops go about forcefully taking guns away, there will be a change in elected officials, following a bunch-of-dead-cops bloodbath.
Kiwis 'Just Say No' To Gun Ban
So, it isn't only the USA that has gun freedom. But NZ is more like frontier USA... how the West was won.
Kiwis 'Just Say No' To Gun Ban
In the wake of the Christchurch mosque massacres, gun confiscation fizzles as Kiwis ignore new law.
New Zealand politicians who rushed to enact nationwide gun confiscation following the Christchurch mosque massacres are befuddled by the lack of enthusiasm from citizens who have yet to comply with the new law. The so-called "gun reform" was expected to rid the vast New Zealand countryside of most semi-automatic firearms, magazines over a specified limit, and shotguns.
Two months ago, Reuters breathlessly reported, "New Zealand police expect tens of thousands of firearms to be surrendered by a guns buy-back scheme." Law enforcement authorities averred that "it could be more." Pregnant with the expectation that gun owners would trade their firearms for cash, the political class is nonplussed by the results.
Only 530 guns have thus far been turned in to the authorities.
Out Of My Cold, Dead Hands
Figures released by the New Zealand police had politicians and law enforcement officials scrambling to comprehend what just happened. Michael Clement, the police deputy commissioner, assessed the situation by telling the media that the number of guns expected to be handed over is "a great unknown question," primarily because the firearms the government is confiscating have never been registered with authorities.
Could it be that the brain trust in Wellington needs to up the ante and offer more money? Is this a statement of personal liberty? Could it be considered "ostriching," Brit-speak for a friendly ability to ignore unpleasantness? Or in psychological parlance, could it merely constitute passive-aggressive behavior? All of these socioeconomic factors may have played a part in the first wave of the buy-back fizzle.
In reality, New Zealand is quite heavily armed per capita, with an estimated 1.2-1.5 million guns in a country of approximately 4.7 million people. To put it another way, the land of the Kiwi is about as big as Colorado with the population of Louisiana. New York City, for example, is home to about 8.6 million (2017 estimate), almost double the size of the New Zealand population.
Mountainous terrain with very few inhabitants largely adds up to a rural people. And what do these folks out in the middle of nowhere do with themselves all the live-long day? Agriculture, forestry, mining, and fishing represent the lion's share of industry. And then there are all those sheep. Mathematically, there are about seven times more sheep than people in New Zealand. By and large, those who raise sheep and live off the land in what is often referred to as "homesteading" find that firearms can be quite useful when you attempt to live off the grid.
New Zealand politicians who rushed to enact nationwide gun confiscation following the Christchurch mosque massacres are befuddled by the lack of enthusiasm from citizens who have yet to comply with the new law. The so-called "gun reform" was expected to rid the vast New Zealand countryside of most semi-automatic firearms, magazines over a specified limit, and shotguns.
Two months ago, Reuters breathlessly reported, "New Zealand police expect tens of thousands of firearms to be surrendered by a guns buy-back scheme." Law enforcement authorities averred that "it could be more." Pregnant with the expectation that gun owners would trade their firearms for cash, the political class is nonplussed by the results.
Only 530 guns have thus far been turned in to the authorities.
Out Of My Cold, Dead Hands
Figures released by the New Zealand police had politicians and law enforcement officials scrambling to comprehend what just happened. Michael Clement, the police deputy commissioner, assessed the situation by telling the media that the number of guns expected to be handed over is "a great unknown question," primarily because the firearms the government is confiscating have never been registered with authorities.
Could it be that the brain trust in Wellington needs to up the ante and offer more money? Is this a statement of personal liberty? Could it be considered "ostriching," Brit-speak for a friendly ability to ignore unpleasantness? Or in psychological parlance, could it merely constitute passive-aggressive behavior? All of these socioeconomic factors may have played a part in the first wave of the buy-back fizzle.
In reality, New Zealand is quite heavily armed per capita, with an estimated 1.2-1.5 million guns in a country of approximately 4.7 million people. To put it another way, the land of the Kiwi is about as big as Colorado with the population of Louisiana. New York City, for example, is home to about 8.6 million (2017 estimate), almost double the size of the New Zealand population.
Mountainous terrain with very few inhabitants largely adds up to a rural people. And what do these folks out in the middle of nowhere do with themselves all the live-long day? Agriculture, forestry, mining, and fishing represent the lion's share of industry. And then there are all those sheep. Mathematically, there are about seven times more sheep than people in New Zealand. By and large, those who raise sheep and live off the land in what is often referred to as "homesteading" find that firearms can be quite useful when you attempt to live off the grid.
So, it isn't only the USA that has gun freedom. But NZ is more like frontier USA... how the West was won.
btw there was a second guy who tried to do mass murder in nz church at the same moment, but he was neutralized by the churchgoers. thanks to civilian weapons, who have again proofed that they are essential
paragraphs 1 & 2: boring and overly-trodden personal attacks
Zzzzzzzz
Regarding your "logic", it is also harder to die from AIDs if no one has sex, I guess we should have mandatory abstinence right? Oh you like sex? Guess what, people like being able to not rely on government to defend themselves, especially since they are usually 10-20 minutes away, that is assuming they don't shoot you when they get there. Your chances of dying in a car accident are significantly reduced if you don't own a car, I guess we should ban cars too. Pools? Nah, people drown in pools. BAN. Just because you live in a place where you feel safe without owning a gun does not mean everyone does. In fact the people who most need to be armed are the poorest among us, but fuck them right? You live in a gated community with an armed guard, and guns are scary.
We've been over this ad nauseum: You've made a facetious comparison here. Guns are designed to be lethal weapons. Sex, cars, and pools are not. Why is this so difficult to understand?
You have no logos, your arguments are 100% from a position of emotional instability and fear like nearly every gun control argument.
I present to you a bit of logical evidence to support the idea that more guns = more gun deaths (a pretty simply concept really) and you delve head-first into long-winded, overly emotional personal attacks in an attempt to counter it. I would say you are the one who is unstable here. Really, I don't even need to read your walls of sniveling hate text to know you're a bit off your rocker. Every day you bang your head against the wall here and expect different results. That's lunacy.
Convenient you just throw the logical points out the window because a sentence next to it hurt your frail fee fees. Man debate is so much easier that way!
Yes, we have been over this ad nauseum. The comparison is legitimate. Guns are designed to provide PROTECTION for people. You summarily excluding this primary use case is what is fallacious ( I know you meant to use this word instead of facetious, but you have trouble with the definitions of words and simple logic).
You provided statistics that ignore totally the positive use cases and lives saved and protected by firearms. You don't get to just erase arguments and statistics that work against your point, that is not how debate works. Just because you plug your ears and go "LALALALA CONTRARY FACTS DON'T EXIST!" doesn't make the contrary facts disappear. So, 3 paragraphs = "walls of text?" Next time I will draw a cartoon for you, maybe that will be more your speed since 3 paragraphs is a difficult task for you. You were saying something about personal attacks... just before you use personal attacks... but I am the emotional one right?
paragraphs 1 & 2: boring and overly-trodden personal attacks
Zzzzzzzz
Regarding your "logic", it is also harder to die from AIDs if no one has sex, I guess we should have mandatory abstinence right? Oh you like sex? Guess what, people like being able to not rely on government to defend themselves, especially since they are usually 10-20 minutes away, that is assuming they don't shoot you when they get there. Your chances of dying in a car accident are significantly reduced if you don't own a car, I guess we should ban cars too. Pools? Nah, people drown in pools. BAN. Just because you live in a place where you feel safe without owning a gun does not mean everyone does. In fact the people who most need to be armed are the poorest among us, but fuck them right? You live in a gated community with an armed guard, and guns are scary.
We've been over this ad nauseum: You've made a facetious comparison here. Guns are designed to be lethal weapons. Sex, cars, and pools are not. Why is this so difficult to understand?
You have no logos, your arguments are 100% from a position of emotional instability and fear like nearly every gun control argument.
I present to you a bit of logical evidence to support the idea that more guns = more gun deaths (a pretty simply concept really) and you delve head-first into long-winded, overly emotional personal attacks in an attempt to counter it. I would say you are the one who is unstable here. Really, I don't even need to read your walls of sniveling hate text to know you're a bit off your rocker. Every day you bang your head against the wall here and expect different results. That's lunacy.
Yet even more evidence gun control is about the inability of some individuals to control their emotions, not logic.
I completely agree with you: everybody who over-reacts out of fear that the government is going to take their guns from them and winds themselves up into conspiracy mode every time there's a mass shooting need to embrace common sense logic that perhaps gun ownership and access laws need to be reviewed.
Here's some logic for you: its harder to commit a gun-related crime if you don't have a gun.
So do you ever have any thoughts of your own, or do you have to wait for some one like me to have one so you can repeat it back to them? The word conspiracy is just a pathetic attempt to stigmatize the very real fact that the leading cause of non-natural death since the 20th century is government. Your argument presumes the state is some how morally superior to the individual. What a joke. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Every time there is a mass shooting fearful weak little boys like you scream we need "gun control" (euphemism for confiscation/ban) from the rooftops because you can not manage your emotional reaction to the events, then you attribute the reaction from the law abiding gun owners as irrational. They are reacting to people like you politicizing these events and attempting to take their rights, not the event itself. In short, people like you cause the reaction directly then call it irrational by characterizing it as "conspiracy". By the way you might want to learn the actual definition of that word seeing as you use it as a cudgel to attempt to utilize conditioned negative connotations to that word. It doesn't mean what you think it means. People afraid of reality love calling everything they don't agree with "conspiracy".
Regarding your "logic", it is also harder to die from AIDs if no one has sex, I guess we should have mandatory abstinence right? Oh you like sex? Guess what, people like being able to not rely on government to defend themselves, especially since they are usually 10-20 minutes away, that is assuming they don't shoot you when they get there. Your chances of dying in a car accident are significantly reduced if you don't own a car, I guess we should ban cars too. Pools? Nah, people drown in pools. BAN. Just because you live in a place where you feel safe without owning a gun does not mean everyone does. In fact the people who most need to be armed are the poorest among us, but fuck them right? You live in a gated community with an armed guard, and guns are scary. You have no logos, your arguments are 100% from a position of emotional instability and fear like nearly every gun control argument.
Yet even more evidence gun control is about the inability of some individuals to control their emotions, not logic.
I completely agree with you: everybody who over-reacts out of fear that the government is going to take their guns from them and winds themselves up into conspiracy mode every time there's a mass shooting need to embrace common sense logic that perhaps gun ownership and access laws need to be reviewed.
Here's some logic for you: its harder to commit a gun-related crime if you don't have a gun.
Yet even more evidence gun control is about the inability of some individuals to control their emotions, not logic.
"SNOWFLAKES Shut Down Toy Gun Store Because it Made Them Uncomfortable" https://www.bitchute.com/video/xivdAsb9UwI/
"SNOWFLAKES Shut Down Toy Gun Store Because it Made Them Uncomfortable" https://www.bitchute.com/video/xivdAsb9UwI/
Sure, I made an assumption (one I didn't actually even explicitly state BTW), and so did the article. So your assumption is some how more valid than my assumption? LOL, K.
Yes, my assumption is more valid than yours because mine stems from quotes from people actually affected by the issue (you are not affected). Your assumption is based on the desire to wedge a news item into the context of your own tired talking points.
I love the hypocrisy as you simultaneously call me a hypocrite. What I said is very much on topic. You are a fearful little man, and you form your opinions from a position of Pathos, not Logos. Your emotions rule you to the point you are unable to use simple logic to see how your own statements are self contradictory.
Wow dude. You just described yourself more accurately than I've ever seen anybody else do.
OOooO they are "allowed" to keep the rest of their guns. How gracious of them to "allow" them to have an inalienable human right.
Inalienable human right my ass. Only in spoiled pasty class America are people that delusional.
I will let all the people know who have had "the rest of their guns" taken, up to and including air rifles. I am sure they will be glad to hear they get to keep a handful of pea shooters.
You're not perhaps letting your emotions rule you to the point that you are using ridiculous hyperbole here are you?
BTW, what the fuck is a "military-grade weapon" anyway? Let me guess, the black scary looking ones? You don't have a fucking clue what you are even talking about, please stop pretending you know shit about firearms.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/10/711820023/new-zealand-passes-law-banning-most-semi-automatic-weapons
Quote
Less than one month after a gunman killed 50 people in an attack on two mosques in Christchurch, the New Zealand Parliament voted Wednesday to ban most semi-automatic and military-style weapons.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/20/asia/new-zealand-christchurch-gun-ban-intl/index.html
Quote
All military-style semi-automatic weapons, assault rifles and high-capacity magazines will be banned in New Zealand following the mass shootings at two Christchurch mosques that killed 50 people, New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced on Thursday.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12234959
Quote
That reform banned most semi-automatic military-style weapons and their parts
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a26895169/new-zealand-ban-semi-automatic-guns-mass-shooting/
Quote
New Zealand Is Taking Away Its Citizens' Military-Grade Weapons. Good.
Jacinta Arden, New Zealand PM:
Quote
“Today I am announcing that New Zealand will ban all military-style semi-automatic weapons. We will also ban all assault rifles. We will ban all high capacity magazines. We will ban all parts with the ability to convert semi-automatic or any other type of firearm into a military-style semi-automatic weapon."
I don't need to know much about guns to know that you're an asshole.
By that logic your opinions mean nothing as well. I can find quotes from people living there that agree with me too. Furthermore it does directly effect me because weak minded people like you will use policies like this as justification for stripping my rights here. This was even explicitly the intent of the shooter as stated in his manifesto.
Yeah, what spoiled Americans we are with our highfalutin rights to not be subjects to the violence of tyrants and criminals. Also "pasty class" is that a racial reference you fucking bigot?
Not hyperbole, fact. You quoting the New Zealand law doesn't magically impart knowledge of firearms to you. I am well aware of the language of the law, and it consists of completely arbitrary standards designed to make the nation defenseless and dependent on the state monopoly of force. Just because other retards use the term "military-style weapons" does not magically make it less of a totally arbitrary terminology. You seem upset. Didn't you just get done accusing me of being motivated by my emotions?
LOL! Let me get this straight Nutilduhh... you chastise me saying I didn't read the article, then say TL;DR, shortly after claiming I am making assumptions directly after parroting the assumptions in the article for reasons why people aren't turning in their firearms.
Just admit you didn't read the article. Your version of the article is making assumptions that its reader base (you) want to hear. That's how that website supports itself: constructing fearmongering, conspiratorial narratives that resonate within the echo chamber hive mind of its readership, reinforcing absurd and religiously-held beliefs. Your article didn't say peep about the fact that maybe (just maybe) the gun owners are waiting for clarification on how much money they will receive for forking over their military-grade weapons. What you and the story you quoted fail to mention is, they are allowed to keep the rest of their guns!
The rest of your comment is just too petty, ridiculous and hypocritical (and off-topic) to respond to.
The fact is very few people complied. Sure, I made an assumption (one I didn't actually even explicitly state BTW), and so did the article. So your assumption is some how more valid than my assumption? LOL, K.
I love the hypocrisy as you simultaneously call me a hypocrite. What I said is very much on topic. You are a fearful little man, and you form your opinions from a position of Pathos, not Logos. Your emotions rule you to the point you are unable to use simple logic to see how your own statements are self contradictory.
OOooO they are "allowed" to keep the rest of their guns. How gracious of them to "allow" them to have an inalienable human right. I will let all the people know who have had "the rest of their guns" taken, up to and including air rifles. I am sure they will be glad to hear they get to keep a handful of pea shooters. BTW, what the fuck is a "military-grade weapon" anyway? Let me guess, the black scary looking ones? You don't have a fucking clue what you are even talking about, please stop pretending you know shit about firearms.
NEVER give up your right to self defence. EVER.
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/after-new-zealand-banned-guns-only-530-of-300000-people-turned-them-in/
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/after-new-zealand-banned-guns-only-530-of-300000-people-turned-them-in/
You clearly didn't read the original article sourced by your conspiracy enthusiast website:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12235230
Quote
New figures show gun owners are holding back on handing in their firearms, because they're waiting to hear how much the Government will pay for them...
There are around 250,000 licenced firearm holders in New Zealand and it's estimated as many as 300,000 guns could now be illegal.
It comes as gun owners are waiting on any details around compensation for their guns...
"If they are being serious about their considerations and ensuring that there is fair and reasonable compensation, then firearm owners will wait a bit longer to make sure it is just and it is fair when it is received."
She said that people were likely to still be considering if they would claim their firearms as heirlooms or sell them to collectors.
McKee expected most people would comply with the laws, but she said that there was no trust in the system whatsoever among firearms owners, and that people felt blindsided and blamed.
"We are effectively being punished for the acts of a foreign terrorist, and we want to make sure that our personal and private property is adequately compensated when it is confiscated."...
McKee said firearms owners were looking for compensation for parts as well as the weapons themselves.
There are around 250,000 licenced firearm holders in New Zealand and it's estimated as many as 300,000 guns could now be illegal.
It comes as gun owners are waiting on any details around compensation for their guns...
"If they are being serious about their considerations and ensuring that there is fair and reasonable compensation, then firearm owners will wait a bit longer to make sure it is just and it is fair when it is received."
She said that people were likely to still be considering if they would claim their firearms as heirlooms or sell them to collectors.
McKee expected most people would comply with the laws, but she said that there was no trust in the system whatsoever among firearms owners, and that people felt blindsided and blamed.
"We are effectively being punished for the acts of a foreign terrorist, and we want to make sure that our personal and private property is adequately compensated when it is confiscated."...
McKee said firearms owners were looking for compensation for parts as well as the weapons themselves.
TL;DR: has nothing to do with "the right to self defense." Your story took one fact and spun it into a narrative that has nothing to do with the original news article.
LOL! Let me get this straight Nutilduhh... you chastise me saying I didn't read the article, then say TL;DR, shortly after claiming I am making assumptions directly after parroting the assumptions in the article for reasons why people aren't turning in their firearms.
Just admit you didn't read the article. Your version of the article is making assumptions that its reader base (you) want to hear. That's how that website supports itself: constructing fearmongering, conspiratorial narratives that resonate within the echo chamber hive mind of its readership, reinforcing absurd and religiously-held beliefs. Your article didn't say peep about the fact that maybe (just maybe) the gun owners are waiting for clarification on how much money they will receive for forking over their military-grade weapons. What you and the story you quoted fail to mention is, they are allowed to keep the rest of their guns!
The rest of your comment is just too petty, ridiculous and hypocritical (and off-topic) to respond to.
NEVER give up your right to self defence. EVER.
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/after-new-zealand-banned-guns-only-530-of-300000-people-turned-them-in/
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/after-new-zealand-banned-guns-only-530-of-300000-people-turned-them-in/
You clearly didn't read the original article sourced by your conspiracy enthusiast website:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12235230
Quote
New figures show gun owners are holding back on handing in their firearms, because they're waiting to hear how much the Government will pay for them...
There are around 250,000 licenced firearm holders in New Zealand and it's estimated as many as 300,000 guns could now be illegal.
It comes as gun owners are waiting on any details around compensation for their guns...
"If they are being serious about their considerations and ensuring that there is fair and reasonable compensation, then firearm owners will wait a bit longer to make sure it is just and it is fair when it is received."
She said that people were likely to still be considering if they would claim their firearms as heirlooms or sell them to collectors.
McKee expected most people would comply with the laws, but she said that there was no trust in the system whatsoever among firearms owners, and that people felt blindsided and blamed.
"We are effectively being punished for the acts of a foreign terrorist, and we want to make sure that our personal and private property is adequately compensated when it is confiscated."...
McKee said firearms owners were looking for compensation for parts as well as the weapons themselves.
There are around 250,000 licenced firearm holders in New Zealand and it's estimated as many as 300,000 guns could now be illegal.
It comes as gun owners are waiting on any details around compensation for their guns...
"If they are being serious about their considerations and ensuring that there is fair and reasonable compensation, then firearm owners will wait a bit longer to make sure it is just and it is fair when it is received."
She said that people were likely to still be considering if they would claim their firearms as heirlooms or sell them to collectors.
McKee expected most people would comply with the laws, but she said that there was no trust in the system whatsoever among firearms owners, and that people felt blindsided and blamed.
"We are effectively being punished for the acts of a foreign terrorist, and we want to make sure that our personal and private property is adequately compensated when it is confiscated."...
McKee said firearms owners were looking for compensation for parts as well as the weapons themselves.
TL;DR: has nothing to do with "the right to self defense." Your story took one fact and spun it into a narrative that has nothing to do with the original news article.
LOL! Let me get this straight Nutilduhh... you chastise me saying I didn't read the article, then say TL;DR, shortly after claiming I am making assumptions directly after parroting the assumptions in the article for reasons why people aren't turning in their firearms. How do you even function in the real world with that kind of inability to use simple logic? I think you are just a fearful little boy afraid of real men willing to stand up for their natural human right to self defense (yes this is directly related to self defense). Weak men often feel the need to attack stronger men because they are intimidated by what they will never be, some one with a pair of nuts. Of course when there is blood in the streets you are the first to run and hide behind them. As usual, nearly every gun control argument comes from a position of Pathos.
NEVER give up your right to self defence. EVER.
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/after-new-zealand-banned-guns-only-530-of-300000-people-turned-them-in/
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/after-new-zealand-banned-guns-only-530-of-300000-people-turned-them-in/
You clearly didn't read the original article sourced by your conspiracy enthusiast website:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12235230
Quote
New figures show gun owners are holding back on handing in their firearms, because they're waiting to hear how much the Government will pay for them...
There are around 250,000 licenced firearm holders in New Zealand and it's estimated as many as 300,000 guns could now be illegal.
It comes as gun owners are waiting on any details around compensation for their guns...
"If they are being serious about their considerations and ensuring that there is fair and reasonable compensation, then firearm owners will wait a bit longer to make sure it is just and it is fair when it is received."
She said that people were likely to still be considering if they would claim their firearms as heirlooms or sell them to collectors.
McKee expected most people would comply with the laws, but she said that there was no trust in the system whatsoever among firearms owners, and that people felt blindsided and blamed.
"We are effectively being punished for the acts of a foreign terrorist, and we want to make sure that our personal and private property is adequately compensated when it is confiscated."...
McKee said firearms owners were looking for compensation for parts as well as the weapons themselves.
There are around 250,000 licenced firearm holders in New Zealand and it's estimated as many as 300,000 guns could now be illegal.
It comes as gun owners are waiting on any details around compensation for their guns...
"If they are being serious about their considerations and ensuring that there is fair and reasonable compensation, then firearm owners will wait a bit longer to make sure it is just and it is fair when it is received."
She said that people were likely to still be considering if they would claim their firearms as heirlooms or sell them to collectors.
McKee expected most people would comply with the laws, but she said that there was no trust in the system whatsoever among firearms owners, and that people felt blindsided and blamed.
"We are effectively being punished for the acts of a foreign terrorist, and we want to make sure that our personal and private property is adequately compensated when it is confiscated."...
McKee said firearms owners were looking for compensation for parts as well as the weapons themselves.
TL;DR: has nothing to do with "the right to self defense." Your story took one fact and spun it into a narrative that has nothing to do with the original news article.
NEVER give up your right to self defence. EVER.
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/after-new-zealand-banned-guns-only-530-of-300000-people-turned-them-in/
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/after-new-zealand-banned-guns-only-530-of-300000-people-turned-them-in/
^^^ What an opportunity the NZ homeowner had to help out his friends, neighbors, and all freedom lovers! But he blew it.
When the cops came to the door and politely knocked and politely did what they did, they were starting negotiations. They were asking the homeowner for audience. And, the homeowner did a reasonable job of simple negotiation. His negotiation was to be able to film them during further negotiations. The cops declined his terms.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE COPS ASKED. THE HOMEOWNER GAVE THEM HIS TERMS. THEY DIDN'T ACCEPT HIS TERMS. THEY COULD HAVE COUNTER OFFERED.
What could the cops have done differently? They could have thrown out a second set of terms in which they would be filmed for part of it, and not filmed for the rest. In place of filming the rest, they could have offered the homeowner to get a witness or two who could write down what was said. But they didn't.
In other words, the cops made an offer, the homeowner made a counter offer, and the cops simply turned him down rather than making a counter-counter offer.
All that this type of homeowner negotiation does is to make any other homeowner who sees it, feel that he will be on the defensive. Here's what the homeowner should have done.
He should have counter offered with a requirement for a $10,000,000 bond from the cops, to sit out on the front yard with them, and hold an interview. And they would sign a hold-harmless clause for the bond money. He should, also, have required a cash amount for holding the interview. And, he would shut the camera off if he could have a couple of witnesses of his own choosing attend the interview and take notes.
Why would this be better, since the cops would still say "No?" Because average homeowners always need money. And when they see this short footage, the idea of being paid for an interview, along with a $bond for protection, will start to get some of the average homeowners to go on the offensive.
IF the cops and government happened to be willing to do this for the interview, other people would start to do the same, and the country would be bankrupted if government continued.
Cops are just cops. They are not kings, dictators, or God. Neither are the rest of the people in government. NZ is a common law country, with the jury ruling via Queen's Bench. If a cop wants an interview, give it to him... on your terms... and make a chunk of money in the process... or get him to leave you alone.
When the cops came to the door and politely knocked and politely did what they did, they were starting negotiations. They were asking the homeowner for audience. And, the homeowner did a reasonable job of simple negotiation. His negotiation was to be able to film them during further negotiations. The cops declined his terms.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE COPS ASKED. THE HOMEOWNER GAVE THEM HIS TERMS. THEY DIDN'T ACCEPT HIS TERMS. THEY COULD HAVE COUNTER OFFERED.
What could the cops have done differently? They could have thrown out a second set of terms in which they would be filmed for part of it, and not filmed for the rest. In place of filming the rest, they could have offered the homeowner to get a witness or two who could write down what was said. But they didn't.
In other words, the cops made an offer, the homeowner made a counter offer, and the cops simply turned him down rather than making a counter-counter offer.
All that this type of homeowner negotiation does is to make any other homeowner who sees it, feel that he will be on the defensive. Here's what the homeowner should have done.
He should have counter offered with a requirement for a $10,000,000 bond from the cops, to sit out on the front yard with them, and hold an interview. And they would sign a hold-harmless clause for the bond money. He should, also, have required a cash amount for holding the interview. And, he would shut the camera off if he could have a couple of witnesses of his own choosing attend the interview and take notes.
Why would this be better, since the cops would still say "No?" Because average homeowners always need money. And when they see this short footage, the idea of being paid for an interview, along with a $bond for protection, will start to get some of the average homeowners to go on the offensive.
IF the cops and government happened to be willing to do this for the interview, other people would start to do the same, and the country would be bankrupted if government continued.
Cops are just cops. They are not kings, dictators, or God. Neither are the rest of the people in government. NZ is a common law country, with the jury ruling via Queen's Bench. If a cop wants an interview, give it to him... on your terms... and make a chunk of money in the process... or get him to leave you alone.
"Police Question Citizen About His Facebook Posts?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLCFQaxf150
^^^ Now you are getting it. Gun control in full force. The force that is stronger than no guns is guns, unless you want to use A-bombs.
Take a look at the USA. There are millions of people who want to control their own guns. How are you going to take their guns away from them? They aren't going to listen to you when you tell them to trash their guns. So, how are you going to do it "in full force?" Are you going to go against your own principles, and use guns to force them to have no guns?
Take a look at the USA. There are millions of people who want to control their own guns. How are you going to take their guns away from them? They aren't going to listen to you when you tell them to trash their guns. So, how are you going to do it "in full force?" Are you going to go against your own principles, and use guns to force them to have no guns?
Jump to: