Ex-Russian soldier dies of suicide after standoff in Christchurch (over an SKS) - Sensationalist Headlines

Maybe i'm wrong but these sorts of actions seem to paint a picture of someone who never quite stopped being in a war even after the operation itself was over.

It’s probably kind of hard to differentiate between being at home and being at war when armed people are sent after you regardless.

Ok, maybe it was an "open ended" statement, but the fact you're not seeing yourself as asinine for equating what this man did to hoarding explosives is making me genuinely confused about you, especially because of the circumstances surrounding the story.

Except for the fact that I'm not equating the two, and my statement was literally just about your statement. Which you seem to have a hard time understanding.

Actually, re-reading the article and giving it a think-over, isn't the chain of events something like this: Police get contacted on suspicion of illegal weapons being present, spurred on by a facebook post (good cause, stupid reason) Police raid home, actually finds illegal weapons at the address Man enters standoff with police, then commits suicide over fear of prison At exactly what point is anyone but the man doing anything wrong? Wrong here being owning illegal weapons and getting into police-standoffs, the suicide itself has already been touched upon as probable-result-of-past-trauma and really seems like a terrible thing to throw in with the others.

Peachy is one of the people who pretends to want “””reasonable common sense gun control TM””” in a thinly veiled attempt to justify steps toward total disarmament. They can’t be troubled with all the messy little details which happen along the way there.

It says "illegal, modified SKS semi-automatic" and nothing else. It's possible he could have had it through an illegal transfer, or they're just now considering an SKS with a Tapco stock as an assault weapon and he was afraid of going to jail for that.

I literally haven't made a single statement about gun control and every time I've ever posted in gun control threads, I've literally only posted pro-gun stances, you're literally manufacturing a strawman to lash out at.

I took the time to read up on the changes to NZ gun laws, and he definitely would not be going to jail for owning a weapon that was previously legal, since New Zealand is still in the transitional period, so he could 100% have peacefully handed over his rifle to police custody if that was the case. He would then be compensated once the government figures out exactly how their buyback programme is going to work. Since this is not what happened, it's either a case of the rifle being illegal before the ban, him not holding the license to own it before the ban, or him refusing to hand it over and instead entering a three-hour stand-off culminating in his suicide.

Sorry you’re right, I fucked up.

I'd agree if this wasn't a man whose seen too much for one man. Have some sympathy.

Uh. Suicide is never OKAY.

You're right. I should have thought before I posted.

But they don't know that because the government banned people reading it and are jailing people for it.

I don't think its unreasonable to assume that people that sympathize with the man also sympathize with him wanting to keep his gun, and by extension, disagreeing with this law

Yep, the guy lived a tough life. Imagine going through not one but two unpopular wars, seeing your country of birth with it's culture disappear and then coming to another country learning another language in older age, again, with a completely different culture. That's a bummer.

Sometimes when you have PTSD in order to feel safe you keep a weapon or something near you because it makes you feel safe. I personally keep a knife under my pillow or else I cant fall asleep. This man probably went through shit far more fucked up then I ever did, and that rifle was probably one of the only things that made him feel safe. So with this perspective lets go over this incident. A bunch of armed NZ police show up with a warrant to search the premise. They go over his stuff (and he's probably starting to feel progressively more scared and paranoid because PTSD is a fucking asshole like that). Eventually they find his rifle and he presumably doesn't let them take it. A stand off occurs and he kills himself because the dumbass cops kept escalating the situation, while also isolating him from his family. The cops should have let him talk to his family, instead they isolated him and gave him zero chance to chill out. The cops handled this situation stupidly.

Lot of vets that are in and out of combat tend to make peace that way. It's sorta impossible to ever truly come home again.

This kind of straight-for-the jugular "you are a stereotypical bad guy" rhetoric keeps getting whipped out by the folks in these threads that are doggedly pro-gun, including yourself. It's just disingenuous.

The police responded to someone suspected to be armed and possibly unstable, who then turned out to be armed and unstable. Now I can't say for certain why they wouldn't allow him to talk to family, but it's not a huge stretch of the imagination that it's simply a case of 'leave negotiations with people in standoffs to professionals', which is an entirely reasonable policy to have.

The lack of self-awareness displayed by some of the posters here is astonishing. This thread is like the pro-gun equivalent of anti-gun knee-jerk reactions to mass shootings. You want to blame NZ's gun laws for this man's suicide? Fine. But then, if you don't want to be a hypocrite, you'll also have to accept that, according to the exact same logic, guns can be blamed for any given shooting. I don't think that's the kind of Pandora's box you want to open. I'd advise you to sit this one out, rather than try to shoehorn your agenda in. This is a sad story, not one that you can try and use to score political points.

Those aren't the same at all. The victims of mass shooters die as a direct result of a mentally unstable individual seeking to commit an act of mass violence; guns are at most a contributing factor rather than a cause. This man died as a direct result of enforcing the new law; that law is the root cause. We can debate back and forth over whether a mass shooter would have used a bomb or truck or other means, but there's no ambiguity here, this man died because a policy of confiscation put him in a situation he couldn't handle. That's not to say that we can't enforce any law that might cause an unstable person to kill themselves, but he probably won't be the last, and it's disingenuous to treat it like a random act of nature. What you're saying is that we can't blame the US's drug policy for all the people killed by police in busts over grams of marijuana, unless we also blame Renault for the truck attack in Nice. These aren't equivalent things.

Sorry but it kind of gets hard to keep track of exactly who said what after the 1000th gun related thread where one of the first replies is a flyby shitpost. I thought your post history was in favor of gun bans but was actually thinking of someone else.

According to what logic, exactly? Do NZ gun laws regularly cause gun owners to commit suicide? Nothing indicates that this is the root cause other than your willingness to see it under that lens. You claim that the root cause of mass shootings isn't guns but mental instability. Then why don't you operate under the same logic in this case, where a man who by all accounts seems to have suffered from PTSD killed himself? Why then is the root cause considered by you to be the enforcement of a law, rather than the ailment that caused him to commit suicide in the first place? Why is your conclusion to mass shootings that guns aren't to blame and that we should focus on mental healthcare instead, to prevent people from even getting to the point where they'd consider mass murder, yet when it comes to a mentally unstable man shooting himself then the blame lies squarely on gun laws rather than on the government's failure to assist him in treating his PTSD and prevent him from becoming suicidal in the first place? You've got to be consistent. You can't point at an aspect you don't like and claim "this is the root cause" without justification, especially when you don't hold aspects you do like to the same standards.

I find this quite insensitive as a blanket statement, perhaps it wasn't the answer in this particular case (and I feel that way too), but there is some suffering people shouldn't have to go through just because you tell them the alternative is 'not okay'.

Don't even try to talk about shoehorning an agenda LOL

Thanks for taking my suicide is never okay out of complete context of the situation. In this literal case suicide was never okay and I find it both sad and disheartening that you're introducing other suffering people when the circumstances will be entirely different and my own opinions under that situation will be discretion based. This man didn't have to kill himself. There was a much better way out of this. But maybe I needed to clarify that suicide in other situations(think PAS) then maybe I could sway the other way. I'm pro life in THIS only instance simply because I've been on the edge many times.

Do you have anything of actual interest to add to the discussion or are you only interested in conflating pointing out inconsistencies and bias with shoehorning an agenda?

First off, drop the gaslighting. Let's not forget that the topic is a man, facing life in prison for owning a gun that was legal last week, choosing to commit suicide rather than surrender to the SWAT team raiding his home because someone reported his son's airsoft gun via Facebook. Does this not sound alarmingly dystopian to you? Is this not indicative that maybe a kneejerk legislation might have a couple problems?

is an unstable former soldier getting into a standoff with police really the best place for anyone in this argument to make a point? i mean the average gun owner isn't liable to even get in trouble due to the new laws, much less pose a risk to police officers.