It disturbs me that our first response to the Christchurch massacre is to look for politically acceptable measures that will stand no chance against the evil they are supposed to prevent.
Most of our Government's reaction, just like that of other politically sensitive governments around the world reaction's to similar atrocities, is to find the most vulnerable, high profile public utensil that could be misused and take it out of circulation using the law of the land to do so.
The normal procedure is to make sure the Government's "feel good" actions are backed up either by enforcing existing or implementing new legislation that has to be rushed through the house in the dead of night so that people will see their leaders are serious about fixing the problem.
Unfortunately, the end result of this type of approach will have virtually no effect on the possibility of this sort of tragedy happening again but instead will compound existing unrelated problems as a result of this ineffective hip reaction.
It makes the politicians briefly look responsible but actually only offers a false sense of security for those who are concerned about their personal safety in our society. In reality, those who are of a mind to perpetrate this type of horror on a public of any description will simply go back to the drawing board and work out some other way of carrying out the slaughter.
The reason why this is likely to be the case here in Godzone is just the same as why these types of mass murder keep occurring irrespective of any changes to the law governing the use of weapons that have been introduced throughout the world.
Most of these crimes against humanity are the work of deeply disturbed individuals who appear to operate in much the same way. They seek the notoriety that comes with the publicity associated with their evil deeds and philosophy. The law of the land is irrelevant.
Prior to the execution of their meticulously calculated plans, they spend months, even years preparing for the main event. Countries like ours that have few laws governing freedom of movement are tailor made for this type of assault.
So, a change to laws they will ignore anyway will probably be seen initially as an obstacle to their plans for mass destruction but, in a relative sense, not an insurmountable one.
I'm no psychologist but l am pretty sure that any case studies of these killing machines will show that choice of weapon will be a relatively minor factor in the planning stages.
Contrary to popular opinion or the mistaken assurances given by politicians, the act of banning an automatic rifle from the shelves of legitimate sale outlets will have "diddly squat" effect on the type of facility used on the day of terror.
Just because a weapon or facility used as such is restricted or banned has virtually no influence on how these crimes are committed. The hijacking of aircraft on 9/11 in New York is testimony to that unfortunate truth.
Whether it was legitimately owned or operated is of no consequence when the families of the deceased are struggling with their grief and looking for answers.
Those unfortunate people who are the casualties of the worst aspects of modern society would be better served if our Government paid more attention to the security measures in place that are supposedly designed to limit the possibility of either our home grown or legally introduced maniacs operating with the freedom they currently do. eg. How did the killer who was known to Aussie police get here in the first place?
The really sad thing about our reaction to this tragedy is that the recently rushed and consequently potentially bad legislation banning just one type of murder weapon would probably not have saved a single innocent life at the Christchurch mosque and is unlikely to save any others at the next mass killing either.
A poor result all round. We must do better!
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.