Talk:2023 Auckland shooting

How do you define 3 deaths as a mass shooting?

Mass shooting? Waikoko (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be defined by multiple deaths victims, so I think we can keep the label for now.

Mass shooting

A mass shooting is a violent crime in which an attacker kills or injures multiple individuals simultaneously using a firearm. There is no widely-accepted definition of "mass shooting" and different organizations tracking such incidents use different definitions. Definitions of mass shootings exclude warfare and sometimes exclude instances of gang violence, armed robberies, and familicides.

Panamitsu (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

More to the point, sounds like he shot 8 people. A mass shooting is not necessarily a mass killing. Nurg (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

A Stuff journalist has now defined this as a mass shooting (compiling a list of other “mass shootings” in NZ Aotearoa). I suppose 3 deaths (one the shooter) and 10 reported injuries can be described as multiple shootings, but “mass”? 49.224.246.43 (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Because a mass shooting is generally understood as reckless shooting towards multiple people, not by body count. Kingsif (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

But how do you describe multiple? More than 2? 49.224.246.43 (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Mass shooting? The gunman was shot dead by police after he shot dead 2 civilians. Hardly a mass shooting. Waikoko (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

8 reported injuries so far. Where do you start counting multiple? And I still disagree with your “mass shooting” definition. Waikoko (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

And no reports from NZ Police yet if the 8 injured were shot, some may have been injured from other causes. No credible news source has reported this as a mass shooting yet. Is your report being checked by a journalist? If not, perhaps you should find one. I’m a retired journalist in Auckland/Tamaki Makaurau. Waikoko (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the definition is as American as, well, mass shootings, but whether you agree with it that definition is pretty immaterial - there's a standard and that's it. The idea that this Wikipedia entry is "a report" that you think should be (as a matter of course?) "checked by a journalist" is, to be frank, very much missing the mark of what Wikipedia is and does. You've come to have an opinion on this article and don't know how Wikipedia works, which is fine - we'll hear your concerns and judge if we should/if there's a way to address them - but please don't try to present yourself as a subject expert or some kind of supervisor who should be consulted first. That would not be welcome. Kingsif (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I’ve offended anyone. This is the first time I’ve questioned a Wikipedia post, obviously I shouldn’t have done so because I didn’t know the rules. I’ll try to delete my comments. 49.224.246.43 (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see you've not done anything offensive or broken any rules and you shouldn't delete your comments. As with any online medium, we all need to try not to get too tetchy, and to develop a thick skin when others do. I find a few of the more personal comments made in this discussion to be a bit odd, but it's best to skim over them and focus on discussing article content. Nurg (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I highly suggest you check out the Wikipedia page "Mass shooting". Noteworthy quotes are in the intro and "Definitions" section. The vast majority of accepted definitions of "mass shooting" include those where 4+ people are injured and/or 3+ people are killed. This was a mass shooting. Not trying to be rude, but it's a little discomfiting that you're so passionate about debunking an event with 8+ injuries and 3 deaths being a mass shooting.

From the mass shooting article:

1) A mass shooting is a violent crime in which an attacker kills or injures multiple individuals simultaneously using a firearm. There is no widely-accepted definition of "mass shooting" and different organizations tracking such incidents use different definitions.

2) Mass Shooting Tracker, a crowdsourced data site cited by CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist, the BBC, etc., defines a mass shooting as any incident in which four or more people are shot, whether injured or killed.

3) CBS defines a mass shooting as an event involving the shooting (not necessarily resulting in death) of five or more people (sometimes four) with no cooling-off period.

Mother Jones defines a mass shooting as an indiscriminate rampage in a public place, resulting in three or more victims killed by the attacker, excluding gang violence, armed robbery, and attacks by unidentified perpetrators. Afddiary (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I did check Wikipedia’s definition of mass shooting before I commented. It lists various sources, but most say 4-5 deaths or more. I’m not trying to “debunk” a tragic shooting, I’m just asking Wikipedia to stick to the facts and not get too tabloid. Waikoko (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Identity of shooter

Looks like the police commissioner has named the shooter and given some more details about him. Should these details be included? With reference to WP:BLPCRIME, though BLP policies typically apply to the recently-deceased, it is lacking guidance on suspect-died-in-incident cases. Does anyone know if courts in NZ can find a deceased person guilty of killing others? Do we need the deaths to be confirmed as murders? Kingsif (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

NZ courts do not try dead people. If he is announced as the dead perp that is the end of the matter. WWGB (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I would expect a coroner's inquiry or inquest will be held, eventually, to officially establish the cause(s) of death. This will not find the deceased guilty, but it might establish what happened, and why. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a minute's silence was incorporated into the opening ceremony of the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup after a deadly shooting in a host city earlier that day?Rollo, Phillip (2023-07-20). "FIFA Women's World Cup teams honour victims of Auckland shooting". Stuff. Archived from the original on 22 July 2023. Retrieved 2023-07-20.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Meenakshi Pahuja

Created by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 00:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2023 Auckland shooting; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Approved with this edit. --evrik ^(talk) 22:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

New image

I would like to include an image closer related to the event, e.g. police officers outside the scene; however other articles of similar topics also only include images of the location prior to attack. Is using an image from the time of the attack acceptable? CrawlyMonster (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Relevance of first paragraph of Background section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I fail to understand the relevance of the first paragraph of the Background section of this article, which states: "The second deadliest mass shooting in New Zealand took place in 1990 in Aramoana, with the deadliest being the terror attack in Christchurch in 2019, after which a firearm buy-back scheme was held and the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Act 2019 was passed by the New Zealand House of Representatives on 10 April 2019." Firstly, the statement is historically inaccurate, as 48 Japanese prisoners of war were shot during the Featherston prisoner of war camp riot, so the statement should be qualified by using the word "civilian". Second, if the list of massacres in New Zealand is anywhere near like comprehensive, then this shooting is New Zealand's first workplace "mass shooting" by a disgruntle current or former employee. However, trying to compare this shooting to events in Aramoana in 1990 or Christchurch in 2019 just doesn't work for me and I fail to see the connection, as those shootings had different motives and involved semi-automatic weapons, not a pump-action shotgun. If a comparison is to be made then the 1997 Raurimu massacre is, perhaps, the most relevant, because that shooting also involved a shotgun, but was used in a family context. Also, the relevance of mentioning the firearms buy-back scheme and prohibited weapons legislation escapes me, as the firearm used was not a prohibited weapon and not the sort of weapon the buy-back scheme was intended to remove from circulation. In any case, those references are outdated, I would have thought that discussing the Arms Legislation Act 2020 is more relevant, since it is more recent and makes some major changes to New Zealand's firearms legislation, including introducing a firearms register less than a month ago. Additionally, some discussion of the more recent instance of firearms being discharged by criminals around Auckland, at least to give a picture of the current level of gun crime in the city, would also seem more relevant to me. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe I agree, and I think that the statement should be removed, or at least put into a place where it's relevant. Panamitsu (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Panamitsu: I have now added a relevance clean-up tag to the paragraph concerned in the hope of generating some further discussion. If other mass shootings in New Zealand are going to be mentioned, this is more relevant in the "See also" section or in an analysis section that puts the shooting in its historical context and compares and contrasts it with other shooting crimes. I do not see those other shootings or the prohibited firearms legislative environment has having "background" relevance to this particular shooting. What might be relevant is background information on how the perpetrator was able to acquire and possess a pump-action shotgun without holding a firearms licence. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

A Background section on attacks generally also gives information on the context of the history of such and how they are perceived. A mass shooting in the US, for example, would have a Background section that probably perfunctorily notes they happen frequently before looking at gun laws in the particular state. I don't have a fully-formed view on whether this kind of information is always necessary or relevant, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) you seem to be familiar with gun laws and the like in New Zealand - many readers won't be and so having a brief bit of information to frame the context of the incident at the article, not having to click read through gun laws in New Zealand and List of massacres in New Zealand, is probably useful. Kingsif (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif: If having read Thorp's June 1997 Review of Firearms Control in New Zealand, (ISBN 0-477-01796-7), and being familiar with various other New Zealand websites, makes me familiar with New Zealand firearms legislation, so be it. Having also experienced the (live) news coverage of both the massacres mentioned in the article, the 2023 Auckland shooting, while tragic, is probably not going to be the sort of event that gives the nation pause to rethink its gun laws, unlike Aramoana and Christchurch. So, I don't think this event ought to be compared with them. Nor do I think the 2019 law changes or the firearms buy-back need to be discussed, at this point, because they don't really inform the reader and sound like someone (in Wikipedia) has another political agenda. I do agree that some mention of New Zealand's approach to licencing firearms owners, not their guns, is worth discussing, as well as the recently established Te Tari Pūreke (NZ Firearms Safety Authority) and its newly established arms register. However, the perpetrator did not hold a firearms licence, appears to have never even applied for one, and being on home detention for violent crimes was disqualified from holding one in any case, so how he acquired a pump-action shotgun is a question that the police investigation into the shooting is going to have to answer. This fact, alone, implies that current regulation of firearms in NZ has a flaw that needs to be closed. What I think is worth mentioning is that shotguns are probably one of the more common firearms used in New Zealand, particularly in agriculture and recreational hunting. Also, unlike some rifles and pistols, their ownership has not been previously recorded in existing arms registers. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Cameron that the first para is not really background to this incident; also agree that some of the info might be included in an analysis section in the latter part of the article rather than the earlier part of the article – though it would best if there were sources that discuss this incident in the context of the earlier history. Nurg (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nurg and @Kingsif: The New York Times source cited in this paragraph does give some background history noting that mass-shootings in New Zealand are "rare" events then going on to mention the Raurimu shooting as well as both the Aromoana and Christchurch shootings and resulting changes in gun laws concerning Military-Style Semi-Automatic (MSSA) weapons and the arms buy-back scheme. But there is otherwise little analysis about the history, and nothing concerning shotguns. Given what is and isn't included in the background from this source, I suspect a biased interpretation has been placed on the source when writing the first paragraph, and some important facts in that source that have been omitted from the article, while those that are currently included should be given far less weight, if any at all. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe. Just in case you didn't realise, that para has undergone a number of changes since it was first written. Nurg (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nurg: It is how it is currently written that concerns me. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. I agree that the perpetrator's relationship to firearms warrants a mention, though that would be in a section about him (or the incident if there isn't enough content for a Perpetrator section). I think your last two sentences mention important context that should be in a background section - I knew that, through farming, some guns are quite prevalent in NZ but I did not see this mentioned in any source about this shooting. If you have a source, please add (and amend). Similarly, if there are sources that come to discuss the investigation of how the perp got a gun, that might go in the responses. Kingsif (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seven of the people injured suffered gunshot wounds, with three people injured by other means.

Can someone tell me where in the source this is mentioned because i cant find it Trade (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"On 20 July 2023, Reid entered the One Queen Street building with a pump-action shotgun" There is mention of the type of shotgun in the source--Trade (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Trade: This NZ Herald report implies it was a pump-action shotgun, although the Police Commissioner doesn't say that explicitly. Also, this Stuff article states there were 10 injured treated, with five transported to Auckland hospital, and one to Middlemore, by ambulance. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

PS: According to the New York Times, it was the Prime Minister who identified the weapon as a pump-action shotgun at his news conference. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Where does it say that 7 of the injuries was caused by gunfire? Trade (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Trade: The sources do not say what caused the injuries, only that some of the injuries were serious enough to require hospitalization, while others were minor enough to be treated by ambulance paramedics. Has the source been misinterpreted? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The infobox specifies that three out of 10 injuries were not caused by gunfire. Still looking for a source on that claim Trade (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2023

==Motive==
If we can let's change motive to equal "under investigation" or "unknown" until it's clarified with more public information.

Dukeofsamuels (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please be more precise in which sentence you would like to be change. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Change Motive= to Motive= Under investigation. Dukeofsamuels (talk)

Comment: I don't think that "Under investigation" is a valid value for a motive for a crime where the perpetrator is deceased, as identifying a motive requires understanding the state of mind the perpetrator was in and why they then decided to commit the crime. So, unless there are witnesses that can explain why he did it, the motive will remain uncertain. In that case it is better not say anything about the motive, rather than fill out an optional attribute in the info box that could be misleading. Put simply, so far investigators can speculate but nobody knows. If you can come up with a reliable source that says someone does definitively know the perpetrator's motive, please cite it. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)