As our research has previously revealed, the man who attacked two mosques in Christchurch on 15 March 2019, killing 51 people, posted publicly online for five years before his terrorist atrocity.

Here we provide further information about Brenton Tarrant’s posting. This article has two main goals.

First, by placing his online posting against his other online and offline activities, we gain a far more complete picture of the path to his attack.

• READ MORE: Christchurch terrorist discussed attacks online a year before carrying them out, new research reveals
• The road to March 15: ‘networked white rage’ and the Christchurch terror attacks
• Can ideology-detecting algorithms catch online extremism before it takes hold?

Second, we want to show how his online community played a role in his radicalisation. This is important, as the same can happen to others immersed in that community.

In combining his online and offline activity here we do not seek to attribute blame to those who might have been expected to detect this behaviour. It is exceptionally difficult to identify terrorists online.

And yet, history is full of difficult problems that have been overcome. We use the benefit of hindsight to provide greater understanding of Tarrant’s pathway than has previously been available.

The aim is to prevent similar attacks by better understanding how such people act and how they might be detected.

Words and deeds
In the timeline below, we focus on Tarrant’s activity in 2018, following his first visit to Dunedin’s Bruce Rifle Club on December 14 2017, until his final overseas trip in October. It is for this period that we have the most comprehensive online posting history.

In 2024, we have both the benefit of hindsight and the accumulation of information relating to the attack. However, this triangulation of online and offline activities illustrates the ways those contemplating terrorist violence might act.

We can now see, for example, that Tarrant bought high-powered firearms on three occasions over a six-week period in March and April 2018. And he posted publicly twice on the online imageboard 4chan about his plans for racially motivated violence, and his veneration of a perpetrator of a similar attack.

Tarrant therefore not only “leaked” his plans for violence, he did so at the very moment he was buying weapons for it.

Over 20 days in July and August, Tarrant presented to hospital with gunshot wounds, and began selling weapons online under the username Mannerheim (the name of a Finnish nationalist leader revered for defeating the communists in the country’s civil war).

He also posted publicly about his anger at the presence of mosques in South Island cities (claiming one had replaced a church). He wrote “soon” when another poster suggested setting fire to these places of worship.

A month later he attempted to sell weapons on online marketplace TradeMe, using a prominent white nationalist slogan — “14 Words” — in his username. (Strangely, this clear red flag was mentioned only once in the royal commission report on the attacks.)

TradeMe removed one of these advertisements for violating its terms of use. That caused Tarrant to move to another forum — NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums — to complain.

Extremist community
Our study has also revealed how important the 4chan community is to the radicalisation of individuals like Tarrant. In contrast to the fleeting human interaction he had with others as he travelled the world, 4chan was Tarrant’s community.

4chan’s /pol/ (politically incorrect) board became his home. Here he interacted with others over long periods, imagining he was speaking to the same people over months and years, and assuming many of them had become his friends.

We have found that, while creating a sense of belonging and community, /pol/ also works to create extremists in both direct and indirect ways.

Its anonymous nature (users are assigned a unique ID number for each thread, rather than a username) has two effects. One is well known, the other identified in our study.

First, anonymity encourages behaviour that would be absent if the poster’s identity was known. Second, anonymity is frustrating for those who wish to “be someone”, who crave respect and notoriety.

We have documented the way Tarrant (and others) strive to gain status in a discussion, only to have to start again when they move to a new thread and are given a new ID. This lack of ongoing recognition is agonising for some individuals, who go to lengths to obtain respect.

Anonymity and peer respect
And just like a real-world fascist movement, /pol/ venerates violent action as necessary for the vitality and regeneration of the community.

When a terrorist attack, school shooting or other violent event occurs, users celebrate these events in so-called “happening” threads. These threads are longer, more emotional and excited than any other discussions. Participants often claim the individual at the centre of the event is “/ourguy/” (a reference to the /pol/ board).

The threads are also highly anticipatory: many users believe this event will finally push society into violent chaos and race war.

These dynamics are closely connected. For those who seek recognition and status on the bulletin board, such as Tarrant, the excited attention and adoration given to those who perpetrate high-profile violence is the clearest path to the peer respect that the anonymity of the board otherwise denies them.

As harrowing as this finding is, we contend that gaining respect from their online community is in itself a crucial motivation for some perpetrators of far-right terrorism.

The nature of this extreme but easily accessible corner of the internet means any hope Tarrant was a one-off — and that this won’t happen again — is misguided.

The authors acknowledge the expert contribution of tactical and forensic linguist and independent researcher Julia Kupper. More information about our study will be released at heiaglobal.com. Our research was approved by the University of Auckland Human Participant Ethics Committee. A paper based on this study has been submitted for peer review and publication.

Chris Wilson, co-founder and director of Hate & Extremism Insights Aotearoa (HEIA) and director, Master of Conflict and Terrorism Studies, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Ethan Renner, researcher, Hate & Extremism Insights Aotearoa, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Jack Smylie, research analyst, Hate & Extremism Insights Aotearoa, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau, and Michal Dziwulski, researcher, Hate & Extremism Insights Aotearoa, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern today announced a New Zealand ban on all military-style semi-automatic weapons and all assault rifles

She pledged the day after the terrorist massacre in Christchurch last Friday that “gun laws will change” and would be announced within 10 days of the attack.

Fifty people were killed in the bloody shooting.

READ MORE: RNZ’s tribute to the lost – ‘They are us’

This afternoon, Ardern said every semi-automatic weapon used in the terrorist attack on two mosques would be banned under more stringent gun laws.

As of 3pm today an order in council took effect. The changes to the regulations would mean the firearms were now categorised as needing an E-class licence endorsement.

This means no one will be able to buy the weapons without police approval. Ardern said there was no point in applying for one.

For those who are already in possession of these weapons, Ardern said the firearms would be tightly regulated, while for everyone else, the weapons would now be effectively out of reach.

Buyback scheme
She also said the government would establish a buyback scheme to take the firearms out of circulation.

After a reasonable period for returns, those who continue to possess these firearms will be in contravention of the law.

Anyone in breach of the law would be liable to a $4000 fine or up to three years imprisonment.

“We’re looking to increase the penalty when the ban is in full force and the opportunities of buyback are over,” Ardern said.

Ardern said the buyback scheme was designed to prevent the creation of a black market for banned weapons.

She said people who held weapons illegally would be protected by a police amnesty.

“We’re in the dark as to how many of these are in circulation,” Ardern said, referring to the number of weapons the government might have to buy back.

No funding conversations
“We haven’t had specific conversations about where the funding for the buyback will come from.”

She said she was confident that the majority of New Zealanders would support the gun law changes.

Police Minister Stuart Nash said the decisive move was an interim step until legislation could be passed. That legislation is likely to be in place by April 11.

He said this measure would enable New Zealand to become a safer place.

He said police were currently preparing to take these weapons out of circulation.

Watch PM Jacinda Ardern announcing the semi-automatics ban – RNZ

Cabinet – including the Green Party – decided in principle on reforms on Monday, with the National Party said it supported change.

Legal ‘loopholes’
Ardern said on Wednesday that gun laws in New Zealand were “a blueprint of what not to do” and there was a “large number of loopholes” in the law.

The Police Association has called for semi-automatic weapons to be banned, while Fish and Game said it supported a ban on military-style semi-automatic weapons.

Retailer Hunting & Fishing New Zealand has pulled all “military-style” semi-automatic firearms from sale nationwide.

The Council of Licensed Firearms Owners said there was already a stringent vetting process for firearm licences in this country and military-style semi-automatic weapons should not be banned.

The alleged shooter in the terrorist attacks held a standard firearms licence that allowed him to own limited power semi-automatic weapons. Police said it was possible firearms had been modified to be more like a military-style automatic weapon.

Read a short history of New Zealand’s gun laws.

• Key points:
  Currently, standard Category A firearms licence holders are allowed to own AR-15 semi-automatic weapons, the gun of choice for the world’s mass killers.
• These semi-automatic weapons can be modified, such as using magazines that carry more bullets, effectively turning them into military-style semi-automatic weapons (MSSAs).
• A semi-automatic weapon is one where the trigger must be pulled for each shot, whereas automatic weapon can fire continuously until it runs out of ammunition.
• Currently, to secure a basic Category A licence two referees must be provided by the applicant. They are also interviewed and their gun storage checked.
• The rules around owning MSSAs are more stringent, requiring more secure storage, a valid reason for owning one, permission from the police, and for the weapon to be registered.
• There is currently no register of all guns and who owns them, making it impossible to see if someone is building up a cache of arms, police say.
• There are an estimated 1,5 million guns in New Zealand and about 250,000 people hold firearms licences.
• More than 99 percent of people who apply for a firearms licence in New Zealand are successful, according to police data.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

• Turkish president praises NZ’s PM Ardern for ‘courage, leadership’
• Other mosque massacre stories