New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[Danoff]

What do you mean?

The mortality rate is:

"Crude mortality rate refers to the number of deaths over a given period divided by the person-years lived by the population over that period. It is usually expressed in units of deaths per 1,000 individuals per year".

So if most people live to their 80s, a small percentage of people being shot earlier than that doesn't affect the mortality statistics.

 

[Novalee]

An Al Jazeera investigation recorded James Ashby — the chief of staff for One Nation's federal leader Pauline Hanson — and Queensland's One Nation leader Steve Dickson meeting with NRA representatives during a trip to Washington in Sept. 2018.

Reporter Rodger Muller posed as a gun lobbyist. He arranged and filmed meetings between One Nation and the NRA.

In the recordings Ashby claims One Nation could win two seats in the federal House of Representatives (lower house) with A$2 million.

"If you had 20 (million dollars) you would own the lower house and the upper house," he adds.

The ABC, which is screening the investigation in Australia, reported that in one meeting with the NRA, Dickson says: “Guns, in the scheme of things, are still going to be the be-all and end-all


So after all them folks were murdered in New Zealand , expect the nra to ramp up the rhetoric and start the bribes .

What is ironic is al ,jazzera caught them .

 

[PocketZeven]

An Al Jazeera investigation recorded James Ashby — the chief of staff for One Nation's federal leader Pauline Hanson — and Queensland's One Nation leader Steve Dickson meeting with NRA representatives during a trip to Washington in Sept. 2018.

Reporter Rodger Muller posed as a gun lobbyist. He arranged and filmed meetings between One Nation and the NRA.

In the recordings Ashby claims One Nation could win two seats in the federal House of Representatives (lower house) with A$2 million.

"If you had 20 (million dollars) you would own the lower house and the upper house," he adds.

The ABC, which is screening the investigation in Australia, reported that in one meeting with the NRA, Dickson says: “Guns, in the scheme of things, are still going to be the be-all and end-all


So after all them folks were murdered in New Zealand , expect the nra to ramp up the rhetoric and start the bribes .

What is ironic is al ,jazzera caught them .

Too bad this doesnt cause a dent anymore. The NRA has a following that is loyal to the core.

 

[Imari]

Too bad this doesnt cause a dent anymore. The NRA has a following that is loyal to the core.

Not in Australia they don't. It's a US institution.

 

[mustafur]

Loosening Gun regulation is a massively losing issue in Australia, even though I think the extent the media goes is Fear merchant level.

Politicians will go hard on guns even when the laws in place are already extremely restrictive and are proving to work, even though the vast majority(over 99%) of gun crime is Illegal guns, but it pleases People's fears of an American sceniaro.

 

[Danoff]

Loosening Gun regulation is a massively losing issue in Australia, even though I think the extent the media goes is Fear merchant level.

Politicians will go hard on guns even when the laws in place are already extremely restrictive and are proving to work, even though the vast majority(over 99%) of gun crime is Illegal guns, but it pleases People's fears of an American sceniaro.

I think you'd have a hard time allowing cars to be legal, or even fueling cars if we'd never seen it before. "You mean everyone can just, own one of these 2-ton death machines that go like a bat out of hell and they could just drive them through my house? What if they had a seizure or sneezed or fell asleep? Let alone a case where they get angry and lose their cool and run me over." Similarly I think people would expect gasoline to be way too dangerous for general handling.

If these things were made illegal I think after public got used to it you'd have a hard time talking them into legalizing it. It would seem like total chaos.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think you'd have a hard time allowing cars to be legal, or even fueling cars if we'd never seen it before. "You mean everyone can just, own one of these 2-ton death machines that go like a bat out of hell and they could just drive them through my house? What if they had a seizure or sneezed or fell asleep? Let alone a case where they get angry and lose their cool and run me over." Similarly I think people would expect gasoline to be way too dangerous for general handling.

If these things were made illegal I think after public got used to it you'd have a hard time talking them into legalizing it. It would seem like total chaos.

You shouldnt compare cars with guns. Comparing tanks, fighter planes, bazookas, grenades and guns with each other would be more accurate. A lot of people also get killed on bicycles, should you make them illegal too?

 

[Danoff]

You shouldnt compare cars with guns. Comparing tanks, fighter planes, bazookas, grenades and guns with each other would be more accurate. A lot of people also get killed on bicycles, should you make them illegal too?

Things which can be misused and seem potentially dangerous are difficult to legalize. Cars and refueling are a current example of something which we're used to, but which would probably be difficult to legalize if it were currently illegal.

 

[BobK]

You shouldnt compare cars with guns.

Why not? They both kill lots of people, cars much more so in fact.

Comparing tanks, fighter planes, bazookas, grenades and guns with each other would be more accurate.

Why? Are you still on that "guns are only for killing" thing?

For what it's worth, I know lots of people who own guns, and none of them have ever used one to kill someone.

I know very few people who own a tank, fighters, bazookas (including panzerfausts) or guns, and come to think of it none of them have killed anybody either although I'll concede that some of them pretend to do so regularly.

A lot of people also get killed on bicycles, should you make them illegal too?

Perhaps. Show us some numbers and we'll take it from there. I don't recall ever hearing of somebody killing somebody else with a bicycle; please educate me.

 

[PocketZeven]

Why not? They both kill lots of people, cars much more so in fact.



Why? Are you still on that "guns are only for killing" thing?

For what it's worth, I know lots of people who own guns, and none of them have ever used one to kill someone.

I know very few people who own a tank, fighters, bazookas (including panzerfausts) or guns, and come to think of it none of them have killed anybody either although I'll concede that some of them pretend to do so regularly.



Perhaps. Show us some numbers and we'll take it from there. I don't recall ever hearing of somebody killing somebody else with a bicycle; please educate me.

The nr.1 killers are sugar and fat. So while you guys are at it, include those too. Better yet compare guns with alcohol too.

I ask you this then for what primary purpose where guns invented? Anecdatal evidence is not evidence. "I know many people with a car and none of them killed anybody with his car." "I know 1 person with a gun and he did". I already posted the stats on intentional homicide and its relation to guns.

777 people were killed in the US. Not very much, but still too much. Do you mean intentially killed or by accident?

 

[Famine]

The nr.1 killers are sugar and fat. So while you guys are at it, include those too. Better yet compare guns with alcohol too.

Sure thing. Quick check - how do you own and use sugar, fat and alcohol to harm other people's rights?

I ask you this then for what primary purpose where guns invented?

I told you this already. It was shooting flames, to a reported distance of about three feet, in 10th Century China. The first instance of a fire-lance being used as a weapon to fire projectiles at living things came around 200 years later, in the 12th Century, also in China. You said "Incorrect. The first weapons firing projectiles were invented in China, with the purpose of a weapon of war.", which proved you hadn't actually read what I wrote. You're now choosing not to remember this.

 

[PocketZeven]

Sure thing. Quick check - how do you own and use sugar, fat and alcohol to harm other people's rights?

I told you this already. It was shooting flames, to a reported distance of about three feet, in 10th Century China. The first instance of a fire-lance being used as a weapon to fire projectiles at living things came around 200 years later, in the 12th Century, also in China. You said "Incorrect. The first weapons firing projectiles were invented in China, with the purpose of a weapon of war.", which proved you hadn't actually read what I wrote. You're now choosing not to remember this.

By producing, marketing and selling high fat/sugar/alcohol products you can harm others. Even more then cars do.

You are explaining its origin now, not its purpose. Why do military have guns? And why do military have cars?

Let me ask you this. Would you leave a 12 year old alone in a car for 1 minute? Now would you leave that child alone with a gun?

 

[Danoff]

By producing, marketing and selling high fat/sugar/alcohol products you can harm others.

...they can harm themselves. That's not harming their rights.

 

[PocketZeven]

...they can harm themselves. That's not harming their rights.

Again what is the primary purpose of a gun?

How do cars harm others' rights then?

 

[Danoff]

Again what is the primary purpose of a gun?

Which gun? Mine? Specifically my handguns? To kill someone if I have to.*

How do cars harm others' rights then?

Well it'd be the operator of the car doing it, and they'd do it by running someone over, or running over their property.


* I'm intentionally using your language back at you because I want to further the discussion. Technically my goal would not be to kill someone but to protect myself and my family using potentially lethal force when necessary. If nobody died, but I was protected, that would have achieved my purpose. Anyway, I'm willing to play your game so I used your phrase.

 

[PocketZeven]

Which gun? Mine? Specifically my handguns? To kill someone if I have to.



Well it'd be the operator of the car doing it, and they'd do it by running someone over, or running over their property.

So why compare a tool that is meant to primarily kill with a tool that is meant to transport from A to B? I agree both can be misused, but one is significantly more dangerous then the other. That is why one is more intensely regulated then the other. If gunlaws where similar to how laws around carownership where. There is a large chance that gun fatality would be much and much higher then it is now.

There are many examples of people misusing alcohol to violate others, especially in combination with cars. And I can say with certainty there would be less car fatalities if there were no drunk drivers.

Sugar/fat has violated many peoples health and there have been lawsuits over certain practicesaround unhealthy food items causing death and obesity.

 

[Danoff]

So why compare a tool that is meant to primarily kill with a tool that is meant to transport from A to B?

Because there are philosophical similarities.

I agree both can be misused, but one is significantly more dangerous then the other.

Which one? Cars?

That is why one is more intensely regulated then the other.

Which one? Cars?

If gunlaws where similar to how laws around carownership where. There is a large chance that gun fatality would be much and much higher then it is now.

Because cars are... less regulated?

Sugar/fat has violated many peoples health and there have been lawsuits over certain practicesaround unhealthy food items causing death and obesity.

People do that to themselves. It's not an infringement of their rights.

 

[PocketZeven]

Because there are philosophical similarities.



Which one? Cars?



Which one? Cars?



Because cars are... less regulated?



People do that to themselves. It's not an infringement of their rights.

Philosophical similarities?

Guns are more dangerous

guns are more regulated by laws

Cars are more easily available then guns

Let me rephrase, do you think marketign/advertising have no influence on the amount of sugar/fat people consume?

 

[Danoff]

Philosophical similarities?

Things which can be misused and seem potentially dangerous are difficult to legalize. Cars and refueling are a current example of something which we're used to, but which would probably be difficult to legalize if it were currently illegal.

Guns are more dangerous

Really? Because we've been talking about how cars kill more people.

guns are more regulated by laws

Really? There are laws that require cars have a backup camera, and every 16.3 feet there is a new speed limit.

Cars are more easily available then guns

They cost more (generally). And for the most part you'd need a license just to get one home.

Let me rephrase, do you think marketign/advertising have no influence on the amount of sugar/fat people consume?

No. I'm sure it does have an influence on them, just like all information that they perceive. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[ryzno]

Would you leave a 12 year old alone in a car for 1 minute?

Yes.

Now would you leave that child alone with a gun?

No.

Cars are more easily available then guns

WRONG. I bought a gun from a friends friend for $100 and only had to wait an hour. As said cars are way more expensive. Why do you think so many people rely on public transportation?

All I'll say is, in America you have as much of a chance of banning guns as you do cars.

 

[BobK]

I ask you this then for what primary purpose where guns invented?

This question has been answered. repeatedly. Yet you continue to ignore the answer and ask the same question again. You are figuratively sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la I can't hear you".

You don't like the answers you're getting so you're ignoring them and pretending they don't exist.

 

[Famine]

I ask you this then for what primary purpose where guns invented?

I told you this already. It was shooting flames, to a reported distance of about three feet, in 10th Century China. The first instance of a fire-lance being used as a weapon to fire projectiles at living things came around 200 years later, in the 12th Century, also in China.

You are explaining its origin now, not its purpose.

I explained its origin (twice) because you asked what they were originally invented for (twice). That's both where they came from and what they were meant to do.

By producing, marketing and selling high fat/sugar/alcohol products you can harm others. Even more then cars do.

No, they can choose to harm themselves.

No-one can use fat/sugar/alcohol to take away your rights. If someone misuses a car, most of the time no-one's rights are harmed but, quite often, someone suffers an injury, serious injury or is killed as a result. If someone misuses a bag of sugar, there's sugar on the floor and no-one's rights are harmed.

If you can own and operate something without harming someone's rights, I've got no problem with you owning and operating it. I'm not sure why you do. Of course if you can't own and operate it without harming someone's rights, I have a problem with it. If you misuse it and harm someone's rights, I also have a problem with you owning and operating it in future.

Let me ask you this. Would you leave a 12 year old alone in a car for 1 minute? Now would you leave that child alone with a gun?

I would leave them in the car, but I'd be taking the keys unless they were my 12-year old (six years ago) and I'd judged her responsible enough, adequately trained, and intelligent enough about the dangers of mucking about with cars to be entrusted with them.

I'd leave them with a gun on the same basis.

 

[Imari]

Comparing tanks, fighter planes, bazookas, grenades and guns with each other would be more accurate.

How are you defining these things? Is a tractor a tank? Is an APC? Is a 737 MAX8 a fighter plane? A bazooka is a bottle rocket with ambition. A grenade is a cherry bomb on steroids.

You define classes of objects specifically so that you can attempt to label them as purely killing devices. The world doesn't work like that, there's technology crossover everywhere. Nuclear reactors for weapons ended up as nuclear power plants. V1 rockets for destroying London ended up as launch vehicles for satellites and to get men to the moon. GPS was designed for the military, but is now an almost integral part of civilian life.

Stop treating everything as if it's black and white and grow some nuance.

By producing, marketing and selling high fat/sugar/alcohol products you can harm others. Even more then cars do.

No, you allow them the tools to harm themselves. There's a difference, unless you think that consumers have absolutely no free will whatsoever. It says a lot about your opinion of other people and the self-responsibility that they should be allowed.

Guns are more dangerous

guns are more regulated by laws

Cars are more easily available then guns

These statements are all wrong. You may want to do a little more research before you continue.

 

[Sander 001]

Okay, and?
I’m not saying that removal of weapons is a bad thing, I’m saying that addressing the issue (even if it’s political) is the only real way to address the problem.

I’ve been pretty openly anti-gun on here (in this section). I don’t see any reason for any civilian to own any gun under any circumstances.


Why the **** has this devolved into a thread about American gun control anyway? This stupid devolution of the conversation is precisely what the terrorist(s) was trying to achieve... it was a political terrorist attack.

This terrorist wrote that he’s inspired by white supremacy in America and America’s greatest export is pop culture so things there very much have an effect the world over.

I think you'd have a hard time allowing cars to be legal, or even fueling cars if we'd never seen it before. "You mean everyone can just, own one of these 2-ton death machines that go like a bat out of hell and they could just drive them through my house? What if they had a seizure or sneezed or fell asleep? Let alone a case where they get angry and lose their cool and run me over." Similarly I think people would expect gasoline to be way too dangerous for general handling.

If these things were made illegal I think after public got used to it you'd have a hard time talking them into legalizing it. It would seem like total chaos.

One of the worst straw man arguments I’ve seen in a long while.

 

[Famine]

One of the worst straw man arguments I’ve seen in a long while.

That might be because it isn't one. A strawman is when you make up a point that the person you're discussing with hasn't made, then attack that point as if they had - giving the impression of refuting their actual argument by refuting something they haven't actually presented.

What @Danoff is doing is suggesting that something we culturally accept the dangers of would actually be a pretty hard sell for people to accept if we hadn't already accepted it - or that if they were made illegal, it wouldn't be long before people would not accept an attempt to make them legal because of their inherent dangers and the lack of cultural acceptance.

That can't be a straw man, because it's not refuting anything...

 

[Imari]

One of the worst straw man arguments I’ve seen in a long while.

The idea that cultural norms aren't necessarily rationally based is pretty standard for most people at this point. Look at alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. Marijuana is almost certainly the least damaging of the three, in addition to having legitimate medical uses, and yet it's still mostly illegal because...history?

In a society where a lot of the laws originate from fundamentalist Christian "morality", it's not that surprising when some turn out to be not that rational. Whether guns vs. cars is another example of that is a valid question. Are guns really so much more dangerous than cars as PocketZeven would have you believe? Or is that simply what you've been trained to accept, because otherwise you'd be paralyzed with anxiety as you're surrounded by death machines on a daily basis? Is standing beside a busy road more or less the same as standing beside a gun range?

There are arguments to be made around it, but to simply dismiss the idea plays perfectly into the problem of people simply accepting cultural norms instead of thinking about it for themselves. If you want to make the case for guns being more dangerous than cars, then do so with evidence and logic, instead of appeals to emotion and "but they're designed as weapons of death!"

 

[Sander 001]

The idea that cultural norms aren't necessarily rationally based is pretty standard for most people at this point. Look at alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. Marijuana is almost certainly the least damaging of the three, in addition to having legitimate medical uses, and yet it's still mostly illegal because...history?

In a society where a lot of the laws originate from fundamentalist Christian "morality", it's not that surprising when some turn out to be not that rational. Whether guns vs. cars is another example of that is a valid question. Are guns really so much more dangerous than cars as PocketZeven would have you believe? Or is that simply what you've been trained to accept, because otherwise you'd be paralyzed with anxiety as you're surrounded by death machines on a daily basis? Is standing beside a busy road more or less the same as standing beside a gun range?

There are arguments to be made around it, but to simply dismiss the idea plays perfectly into the problem of people simply accepting cultural norms instead of thinking about it for themselves. If you want to make the case for guns being more dangerous than cars, then do so with evidence and logic, instead of appeals to emotion and "but they're designed as weapons of death!"

All those questions which can’t be paralleled between two very different subjects is exactly why it’s a straw man argument and is valueless to entertain. Reaching a conclusion about one doesn’t mean it can be applied to the other.

If somebody wants to talk about firearms and its cultural norm, then that’s valid so I fully agree with you there. If a position can’t stand on its own, then an unrelated topic can’t bail it out.

 

[Imari]

All those questions which can’t be paralleled between two very different subjects is exactly why it’s a straw man argument and is valueless to entertain.

I don't think the point is to entertain.

Reaching a conclusion about one doesn’t mean it can be applied to the other.

Of course not, but it can demonstrate methods by which you could rationally assess a topic. If you can create a justification for, say, the restriction of guns based on the risk and danger that they present, that same logic should either be able to be applied to any other dangerous item or you should be able to explain very clearly why the same logic doesn't apply.

Cars are a great example, largely because they're far more dangerous than most people give them credit for. In general, I would say that people are more scared of planes than they are of cars, which if you simply take the numbers is stupid.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/how-safe-is-flying-here-s-what-the-statistics-say

People have emotional attachments to things based on their cultural background and upbringing. In the case of people from places with particularly restrictive gun cultures (and I'm one of them), that leads to a natural negative reaction to guns. But that doesn't mean that that reaction is rational or defensible.

If somebody wants to talk about firearms and its cultural norm, then that’s valid so I fully agree with you there. If a position can’t stand on its own, then an unrelated topic can’t bail it out.

I don't think it was supposed to. I saw it as pointing out to someone who was trying to railroad the argument based on original design purpose (of all things) that perhaps there's more to consider. Guns may have been designed to kill (I disagree, but for the sake of argument) and cars may have been designed to transport (again, disagree, but whatever), but neither of those things are relevant to the specific uses and regulation of those items in a modern society.

The point is not to say "cars are like this, therefore guns should be also", the point is that if you want to regulate something based on it being dangerous, then whatever justification you want to put forth needs to apply generically to at least most dangerous things. Hence why people are pointing out that the laws around cars are actually quite a lot stricter than those around basic firearms, and that actually makes a fair bit of sense. You could do a lot worse than starting from the same axioms that are used to justify car licensing and seeing where that leads you with guns.

 

[UKMikey]

I don't think the point is to entertain.

I think he means the other type of entertain judging by the context. To give something our attention.

 

[Famine]

All those questions which can’t be paralleled between two very different subjects is exactly why it’s a straw man argument

That's not what a straw man is, and it's also not the thrust of the paragraph you quoted.