New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[Danoff]

Countering with another whataboutism to discredit guncontrol, really does not change the fact that the people in the NZ masshooting did not die by car or vehicle tailpipe emissions. You make valid arguments, but that is suitable for its own thread. The mass shooting had absolutely nothing to about caraccidents or emissions so why keep bringing it up?

Like i mentioned before why not mention sugar and fat?

Because the same principles apply.

 

[Famine]

whataboutism

Nope.

The mass shooting had absolutely nothing to about caraccidents or emissions so why keep bringing it up?

Largely as a demonstration of the callousness of using tragedy to promote an agenda with an appeal to emotion.

Like i mentioned before why not mention sugar and fat?

Like I answered before, using sugar and fat does not harm other people's rights.

 

[PocketZeven]

Because the same principles apply.

Perhaps, but not relevant to the thread at all.

example 1:
Me: Cars are dangerous and should be better regulated or banned
Others: What about food ith high sugar and/or fat ? They cause more deaths then cars!

Example 2:
Dem: Trump cheated on Melania with a pornstar and paid her off!!!
Rep: What about Bill Clinton???

The same principles apply in this example as well.

 

[PocketZeven]

Nope.

Like I answered before, using sugar and fat does not harm other people's rights.

Yep. Textbook whataboutism in fact. You arent adressing my comments directly on gun control at all. You are just deflecting by saying that cars kill more people.

The same way cars. Misuse of fats and sugars in foods can cause deaths to others. People chose to drive cars and could alternative ride bicycles or public transport.

 

[Danoff]

Perhaps, but not relevant to the thread at all.

example 1:
Me: Cars are dangerous and should be better regulated or banned
Others: What about food ith high sugar and/or fat ? They cause more deaths then cars!

That would be very relevant. It would address the principle being used to argue for regulation of cars. It can also be used to address the principles used to ban or regulate guns. You're trying to protect against legitimate logical counter-arguments to your position by hiding behind a constrained interpretation of the thread topic. You need to address the actual issue, which is that the principles you're trying to use would have other logical consequences.

 

[Exorcet]

Most guns in the US are not used irresponsibly. Most shootings occur within a relatively small segment of the population. But I believe the psychological impact of random mass shootings on society is far greater than the statistical likelihood of being killed in an attack of that sort. That's what the NZ government is responding to.

Taking steps to reduce that psychological impact is reasonable, though it doesn't have to involve taking guns from everyone. If the attacker is left with no means of attacking, you've defended yourself. I've promoted smart guns before, guns which can recognize their owner or location and modify their functionality based on the situation that they're in. Using technology like this can help combat gun misuse while letting regular people retain ownership.

Most car drivers in the US don't drive irresponsibly, but the sheer volume of car use contributes to the quantity of fatalities. Drivers in the US are actually, relatively, very responsible - the culture of car use is relatively responsible. The same is true in most of the First World. What is fascinating is to look at the global statistics on driving fatalities. They give a startling picture of just how "poorly" a car can be used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

The fatality rate per 100,000 vehicles ranges from a low of 3.1 in Norway (12.9 in the US) to a mind-boggling 9,462 in the African nation of Guinea. I think it would be fair to say that Guinea has a "car control" problem.

I pretty much agree. The amount of car use will influence the number of fatalities and most first world nations are much safer than the least safe countries.

Self defense and deterrent can be translated to the threat of being shot dead. So its purpose doesnt change.

You don't have to shoot to kill, and if you really wanted to avoid killing the person if you do have to shoot, there is ammo to help with that:

http://www.patriotheadquarters.com/5-non-lethal-ammo-types/

 

[Tornado]

Misuse of fats and sugars in foods can cause deaths to others.

How?

People chose to drive cars and could alternative ride bicycles or public transport.

I know this isn't true for most of the United States. Is it true in New Zealand?

 

[PocketZeven]

That would be very relevant. It would address the principle being used to argue for regulation of cars. It can also be used to address the principles used to ban or regulate guns. You're trying to protect against legitimate logical counter-arguments to your position by hiding behind a constrained interpretation of the thread topic. You need to address the actual issue, which is that the principles you're trying to use would have other logical consequences.

No, simply because the principle does not apply to the NZ shooting. It would have been more relevant if the deaths in NZ were caused by cars. And even then it is irrelevant because deaths with cars are mostly accidents. That does not apply to the NZ shooting.

The solution to reduce caraccidents also does not apply to mass shootings. Better infrascture, car technology and training would reduce caraccidents immensely. The same does not apply to guns. Since we werent speaking about accidental deaths in this thread.

If you really want to bring cars into the conversation you should compare the amount of homicides caused by cars, with the amount of homicides with guns.

Accidental gun deaths should be compared with car deaths though.

How?


I know this isn't true for most of the United States. Is it true in New Zealand?

Diabetes, heart disease, cancer, obesity, depression etc.

How are car accidents relevant to the mass shooting in NZ?

 

[Danoff]

No, simply because the principle does not apply to the NZ shooting. It would have been more relevant if the deaths in NZ were caused by cars. And even then it is irrelevant because deaths with cars are mostly accidents. That does not apply to the NZ shooting.

This thread really took off when NZ responded to the shooting by banning certain guns and making law abiding citizens into criminals if they did not hand over their property within a particular time period. At that point, it's no longer just about shooting, but also about the response to the shooting - which is to make something that is legal illegal in response to misuse. I feel like you're looking for a principled argument as to why that was a proper thing to do in the wake of the shooting. And yet, the principled arguments put forth also capture other uses like cars. If you want to put forward a principle argument that misses cars, go for it. But be ready to hear about the other activities that it captures.

 

[PocketZeven]

This thread really took off when NZ responded to the shooting by banning certain guns and making law abiding citizens into criminals if they did not hand over their property within a particular time period. At that point, it's no longer just about shooting, but also about the response to the shooting - which is to make something that is legal illegal in response to misuse. I feel like you're looking for a principled argument as to why that was a proper thing to do in the wake of the shooting. And yet, the principled arguments put forth also capture other uses like cars. If you want to put forward a principle argument that misses cars, go for it. But be ready to hear about the other activities that it captures.

It could, but you are using "misuse" to broadly. Misuse by accident or misuse purposefully should not be compared to eachother. If there was a situation where cars were often used in mass killings, one could speak about "car control" as a solution. Better registration of owners and backgroundchecks, who have a history of mental illnes, crime or association with hate groups. Regular licensing and training etc. These changes should reduce the amount of killings with cars.

 

[Danoff]

It could, but you are using "misuse" to broadly. Misuse by accident or misuse purposefully should not be compared to eachother. If there was a situation where cars were often used in mass killings, one could speak about "car control" as a solution. Better registration of owners and backgroundchecks, who have a history of mental illnes, crime or association with hate groups. Regular licensing and training etc. These changes should reduce the amount of killings with cars.

Ok, so what's the principled statement here...

That certain guns should be banned because they're intended for killing? You've had some trouble with that one.
That certain guns should be banned because they're used often in murder? In the US, you're looking at hanguns then, not rifles. And of course those statistics don't break out what's already banned.

So what'll it be. What's the argument you're trying to make?

 

[PocketZeven]

Ok, so what's the principled statement here...

That certain guns should be banned because they're intended for killing? You've had some trouble with that one.
That certain guns should be banned because they're used often in murder? In the US, you're looking at hanguns then, not rifles. And of course those statistics don't break out what's already banned.

So what'll it be. What's the argument you're trying to make?

Concretely my argument is that I am for stricter gun control and ban of automatic weapons as a response to reduce mass shootings. My initial argument wasnt for banning all guns. We have discussed this prior. In this thread I was reacting to the "whatabout" argument that somehow gun control should not be a viable option, because cars kill more people?!?!

 

[Danoff]

Concretely my argument is that I am for stricter gun control and ban of automatic weapons as a response to reduce mass shootings.

This particular shooting of course was via semi-auto rather than full auto.

So why do you want to reduce mass shootings? What is the principle that differentiates this from other types of murder or death.

 

[PocketZeven]

This particular shooting of course was via semi-auto rather than full auto.

So why do you want to reduce mass shootings? What is the principle that differentiates this from other types of murder or death.

I dont agree that people who died in the NZ shooting is the same as someone dying in car accident, were their deaths werent accidental. Also because accidental and purposefull deaths require vastly different solutions.

So why would you not differentiate? You logic would apply if cardeaths and mass shooting deaths could be reduced by similar actions/solutions.

edit:

To save lives from terrorist attacks like these. If I wanted to save lives from car deaths, I would speak about different solutions.

 

[Danoff]

I dont agree that people who died in the NZ shooting is the same as someone dying in car accident,

I'm asking what principle differentiates mass shootings from other types of murder or death.

So why would you not differentiate?

I didn't say I wouldn't. Just trying to get you to follow a principled logical flow to understand your argument.

To save lives from terrorist attacks like these. If I wanted to save lives from car deaths, I would speak about different solutions.

If I squint, I can see that you're trying to equate terrorism with mass shootings as opposed to other modalities. But of course terrorism includes death by plane, bomb, car, and many other techniques. So terrorism isn't a good distinction here. It'd lead to a bunch of questions about why you're differentiating deaths associated with terrorism from other types of murder or death anyway. But back to the question...

What principle differentiates mass shootings from other types of murder or death? Why is this not arbitrary?

 

[Famine]

Textbook whataboutism in fact.

It would behoove you to read what's actually written (and respond to it, and not forget it two days later and act like it never happened) before you start introducing - and misusing - terms you don't understand.

The same way cars. Misuse of fats and sugars in foods can cause deaths to others.

If I misuse a gun, I can harm your rights. If I misuse a car, I can harm your rights. If I misuse sugar... how are your rights harmed?

Concretely my argument is that I am for stricter gun control and ban of automatic weapons as a response to reduce mass shootings.

As I said, you wish to use human death to promote anti-gun rhetoric and harm people's rights, and not to help preserve human life. How the lives are lost is the only important thing to you, not that lives are lost. That's your agenda here.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm asking what principle differentiates mass shootings from other types of murder or death.



I didn't say I wouldn't. Just trying to get you to follow a principled logical flow to understand your argument.



If I squint, I can see that you're trying to equate terrorism with mass shootings as opposed to other modalities. But of course terrorism includes death by plane, bomb, car, and many other techniques. So terrorism isn't a good distinction here. It'd lead to a bunch of questions about why you're differentiating deaths associated with terrorism from other types of murder or death anyway. But back to the question...

What principle differentiates mass shootings from other types of murder or death? Why is this not arbitrary?

You have to be more specific. Differentiate from other murders or deaths in general?

Sorry I wast specific enough. In this case I meant specifically domestic terrorism that result in the form of mass shootings. Not Terrorism in general.

It would behoove you to read what's actually written (and respond to it, and not forget it two days later and act like it never happened) before you start introducing - and misusing - terms you don't understand.

If I misuse a gun, I can harm your rights. If I misuse a car, I can harm your rights. If I misuse sugar... how are your rights harmed?

I am starting resent your tone. Especially when you are suggesting that I dont "understand" certain terms.

Your counterargument against the argument of gun control is that cars kill more people. Please elaborate how that is a genuine counterargument to gun control?

If i misuse a gun, which "rights" exactly are harmed? and when i misuse a car which rights are misused?

 

[Danoff]

You have to be more specific. Differentiate from other murders or deaths in general?

Both.

Sorry I wast specific enough. In this case I meant specifically domestic terrorism that result in the form of mass shootings. Not Terrorism in general.

Doesn't help. Why shootings?

 

[PocketZeven]

Both.



Doesn't help. Why shootings?

I need a bit more context to answer that question. Differentiate from the perspective to find a solution?

edit:
It is relevant in this thread. I am not speaking generally, but mass shootings by individuals with haterelated motivations. Their deaths can be prevented.

 

[Famine]

I am starting resent your tone.

That's up to you to read.

Especially when you are suggesting that I dont "understand" certain terms.

You are using the term "whataboutism" incorrectly. Either this is because you don't understand it as you think you do, or you do and you are using it to mischaracterise a point as a get-out from addressing it. You've not needed an excuse to not address something thus far in this thread (or several others where you advocate for stripping human rights for your own pet peeve), which more or less drops that option off as a likely candidate.

Your counterargument against the argument of gun control is that cars kill more people. Please elaborate.

I'm not using that as a counterargument - nor am I using a counterargument at all. I'm making the point that only this kind of death matters to you and you value them more than you value other kinds of death, which is why you always use these threads to promote your belief that banning the tool that's misused would be a good thing.

If i misuse a gun, which "rights" exactly are harmed? and when i misuse a car which rights are misused?

If I misuse a gun and you are injured as a result, I have harmed your rights. If I misuse a car and you are injured as a result, I have harmed your rights. I also introduced the concept above that in fact merely using a car also injures people, harming their rights. Amusingly this was ignored.

If I misuse sugar, I do not harm your rights. I guess I could rub it in your eyes, or pour it into your car's fuel tank, but we're reaching a bit when we get to that point.

Let's revisit why this is important:

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.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm not using that as a counterargument - nor am I using a counterargument at all. I'm making the point that only this kind of death matters to you and you value them more than you value other kinds of death, which is why you always use these threads to promote your belief that banning the tool that's misused would be a good thing.

If I misuse a gun and you are injured as a result, I have harmed your rights. If I misuse a car and you are injured as a result, I have harmed your rights. I also introduced the concept above that in fact merely using a car also injures people, harming their rights. Amusingly this was ignored.

If I misuse sugar, I do not harm your rights. I guess I could rub it in your eyes, or pour it into your car's fuel tank, but we're reaching a bit when we get to that point.

Let's revisit why this is important:

You keep referring to that somehow this kind of death matters to me and others dont. I have never claimed or stated that. That conclusion is a fabrication in your imagination. Why keep repeating such a false claim?

Your argument still is that gun control doesnt matter, because cars kill more people. Because apparantly misusing an "object" is always the same and should not be differentiated. Because?

If I misuse sugar and fat a person can die from disease or decline in health. It wouldnt kill immediately, but it would on the longterm. This could be done for example by misrepresenting a product as healthy and sugarfree, while it actually isnt.

Misusing cars and guns not always result in death or injury, that is why I was asking.

edit:

I actually am not for banning all guns. You misrepresent my "belief". Your boiling down the whole thread to misusing an object to harm someone rights. Deaths by traffic accident and mass shootings in your eyes are both caused by "misusing an object to harm rights" and therefore you are suggesting that they require a homogenous solution.

edit2:

I only react in these kind of threads when people downplay the role gun control plays in mass shootings. I am not shoving my beliefs down peoples throats, I am reacting to false claims.

 

[Famine]

You keep referring to that somehow this kind of death matters to me and others dont. I have never claimed or stated that. That conclusion is a fabrication in your imagination. Why keep repeating such a false claim?

You keep saying that under direct questioning, but you keep posting like only deaths in mass shootings matter.

Your argument still is that gun control doesnt matter

Quote me.

Because apparantly misusing an "object" is always the same and should not be differentiated. Because?

The tool is not important.

If I misuse sugar and fat a person can die from disease or decline in health.

How can you cause someone else's death from your misuse of sugar and fat? Are you holding them down and force-feeding them?

You can, of course, cause your own, but I literally couldn't care less about what adults choose to put into their own bodies - whether its drugs, sugars or bullets.

Misusing cars and guns not always result in death or injury, that is why I was asking.

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.

I actually am not for banning all guns. You misrepresent my "belief".

Not at all. We covered much earlier in the thread that you seem to agree with Jacinta Ardern, who appears to think being killed by one of 18 bullets in a Glock pistol is better than being killed by one of 15 bullets in an AR15. I pointed out at the time that banning all guns would at least be a more consistent position - although not one I agree with - than banning some guns but not others.

Deaths by traffic accident and mass shootings in your eyes are both caused by "misusing an object to harm rights" and therefore you are suggesting that they require a homogenous solution.

Quote my solution - or my suggestion of it.

I am not shoving my beliefs down peoples throats, I am reacting to false claims.

You made two false claims in that post alone...

 

[Danoff]

I need a bit more context to answer that question. Differentiate from the perspective to find a solution?

Differentiate from any principled perspective you'd like to use. Find something that makes it non-arbitrary, something that you find important, something that you want to hang your argument on. What makes people being shot different from people being murdered or killed via other means.

edit:
It is relevant in this thread. I am not speaking generally, but mass shootings by individuals with haterelated motivations. Their deaths can be prevented.

Well you haven't put forth a principled argument that their deaths are even important. So far all you've said is that you want to stop shootings. Not death.

I'm asking what principle differentiates mass shootings from other types of murder or death.

 

[PocketZeven]

Differentiate from any principled perspective you'd like to use. Find something that makes it non-arbitrary, something that you find important, something that you want to hang your argument on. What makes people being shot different from people being murdered or killed via other means.



Well you haven't put forth a principled argument that their deaths are even important. So far all you've said is that you want to stop shootings. Not death.

I differentiate the mass shooing in this thread. That does not imply that other deaths dont matter. The logical consequence of reducing mass shootings is less victims from mass shootings. I guess the thing that differentiates it beyond the intent to murder by the perp is the innocence of the victims. Their deaths were not accidental.

If you want to explore the principles beyond the incident concerning this thread, we can start another thread.

 

[Danoff]

I differentiate the mass shooing in this thread. That does not imply that other deaths dont matter. The logical consequence of reducing mass shootings is less victims from mass shootings. I guess the thing that differentiates it beyond the intent to murder by the perp is the innocence of the victims. Their deaths were not accidental.

If you want to explore the principles beyond the incident concerning this thread, we can start another thread.

Explain to me why you consider it important that the people who died in this particular event died at the end of a semi-automatic rifle instead of a handgun or pipe bomb.

 

[PocketZeven]

Explain to me why you consider it important that the people who died in this particular event died at the end of a semi-automatic rifle instead of a handgun or pipe bomb.

I can’t explain something I have not suggested, considered or claimed. Yet you keep bringing it up? What did I post to make you think I consider their deaths more important?


You forgot our earlier discussion gun control for me is not just banning. I am not against responsible ownership similar to the model in Switzerland. That is something that somehow was misenterpeted.

 

[Danoff]

I can’t explain something I have not suggested, considered or claimed. Yet you keep bringing it up?

Concretely my argument is that I am for stricter gun control and ban of automatic weapons as a response to reduce mass shootings.

I'm trying to get you to follow the principle of your own argument here. Help me out. You want to restrict a specific kind of weapon in order to prevent a specific kind of death. Why that specific weapon, why that specific type of death?

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm trying to get you to follow the principle of your own argument here. Help me out. You want to restrict a specific kind of weapon in order to prevent a specific kind of death. Why that specific weapon, why that specific type of death?

Because that kind of weapon is used in many instances (mass shootings) coincidently in countries that have less gun control. My argument has been more gun control will reduce the risk of such a incident happening. If you want to discus other deaths and the solution to reduce of those happening I am open to discussion, however I don’t think it is appropriate in this thread. Individual hate crime happens all the time, but the the death toll ratio (perpetrator vs victims) via other means are considerably less then in mass shootings. I am not excluding early detection of mental health and association with hategroups.

 

[Danoff]

Because that kind of weapon is used in many instances (mass shootings) coincidently in countries that have less gun control. My argument has been more gun control will reduce the risk of such a incident happening.

Can you give me several recent examples of a automatic weapons being used in mass shooting? In the ones we've been talking about, semi-automatic rifles seem to be popular (moreso than automatic). Can you explain why you think that handguns would not be used in place of semi-automatic rifles to effect mass shootings?

If you want to discus other deaths and the solution to reduce of those happening I am open to discussion, however I don’t think it is appropriate in this thread.

In this particular example, the shooter had prepared and brought pipe bombs. So I think it's very pertinent to this thread. It's also extremely pertinent to the thread given that it compasses the NZ ban on semi-automatic weapons presumably for the purpose of saving lives. So why are you focused on preventing mass shootings instead of death (for example, by pipe bomb)?

You're having two problems at the moment:
1) Why is shooting important
2) Why is this specific tool important

 

[PocketZeven]

Can you give me several recent examples of a automatic weapons being used in mass shooting? In the ones we've been talking about, semi-automatic rifles seem to be popular (moreso than automatic). Can you explain why you think that handguns would not be used in place of semi-automatic rifles to effect mass shootings?



In this particular example, the shooter had prepared and brought pipe bombs. So I think it's very pertinent to this thread. It's also extremely pertinent to the thread given that it compasses the NZ ban on semi-automatic weapons presumably for the purpose of saving lives. So why are you focused on preventing mass shootings instead of death (for example, by pipe bomb)?

You're having two problems at the moment:
1) Why is shooting important
2) Why is this specific tool important

bump stocks (which have been used) create virtually automatic weapons.

The conclusion NZ government made was to have stricter gun control. If the pipe bombs were used we wouldnt have the discussion about gun control. Rather how did he made the pipebombs, where did he get the knowhow. And also explore his mental health, association with hategroups and other factors.

1) It was why people died in the NZ incident
2) Because it was used as a weapon in the NZ incident

Again, if guns werent used, but bombs. The discussion wouldnt be about guns, but about bombs.