New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[Danoff]

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

Ok. that's one. Got any more?

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.

Why not? Presumably if he'd brought a rifle with him and left it in the car and used pipe bombs (instead of the other way around) there would be plenty of casualties, but we'd be talking about pipe bombs to prevent this instead of gun control? Do you see how self-defeating that argument is, especially given that we know how the alternative scenario (where he uses a semi-auto rifle) turns out?

Why should we focus so intently on the specifics of the weapon he chose. Why ban all semi-automatic rifles by the way? Some are very different than the one used. Perhaps we should only ban that model, if he'd brought a different model, we could talk about that model. How about just banning his gun. If he'd brought a different gun (same model of course) we could have a discussion about that gun, but of course he didn't bring a different gun, so we should just limit our ban to his specific gun right?

This is where you argument gets you. You're picking seemingly arbitrary details that are not clearly linked to the outcome and hanging your entire argument on them.

 

[PocketZeven]

Ok. that's one. Got any more?



Why not? Presumably if he'd brought a rifle with him and left it in the car and used pipe bombs (instead of the other way around) there would be plenty of casualties, but we'd be talking about pipe bombs to prevent this instead of gun control? Do you see how self-defeating that argument is, especially given that we know how the alternative scenario (where he uses a semi-auto rifle) turns out?

Why should we focus so intently on the specifics of the weapon he chose. Why ban all semi-automatic rifles by the way? Some are very different than the one used. Perhaps we should only ban that model, if he'd brought a different model, we could talk about that model. How about just banning his gun. If he'd brought a different gun (same model of course) we could have a discussion about that gun, but of course he didn't bring a different gun, so we should just limit our ban to his specific gun right?

This is where you argument gets you. You're picking seemingly arbitrary details that are not clearly linked to the outcome and hanging your entire argument on them.

You are missing the whole premise of stricter gun control and just focusing on the banning. I was agreeing with the ban proposed by NZ, as an action instead of inaction with only thoughts and prayers what the current US administration does after each incident. This was not just my argument, but NZ.

Stricter licensing, registration, mandatory training etc all help to reduce the risk of misuse. But I also do still agree that high powered semi automatic rifles with long ranges in combination with high capacity clips have no business in the possession of ordinary civilians. They beat the purpose of deterrent or recreational shooting. Strict gun laws and a low rate of mass shootings go hand in hand statistically.

That however does not mean I disagree focusing on mental health and doing something against hate groups are more effective measures.

 

[BobK]

But I also do still agree that high powered semi automatic rifles with long ranges in combination with high capacity clips have no business in the possession of ordinary civilians.

Why not?

 

[Danoff]

You are missing the whole premise of stricter gun control and just focusing on the banning.

You're not wanting to carry your argument through to its logical conclusions.

I was agreeing with the ban proposed by NZ, as an action instead of inaction with only thoughts and prayers what the current US administration does after each incident. This was not just my argument, but NZ.

Stricter licensing, registration, mandatory training etc all help to reduce the risk of misuse. But I also do still agree that high powered semi automatic rifles with long ranges in combination with high capacity clips have no business in the possession of ordinary civilians. They beat the purpose of deterrent or recreational shooting. Strict gun laws and a low rate of mass shootings go hand in hand statistically.

That however does not mean I disagree focusing on mental health and doing something against hate groups are more effective measures.

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

If your answer is "there is none", that's great, we can move on to other logical conclusions, such as the notion that you should approach this incident from a different perspective, such as the perspective of stopping mass murder, or even just saving lives.

 

[Biggles]

Good lord yourself, Famine's question couldn't apply any more to your argument.



BTW, this is the stupidest argument presented, no surprise of all people.

What else do you use to win wars besides mainly guns? Let's also ignore the "tiny" fact that in warfare, both sides have guns. Why you decide to rope those deaths into the amount of people killed by guns in world history in a topic about guns in the hands of civilians is beyond dumb (considering it's not civilians or a mass shooter that mainly contributes to war deaths by guns ), maybe dumber than bringing up how guns contribute to animal extinction as some sort of weak ass point for why we don't need guns.

I was under the impression that there was an AUP in effect on this forum.

I would like to point out AGAIN, that others brought CARS in to the discussion. What do cars have to do with a topic about guns in the hands of civilians? Nothing. However, gun lovers like to point out that guns are just "tools" ... & cars are tools also & kill a lot of people ... so why don't we ban cars?

The answer to that question is cars ARE dangerous, but they are also VERY, VERY useful. And in fact people use them A LOT & in the US, at least, in a relatively safe & highly regulated way. The fatalities are an accidental (with a very few exceptions) consequence of the amount of use people make of cars. The Wikipedia entry I linked to offers the statistic that in the US there are 7.3 fatalities per billion kilometres driven ... that's BILLION with a "B".

What are guns VERY, VERY useful for? Killing. Both sides have guns in warfare? So what? That merely reinforces the reality that the presence of guns, especially automatic guns, massively increased the death toll from wars in the 20th century. It's the nature of the TOOL that it enables very efficient killing.

I didn't actually make the argument that "we don't need guns" because of "how guns contribute to animal extinction". However, as a matter of historical record, the presence of guns massively increased the death toll of certain species. For example, the North American Bison which numbered in the tens of millions as late as the 1850's had by 1900 had been reduced to a herd of 300. This may be small potatoes to you, as a homo sapiens, but it's pretty devastating for the bison. Of course, it's possible that the men responsible for this slaughter might have gone after the bison with knives, or hammers, or pipe bombs or some other substitute method of killing ... but they didn't. They shot them in the millions with guns.

Why? Why did they do that? Were they "criminals"? Were they "bad people"? Maybe it's the same reason the shooter in Las Vegas shot & wounded hundreds of people for no apparent reason? Maybe a lot of gun owners in the US are just principled rationalists, like Danoff, but the irrational vitriol & belligerence shown by so many gun lovers in the US, including on these forums, is disturbing.

Gun control is a complicated issue. I am personally of the opinion that much more rigorous background checks are the most likely way to reduce random gun violence. But I have no problem with the government of New Zealand choosing to limit the availability of certain firearms to its citizens ... & nor apparently do most New Zealanders:

Federated Farmers of New Zealand:

"This will not be popular among some of our members but after a week of intense debate and careful consideration by our elected representatives and staff, we believe this is the only practicable solution," Feds Rural Security spokesperson Miles Anderson says.

"We are trying to tread a responsible path. The wrong guns can’t be allowed to get into the wrong hands."

"Christchurch, Friday March 15 has changed everything."

"We agree with the Government there is no need for military style semiautomatic rifles in general public ownership. We also support the move to prohibit general access to, and possession of, detachable large capacity magazines for semiautomatic firearms."

 

[Imari]

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

Not really. Most public transport in NZ isn't great, and that's ignoring that a lot of the people don't live in urban centres, and so don't have access to public transport at all. In rural areas, be it NZ, Australia, or the US, there's really no practical alternative to private motor vehicles.

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.

Probably not. Basic pipe bombs are incredibly easy to make with a number of very easily accessible ingredients. The information is everywhere, from bookshops and public libraries to all over the internet. It is impossible in practice to remove all easy methods of making a pipe bomb from anyone who has even the least amount of motivation and intelligence.

However, the reality is that even military fragmentation grenades aren't really as lethal as you might think, let alone amateur pipe bombs. The range and accuracy are pretty limited. The lethal radius is much smaller than you might think, generally on the order of 4-5 meters for a frag grenade. So realistically, you have to get people inside a building (or in a trench or other enclosed environment) or they can just run away. And even then, sometimes you just get unlucky with positioning; see the July 20 plot to kill Hitler.

Pipe bombs are honestly a waste of time. If that's the best weapon someone could come up with, thank your lucky stars. You're probably in more danger from someone with a knife or a sword than a pipe bomb.

 

[McLaren]

However, the reality is that even military fragmentation grenades aren't really as lethal as you might think, let alone amateur pipe bombs. The range and accuracy are pretty limited. The lethal radius is much smaller than you might think, generally on the order of 4-5 meters for a frag grenade. So realistically, you have to get people inside a building (or in a trench or other enclosed environment) or they can just run away. And even then, sometimes you just get unlucky with positioning; see the July 20 plot to kill Hitler.

Pipe bombs are honestly a waste of time. If that's the best weapon someone could come up with, thank your lucky stars. You're probably in more danger from someone with a knife or a sword than a pipe bomb.

Just adding to re-support this point from a SEAL on Rogan's podcast about the things movies get wrong; first minute is about the misconception of grenades.

 

[Danoff]

What are guns VERY, VERY useful for? Killing.

That's why I own (at least two of) mine. If they weren't useful for that, I wouldn't own them. I'm sure glad of that too, in a world where guns don't exist, I'm not quite sure how I'd go about making sure I can defend myself. Maybe I have to waste countless hours trying to be good at sword play and just hope I never get old.

 

[Michael88]

Bottom line is, there is one single deranged idiot causing a tragedy and the government makes laws according to this one single idiot, collectively punishing the rest of the entire population.

Does not matter if its guns, cars, booze or what have you, with this kind of logic you quickly end up in a world that is resembling a padded cell and you are not allowed to do ANYTHING besides watching TV. You don't have to like guns to see that this kind of thinking is a huge problem.

The ban of semi automatic firearms is only possible like that because there is fewer people enjoying this kind of hobby and it has always been historically easy to kick around the minorities, racial, political minorities, does not matter.
Booze is LONG overdue to get banned according to this logic, but you simply cant do that because so many people enjoy it and there is such an industry behind it.
But boy, alcohol has caused so many deaths and tragedies that it absolutely dwarves gun deaths, but nobody really cares.

 

[PocketZeven]

Why not?

They are too dangerous for the general public to have acces to. You may disagree, but I feel safer knowing that assaukt rifles are not generally accesible in my country. But to better understand your question with more context, would you propose that automatic weapons and even heavier weapons should also be accessible to the public?

You're not wanting to carry your argument through to its logical conclusions.





If your answer is "there is none", that's great, we can move on to other logical conclusions, such as the notion that you should approach this incident from a different perspective, such as the perspective of stopping mass murder, or even just saving lives.

I tried to explain the logical thinking in my argument. You disagree however with the interpertation of facts I have posted. That (there is none) isnt an accurate summarization of my post. You can not generalize the NZ incident to just saving lives or even stopping mass murder. Like I tried to convey earlier is that the NZ incident is specifically a planned hatecrime. Perhaps you misunderstood I agreed with the stricter gun laws as an end all "solution". I tried to explain further that it isnt, but statistically it does reduce misuse of guns. I do agree it will not prevent bombing by an individual planning a violent hatecrime, however I would argue it isnt correct to argue that if someone has no to little acces to guns will automatically choose to use bombs or other means. That should somehow reflect in countries with strict gunlaws, where perhaps hatecrimes are carried out by using bombs outnumber the ones carried out by guns.

If I did try to approach the argument through your proposed perspective (you shouls also make an effort to see it from mine) it would include stricter gunlaws as one of many changes which I listed before:
- Better healthcare to mental health patients that suffer from bullying, depression, paranoia or more severe conditions.
- strict gunlaws
- Better registration and investigations into hategroups
- Perhaps more police in areas where it is needed. (areas or people that have had deaththreats)

And there are more suggestions ofcourse, but to claim that stricter gunlaws should not be on this list is something I definately disagree with.

 

[Famine]

They are too dangerous for the general public to have acces to.

Where is the line for something being too dangerous for the general public (also what is "the general public" in this context?) to have access to? How dangerous does something have to be to cross that line?

Before you evade and counter-question, I already gave you mine: something that you cannot own or operate without harming the rights of others.

 

[Danoff]

That (there is none) isnt an accurate summarization of my post.

That wasn't supposed to be a summarization of your post. It was supposed to be the conclusion that you're leaving me with, which is that you can't find a non-arbitrary logical distinction between mass shooting and other types of murder or death.

I can, btw

Intent makes a big difference here. If someone intends to infringe the rights of others, they've shown you something about their values, about how they're willing to interact, and that's important information. If they accidentally infringe the rights of others, they've not shown you much about their values, but instead have shown you something about their ability to control themselves. These are two very important characteristics of people when it comes to interacting. Willingness to engage in reciprocal behavior, and capacity to do so. Demonstrating a willingness to violate the rights of others is done differently than demonstrating an inability to observe the rights of others. And it has logical consequences for "sentencing" as well.

But what about a logical distinction between stabbing someone to death and shooting them? What about a logical distinction between shooting someone with a rifle, a handgun, a semi-automatic rifle, an automatic rifle, or killing them with a bomb? Running them over (intentionally) with a car? These all do the same thing, demonstrate a willingness to harm other people. The particular chosen modality has no impact on the crime committed.

So when it comes to philosophically differentiating shooting from other types of murder... I think you have your work cut out for you. And that's why gun crime statistics are meaningless.

I tried to explain further that it isnt, but statistically it does reduce misuse of guns.

Which is not relevant for the reasons above.

I do agree it will not prevent bombing by an individual planning a violent hatecrime, however I would argue it isnt correct to argue that if someone has no to little acces to guns will automatically choose to use bombs or other means.

That's up to you to make that case. I'm not particularly interested in making it for you. I will say that for this incident, you're wrong (at least the later part of the quoted phrase anyway). And short of traveling down a hypothetical decision branch on a hypothetical timeline, I think we've got about as much evidence as we could get on that.

 

[Michael88]

Where is the line for something being too dangerous for the general public (also what is "the general public" in this context?) to have access to? How dangerous does something have to be to cross that line?

According to my experiences, sadly, for nearly all people that line starts where their interests end. Meaning anything potentially dangerous that does not have any importance or application in their lives can and should be banned. And they don't even seem to be aware of the harmful thought process that leads to such bans that will eventually bite them in the butt.

Heck, since this is a racing sim forum, I know dozens of people who own cars but wish that any car with more than 90 horsepower would be banned and that racing itself would be banned because it is potentially dangerous to bystanders and burns lots of fuel which is hard on the environment. I asked how they could want to ban something millions of people enjoy, love and so many people do for a living [racing]. The replies I got was that they are simply not interested in fast cars and they think its dumb, dangerous and they'd welcome a ban. Just like that.

As a gun owner, I also asked people who hate guns, in the end, when i compared other sources of dangers that are far more likely to kill you and have a MUCH higher death toll each year, sources said persons are regularly exposed to (willingly and unwillingly) I got pretty much the same reply.

 

[PocketZeven]

That wasn't supposed to be a summarization of your post. It was supposed to be the conclusion that you're leaving me with, which is that you can't find a non-arbitrary logical distinction between mass shooting and other types of murder or death.

I can, btw

Intent makes a big difference here. If someone intends to infringe the rights of others, they've shown you something about their values, about how they're willing to interact, and that's important information. If they accidentally infringe the rights of others, they've not shown you much about their values, but instead have shown you something about their ability to control themselves. These are two very important characteristics of people when it comes to interacting. Willingness to engage in reciprocal behavior, and capacity to do so. Demonstrating a willingness to violate the rights of others is done differently than demonstrating an inability to observe the rights of others. And it has logical consequences for "sentencing" as well.

But what about a logical distinction between stabbing someone to death and shooting them? What about a logical distinction between shooting someone with a rifle, a handgun, a semi-automatic rifle, an automatic rifle, or killing them with a bomb? Running them over (intentionally) with a car? These all do the same thing, demonstrate a willingness to harm other people. The particular chosen modality has no impact on the crime committed.

So when it comes to philosophically differentiating shooting from other types of murder... I think you have your work cut out for you. And that's why gun crime statistics are meaningless.



Which is not relevant for the reasons above.



That's up to you to make that case. I'm not particularly interested in making it for you. I will say that for this incident, you're wrong (at least the later part of the quoted phrase anyway). And short of traveling down a hypothetical decision branch on a hypothetical timeline, I think we've got about as much evidence as we could get on that.

I litterally stated the largest difference is intent in multiple posts. These posts were directed at Famine (concerning differentiating Car accidents and mass shootings.) So I can imagine you might not have read them.

The chosen modality (what weapon) does have an impact in the sense of number of victims. The whole argument around guncontrol is that one can do more damage with automatic guns then other means. You might be correct in that there is no impact on the crime comitted, but I pointed out that this should show in countries with stricter Gun laws. There should be more mass killings by other means in thos countries. (cars, pipebombs etc.) I have not found evidence of that. My conclusion is that there is some relation between gunlaws and the actual deed of mass killing (instead of just thinking about it). In other words, it should be explored that gun availability decreases the barrier of just "thinking about it" and "actually doing it".

 

[Danoff]

I agree, the chosen modality does have an impact in the sense of number of victims. The whole argument around guncontrol is that one can do more damage with automatic guns then other means.

Which would be a flawed assumption (see Timothy McVeigh).

You might be correct in that there is no impact on the crime comitted, but I pointed out that this should show in countries with stricter Gun laws. There should be more mass killings by other means in thos countries. (cars, pipebombs etc.) I have not found evidence of that.

So you're pointing to your lack of evidence as a reason that I'm wrong? If you want to make the case that people who do not have access to guns will not choose another weapon, you make that case. That's not obviously apparent. I'm stopping at pointing out that there are alternatives that have been used effectively which are available for someone motivated.

My conclusion is that there is some relation between gunlaws and the actual deed of mass killing (instead of just thinking about it).

Evidence required.

In other words, it should be explored that gun availability decreases the barrier of just "thinking about it" and "actually doing it".

Several problems with that.

1) There's not much barrier to killing your fellow humans in general. We're all pretty easy to kill, guns or no.
2) You need to actually show this.
3) Even if you did show it, it would lead you toward additional regulation on handguns (which are used for most gun-related crimes in the US, and are more readily available) rather than semi-automatic rifles, especially in the hands of would-be terrorists. Because this is less applicable to terrorists.

In short, your line of reasoning doesn't line up with this particular event. You're using this event to talk about a very dissimilar event in which someone who has a gun uses it impulsively before thinking carefully about what they're doing. And you're further assuming that they wouldn't have done something else instead.

 

[PocketZeven]

Which would be a flawed assumption (see Timothy McVeigh).



So you're pointing to your lack of evidence as a reason that I'm wrong? If you want to make the case that people who do not have access to guns will not choose another weapon, you make that case. That's not obviously apparent. I'm stopping at pointing out that there are alternatives that have been used effectively which are available for someone motivated.




Evidence required.



Several problems with that.

1) There's not much barrier to killing your fellow humans in general. We're all pretty easy to kill, guns or no.
2) You need to actually show this.
3) Even if you did show it, it would lead you toward additional regulation on handguns (which are used for most gun-related crimes in the US, and are more readily available) rather than semi-automatic rifles, especially in the hands of would-be terrorists. Because this is less applicable to terrorists.

In short, your line of reasoning doesn't line up with this particular event. You're using this event to talk about a very dissimilar event in which someone who has a gun uses it impulsively before thinking carefully about what they're doing. And you're further assuming that they wouldn't have done something else instead.

Timothy McVeigh is an isolated incident.

I provided various statistics that does not defintively prove a relation, but does suggest corellation, when compared to other rich western countries. You chose to reject the corellation.

1) That should be explored. I dont think you can reject or confirm it at the moment. Killing multiple people, when there is a gunstore around the corner makes the barrier much lower. When there is no gunstore, you might not even think about crossing the barrier. Again this is just me thinking out loud. But I dont think there is evidence for or against it.
2) I am not making a statement. So I am not trying to prove it. I couldnt find research that actually explores it.
3) I would argue though that Terrorist with handgun is prefferable to a terrorist with a semi automatic rifle. (both are ofcourse bad)

 

[eran0004]

Bottom line is, there is one single deranged idiot causing a tragedy and the government makes laws according to this one single idiot, collectively punishing the rest of the entire population.

Does not matter if its guns, cars, booze or what have you, with this kind of logic you quickly end up in a world that is resembling a padded cell and you are not allowed to do ANYTHING besides watching TV. You don't have to like guns to see that this kind of thinking is a huge problem.

The ban of semi automatic firearms is only possible like that because there is fewer people enjoying this kind of hobby and it has always been historically easy to kick around the minorities, racial, political minorities, does not matter.
Booze is LONG overdue to get banned according to this logic, but you simply cant do that because so many people enjoy it and there is such an industry behind it.
But boy, alcohol has caused so many deaths and tragedies that it absolutely dwarves gun deaths, but nobody really cares.

A law is not a punishment. It’s a regulation.

And you need to separate deliberate attacks from accidents and illness. They are not equivalent. Alcohol is a tragedy, but not the same kind of tragedy as a terrorist attack.

 

[Danoff]

Timothy McVeigh is an isolated incident.

How so? And remember to explain how you think it's isolated compared to an incident like the one this thread is about.

I provided various statistics that does not defintively prove a relation, but does suggest corellation, when compared to other rich western countries. You chose to reject the corellation.

Correlation is not causation. You need more to support your claim.

1) That should be explored. I dont think you can reject or confirm it at the moment. Killing multiple people, when there is a gunstore around the corner makes the barrier much lower. When there is no gunstore, you might not even think about crossing the barrier. Again this is just me thinking out loud. But I dont think there is evidence for or against it.

You can't confirm or reject that people are easy to kill? We're easy to kill. Sorry to break the news to you.

2) I am not making a statement. So I am not trying to prove it. I couldnt find research that actually explores it.

It seems somewhat critical to your position.

3) I would argue though that Terrorist with handgun is prefferable to a terrorist with a semi automatic rifle. (both are ofcourse bad)

I was saying that your line of reasoning would lead to regulation against handguns rather than semi-automatic rifles. Not that it would lead to terrorists with handguns instead of rifles. Quite the opposite. Your argument is aimed squarely at people who aren't would-be terrorists. It has nothing to do with stopping someone who is motivated and determined to commit mass murder, and everything to do with the assumption that someone would murder impulsively and needs a slightly different barrier to entry. In other words, your argument is missing the topic here and doesn't support your conclusion.

 

[BobK]

They are too dangerous for the general public to have acces to. You may disagree, but I feel safer knowing that assaukt rifles are not generally accesible in my country. But to better understand your question with more context, would you propose that automatic weapons and even heavier weapons should also be accessible to the public?

Whether you or anyone else "feels" safer shouldn't enter into the argument at all. What should matter is if one is safer.

I mentioned earlier that I know a few people who do in fact own automatic weapons as well as tanks and other armored fighting vehicles. Since they don't misuse them I have no problem with it.

 

[Michael88]

A law is not a punishment. It’s a regulation.

And those are just words. Fact is, if somebody comes into your home and takes your pricey possessions required for your hobby which you love and enjoy, in the name of the greater good, for that individual thats basically unjust punishment. I'm pretty sure if some idiot caused a massive traffic accident and you are suddenly, in the name of public safety, required to surrender your brand new sports car to the police you'd be pissed off and felt threated unfairly, you'd not nod in agreement and be happy to have been properly regulated.

Those who cheer for bans and regulation have never been on the receiving end of bans and regulations.

And you need to separate deliberate attacks from accidents and illness. They are not equivalent. Alcohol is a tragedy, but not the same kind of tragedy as a terrorist attack.

No I don't. People who die from a terror attack are just as dead as those that get cancer from smoking, car accidents or die from a destroyed liver. Fact is, you are dozens of times more likely to sustain life threatening side effects from those substances, or maltreatment in the hospital or getting killed in a traffic accident than getting shot. The government uses resources to make the lives of the population safer and better (in theory) but they have to prioritize. All the deaths I mentioned are a tragedy, and all have to be prevented, but lets focus the most on the things that kill the most people.

BTW, alcohol makes people do stupid things, its not that its misuse just messes up the body, it can lead some people to cause harm to others. How many childhoods were and will be destroyed thanks to alcohol?

 

[PocketZeven]

Whether you or anyone else "feels" safer shouldn't enter into the argument at all. What should matter is if one is safer.

I mentioned earlier that I know a few people who do in fact own automatic weapons as well as tanks and other armored fighting vehicles. Since they don't misuse them I have no problem with it.

How so? And remember to explain how you think it's isolated compared to an incident like the one this thread is about.



Correlation is not causation. You need more to support your claim.



You can't confirm or reject that people are easy to kill? We're easy to kill. Sorry to break the news to you.



It seems somewhat critical to your position.



I was saying that your line of reasoning would lead to regulation against handguns rather than semi-automatic rifles. Not that it would lead to terrorists with handguns instead of rifles. Quite the opposite. Your argument is aimed squarely at people who aren't would-be terrorists. It has nothing to do with stopping someone who is motivated and determined to commit mass murder, and everything to do with the assumption that someone would murder impulsively and needs a slightly different barrier to entry. In other words, your argument is missing the topic here and doesn't support your conclusion.

It wasnt a hatecrime and was related to a cult/sect.

I understand however youy can not confirm that there is absolutely no corellation either.

No sorry. I wasnt referring to that statement. I was referring to the barrier and not the easiness to kill. That said It is easier to kill multiple people with an assault rifle then with a gun.

Your own postition does not disprove it either. I refer to statistics that only supports a narrative though, so it doesnt really conclude 100%. But on the opposide you also can not claim there is no corellation in availability of weapons and the barrier to act out.

You are assuming a lot there. I am referring to the general barrier of acting out an assignment by a superior , fantasy or whatever related to violence. That does not suggest I am targeting a certain group at all. Also I was not using this as an definitive argument. I specifically said it needs to be explored or researched. Nothing more or less.

 

[Michael88]

No sorry. I wasnt referring to that statement. I was referring to the barrier and not the easiness to kill. That said It is easier to kill multiple people with an assault rifle then with a gun.

There were no assault rifles used in the crime, nor can assault rifles be legally possessed by anyone but the military and police. An assault rifle is a long arm that can fire continuously by depressing the trigger. That is fully automatic fire, citizen of NZ are not allowed to own fully automatic rifles.
The firearm involved in the crime was a semi-automatic rifle, that will fire one shot per pull of the trigger, which loads another round. The rifle will not fire until you reset and depress the trigger again, resulting in much slower rate of fire.

Assault rifle is a typically modern military rifle, the term is only used by either those that deliberately want to make things seem even more sinister by deliberately using the wrong term ''Assault'' because it sounds so dramatic or by those who recite the news without having the slightest clue about firearms.

Since people in the Government are most likely not mere uneducated fools who just recite media.....

 

[PocketZeven]

There were no assault rifles used in the crime, nor can assault rifles be legally possessed by anyone but the military and police. An assault rifle is a long arm that can fire continuously by depressing the trigger. That is fully automatic fire, citizen of NZ are not allowed to own fully automatic rifles.
The firearm involved in the crime was a semi-automatic rifle, that will fire one shot per pull of the trigger, which loads another round. The rifle will not fire until you reset and depress the trigger again, resulting in much slower rate of fire.

Assault rifle is a typically modern military rifle, the term is only used by either those that deliberately want to make things seem even more sinister by deliberately using the wrong term ''Assault'' because it sounds so dramatic or by those who recite the news without having the slightest clue about firearms.

Since people in the Government are most likely not mere uneducated fools who just recite media.....

My apologies the discussion evolved to another related topic (gun control). The premise was that I was happy the NZ government are taking action. I was countered by others that Guns are just tools and a comparison was made with cars (that kill more people). I was then trying to explore the idea that gun control reduces gun violence.

edit:

Whether you or anyone else "feels" safer shouldn't enter into the argument at all. What should matter is if one is safer.

I mentioned earlier that I know a few people who do in fact own automatic weapons as well as tanks and other armored fighting vehicles. Since they don't misuse them I have no problem with it.

Statistically the risk of me being shot is much lower then in the USA.

Now imagine if that person you know was Kim Jung Un or someone else who is unhinged.

 

[Famine]

The premise was that I was happy the NZ government are taking action.

I think everyone knows that. This issue is that apparently you have at no point asked yourself if the action it's taking is appropriate.

The government of New Zealand is spending time to try to create legislation to make a whole bunch of innocent people into criminals for possessing a tool, in the name of preventing one specific type of already criminal action with that tool, which is already a vanishingly rare event (you described another, similar crime as "an isolated incident", in full seriousness), in order to achieve... something.

You may be "happy" with the action (because you think that the tool is "too dangerous for the general public" [but won't answer what the danger threshold is]), but is it appropriate? For reference, I know you're going to say that it is, because you don't want to examine your opinion too closely and cut through your emotional reaction.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think everyone knows that. This issue is that apparently you have at no point asked yourself if the action it's taking is appropriate.

The government of New Zealand is spending time to try to create legislation to make a whole bunch of innocent people into criminals for possessing a tool, in the name of preventing one specific type of already criminal action with that tool, which is already a vanishingly rare event (you described another, similar crime as "an isolated incident", in full seriousness), in order to achieve... something.

You may be "happy" with the action (because you think that the tool is "too dangerous for the general public" [but won't answer what the danger threshold is]), but is it appropriate? For reference, I know you're going to say that it is, because you don't want to examine your opinion too closely and cut through your emotional reaction.

Not emotional. I am actually being rational. I had the discussion before with Danoff in another thread. I personally like shooting recreationally and in a perfect world would like to collect (and shoot) weapons from the old west. But I prefer stricter laws for the public safety.

You classifying a weapon as a "tool" is what I was arguing against. Does that mean you believe the absence of gun control will have no influence (with other factors staying the same) on mass shootings?

 

[Danoff]

I understand however youy can not confirm that there is absolutely no corellation either.

I don't think I need to though.

That said It is easier to kill multiple people with an assault rifle then with a gun.

Can you explain why it's worse for multiple people to be killed in one event than individuals killed in multiple single events?

Your own postition does not disprove it either. I refer to statistics that only supports a narrative though, so it doesnt really conclude 100%. But on the opposide you also can not claim there is no corellation in availability of weapons and the barrier to act out.

I don't think I'm making that claim though.

You classifying a weapon as a "tool" is what I was arguing against. Does that mean you believe the absence of gun control will have no influence (with other factors staying the same) on mass shootings?

Shootings? Specifically shootings as opposed to other types of mass murder? Why would you pick that?

 

[Famine]

Not emotional. I am actually being rational.

Sure thing. That's why you're asking me what I "believe". There's nothing quite as rational as belief...

I personally like

Emotional, not rational.

I prefer

Emotional, not rational.

You classifying a weapon as a "tool" is what I was arguing against.

Really? I mean... aside from the fact that didn't come across at all, that's an insane position because weapons literally are tools. A tool is an object that allows the user to modify their environment by changing the amount of force (both up and down) they can exert beyond their own physical capabilities.

?

It's funny. I've asked you questions in two posts today and you've not even tried to answer either, while posing me one in return. One is now at the traditional-for-you third time of asking:

Where is the line for something being too dangerous for the general public (also what is "the general public" in this context?) to have access to? How dangerous does something have to be to cross that line?

Before you evade and counter-question, I already gave you mine: something that you cannot own or operate without harming the rights of others.

I think everyone knows that. This issue is that apparently you have at no point asked yourself if the action it's taking is appropriate.

The government of New Zealand is spending time to try to create legislation to make a whole bunch of innocent people into criminals for possessing a tool, in the name of preventing one specific type of already criminal action with that tool, which is already a vanishingly rare event (you described another, similar crime as "an isolated incident", in full seriousness), in order to achieve... something.

You may be "happy" with the action (because you think that the tool is "too dangerous for the general public" [but won't answer what the danger threshold is]), but is it appropriate? For reference, I know you're going to say that it is, because you don't want to examine your opinion too closely and cut through your emotional reaction.

And as a quick rule of thumb for you, if you ask me if I believe something, the answer is no. I accept or don't accept, based on evidence.

As for the meat of the question, @Danoff has already addressed the bizarre specificity (some may even say loading) of that in the post above.

 

[eran0004]

And those are just words. Fact is, if somebody comes into your home and takes your pricey possessions required for your hobby which you love and enjoy, in the name of the greater good, for that individual thats basically unjust punishment.

No it’s not. For that individual it means that his hobby is now illegal, not that he is being punished for his hobby.

I'm pretty sure if some idiot caused a massive traffic accident and you are suddenly, in the name of public safety, required to surrender your brand new sports car to the police you'd be pissed off and felt threated unfairly, you'd not nod in agreement and be happy to have been properly regulated.

I would probably be angry, but I wouldn’t see it as a punishment, because it isn’t. They decided that sportscars are too dangerous to use on the roads, not to punish every sports car owner.

Those who cheer for bans and regulation have never been on the receiving end of bans and regulations.

Nonsense. They’re just more concerned with the greater good for society than with individual freedom. I find it hard to believe that there’s even a single individual somewhere who is not subject to some regulations.

No I don't. People who die from a terror attack are just as dead as those that get cancer from smoking, car accidents or die from a destroyed liver. Fact is, you are dozens of times more likely to sustain life threatening side effects from those substances, or maltreatment in the hospital or getting killed in a traffic accident than getting shot. The government uses resources to make the lives of the population safer and better (in theory) but they have to prioritize. All the deaths I mentioned are a tragedy, and all have to be prevented, but lets focus the most on the things that kill the most people.

BTW, alcohol makes people do stupid things, its not that its misuse just messes up the body, it can lead some people to cause harm to others. How many childhoods were and will be destroyed thanks to alcohol?

I think you’ll find that traffic and alcohol are both pretty regulated in society.

 

[McLaren]

No it’s not. For that individual it means that his hobby is now illegal, not that he is being punished for his hobby.

I would probably be angry, but I wouldn’t see it as a punishment, because it isn’t. They decided that sportscars are too dangerous to use on the roads, not to punish every sports car owner.

Applying any part of a given punishment to a guilty individual (ex: that person can no longer own sports cars in addition to jail/fines/etc.) to all other innocents who share a particular thing in common with the guilty individual is called collective punishment.

Refer back to your school days; a student abuses a privilege set forth by the teacher, everyone loses that privilege in return even though they did nothing wrong.

 

[eran0004]

Applying any part of a given punishment to a guilty individual (ex: that person can no longer own sports cars in addition to jail/fines/etc.) to all other innocents who share a particular thing in common with the guilty individual is called collective punishment.

Refer back to your school days; a student abuses a privilege set forth by the teacher, everyone loses that privilege in return even though they did nothing wrong.

Yes, if it was a punishment then it would be collective punishment since it applies to everyone.

But it’s not a punishment, so it’s not collective punishment. The purpose is to reduce the availability of certain types of weapons, to prevent similar types of attacks. It has nothing to do with punishment what so ever.