New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[Northstar]

They’re just more concerned with the greater good

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

And yet, both cause far more deaths than guns (guessing those deaths are necessary for the "greater good" though? ).

But it’s not a punishment, so it’s not collective punishment.

If you take a toy away from a child (that was playing with it without harming itself or others), are they not being punished?

 

[Famine]

The purpose is to reduce the availability of certain types of weapons, to prevent similar types of attacks...

... by making those who own them give them up or become criminals. Sounds pretty punishmenty.

The goal you state there is interesting too. There have been nine events of this type* in the last hundred years in New Zealand. This one was the deadliest, with the others totalling 63 deaths (not including perps) between them - via handguns, shotguns and a semi-auto Winchester rifle. So we can either suggest that this event was unique and caused 50 deaths, or that it's a spree-shooter killing event of the type that has caused 103 deaths in 100 years (actually 96 - but you have to go back a LOT further to find any other group deaths of any cause).

That means that either this event has caused a change in the national death rate of 0.14%, or that these events have caused a change in the national death rate of 0.004%.

Thus the New Zealand government's purpose in this ban is to either reduce the likelihood of a repeat of a completely unique event that had never occurred before in the country's entire history even with the laws on firearms as they were or reduce the annual death rate by four-thousandths of a percent.

Is that an appropriate use of the government's time, or is it just an emotional response to a traumatic event? Will this ban fulfill the government's role of protecting people's rights effectively**, or is it just flag-waving in order to be seen to be taking action?


For reference, the adoption of Euro 6b vehicle emissions standards in New Zealand rather than the current Euro 5 would make nobody a criminal (I still drive a Euro 2 car, legally) and reduce the annual death rate by around 10%.


*Shootings that have killed five or more people in New Zealand date to 2019 (50), 1990 (13), 1941 (7), 1997 (6), 1992, (6), 1994 (5), 1934 (5) and 1951 (4). There's also an unsolved shooting/arson from 1929 with seven deaths. Three of those are family murders, perpetrated by a member of that family. Before Christchurch, the previous four spree-killing events totalled 11 deaths from guns and 13 deaths from fire, knives and a hammer.
**Spoiler alert: no, it harms people's rights by making innocent people criminals for owning an item they can own and operate without harming other people's rights, or by taking that item from them by threat of force.

 

[McLaren]

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.

If the purpose is to reduce the availability of certain types of weapons, there are other ways.

Banning innocent, law abiding people from an object or activity in the name of public safety is still collective punishment. Someone is being punished for something they didn’t do, doesn’t matter if the excuse is to better society in theory.

Imagine if the fear around Pit Bulls got so bad, they started to ban them completely (certain places such as apartments already do this) to save children. Tell me how not only the owner, but the dog as well, is not being punished for an act they didn’t commit.

 

[Famine]

Imagine if the fear around Pit Bulls got so bad, they started to ban them completely (certain places such as apartments already do this) to save children.

We did this almost 30 years ago. There's not much a UK Government loves more than a good flag-waving exercise - and this particular law (the Dangerous Dogs Act) is one often held up as a dreadful piece of hurried legislation in response to a populist media frenzy, so that MPs can make themselves look like they're doing something, rather than any kind of rational action.

The rate of dog "attacks" has doubled since then, and the rate of fatalities from dog attacks has tripled. In the ten years before the Act, there were 11 fatal dog attacks, with four years free of fatalities. In the ten following years there were 19 fatal dog attacks, with two years free of fatalities. The dog breed most likely to bite you is (presumably down to popularity of the breed) the almost faultlessly docile labrador.


It's almost like making the tool illegal doesn't actually solve the death and injury problems. Although it has to be said, deaths from pit bulls (and tosa, dogo argentino, and fila brasileiro) are well down, so yay legislation...

 

[PocketZeven]

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

Emotional, not rational.

Emotional, not rational.

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:


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.

My emotional thought is that I would love to collect and recreatively shoot certain guns. My rational though is that it is a good thing that strict gun laws make my country safer. You misquoted me there.

Not every tool should be handled the same.

Too dangerous? I think every "tool" that is purposefully built and makes it easy to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time and is primarily used to harm other people should be concidered to be dangerous or not easily accesible for the general public. I have adressed this threshold a couple of times. But to elaborate, I think that weapons that are for killing should be handled with care, proper training and great responsibility. Like a superhero with powers in comics one should not use their power without thought and consequence. "with great power, comes great responsibility".

Would you think your country is better with less gun control?

I don't think I need to though.



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



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



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

You dont have to, but if you think I am wrong I would like to see more evidence.

That comes down to the shooter or criminal to victim ratio. Ideally you would want no killings at all. But a single person being killed in an isolated incident is better then multiple people being killed by a single person in a single incident. And that often also has to do with the kind of weapon the criminal is using. Not to mention a high powered weapon increases the risk significantly of collatoral damage as well.

We were speaking in this thread about gun control as a measure to reduce mass shootings. Other types of murder are outside the scope we were speaking about. But you can apply the suggestion I made in an earlier post:

- Better healthcare to mental health patients that suffer from bullying, depression, paranoia or more severe conditions.
- Better registration and investigations into hategroups
- Perhaps more police in areas where it is needed. (areas or people that have had deaththreats)

edit: spelling

 

[Famine]

My emotional thought is that I would love to collect and recreatively shoot certain guns. My rational though is that it is a good thing that strict gun laws make my country safer.

"Good" is not rational thought. Nor is what you would like, or prefer, or believe in.

You misquoted me there.

No part of what you said was changed in my quoting of it.

Not every tool should be handled the same.

Okay. So what?

Too dangerous? I think every "tool" that is purposefully built and makes it easy to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time and is primarily used to harm other people should be concidered to be dangerous or not easily accesible for the general public.

Hoo boy, this is all over the place.

Every tool is "purposefully built" - tools are built to fill a purpose. Many tools make it easy to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time - chainsaws are great at it, and New Zealand's joint-third largest spree-murder used matches. Almost no tool is primarily used to harm other people (I say "almost", because I reckon sonic crowd control systems are created to cause low level but appreciable harm to people to prevent the use of greater force), and we've been over this particular claim on guns in this thread already.

So given that your prerequisites here include two things that cover all tools and one that covers none, we're no nearer to finding out what makes something "too dangerous" to you.

I think that weapons that are for killing should be handled with care, proper training and great responsibility.

Aside from the fact you're hitting straight at the emotional and incorrect "guns are for killing" tripe again, what you say here is ludicrously vague. All things that have the potential to harm yourself or others should be handled with care, proper training and great responsibility. Do I need to mention cars again?

Would you think your country is better with less gun control?

Ah look, more questions coming from the table that evades them... Let me show you how it's done:

"Yes, because a government that does not respect the rights of its civilians is a tyranny."

 

[Sander 001]

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.

The error in your premise is that he’s alone; he’s not. He may have acted alone but he’s part of a movement which spans the world over and is a legitimate threat which continues to grow. He references previous attacks by this movement and threatens grandiose future ones as well. His ideology is nearly common and I’m very surprised at anybody suggesting he’s the first of his kind and the last.

 

[eran0004]

And yet, both cause far more deaths than guns (guessing those deaths are necessary for the "greater good" though? ).

That’s a horribly bad guess. Why do you think that those deaths would be necessary? Traffic and alcohol are both heavily regulated.

The fact that people die of alcohol and in traffic does not have any bearing on gun control what so ever. It’s not as if society can only focus on one problem at a time.

If you take a toy away from a child (that was playing with it without harming itself or others), are they not being punished?

Only if you do it for the purpose of punishing the child.

The fact that the child may cry about it does not make it a punishment.

 

[PocketZeven]

"Good" is not rational thought. Nor is what you would like, or prefer, or believe in.

No part of what you said was changed in my quoting of it.

Okay. So what?

Hoo boy, this is all over the place.

Every tool is "purposefully built" - tools are built to fill a purpose. Many tools make it easy to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time - chainsaws are great at it, and New Zealand's joint-third largest spree-murder used matches. Almost no tool is primarily used to harm other people (I say "almost", because I reckon sonic crowd control systems are created to cause low level but appreciable harm to people to prevent the use of greater force), and we've been over this particular claim on guns in this thread already.

So given that your prerequisites here include two things that cover all tools and one that covers none, we're no nearer to finding out what makes something "too dangerous" to you.

Aside from the fact you're hitting straight at the emotional and incorrect "guns are for killing" tripe again, what you say here is ludicrously vague. All things that have the potential to harm yourself or others should be handled with care, proper training and great responsibility. Do I need to mention cars again?

Ah look, more questions coming from the table that evades them... Let me show you how it's done:

"Yes, because a government that does not respect the rights of its civilians is a tyranny."

Rational thought broken down: strict gunlaws=less gun violence.

Misquoting in the sense of being quoted out of context.

Not really hard to understand. What part of a weapon is purposefully built to kill dont you understand? You chose to quote "purposefully built" and exclude "makes it easy to kill". Which I have written in many posts already.

How do you suddenly go from guns as a weapon to kill to sonic crowd control?? It's purpose is in the name "crowd control". We have spoken about this in length and at least @Danoff agrees with me with the purpose of firearms. If you chose to think that the purpose of guns is irrelevant to the issue how can you ever make a weighted opinion about the subject? A gun is built to kill or at least harm people. Other uses are secondary. To say it is a tripe, shows perhaps your ignorance of the purpose of "weapons" in general. It is ludicrous to claim that all tools are the same and should be handled the same in law. You are chosing to ignore everything I was previoud saying about what makes weapons "too dangerous":
- a firearm is very powerfull
- A firearm is built to kill
- A firearm requires a lot of training and protocalls for proper use
- The risk of "misuse"(harm others with intent) of a firearm is much higher then other "tools"
- misuse of a firearm has a much larger risk of killing a larger number of people then other "tools"

What rights specifically for the UK? To be sure, does a civilion of the UK have the right to bear arms?

 

[Danoff]

You dont have to, but if you think I am wrong I would like to see more evidence.

That's not how it works. If you're making a claim, you supply the evidence. I get to choose not to believe it until I'm convinced by the evidence.

That comes down to the shooter or criminal to victim ratio. Ideally you would want no killings at all. But a single person being killed in an isolated incident is better then multiple people being killed by a single person in a single incident.

Of course that's not what I asked you to compare. I asked you to compare multiple people killed in individual incidents against multiple people killed in one incident. Does it make it better if 10 people die in 10 separate incidents, or if 10 people die in one incident? Just trying to understand what you value here.

And that often also has to do with the kind of weapon the criminal is using. Not to mention a high powered weapon increases the risk significantly of collatoral damage as well.

Especially bombs.

We were speaking in this thread about gun control as a measure to reduce mass shootings. Other types of murder are outside the scope we were speaking about.

Uh.... that's super specific and arbitrary. It's like if I said "I want to focus on a way to reduce shootings via 9mm. If we ban 9mm ammo, then we'll reduce the number of shootings that occur with 9mm ammo. And that'd be progress". Not if everyone starts getting killed with 0.38 ammo. You might say "murder via 0.38 ammo is outside of the scope we are speaking about" but can you not see how you've missed the forest for the trees here? You're pickings something incredibly specific - multiple killings in one incident perpetuated via shooting, and I'm going to go further because you really seem to care about that only if it's perpetuated by semi-automatic or automatic rifle. That's not that far off from picking on a specific ammo caliber and trying to eliminate its use.

Rational thought broken down: strict gunlaws=less gun violence.

First, you haven't demonstrated that. Second, so what? You need to motivate why this is important. If gun violence goes down by vehicular homicide and bomb use goes up, we've accomplished nothing.

What part of a weapon is purposefully built to kill dont you understand?

Most weapons are pretty good at inflicting major harm to others, that's why I own mine. That's not a bad reason to own a weapon. That's a law-abiding responsible reason to own them.

@Danoff agrees with me with the purpose of firearms.

I own two of my firearms for that purpose. And it's a lawful and proper purpose.

What rights specifically for the UK? To be sure, does a civilion of the UK have the right to bear arms?

Everyone has that right. It's just that some countries don't recognize it.

 

[Famine]

Rational thought broken down: strict gunlaws=less gun violence.

That's not what rational thought means, unless you have evidence for that thought process.

Misquoting in the sense of being quoted out of context.

No, the context was preserved.

Not really hard to understand. What part of a weapon is purposefully built to kill dont you understand?

The way you typed the sentence made it incredibly hard to follow your meaning. It looked like you were choosing three criteria: purposefully built; makes it easy to kill a lot of people in a short time; and primarily used to harm other people.

So what you meant to say was the something is too dangerous if it is specifically designed to kill a lot of people in a short time and primarily used for that? If so, great. That's not guns, so guns aren't too dangerous.

You chose to quote "purposefully built" and exclude "makes it easy to kill".

Yeah, no:

That's not the first time you've completely made up something I've said (or not said) in this thread. You're going to want to stop doing that.

How do you suddenly go from guns as a weapon to kill to sonic crowd control?? It's purpose is in the name "crowd control".

It wasn't sudden and I literally explained it to you. Originally I was going to say that no tool is designed and primarily used to harm people. Despite your insistence that guns are, they are not. We've actually been over the statistics of just how few of the billion guns on the planet are used to harm people. I'm "shocked" you've forgotten that already.

However it wouldn't be accurate to say that no tool is designed and primarily used to harm people, because some devices are. Sonic crowd control devices are - they induce extreme discomfort and pain (harm) and that's their primary function (although they can be used as a deterrent, and for display of how grossly inflated police department budgets are). Their use though is intended to prevent the need for larger displays of force, which may cause more serious and more permanent injury - but they're still designed and primarily used to harm people.

If you chose to think that the purpose of guns is irrelevant to the issue how can you ever make a weighted opinion about the subject? A gun is built to kill or at least harm people. Other uses are secondary. To say it is a tripe, shows perhaps your ignorance of the purpose of "weapons" in general.

It is tripe because it is tripe. A gun is built to deliver a projectile over great distance. Some of the bullets might be designed to cause harm to, or kill, people, but the gun is just a tool.

The primary use for 85% of the billion guns is not to be used. The primary use for 85% of the remainder is to be used to deliver their projectiles to static or inanimate targets, for recreation, sport or honing skills. The secondary use for some of those guns and the primary use for the overwhelming majority of the remainder is to is to deliver their projectiles to live, non-human targets, for animal control, hunting and sport. The remaining guns, which represent a tiny proportion, have a primary use to harm live, human targets - the plurality of which are the person holding the gun. Yes, suicides (which are also classed as homicides) top the list of deliberate use of a firearm against a human being.

But we've been over this. You'll keep on pretending that guns are built to kill or harm people anyway - and that's the source of your bias here.

- a firearm is very powerfull

Potentially, yes.

- A firearm is built to kill

Nope.

- A firearm requires a lot of training and protocalls for proper use

Definitely.

- The risk of "misuse"(harm others with intent) of a firearm is much higher then other "tools"

Evidence needed, and I've already shown you evidence (over and over again) that it's much lower than with car-shaped tools.

- misuse of a firearm has a much larger risk of killing a larger number of people then other "tools"

Evidence needed and still no.

What rights specifically for the UK? To be sure, does a civilion of the UK have the right to bear arms?

Everyone has that right, whether it's legislated away or not.

 

[ryzno]

@PocketZeven
Is it the tool or the person?

 

[Dennisch]

My rational though is that it is a good thing that strict gun laws make my country safer.

And yet, most gun related deaths here are done with illegally purchased weapons. Assassinations are almost always done with AK's. Shooting up a shisha lounge? AK.

And as far as strict laws go. When you're a member of a shooting club for a year, there is no waiting period on buying weapons, all you need is the thumbs-up from the coppers, which is instantaneously because you've shown good behaviour because you made it through the year at the gun range.

Edit.

And the current trend to take out the competition, whether it is a snackbar or a coffeeshop or a bar? Just leave a grenade lying around so that the police knows about it. Instant police enforced lock on your door.

 

[Biggles]

And yet, both cause far more deaths than guns (guessing those deaths are necessary for the "greater good" though? ).

We've already been over this: yes, in the case of cars, in any case, the accidental deaths are offset by the very substantial benefits offered by cars. Drug misuse & addiction? That's a whole different conversation.

If you take a toy away from a child (that was playing with it without harming itself or others), are they not being punished?

I don't know if you have children yourself, but in my experience you often take an object away from a child because it has the potential to do harm to itself or others. That's not a punishment.

That means that either this event has caused a change in the national death rate of 0.14%, or that these events have caused a change in the national death rate of 0.004%.

Or ... this event caused an over 700% increase in New Zealand's annual gun homicides rate over the preceding 10 years (7 deaths per annum). I suspect that this is the way the New Zealand government & the majority of citizens view it, which is why they have decided that the freedom of New Zealanders to live with the reduced potential of another attack of this nature outweighs the freedom of a few gun owners to possess such weapons.

 

[Famine]

Or ... this event caused an over 700% increase in New Zealand's annual gun homicides rate over the preceding 10 years (7 deaths per annum). I suspect that this is the way the New Zealand government & the majority of citizens view it

Undoubtedly, but that suggests that they care more about the "gun" part of that equation than the "homicides" part - which is a pretty awful stance to have - and don't understand that 700% of a small number is still a small number, while 10% of a huge number is still a huge number.

which is why they have decided that the freedom of New Zealanders to live with the reduced potential of another attack of this nature outweighs the freedom of a few gun owners to possess such weapons.

Also undoubtedly, but the former isn't a right and the latter is - albeit now an illegal one. There's a word for governments that legislate rights away.

 

[PocketZeven]

That's not what rational thought means, unless you have evidence for that thought process.

No, the context was preserved.

The way you typed the sentence made it incredibly hard to follow your meaning. It looked like you were choosing three criteria: purposefully built; makes it easy to kill a lot of people in a short time; and primarily used to harm other people.

So what you meant to say was the something is too dangerous if it is specifically designed to kill a lot of people in a short time and primarily used for that? If so, great. That's not guns, so guns aren't too dangerous.

Yeah, no:
View attachment 813684

That's not the first time you've completely made up something I've said (or not said) in this thread. You're going to want to stop doing that.

It wasn't sudden and I literally explained it to you. Originally I was going to say that no tool is designed and primarily used to harm people. Despite your insistence that guns are, they are not. We've actually been over the statistics of just how few of the billion guns on the planet are used to harm people. I'm "shocked" you've forgotten that already.

However it wouldn't be accurate to say that no tool is designed and primarily used to harm people, because some devices are. Sonic crowd control devices are - they induce extreme discomfort and pain (harm) and that's their primary function (although they can be used as a deterrent, and for display of how grossly inflated police department budgets are). Their use though is intended to prevent the need for larger displays of force, which may cause more serious and more permanent injury - but they're still designed and primarily used to harm people.

It is tripe because it is tripe. A gun is built to deliver a projectile over great distance. Some of the bullets might be designed to cause harm to, or kill, people, but the gun is just a tool.

The primary use for 85% of the billion guns is not to be used. The primary use for 85% of the remainder is to be used to deliver their projectiles to static or inanimate targets, for recreation, sport or honing skills. The secondary use for some of those guns and the primary use for the overwhelming majority of the remainder is to is to deliver their projectiles to live, non-human targets, for animal control, hunting and sport. The remaining guns, which represent a tiny proportion, have a primary use to harm live, human targets - the plurality of which are the person holding the gun. Yes, suicides (which are also classed as homicides) top the list of deliberate use of a firearm against a human being.

But we've been over this. You'll keep on pretending that guns are built to kill or harm people anyway - and that's the source of your bias here.
Potentially, yes.
Nope.
Definitely.
Evidence needed, and I've already shown you evidence (over and over again) that it's much lower than with car-shaped tools.
Evidence needed and still no.

Everyone has that right, whether it's legislated away or not.

Misquoting in the sense of misusing "" to emphasize out of context. That is what I exactly was trying to point out.

There are probably even more screwdrivers that arent in use either, but still a screwdriver's purpose is to screw in screws. You chose to homoginize guns as just tools and with that incorrect premise and basic principal, I wont be able to have a usefull conversation. You chose to categorize the purpose of a weapon and a car as mere "tools". I chose not to because every tool has its purpose and dangers. I am not "pretending" a gun is for killing, but stating that as factual.

@PocketZeven
Is it the tool or the person?

Both. My reasoning is that its better to make it harder for the person to obtain the tool.

That's not how it works. If you're making a claim, you supply the evidence. I get to choose not to believe it until I'm convinced by the evidence.



Of course that's not what I asked you to compare. I asked you to compare multiple people killed in individual incidents against multiple people killed in one incident. Does it make it better if 10 people die in 10 separate incidents, or if 10 people die in one incident? Just trying to understand what you value here.



Especially bombs.



Uh.... that's super specific and arbitrary. It's like if I said "I want to focus on a way to reduce shootings via 9mm. If we ban 9mm ammo, then we'll reduce the number of shootings that occur with 9mm ammo. And that'd be progress". Not if everyone starts getting killed with 0.38 ammo. You might say "murder via 0.38 ammo is outside of the scope we are speaking about" but can you not see how you've missed the forest for the trees here? You're pickings something incredibly specific - multiple killings in one incident perpetuated via shooting, and I'm going to go further because you really seem to care about that only if it's perpetuated by semi-automatic or automatic rifle. That's not that far off from picking on a specific ammo caliber and trying to eliminate its use.





First, you haven't demonstrated that. Second, so what? You need to motivate why this is important. If gun violence goes down by vehicular homicide and bomb use goes up, we've accomplished nothing.



Most weapons are pretty good at inflicting major harm to others, that's why I own mine. That's not a bad reason to own a weapon. That's a law-abiding responsible reason to own them.



I own two of my firearms for that purpose. And it's a lawful and proper purpose.



Everyone has that right. It's just that some countries don't recognize it.

I do admit there is not enough conclusive evidence. I just hope you will try to see it from different multiple perspectives in the sense that there is no conclusive evidence that proves or diproves the effect of guns on the number of homicides and suicides.

10 lives lost has the same value no matter the number of shooters. Every life that is taken away has value. I am not differentiating between the two as better or worse. But my reasoning is that if one decides to kill, it is better to reduce the risk of the amount of victims.

I understand where you are going, but that isnt what I am trying to state. I am not for banning all guns for the sake of ending all gun violence. I am merely agreeing with the stance it is better to make it harder to obtain them if you have bad intent. You are concentrating too much on the part of banning semi and automatic rifles. While I do think that a handgun with its smaller cartridge and lower rate of fire poses less of a danger in the same sense a high powered engine in a car also provides more risk for the driver I will retract that idea of banning weapons and prepose to focus more on stricter gun laws. (making it harder to obtain one, without proper training etc.)

edit:

And yet, most gun related deaths here are done with illegally purchased weapons. Assassinations are almost always done with AK's. Shooting up a shisha lounge? AK.

And as far as strict laws go. When you're a member of a shooting club for a year, there is no waiting period on buying weapons, all you need is the thumbs-up from the coppers, which is instantaneously because you've shown good behaviour because you made it through the year at the gun range.

Edit

And the current trend to take out the competition, whether it is a snackbar or a coffeeshop or a bar? Just leave a grenade lying around so that the police knows about it. Instant police enforced lock on your door.

The number of victims of gun violence per 100.000 people compared to the USA. And that is even counting that absolute numbers favor the larger countries.

That is an isolated incident and not a trend. I work in the restaurant business and thankfully that isnt a trend.

edit 2:

Undoubtedly, but that suggests that they care more about the "gun" part of that equation than the "homicides" part - which is a pretty awful stance to have - and don't understand that 700% of a small number is still a small number, while 10% of a huge number is still a huge number.

Also undoubtedly, but the former isn't a right and the latter is - albeit now an illegal one. There's a word for governments that legislate rights away.

So you would have no objection for a mental health patient with a history of violence to own and operate guns?

edit 3: dwarves=people

 

[Famine]

Misquoting in the sense of misusing "" to emphasize out of context. That is what I exactly was trying to point out.

The only quote marks in the post in which you accuse me of misquoting you are around the word "believe"...

... and you use them way more often.

You chose to homoginize guns as just tools and with that incorrect premise and basic principal, I wont be able to have a usefull conversation.

The word "homogenise" doesn't belong in that sentence, however it seems that you are suggesting guns are not tools. We went over this:

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.

Guns allow users to modify their environment by changing the amount of force (up) they can exert beyond their own physical capabilities.

I don't know why you're hung up on this.

You chose to categorize the purpose of a weapon and a car as mere "tools". I chose not to because every tool has its purpose and dangers.

That literally doesn't make sense. You say every tool has its purpose and dangers... and that's the reason you don't classify cars and weapons as tools? Do cars and weapons not have purposes and dangers?

What I think you're trying to say is that you don't classify guns (and cars) as being tools because they're not simple things that have a simple composition and perform simple tasks like screwdrivers and hammers. That misunderstands what a tool is. Guns, and ratchet wrenches, and cars, and chainsaws are complex tools, but they're still tools - they magnify (up and down) the force the user can provide by their own physical capabilities to modify their environment.

Although I don't know why that actually matters either. A knife is a simple tool. And a weapon.

I am not "pretending" a gun is for killing, but stating that as factual.

And, as discussed, you are wrong to do so. A gun can't kill unless you hit someone really hard with it, and it's not exactly a design feature.

The number of victims of gun violence per 100.000 dwarves

Ban short people, that'll solve that one.

(that's a joke, for reference)

 

[Biggles]

Undoubtedly, but that suggests that they care more about the "gun" part of that equation than the "homicides" part - which is a pretty awful stance to have - and don't understand that 700% of a small number is still a small number, while 10% of a huge number is still a huge number.

Also undoubtedly, but the former isn't a right and the latter is - albeit now an illegal one. There's a word for governments that legislate rights away.

OK - if you prefer: the shooting rampage has also doubled New Zealand's overall homicide rate. The number too small for you? Proportional to the population, that would be the equivalent in the US of an extra 19,000 homicides.

Also undoubtedly, but the former isn't a right and the latter is - albeit now an illegal one. There's a word for governments that legislate rights away.

According to YOU it's a "right". Other disagree. As I have pointed out already, even groups in New Zealand traditionally supporting gun rights consider this a watershed moment:

Federated Farmers of New Zealand:

"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."

 

[PocketZeven]

The only quote marks in the post in which you accuse me of misquoting you are around the word "believe"...

... and you use them way more often.

The word "homogenise" doesn't belong in that sentence, however it seems that you are suggesting guns are not tools. We went over this:

Guns allow users to modify their environment by changing the amount of force (up) they can exert beyond their own physical capabilities.

I don't know why you're hung up on this.

That literally doesn't make sense. You say every tool has its purpose and dangers... and that's the reason you don't classify cars and weapons as tools? Do cars and weapons not have purposes and dangers?

What I think you're trying to say is that you don't classify guns (and cars) as being tools because they're not simple things that have a simple composition and perform simple tasks like screwdrivers and hammers. That misunderstands what a tool is. Guns, and ratchet wrenches, and cars, and chainsaws are complex tools, but they're still tools - they magnify (up and down) the force the user can provide by their own physical capabilities to modify their environment.

Although I don't know why that actually matters either. A knife is a simple tool. And a weapon.

And, as discussed, you are wrong to do so. A gun can't kill unless you hit someone really hard with it, and it's not exactly a design feature.

Ban short people, that'll solve that one.

(that's a joke, for reference)

You are misunderstanding. I meant homogenizing all tools. Not all tools are equal. I am not arguing guns arent tools at all. I never did so. Are you purposefully misrepresenting what I am saying? I am arguing that not all tools should be treated equal. If my english is bad that is on me, but at least dont judge me for not being a native speaker.

homogenize
/həˈmɒdʒənʌɪz/
verb
verb: homogenize; 3rd person present: homogenizes; past tense: homogenized; past participle: homogenized; gerund or present participle: homogenizing; verb: homogenise; 3rd person present: homogenises; past tense: homogenised; past participle: homogenised; gerund or present participle: homogenising

1. 1.
   subject (milk) to a process in which the fat droplets are emulsified and the cream does not separate.
   "the milk is pasteurized and homogenized"
   • Biology
     prepare a suspension of cell constituents from (tissue) by physical treatment in a liquid.
     "pancreatic tissue from each animal was homogenized"
2. 2.
   make uniform or similar.
   "should the role of the law be to homogenize society?"

So obviously I meant the second meaning.

But in your world, would it make any sense for a mental health patient to own and operate a gun?

Autocorrect got me on that one somehow.

 

[Famine]

OK - if you prefer: the shooting rampage has also doubled New Zealand's overall homicide rate. The number too small for you? Proportional to the population, that would be the equivalent in the US of an extra 19,000 homicides.

Undoubtedly, but that suggests that they care more about the "gun" part of that equation than the "homicides" part - which is a pretty awful stance to have - and don't understand that 700% of a small number is still a small number, while 10% of a huge number is still a huge number.

200% of nothing is still nothing.

I remember a couple of years ago Infiniti UK trumpeted a 1,400% increase in sales. BMW immediately panicked because that's a huge ri... oh wait, Infiniti sold literally 63 cars that year and are no longer in the UK market.

According to YOU it's a "right". Other disagree.

Great. Are these people that think rights are laws, so white slave owners had the right to own black slaves and men have the right to rape their wives until the law says/said otherwise?

As I have pointed out already, even groups in New Zealand traditionally supporting gun rights consider this a watershed moment:

People willing to give up their rights doesn't diminish the existence of rights.

You are misunderstanding. I meant homogenizing all tools.

I suspect you mean "treating them as homogenous", but that wouldn't be a correct interpretation of what I've been saying either.

Not all tools are equal.

Yes, I know. So?

I am not arguing guns arent tools at all. I never did so. Are you purposefully misrepresenting what I am saying?

No, I'm asking if you are saying that, because the sentence was unclear. Look:

however it seems that you are suggesting

That literally doesn't make sense. You say every tool has its purpose and dangers... and that's the reason you don't classify cars and weapons as tools? Do cars and weapons not have purposes and dangers?

What I think you're trying to say

I am arguing that not all tools should be treated equal.

Great. So?

But in your world, would it make any sense for a mental health patient to own and operate a gun?

What's "a mental health patient"? Are you treating all mental health issues as homogenous?

 

[PocketZeven]

What's "a mental health patient"? Are you treating all mental health issues as homogenous?

I will rephrase, should a person with a record of violence and having made various threats of mass killings have acces to guns?

 

[Biggles]

200% of nothing is still nothing.

We're talking about fifty people who were killed. What is the 200% of nothing you're talking about?

Great. Are these people that think rights are laws, so white slave owners had the right to own black slaves and men have the right to rape their wives until the law says/said otherwise?

Misdirection fallacy, red herring fallacy, straw man fallacy? Take your pick.

 

[Famine]

But in your world, would it make any sense for a mental health patient to own and operate a gun?

I will rephrase, should a person with a record of violence and having made various threats of mass killings have acces to guns?

That's one hell of a rephrase. And they say mental health is losing its stigma! It's certainly interesting that you're only now talking about violence and mental health - let's quickly revisit the point at which you entered this conversation:

The USA does seem to have a violence and mental health problem that a lot of people (like you) want to pretend is a gun problem rather than address

I'll feign surprise at this point.

Also, again to show you how questions are answered: "Someone with a history of ignoring other people's rights should be monitored to ensure they do not ignore other people's rights again."

We're talking about fifty people who were killed.

Indeed, and not 19,000. I have been trying to convey the quantity of deaths in this thread, but it seems that people who care more about the guns than the homicides are only interested in that when it suits them.

What is the 200% of nothing you're talking about?

It's a Star Trek reference, although it should have been "twice nothing is still nothing". My TOS is rusty.

The point remains that a huge increase in a small number is still a small number - corollary to the point that New Zealand can definitely save more lives by adopting Euro 6 emission standards instead of stubbornly sticking to Euro 5 than it can potentially save by banning a type of gun... if they, and the anti-gun brigade actually cared about lives, that is.

Misdirection fallacy, red herring fallacy, straw man fallacy? Take your pick.

None of the above. Rights can't be voted away by the majority, because they're not the same thing as laws - laws can both recognise rights and ignore them. Anyone who believes otherwise (and it is a belief, because there's zero rational basis for it) must demonstrate how it's right to own slaves and rape wives when it's legal to do so. Surprisingly few people choose to engage with that line of argument, and instead prefer to try to wriggle out of it.

 

[Dennisch]

The number of victims of gun violence per 100.000 people compared to the USA. And that is even counting that absolute numbers favor the larger countries.

That isn't down to just guns. Period. But seeing how the discussions are going, I prefer to stay out of them

That is an isolated incident and not a trend. I work in the restaurant business and thankfully that isnt a trend.

This is Amsterdam only.

It's a trend.

 

[Northstar]

That’s a horribly bad guess. Why do you think that those deaths would be necessary?

Who said anything about necessary? I posted that in response to the focusing on gun deaths while at the same time brushing off things that cause considerably more deaths.

Traffic and alcohol are both heavily regulated.

And yet both cause considerably more deaths than guns. Are those deaths not counted because "greater good" comes into play?

The fact that people die of alcohol and in traffic does not have any bearing on gun control what so ever.

Nobody is saying it does.

It’s not as if society can only focus on one problem at a time.

True. And in the case of traffic deaths how do you think we've gone about lowering the number of fatalities? I'll give you a hint, it hasn't been by banning cars.

We don't seem to be in a hurry to address the alcohol bit, so that one is still on our "to do" list.

We've already been over this: yes, in the case of cars, in any case, the accidental deaths are offset by the very substantial benefits offered by cars.

So how do you define what benefits offset the death toll and what is said allowable death toll?

I don't know if you have children yourself, but in my experience you often take an object away from a child because it has the potential to do harm to itself or others.

In some cases yes. But in some cases, like say a bike, you teach them how to properly use it do you not? I mean, if you went around removing anything with the potential for harm the kid would live in a bubble.

As for the punishment bit. If the child isn't sharing a toy and you take it away, is that a punishment? If so why is it suddenly not a punishment just because they weren't doing anything bad?

 

[Danoff]

I do admit there is not enough conclusive evidence. I just hope you will try to see it from different multiple perspectives in the sense that there is no conclusive evidence that proves or diproves the effect of guns on the number of homicides and suicides.

It would help if I could see some theory for a causal link. Like, if guns somehow had a chemical in them that made you angry or something - some sort of "here's why being in the presence of guns results in violence". It doesn't seem to work for just about any other weapon does it? I mean... I don't get stabby when I'm in the presence of knives. And I don't get suicidal with knives around either. If I had a baseball bat (which can be a weapon), I wouldn't suddenly become violent. And I wouldn't want to hit myself with it either. I might want to hit something... like a baseball.

Likewise, I've been in the presence of guns for a very long time, many years. And I have not ever felt like they were causing me to get shooty or turn me to the dark side.

10 lives lost has the same value no matter the number of shooters. Every life that is taken away has value. I am not differentiating between the two as better or worse. But my reasoning is that if one decides to kill, it is better to reduce the risk of the amount of victims.

And yet... most of the victims that are murdered are NOT murdered in these mass murder shooting sprees. They're (in the US) murdered by hanguns, which you don't seem to be interested in at all. So why the specificity here?

I have a guess, and my guess is that you think handguns are more useful for "legitimate" purposes than semi-automatic rifles, and that as a result, you can save lives without really "impacting" people by poking at semi-auto rifles. You're doing a utilitarian calculus between gun types (I suspect) and I'd like to understand more about why you're doing that.

I am not for banning all guns for the sake of ending all gun violence. I am merely agreeing with the stance it is better to make it harder to obtain them if you have bad intent.

And yet... when I poke at NZ's shiny new knee-jerk semi-auto-rifle law, you get defensive.

I will retract that idea of banning weapons and prepose to focus more on stricter gun laws. (making it harder to obtain one, without proper training etc.)

Yea I think most people are (at least more) on board with that in general. But NZ opted out of that, and it's that very ground I criticize them on. So I gather you're in my camp now?

 

[eran0004]

Who said anything about necessary? I posted that in response to the focusing on gun deaths while at the same time brushing off things that cause considerably more deaths.

You did:

(guessing those deaths are necessary for the "greater good" though? )

And for no particular reason because nothing I said implied that those deaths were necessary. On the contrary, traffic and alcohol ARE heavily regulated areas, which means that society IS TRYING to reduce the number of deaths. They are NOT NECESSARY for the greater good, but they are actually examples where INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM has to STAND BACK FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE SOCIETY.

And yet both cause considerably more deaths than guns. Are those deaths not counted because "greater good" comes into play?

What? Why would they not be counted?
You can count both pears and apples, that is not the problem. The problem comes when you compare the number of apples to the number of pears, because they are not the same thing. You are trying to brush off terrorism and mass shootings by comparing number of deaths with traffic and alcohol.

Nobody is saying it does.

You are:

True. And in the case of traffic deaths how do you think we've gone about lowering the number of fatalities? I'll give you a hint, it hasn't been by banning cars.

Actually, some cars are banned from traffic.

But okay, let’s pretend they’re not. What are your suggestion for regulations to prevent mass shootings? Be careful, because you are not allowed to suggest anything that can wrongly be interpreted as collective punishment.

 

[PocketZeven]

It would help if I could see some theory for a causal link. Like, if guns somehow had a chemical in them that made you angry or something - some sort of "here's why being in the presence of guns results in violence". It doesn't seem to work for just about any other weapon does it? I mean... I don't get stabby when I'm in the presence of knives. And I don't get suicidal with knives around either. If I had a baseball bat (which can be a weapon), I wouldn't suddenly become violent. And I wouldn't want to hit myself with it either. I might want to hit something... like a baseball.

Likewise, I've been in the presence of guns for a very long time, many years. And I have not ever felt like they were causing me to get shooty or turn me to the dark side.

And yet... most of the victims that are murdered are NOT murdered in these mass murder shooting sprees. They're (in the US) murdered by hanguns, which you don't seem to be interested in at all. So why the specificity here?

I have a guess, and my guess is that you think handguns are more useful for "legitimate" purposes than semi-automatic rifles, and that as a result, you can save lives without really "impacting" people by poking at semi-auto rifles. You're doing a utilitarian calculus between gun types (I suspect) and I'd like to understand more about why you're doing that.



And yet... when I poke at NZ's shiny new knee-jerk semi-auto-rifle law, you get defensive.



Yea I think most people are (at least more) on board with that in general. But NZ opted out of that, and it's that very ground I criticize them on. So I gather you're in my camp now?

I will try to explain my logic here concerning relevance of 1 criminal with 10 victims vs 10 criminals with 1 victim. I think while guncontrol will not influence the amount of criminals, it will reduce the amount of victims. So instead of 10 mass shooters with each 10 victims to 10 shooters with perhaps <5 victims. That way there are 50 less victims. That said, I dont have conclusive evidence for this that proves it 100%. However there is data that does corroborate some of it. Strict gunlaws=less victims of gun violence.

Again I am not claiming the amount of criminals will neccesarily will be reduced by gunlaws, but the amount of victims might.

We always had some overlap concerning gun laws. I am just more in the camp of there is limit on what kind of weapons should be available. One doesnt need military grade weapons for protection. Most people probably are responsible gunowners, but the risk of misuse by others is too high when gunlaws arent sufficient. Just like there might be more caraccidents if there wasnt a licensing system for driving a car.

 

[Danoff]

I will try to explain my logic here concerning relevance of 1 criminal with 10 victims vs 10 criminals with 1 victim. I think while guncontrol will not influence the amount of criminals, it will reduce the amount of victims. So instead of 10 mass shooters with each 10 victims to 10 shooters with perhaps <5 victims. That way there are 50 less victims. That said, I dont have conclusive evidence for this that proves it 100%. However there is data that does corroborate some of it. Strict gunlaws=less victims of gun violence.

Again I am not claiming the amount of criminals will neccesarily will be reduced by gunlaws, but the amount of victims might.

Following your own logic, you think that guns laws act as barriers to entry and might give people enough pause to ultimately decide not to commit murder. Now which scenario is that more likely to be the case... a "regular" person living in suburbia who wants to own a handgun? or a terrorist which is stockpiling semi-auto rifles?

If you think that gun regulation can cause certain people to ultimately not commit murder, why would you go after this super rare event that you're probably not going to stop instead of playing the numbers and going after the multitudes of hangun murders that occur every year. Your scenario (while I don't find it convincing) is more applicable to handgun ownership, which just happens to be the vast majority of gun-related murders in the US. So why on earth are you focusing on a scenario like this one that doesn't fit that?

You're trying to prevent 1 person from murdering 20 or 50, instead of trying to prevent thousands from murdering thousands. And I'm questioning that.

BTW I know the answer. It's because events like this one are sensational and scary and you don't feel personally threatened by the 1-off handgun murder. It's because you're not actually interested in saving lives. You're interested in trying to prevent sensational headlines.

One doesnt need military grade weapons for protection.

Depends on what one needs protection from. You're not a black man living in a rural area with an active KKK membership. You might feel differently if that were the case.

 

[PocketZeven]

Following your own logic, you think that guns laws act as barriers to entry and might give people enough pause to ultimately decide not to commit murder. Now which scenario is that more likely to be the case... a "regular" person living in suburbia who wants to own a handgun? or a terrorist which is stockpiling semi-auto rifles?

If you think that gun regulation can cause certain people to ultimately not commit murder, why would you go after this super rare event that you're probably not going to stop instead of playing the numbers and going after the multitudes of hangun murders that occur every year. Your scenario (while I don't find it convincing) is more applicable to handgun ownership, which just happens to be the vast majority of gun-related murders in the US. So why on earth are you focusing on a scenario like this one that doesn't fit that?

You're trying to prevent 1 person from murdering 20 or 50, instead of trying to prevent thousands from murdering thousands. And I'm questioning that.

BTW I know the answer. It's because events like this one are sensational and scary and you don't feel personally threatened by the 1-off handgun murder. It's because you're not actually interested in saving lives. You're interested in trying to prevent sensational headlines.



Depends on what one needs protection from. You're not a black man living in a rural area with an active KKK membership. You might feel differently if that were the case.

Not exactly what I am trying to say. I am trying to say it wont neccesarily reduce the number of shooters, but the number of victims. To recap I am saying two seperate things here as a result of stricter gunlaws:
1. strict gunlaws will reduce victims (less victims per shooter)
2. increase barrier from thinking about carrying out a violent crime to actually doing it. Which will reduce the amount of shooters.

There are however many more important factors to consider to actually reduce the amount of shooters (additional to point 2). Those have more to do with the psychological aspect (mental health) and standards of living. (less poverty=less crime) Someone who is happy and has a good income has less reason to carry out a violent act.

I do think that law abiding citizens, that obtains guns through proper channels and do neccesary training etc. according to stricter gun laws, have a reduced risk of carrying out mass shootings or other violent acts.